On Translations of the Bible

On Translations of the Bible

Second Edition

July 2013

Published by World Wide Web Witness Inc.

ISBN 978-0-9875948-3-9

Rev. Dr. Robert E. Donaldson

PREFACE

This is a partly compiled, often revised, significantly extended, sometimes shortened edition of the work, On Translations of the Bible. As a base, the overall coverage of Ch. 1 of the first edition is provided, and then selections and revisions.

While there are multiplied translations and paraphrases of the Bible or parts of it, much is trivialising the text handed down in the vast majority of texts (and there are hundreds), based on unconfirmed hypotheses and tilted twistings of truth as pre-conceptions, till in the ordinary pastorate, more is lost than gained in the proliferation.

For reasons shown in the first Chapter, based on the integrity of the power and authority of the God of creation, and the results of His promises matched by statistics, the Authorised and the New King James Versions have a certain inbuilt reliability because of the text or text type in view, and a basic tendency not to be venturesome, in creating brilliant renderings that do not show much respect for the text, a sort of spiritual voyeurism. Real though their faults are, for those without Hebrew and Greek, they allow more scope for the sober to seek inspiration WITHIN what is written, without having it pre-chewed by theologians masquerading as translaters. This is always the aim; it is easy enough to SUPPLEMENT translation by other things; but often fatal to confuse the two.

It is found that the AV has a very good record for accuracy, the NKJV rather less, but often it has far more clarity, and that as a rule of thumb, these features may be taken in order for a swift and nearly always reliable result. However, there are blemishes which because of the date of the AV or the comparatively less seeming perception in the NKJV, can occur. This present volume is intended to cover such cases, as well as those which come because of the invasion of hostile cultures into the very translations, or equally readily, into the understanding of them.

With these things in mind, some 61 cases of one variety or the other are listed, with translations given at the outset, for speed of reference. The 300 or so pages supplied with these provide reasons for these 61 translations/expositions. In the Web version, it is hoped the different kinds of hyperlinks made available make the task easier, and by these to relay not only to the translations provided in each case, but to relate to the often larger presentations in the First Edition, or allied expository, explanatory or alerting material.

CONTENTS

Chapter One TRANSLATION TASK

Chapter Two BRIEF LIST OF TRANSLATIONS

Chapter Three GENESIS TO PSALMS

Chapter Four ISAIAH

Chapter Five JEREMIAH TO MALACHI

END OF OLD TESTAMENT TRANSLATION AREA

NEW TESTAMENT

Chapter Six MATTHEW TO ROMANS

Chapter Seven I CORINTHIANS TO JAMES

Chapter Eight II PETER TO REVELATION

There is a wonder both in the word and in the works of God, as is so well indicated in Psalm 145.

You may also like to see

21 Chapter Divisions

for access to various books in an earlier edition.

INTRODUCTION

THE LIST

of Verses for Special Attention
in the Translation or Perception

While this is primarily a matter of translation, and avoiding pitfalls in specially vulnerable sites, in view of our culture and historical antecedents, and the cast of thought which has been thrown out like a fishing line, in so many ways and for so long, it also moves into some verses where, despite no obvious difficulties in translation by itself, meaning may be mistaken as the words are read with a cultural curtain over the eyes. This work has special attention to the AV and the NKJV, which taken together, the former more often for accuracy, the latter for clarity, are a great help; yet not to these alone is consideration given; and some other renderings are produced, or brought in. So further on these texts in Chapter 1 below.

The main intent ? It is that those without Hebrew and Greek, or time, may have ready access to points often or readily mistreated in translation or understanding; and since the AV and NKJV are very often conservative with the text, not normally inclined to be adventurist, they are to some extent a base, though always the original languages provide the ultimate resource, and determinative focus.

THE LIST

Numbers are for Extended Material

Names of Books where hyperlinked are for

2nd Edition Basic translation and exegesis work,

the chief for this Volume.

Where the name of the book and the Chapter numbers

are not one item, but two,

it is the Bible book name alone

which counts for this revised Vol. 2 purpose.

For brief list of the 61 translations alone, use this link.

1) Genesis 1:1
1a) 1b) 1c)

Gracious Goodness Ch. 6, Bright Light Ch. 9, Dayspring et al..

2) Genesis 1:14-18

3) Leviticus 19:20

4) II Kings 7:13

5) II Kings 8:10 and

6) Job 21:30

7) Psalm 12:6 is also covered in the preliminaries, at End-note *1.

8) Psalm 19 is translated in Christ Jesus: the Wisdom ...Ch. 3.

9) Psalm 22:30

10) Psalm 59:17 not 'My God of mercy, but literally the God of my Mercy'(AV)

11) Psalm 90:12

12) Psalm 139:16

13) Isaiah 2:22

14) Isaiah 7:14 SMR pp. 766, 770ff., 916

15) Isaiah 8:19

16) Isaiah 9:3

17) Isaiah 9:6-7

18) Isaiah 13:12

19) Isaiah 23:13

20) Isaiah 26:19

21) Isaiah 33:6

22) Isaiah 53:10

23) Isaiah 64:4-5

24) Jeremiah 13:27

25) Ezekiel 34:29 The True God ... Ch. 1

26) Hosea 7:13

27) Hosea 13:1

28) Hosea 13:2

29) Joel 2:23

30) Amos 4:13

31) Habakkuk 2:13

32) Zechariah 9:17

33) Zechariah 14:5 (with I Thess. 3:13) is to be found at End-note *2A, below.

34) Malachi 2:12,15,

3 5) Matthew 10:8

3 6)) Matthew 11:27

37) Matthew 28:9

38) John 1:1 For the actual wording of the translation, see here.

39) Acts 9:35

40) Acts13:19-20

41) Romans 3:25

42) Romans 5:12-15,

43) Romans 9:5

44) Romans 16:25-26 (with more attention here, as noted in 40)

45) I Corinthians 13:8-10

46) I Corinthians 15:33 l

47) Ephesians 1:3-5

48) Ephesians 3:21

49) II Thessalonians 2:2

50) II Timothy 3:16

51) Titus 1:2-3

52) Titus 2:12

53) Hebrews 11:1

54) James 2:18-23 includes sermon 2005.10.23.mp3

55) James 4:5-6

56) II Peter 1:19-21

57) I John 5:7-8 - see Ch. 1, *2 above, and in Ch. 1 as marked.

58) Rev. 13:12-15

59) Rev. 19:8 - see Ch. 1

60 Rev. 20:4

61) Rev. 22:14

CHAPTER ONE

1
The Promises

The following material related firstly to a pamphlet which makes claims which may give concern to some; though its own concern is understandable. It wishes to eliminate all standards for English Bible except the Authorised Version of a certain King James.

A better solution than this is assuredly available, one in accord with the teaching of the Bible, which has indeed been entirely preserved. (See perspective later.) Indeed, thus is raised the entire matter of translation. God did not forget His people for 1600 years after Christ, or so! No, His ways do not change, and His provisions are profound. It is not to be discovered by assumption, which is presumption. HOW He does it, we find by faith and by looking.

There is nothing in the entire Bible which states that there will be no variation in texts transmitting the Bible, or that any one nation at any one time will have, far less that all nations at all times will have, a totally correct transmitted copy of the Bible. What is stated in texts such as Isaiah 59:21 and so on, is this: that the MESSAGE, SUBSTANCE, THOUGHT, meat, or doctrine of any type, will be correctly conveyed.

· The Hebrew use of the words we use for 'words' is noted in *1 below (cf. *3 in a related topic). In fact, then, THIS is what is guaranteed: no translation deficiency will be such as to mislead from what God has to say. It will appear in its full competency and accuracy and impact, as far as any teaching or historically significant point is concerned, for doctrine. His thoughts, teaching, doctrine is guaranteed in transmission. You can say with entire security, This is the word of the living God, if you take a Bible in your hand, having some attention to the overwhelming majority of the texts in the Greek and the testimony of the Hebrew.

· You can also know that God as to inspiration went further: He guaranteed the exact words to the last point, as conveying what He wanted to say. I Corinthians 2:9-13 with John 12:48-50, Matthew 4:4, 5:17-20 make that quite clear. Whatever may be slightly varied in transmission will do nothing to limit or reduce the impact and knowledge God has given for our instruction in godliness, in doctrine, in righteousness (II Timothy 3:16). It will all moreover be fulfilled to the last syllable. (Cf. SMR Appendix D, pp. 1176ff..)

· However what CAN happen, within what the Bible states will happen, does include some variation through TRANSMISSION, on minor points, sometimes incredibly minute as to some form of words put one way or another, and not affecting doctrine or testimony in any way.

· I personally have never found any matter of textual transmission which prevents my knowing any doctrine or any fact whatsoever which alters my understanding of the character of any event, or of any person, or of God, or of His teaching on any point.

This verifies what God stated. Praise His name!

On Transmigrations of Inspiration

Now we come to the rather self-contradictory material recently handed on to me, on the topic "King James ONLY" - an unfortunate confusion of a particularly fine translation of the Bible, with perfection. The first part of the pamphlet on this point is good, saying what the writer does not mean. It is the second part where he says what he does mean, and this unfortunately is wrong, simply, sadly wrong.

There was no "Authorised Version" (AV) in English for centuries; and even some of the translations of the Bible which went before it and which contributed to its translation later, are not identical.

Indeed, it would be quite a work for anyone to show ANY Bible in English, for the hundreds of years before the AV which is EXACTLY in each phase of every reading identical with the AV; for if it were, their task would have been merely an updating of English, a nonsensical proposition. It would moreover assume work done by many to have been done before it occurred - Erasmus' Greek New Testament compilation, Tyndale's enormous labours, the vast efforts in Geneva as in adding Hebrew translation for the prophets, in moving from the Great Bible to the popular Geneva Bible, with its editions. To TEST all things, (I Thess.5:21) is not to PRESUME all things. Indeed, presumption and testing are opposites.

Incidentally it is simply contrary to fact to say with this author, that "King James Only means ... that God has kept His Word and preserved His truth all down through the ages." It may seem true to some writer, but it is not a fact. What the King James (KJV, AV) situation actually implies, in view of the preceding popular and available translations in English, would be this: that for hundreds of years, IF the AV were in all points exact, therefore God had NOT kept His precise words in every respect exactly transmitted down the ages, since there is no exact equivalence of meaning at all times with the words of former translations; or else that some unknown repository of labours of translation unknown, some precise equivalent in all things, to the AV, lay hidden, unused... unfound, unavailable! It might resemble, perhaps, the equally illusory and ludicrous concepts of Mormonism which, in addition to making new gods in their god factory concept (contrary of course to Isaiah 43:10 at the outset), have UNTESTABLE assumptions about a document in gold and glasses with magic propensities!

We are DIRECTED to TEST, and what is here re the translation is ONE fact.

The Bible has NOT been present with AV information precisely, before it came to pass; it WAS precisely because it was such a monumental effort of precision (in the main) and apt talent and knowledge, WITH the marvellous preliminaries of other translators into English, such as Wyclif, that it gives so excellent a rendering, so justly prized (but not as we show in this chapter, for all that, perfection).

It did not happen before it happened. 'Nature' did not possess it before the intelligence and drive to DO it and the organisation and the structuring of inter-related translation teams, and time.

It came, the AV, from sweat of the brow, and of course divine help. It was not the only one to come thus; but its superb qualities (as in MANY things they undoubtedly are) are not pre-dating it. Its accuracy and beauty did not pre-date it. Other beauties and efforts did. They all in general have wit and talent. This one had a blending of many minds, and gave some wonderful aids in the work of translation. Yet it did not - in terms of things testable, to which the Bible DIRECTS us to look - come before it was here, nor did its exact factual parallel.

Such a result may be imagined; it may not be found. If it WERE to be found, it would be the most remarkable of all finds of science in this or virtually any other generation!

Test however has not revealed this labourless feat, or any such feat. If it did, moreover, the very imperfections in the AV here attested (though so minor) would always have been present in every translation, to their detriment. THIS King James Version-ism is precisely the folly of ANY idolatry, or icon or ism-itis, any obsessive fixation, any inflammation of carnal desire. HOWEVER wonderful the thing desired, there is error in following this or that great theologian and anti-scripturally calling yourself after him (as forbidden in I Cor. 3, cf. Repent or Perish 1, *1, The Biblical Workman 8), or adhering to this or that token, sign or other object, written or not, outside the Bible, with an overpowering intensity. By exalting the flesh, or through some circumstance of history, ceasing to be in test mode, that procedure ceases to be critical or realistic, and such conduct displaces by preference the requirements that the word of God itself has NO option for addition. It stands alone, as it is.

What it SAYS, and not what you or someone else says about what it says, THIS is the sublime and sufficient test and criterion. You can no more get mediators in the realm of translation, as if THESE are the way, rather than the word of God, than you can in salvation. The error is not necessarily by any means so profound; but its principle is as polluted. IT always remains apart from the works of man. It must be sought, can be found and should be followed. GOD supplies the evidence for testing; man is supplied with the means of performing the required test. Assumption is NOT test.

If then God had guaranteed NO variation even in word arrangements in the available Hebrew and Greek^*1, far more if He had guaranteed translations to be THE EXACT word of God at all times, and so forth, then that would have failed; and, for British Israelites and the like, it might be necessary to add, it would have failed in England in particular. THAT however was NOT the promise of God. This needs, also, to be read, not assumed. As to this: It has not failed. His meaning remains, His doctrine remains, His truth remains, and minor variations in the vast array of texts, the majority text, are so exquisitely minute that no direction, no incident, no law, no doctrine is left in the slightest doubt as to its nature and meaning. As to what the mouth of God says, it is best to listen!

One can imagine in the days of Rome's idolatrous seeming preference for the Vulgate and its renounced efforts to make this or that version of IT, THE ONE, the very same fetishistic seeming approach. THIS MUST be the one. The POPE (Clement) said so. What appalling error if some non-Romanist church had similarly insisted, as this pope did, on this being the criterion, flush with the pomp of flesh. What IS the criterion is ever what God has provided; not in the idleness of dreams about possibilities, but in the realities of texts to be found and valued. It is only when these have been artificially manipulated in importance, and poorly written copies have been elevated above all, by some magical historical 'event', as with Westcott and Hort and others, which history never had the goodness to confirm, nor statistics to verify, that any problems arise.

Theirs too have been dreams! History shows none of these things. What it DOES show is one magnificently homogeneous array of myriads of Greek texts, and much evidence for refined consideration of any subtle case, in which some matter arises. What is left is just the dust of passage. NOTHING of the slightest doctrinal significance or historical import is in any doubt, when what is PROVIDED is taken as it comes, and romancing, whether of Rome or of this other authority, the King James Version only, is abandoned.

Similarly, as a mere aggravation of the error is this fact. When the AV was undergoing its 14 or so revisions, there would have been no correct copy until the last; for if there were, then some of the revisions did not revise. Further, God who HAS promised and HAS kept His word faithfully in the world in its substance and commands, has not allowed some imagined original language of the New Testament to vanish without the integrity of the text being preserved. THAT unevidenced proposition would be an indictment of God's word! FAITH prohibits it. Evidence alike, does NOT find it! Testable things are concurrent with the word of God; imagination has no such privilege.

In fact, the idea presented in the pamphlet supplied: that one cannot correct ANY TRANSLATED version of the Bible by means of the Hebrew or Greek texts from which it came, and which were the originals, is if not idolatry, at least close to blasphemy. The Authorised Version is to stand free of the sort of test which its translators rejoiced in ? IT becomes the standard. That is a mockery of their own integrity!

It means that what DID NOT come from the mouth of the Lord is not to be adjusted by what DID. This is so, even on the view of the writer of the pamphlet, who maintains there is no second inspiration, that is - inspiration given to various translators to ensure their work is perfect! Inspiration from God surely is one thing; godly and dedicated translation and efforts to capture the best attested text in the Greek and Hebrew, this is quite another. It is the first which is scripturally guaranteed; the second is merely a tradition of men. To require it for doctrine is the Romanist style of error: rebuked justly by Proverbs 30:6. Any such approach is further rebuked in Mark 7:7.

· To assume contrary to the evidence of history,

· which DOES NOT have to show an exact equivalence of every element of meaning and minute circumstance in the translations of every nation at all times, when once the church grew in that nation -

· a concept which is beyond the promises of God's word -

· that there is nonetheless a real cross-national equivalence of translations:

· what it this then ?

At best, it is obscurantism. It is ideas of the mind without the licence of the word of God, or for that matter, the legs of history. It is not faith but presumption. It is not the attested case; nor is it the Biblically required one. Test does not reveal it; the Bible does not require it. That is all.

What is in some ways far worse is this: such an approach leads to the failure to use all the evidence which God has faithfully and abundantly given us, to preserve what we must follow.

It not merely denies due test of available evidence in finding what the Lord has done, but it also absconds from what the Lord sees fit to provide in any new nuance or feature which discovery enables. Not evidence but predilection rules; and as to the predilection, it is FAR from FAITH! Faith does not abide in the desires of man, but in the word of God. It does not invent a translation not given in the word of God as the standard; for that is quite simply ADDING to the word of God what it has NOT said, and subtracting what it HAS said, to test all things. In texts, you test texts. Further, since test does NOT show the precise data equivalent of the AV before it happened, it is to ABANDON the results of tests REQUIRED. That is three points of direct disobedience to the word of God. That puts flesh in the way of the word of God, without ground or reason, and how could one approve this unfancied and fanciful myth or fail to denounce it!

If the AV be not specifically inspired by God as a translation, then it is close to idolatrous, contrary both to history and to the word of God, to make it the standard. If HOWEVER it is inspired in this way, then it is a case of this unscriptural "second inspiration".

On going to the opposite extreme

Nor, on the other hand, may one accept the general manner of most modern New Testament translations

This is so in the sense that they do not use the historically attested majority text. Indeed, even the King James does not use all we now have of that majority text, though the differences are exceedingly slight. The New King James, is not infallible (and in this respect, it is like the AV, which however indeed has amazing accuracy, though less clarity at times). As to this NEW King James version, however, it

1) does not use the minority text, thus avoiding an underlying fault of most New Testament translations and

2) does present a broader supply of the majority text for meditation. The differences are minute, but at times useful. The New King James however does often contribute far greater clarity in its use of our English language as it is today in its translation from the Greek; and to fail to use it becomes in danger of idolatry for that reason.

Incidentally, though this might form another paper, the textual family to which the AV Greek manuscripts belong (though NOT in the case of I John 5:7, which was an import mainly from Latin translations) has been the subject of highly scholarly work by two notable contributors, Wilfred Pickering and Jakob Van Bruggen, New Testament Professor of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. Both from an historical and a statistical view they present (Pickering in The Identity of the New Testament Text, and Van Bruggen in The Ancient Text of the New Testament, supplemented by The Future of the Bible), grounds for NOT disregarding the 85-90% of all Greek texts which are in this family, used in the AV, though with relatively few examples as a base.

Pickering on review points out that NO sustainable explanation of this state of the text is scientifically available (pp. 158-159) except on the understanding that what is shown in this large majority of manuscripts was in fact the basic type; and of course in it, there is a high degree of uniformity. It is precisely this which in turn attests the good hand of the Lord on the transmission. The Bible's future will closely resemble therefore its past; though the opportunities to distort will not lack.

Already then we are munificently provided, and a good rule of thumb for Bible reading is this: the AV if your English is sufficient, and rely on it (subject to checking the evidence on the Greek and Hebrew) for matters of spiritual discernment and teaching; but use the NKJV for clarity.

It is challenging that a better version than the AV and the NKJV^*2 is not available, to my knowledge; but perhaps soon it may be. However these two, taken together, really leave little for the person equipped to handle them to regret, except he/she takes to Greek or Hebrew, and even there one has books which can help further those who do not have these languages.

The net effect of this dangerous slope towards idolatry of the AV is alas that LESS knowledge of the word of God may well result; just as the opposite danger of uncritically accepting some of the appalling failures to follow the correct text in much New Testament translation, can lead to sloppiness not fitting for the word of God. When however, in the area of the majority text, and outside the historically fantasising and hair-brained schemes coming much from Westcott and Hort which led to the whole business of following a small number of preferred and often very poorly transmitted texts: one has little to choose from. Following this as the rule, one finds that except for one notable case, all the major errors so long pushed by small and scraggy examples, go. (Cf. the detailed comments of Dean J.W. Burgon in The Revision Revised.)

That case ? it relates to the fact that the AV puts words in the verse 7 area into I John 5 which are not in the great majority of the Greek texts. Indeed two points stand out here, showing the need to prevent idolising the things of men, even the good things. For in fact, these words, in the AV, are in a tiny number of texts altogether in the Greek: they were not put into Erasmus' famous Greek text at first, and were added to the 3^rd edition, after someone challenged him on the point. He stated that if ANY Greek manuscript could be found with this IN, then he would insert it.

One … was found which seemed to give testimony to it, and so, on his word, he put it into his 3^rd edition. The reason for its insertion was of course not scholarly. It was a case of one manuscript against all that he had, at that time; and it was put in because of something he had said! Now we learn there are perhaps 5 out of hundreds, with it in; and these very far from the early ones.

What is interesting is this: where it is found is in some of the Latin texts, and even these are not regarded as the most reliable ones of their translated type, nor were they early; and the evangelists were not known as Latinists! That is scarcely the same as the majority of the Greek, which the Lord has preserved; and which form the essential basis for the AV! This is quite astonishing. It appears the AV may have followed (indirectly) a tradition in this case: certain it is that it has not followed ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE the great majority of the Greek in this case. It is the fact that it normally does this, not least, which gives it its place! In the divine mercy, even this AV error does not seem able to actually mislead anyone. It is just that the normal evidence it uses, is simply not there!

With, then, the AV AND the NKJ, one is well equipped; and as already noted, thus following the evidence one has no real problems with the text as such. Mere reaction against playing about with the Greek text evidence as happened on the basis of foolish and radical theories of the last century, and which has tended to continue in NT translation, is not wise. Getting to the actual evidence is, as the word of God directs us:

TEST ALL THINGS.
HOLD FAST TO THAT WHICH IS GOOD

( I Thessalonians 5:20) . The word "all" is of great importance in this context especially! It is God's direction for conscientious care.

Never trust in the manners and mannerisms of men. Trusting in tradition is NOT to be recommended (Mark 7:7); indeed in the case of doctrine, it is divinely condemned in the roundest of terms. OBEY the above injunction, and be safe in the divine directives. In fact, it was precisely this trusting in the tradition of men which led to the whole error following Westcott and Hort; for their conceptions, negated by history, were undoubtedly fashionable. They were not however attested by the evidence OR by the word of God.

In this, they are precisely similar to the reaction towards the AV; except that in this case, it is a fine translation, just not one to be made into a standard. In the end, the word of God does not give sanction to reducing our testing to one example of the evidence - it is directed to ALL THINGS. Let us then follow it. THAT evidence abundantly confirms all that God has SAID; though it is as so often, hard on tradition masquerading as the word of God. And why not! It is a sad presumption both against scholarship and godliness so to do.

Fortunately, both the AV and the NKJ provide the mass of the evidence for the non-technical reader. Remember, always go to the evidence, never to foolish theories, and never to foolish reactions ...

As it is God who supplies the evidence, our trust in Him is such that we are not concerned.

In Conclusion

A final word then on this misleading KING JAMES ONLY approach. Here alas as so often, Paul's injunction to moderation is ignored: things NOT stated in the Bible have to be 'put' there, and things stated are to be ignored or removed. So it goes. But for me and for my house:

what the Bible states is what goes, and what goes without it, is not accepted. The word of God and not the word of man will be our criterion, by His grace; and His grace is sufficient.

Endnotes

*1 On Words

Actually, The Hebrew word transliterated DABAR in fact, in the AV, IS translated in many ways, such as : ACT, ADVICE, AFFAIR, ANSWER, COMMUNICATION, LANGUAGE, MATTER, REPORT, TIDINGS, SPEECH, THING (very often - 215 cases listed), WORD, THOUGHT, SAYING. It is the word used in the Hebrew in Isaiah 59:21, 40:8 and in Psalm 119:89,119:160 concerning what the God who spoke to man, certainly will preserve! Psalm 111:8 adds to this, using a different word, rendered 'precepts'. It is a term often used in the Psalms and refers to the responsibilities which God places on His people: the word's root being appoint, number, visit and so on (so Harris, Archer, Waitke, Theological Word Book of the Old Testament).

The guarantee here, then, is for what God comes forth to require, as a visitation or appointment with man. As to this, "They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness" - 111:8. This testimony too is guaranteed, for man shall indeed live by EVERY WORD which PROCEEDS out of the MOUTH of God. Directive requirements are therefore guaranteed - precepts. These will not be obscured from man, through departure from the scene. Nor is there any question except about wholly unsubstantial issues, the work rather of grammarians or statisticians than of those concerned to do what it says.

That has assuredly been fulfilled. Indeed, in the full-flavoured Isaiah 34:16 we see that the Spirit of the Lord has gathered the components - here creatures in the afflicted wilderness, subject of God's judgment, and set them their perpetual mark of His esteem, within it. His mouth has made the command, His Spirit has effected the result. Thus the thoughts of His heart, the objects of His disposition are inseparable, assured, guaranteed. THIS IS THE CASE WITH THE WHOLE "BOOK OF THE LORD", we read, for we are invited to search this entire book, with the assurance that so will we find, this combination, correlation. Things, episodes, objects, events will be placed aright, in accurate execution of His commands, and as He gathers His words, so He gathers their matching performances, nothing lacking; for His disposing of things to mirror just what He has said; for as to the Lord, and what He sees fit to provide in His book, this is the position:

"Search from the book of the Lord, and read,
Not one shall lack her mate,
For My mouth, it has commanded, and His Spirit, it has gathered them "
(emphasis added, but it is not untrue to the original).

E. J Young shows this rendering of the last line, which is brilliant - The Book of Isaiah, Vol. 2,
p. 437). The Hebrew posts after "My mouth" an emphatic addition of "it" and so too after "His Spirit", in keeping with the majestic stress on His action and the assured performance. The entire data of the Lord will be preserved, His thoughts established: as He has spoken, so it will be. Will then the words be lost which direct the deeds, or will the search be prevented to which we are invited ? will the words assembled be lost while events, then uninterpreted, in frustration of His challenge to man, fall out without their verbal basis ? But who or what will hinder, restrain, prevent the Lord (Isaiah 43:13)!

Assuredly, what He has so presented, He will preserve. The LOGOS, the DABAR is to be preserved in the book, and the eventuation is sure. Certainly the sins of men may obscure the realities of the Lord, but THEY will not be lacking, nor will His word be quenched which has gone forth out of His mouth as a testimony: for as Psalm 119 indites:

"Your testimonies You have commanded" (v.138), and

"Concerning Your testimonies, I have known of old that You have founded them forever".

Indeed, as Psalm 119:160 declares,

"The entirety of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever", while Psalm 111 confirms: as to His judgments ?

"they shall stand fast for ever and ever".

A similar word to that in Isaiah 59:21, 40:8 (DABAR) is used in Luke 21:33 (namely, logos, which similarly can mean thought, cause, word and so forth). John 10:35 refers not to transmission but to power of the word of God. These are the verses mentioned in the pamphlet. Verses requiring more are not found. However as to the INSPIRATION of the word of God, Matthew 4:4 is much more stringent, speaking of what GOD UTTERS: for here the exact words (remata) are in view, as also is the idea in II Peter 3:2 when the remata (Greek) of the prophets is considered in its inspiration.

We may however go much further than this. The actual variations in remata of God, in the available manuscripts, duly compared, is of the order I have already noted; and has no bearing on the logos, substance, matter. It affects in my experience precisely NOTHING in preaching, relevant history or doctrine. It nevertheless is not a mirror image of NO variation in any sense!

It is a matter of being precise, moderate and careful in what one says - moderate is Paul's word (Philippians 4:5), as is likewise the phrase, rightly dividing the word of God (II Timothy 2:15): not by philosophy (Colossians 2:8) - but by what it actually says. The material in the pamphlet sent is in its central thrust, inaccurate, self-contradictory and misleading.

These things are so unfortunate. Sound teaching is needed, not flag waving about mythical translation oscars, idols or whatever. We must adhere to the word of God, not to the word of man, or to our ideas of what the word of God should have said. It is enough, what it does say.

And what it does say is so stringent in terms of what IS guaranteed that NO doctrine, NO historical word or example, NO principle, NOTHING of any teaching significance or substantial force is ever in doubt. It is not a question of this topic or that; it is a matter of THAT degree of assurance. Those who, beyond the teaching of God's preservation procedures, want more, want both more than is offered and more than is needed. Inconsequential variations that produce pique and nothing of falsity in the thrust, substance or purity of the speech of God are an arena for admiration at the divine control; and when the variations produced by incredibly perverse philosophical theories are removed, so that the basic text and not some romanticising perversion of it is in view, the case is yet more obvious.

The word of God is sustained for all edification, instruction in righteousness, teaching NOTHING amiss but maintaining its precise message on everything without a misstep. While it has been well to bring redress to the invasion of this field by adventurers in both testaments, and those duped by them, more is not needed. What God has to say in all its purity is abundantly available; and variations of minute kind are mere winds among the trees which do not move, the leaves tossing, the stump erect. Man may indeed live by every word which proceeds out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4), the minute mischiefs of time doing nothing to allay or to betray but rather to emphasise that His word does not return to Him void, but accomplishes all that He has intended.

It was not for a lesson in pedantics that He put it out, and the maintenance of what is to be lived by, whether in mind or matrix, doctrine or righteousness, the thrust of history or the principles of life is so assuredly kept, that the discussion can soon degenerate into mere trifling with words, which is not scripturally recommended . ONE MAY ASSUREDLY LIVE BY EVERY WORD WHICH PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD WITH COMPLETE CERTAINTY.

Indeed, let us quote from The Biblical Workman, Appendix 3, pp. 190-191:

"Biblically, we are warned against the pettifogging folly of arguments about words, in the sense of disputatious wars that settle not on the substance but on the form. It is NOT that words do not matter, since the word of God is the ISSUE. It is that the argument should turn on the matter in hand, and not on that slatternly or swashbuckling substitute for reality, that merely fumes around the areas of WHAT I SAID and WHAT YOU SAID, as a criterion. The issues are not the vehicles of communication, but what they used to deliver. It is quite easy to argue about so many preliminaries that the issues are never breached, in a sort of exotic, propositional formalism which might delight the coffers of lawyers, but not the hearts of men who mean what they say, and are proceeding to a known end. (See II Timothy 2:23, Titus 3:9, II Timothy 1:13, I Timothy 6:4, Ephesians 5:6.)"

While the issue there was name-dropping and personalising the word of God in terms of slants and upsets of heart and 'clubs' of believerships under this or that name, not that of Christ as the utter criterion in practice, it applies not less here. All points at issue in any reality of the portent and intent of the word of God as transmitted being secure, what remains becomes so trifling that it serves merely as excuse for sedition, occupation with trivia, flirtations with fancy, like worrying about a speck of dust on Sergeant's shoes just before battle. All that shoes are meant to do, these do; and this is not a fancy dress parade.

A Point of Interest

PSALM 12:6

In Psalm 12:6, the term for 'words' is feminine. However in verse 7, the word translated 'them' is masculine (plural) in the first occurrence, and masculine (singular) - 'him' in the second. The righteous, in view in v.1, and contrasted with the wicked man, has been considered in his afflictions (12:5). He is however guarded by the word of God and its promises (12:6), a word indeed most pure.

We are assured that the Lord will preserve 'him' (v.7) as also in Psalms 16:1, 37:28,30. Nothing beyond that oft-noted preservation of the godly is demonstrable for v.7 regarding this point. Both the Pulpit Commentary and the redoubtable Keil and Delitzsch indicate this, the latter insisting that since there are two successive references, "You shall rescue them, O LORD, You shall preserve him from this generation forever", and the first is "them" the (em ending) and the second is not: that not only does the vowel pointing categorically signify 'it or him' and NOT 'them'; but the variation from the first ending to the second confirms in such a case, a change from the 'them' to what is in fact written, 'him' or 'it'.

What is written, then, is that in blue above (the 'him' could also be 'it'). However, is the him, really an it, so that it would read: "You shall rescue them, you will preserve it from this generation for ever" - ? Hardly. The topic throughout the Psalm has been the oppressed, the wicked' s butt. In support of their deliverance is the fact that the word of God which covers the case is pure, refined and reliable (v.6). In verse 5 we have seen the 'poor' and the 'needy', grammatically both in the bulk, the plural form, and in the singular, "I will set (him) in the safety for which he yearns".

The resumption in verse 7 (quoted in blue above) covers both the plural and singular form, just as did the thematic note in verse 5. To ignore this parallel is as in appropriate when you are seeking meaning from words given, as is any endeavour simply to turn 'it' to 'them'. The barriers are up.

Further, as Keil and Delitzsch's commentary also points out, the detail of the wicked persecutors is pursued in verse 8. What then ? This is the theme, and the word of God is the reference for support. Any other rendering adds a singular concept concerning the Bible, which had been in view as plural, the words of the Lord, requiring us to add what is not stated, and ignores the fact that not merely is what IS stated in the singular, but exactly as in verse 7, it is present BOTH in the singular and the plural, so that the phenomenon of the two endings merely and simply mirrors the kindred forms in verse 5.

Where evidence is paramount, and not subjectivity, there is no choice. The Keil and Delitzsch rendering is objectively indicated: the godly man who ceases (verse 1) , buttressed in expectation of a better deliverance (verse 5) by the word of God (verse 6) is to be kept and preserved, despite all appearance to the contrary, from this generation even for ever, DESPITE the fact (v.8) that the wicked prowl as is their habit and wont.

Indeed, and further, it is BECAUSE the words of God are pure and tried, purged of any error seven times (v.6), operationally magnificent because truly from His mouth, that the deliverance of the poor and needy, the godly man in his troubles (v.1), the one who is so vulnerable to being CUT OFF and CEASING, is given its due assurance. It is in this way that the theme CAN continue with confidence: YOU WILL KEEP HIM, O LORD! What overthrows perpetual vulnerability but the power of God, and what depicts its operation in security, but the word of God: here is the guarantee! This is WHY the poor and godly man has hope in his latter end, confidence in his pilgrimage and assurance in his way.

This then is not a relevant verse, Psalm 12:6, concerning direct statement of the preservation of the scriptures. It DOES however imply it, and the PURITY of scripture, its total reliability is vastly emphasised. It is BECAUSE of the purity of the word so perfected from the mouth of the Lord to the scripture, that its principles as there expressed, are SO applicable, that the poor in His concern, are not to become a vassal, subjectible for ever, but as in v. 5, there is to be a deliverance divine and dynamic, which will prevail. Its guarantee is the pure word of God, which being His who is infinitely powerful, will apply and be effectual for one in that category, in the plain of eternity. God's word is the basis for this blessing, and it WILL apply, being His.

Scriptures which however do contain direct preservation guarantees relative to themselves, were noted earlier, in terms of the word transliterated "dabar". This guarantees His teaching, doctrine, the character of history and of persons, His precepts and the substance and thrust of His utterances.

In reality, in the main stream of Greek manuscripts, variation is next to inconsequential. If the matter has been exaggerated a little by the trifling with history relative to the manuscript evidence - itself under God's control, in which many have indulged, or by which they have been culturally hoodwinked: yet where it in fact belongs, it is a matter of small substance indeed.

God has stated with precision what He has done with the INSPIRATION of scripture, which accordingly becomes authoritative revelation from God to man; and what He will do in its PRESERVATION on earth, this too He has stated. The words GOD chooses in EACH of these cases, AND the things He has done, are both fulfilled with munificent exactitude.

When man, on the one hand, works out a philosophy about what God must do, and God makes a declaration about what He will do, on the other, I really have no time or interest in the former. There is no competition. Talmuds and the like are not for my religion, old style ones or new. The word of God is for us. Let us not add to it - at all!

It is just as much a mistake to 'adorn' scripture, as it is to attack it. None were ever subjected to more vitriolic denunciation by any prophet, than the word-adorners of Matthew 23, exposed in their errors by the surgical words of Jesus Christ. As to this area of adornment, philosophic intrusion into and beyond what may certainly be shown from the word of God: it is an area to be avoided therefore, with prodigious care and godly zeal.

As will be shown further below, therefore, the translation from verse 6 has these elements.

The Lord will arise because of the desolation and sighing of the poor (cf. Psalm 102, Isaiah 61). He has the path to glory which will ensure that those who are poor in spirit, not lordly or loud, those belonging to the Lord and hence concerned with His name, unlike the perverse and oppressive, will despite their liability to oppression, be object of His care to the point that He will arise and act. This He did categorically in the incarnation and the resurrection, especially in the crucifixion and In His promises to all the elect, which while not removing suffering, remove its meaninglessness, as when the wind blows away the chaff (as in Psalm 1). He will further arise in the roll-back of the antichrist's flame (Psalm 2,110), and the incoming of the millenium as in Psalm 72, Isaiah 59,66, Micah 7, Isaiah 11.

Having said this, He reminds us of the sensational purity of His words, and thus reinforces what He has just articulated with His words about the poor, and the oppressors, those who are His and those who oppress them.

At first, it may seem possible that "Thou wilt keep them," refers either to the poor in the plural, as in 12:5, or the words of God in the plural. But it is masculine. "words' are feminine. The theme of the Psalm makes the latter seem more likely, though the affinity with what has just gone before, the words of the Lord, certainly give this place for thought. In such cases, one is inclined to leave to the word of God that amplitude which it has: there is no need to exclude a supervening overtone: Just as His words are utterly refined (an d so utterly reliable), so HE will be utterly reliable in keeping the poor, yes each one of the in view. Though the reference is not primarily not to words, it iS an application!

As to the primary reference, however, further concern arrives about coherence and flow of concepts, as to be noted shortly.

If you take it that the Lord will keep these words, THUS guaranteeing His statement concerning the poor, then that is one element. If you take it that the Lord will keep them (that is, the poor in the plural as in verse 7, and the singular expression, one by one, "Thou shalt keep him from this generation,"), that is another. The Berkeley version has this:

"The words of the Lord are pure words,

as silver purified in an earthen furnace, refined seven times.

Thou, O LORD wilt keep them,

Thou wilt guard each one from this generation for ever,

where godless men strut around,

as baseness is given a high rating among the descendants of man."

He does not contradict the text in this, making singular plural, or disregarding masculine and feminine.

Yet to what does the last part refer ? The end, which has the godless in view, gives force to the contrast of what would otherwise appear a sudden irruption of thought, moving from "keep them", His words, to "guard each one," in parallel, though with the object in view, this time, the poor! who are then as the text flows, contrasted with godless men, prominent as the Psalm ends. To prevent such a double meaning for them and each one, grammatically prevented from having the same reference object, and the disruption of thought involved, then, the consistent meaning, and not the divorced coupling of different ideas, is taken.

That hybrid if conceivable, appears so disjointed compared with the other option as just shown above, that it does not warrant acceptance. Thus the translation given would be better taken to mean that the Lord would keep the poor to which He had already referred both in the singular and the plural, guarding each one (paralleling the end of verse 5), and that this would occur even while the godless strut, by contrast. Further, the keeping and guarding form a parallel, common in the Psalm. Thus the smooth flowing thought is that the words of the Lord are so pure that they will not be subject to decay or declension, amendment or rejection. Hence the poor generically, and in individuality, are to be His concern, the godly poor, those contrasted with the godless and arrogant, While the main point is not economic, it is spiritual, yet where poverty is part of spirituality which has a cost, doubtless it applies. Crushing is contemptible; and God engages for His people, missing none by oversight, concerned for each.

In this way, a paragraph could be placed at "Thou, O LORD wilt keep them." Delitzsch does that.

If however the poor because of the purity of the word of God, are in perpetuity, the poor in spirit or deprived for the Lord, to be a focus of such concern, then the word of God is by implication as the basis of such results, itself to be kept, and that more so, since on this foundation, those results have their assurance! Indirectly, therefore, the endurance of the word of God is assured, its standing over its results, assuring its own. If these results must continue, how much more what assures them.

Note on Psalm 12:5-7

This does not vary from the above, but gives more detail.

There are then prima facie a number of considerations, however, which without giving just ground for making this part of Psalm 12, namely verse 7, refer to the words of God, rather than to the poor, nevertheless open the way for this as a possible addendum. In such cases, one cannot found a doctrine on this, as a possibility, but can regard it as consonant with doctrine taught elsewhere, and hence integral with it.

In this case, the Psalm opens with the harassed godly man, and proceeds with the plural, “the faithful”. This is the key note. It then moves to the opposing ones, who with ‘flattering lips” and double heart do the evil. This singular, plural oscillation is important in this Psalm, and is of course not found here alone. Thus in Isaiah 34:16, where God is speaking of the PRECISE results of His judgment on Edom. We have been introduced to the “hawks” and other elements of the desolation to come, and these are gathered “each one with its mate.” The class is followed by the illustration or representative of it.

We are then directed to “the book of the Lord”, to read it, and told this: “Not one of these shall fail. Not one shall lack her mate." The reason is then provided for this result: “For My mouth has commanded it, and His Spirit has gathered them.” This is a double oscillation, with rich overtones, relative to the bird and then the word. With the bird, it is the one and the mate. With the word, “it” is the fiat, the command, the fact that the authority of God Almighty has addressed itself to THIS HAPPENING. The “them” refers to the distributive fact, that there are various elements within the edict, which have each an integrity of its own, and God has GATHERED these, each one.

Each one of these things, the bird and its mate, will come to pass, the integral and the detail; the word in each of its gathered components, this too is an alliance, authorised and sure. The assured gathering is based on the fact that the book of the Lord is exceedingly reliable, to the smallest unit (just as Christ relayed in Matthew 5:17-20), so that the items noted, will be the items found. THEIR continuance is based on its continuing incapacity to be ineffectual or cancelled or overpowered or overcome IN PRACTICE!

The FOCUS being what is to happen, it would seem that the objects emphasised are not the entire point of word of God and the particularities within it, but rather illustrate the topic of the main theme, namely the fact of the judgment and the components within that. The parallel however is evocative and instructive. The next verse continues this detailed emphasis. The THING is ordered without cease. Each part will eventuate. They will come; judgment will stay. In its day, each will show the horror of its totality; from day to day, judgment will rest.

What then ? Implicit in this is that the WORDS which give voice to the information which refers to items each one of which will surely come to expose the desolation, they too MUST have an underlying and inordinate authority AT THAT SAME LEVEL, so that the subjects given through them, should have any standing at all. The detail is guaranteed; the detailed authority of the words is THEREFORE guaranteed, as the SOURCE of that practical assurance, since it is these words which convey it at that level. The book of the Lord contains no failure; and thus its words here, detailed though they be, are to be discerned in actualities, practicalities, and in doom unremitting.

Taking this considerable parallel in form of speech, to Psalm 12, we see the similar line that the class of the persecuted poor is in view, within the compass of the Lord’s people, on the one hand; and on the other, there are His pure words, purified seven times, strikingly suggestive of an individual attention to each 'fleck' of each word, or as Christ put it, each jot and each tittle. From the poor He turns to His refined words, making an announcement about these.

That comes in v. 6. In v. 7, parallel to Isaiah 34:16, the subject continues, about each one of them, the distribution being total. It is as in Isaiah, each one of the creatures noted is to be in the association promised. It is not general; it is a particular to come. It has a generic feature, and this is applied to the particular.

The same of course applies here about the word of God. IF it can specify for EACH one of a category mentioned, then clearly it is comprehensively accurate and this is a fundamental assumption for its operation at such a level.

Note that both in the last verse of Isaiah 34 and that of Psalm 12, we continue on the objects in view, not on the mode of their presentation, that is, by the word of the Lord, which has in each case been invoked as the sufficient authority, its detailed reliability implicit in the certainty of the results of what it purveys and declares.

Since for example Psalm 111 makes a parallel point regarding the word of God, as is here implicit, this is integral with it. Indeed, something more remains. In Psalm 12, it is possible to conceive of verses 5 and 7 as being a PAIR of generic-detail associations. That is, there is first the poor (plural) is in view, and then “I will set him in the safety for which he yearns” (‘he’ of course singular). Then, the words (plural) of God are pure, seven times refined. Next we find that all will be kept, each one (singular) for ever. It could be urged that this is an intentional parallel: the poor in general, with one in this category in view as an example; the words of God in view, in general, then any one of them, as an example, each one so pure. This would be the case if verse 7 COULD be a reference to the WORD continued on from verse 6.

This enhances the propriety of the association with the doctrine in Psalm 111, and as noted above, there is a conformity to this. It is not, prima facie, impossible that the double reference is intentional, that while the dominance of the oppressed being harassed is undoubtedly the theme, with this from the first, continued to the very last verse, yet with the parallel in Isaiah, and with other singular-plural reference on a topic in this very Psalm ALREADY in view for comparison, it could not well be maintained that this, the word of God as such, is the primary intent for verse 7.

It could, prima facie, however, be urged that it is not dispensable as a supplementary thrust. It is not supported by direct evidence as is the other option, ‘the poor’, but it is not so far insupportable as a reference, even if it is strange to have a sudden “them-it” sequence without basis on the preceding text, conceived as the basis for interpretation. It is indeed all the more so, when it is not even the thematic thrust of the entire Psalm: which in fact both begins and end with its focus on the afflicted. Yet the parallel can at least occur to the mind: the POOR and one poor man; the WORDS and each single word.

Before we proceed to the conclusion, it is good to face an issue. In general, it seems wise to allow any thrust in a literary passage which is not ruled out absolutely, especially if it has any features which in wider context commend it in the writings in view, in the feature of an enrichment for contemplation; without presenting such as THE meaning, or even the certain meaning. Thus to exclude it as an overtone would seem to go too far, even though process of translating with two “them” references in v. 7, as some do, is insupportable, bringing in ideas not in the text, to deform the text.

However, there is a complicating facet.

That is the prima facie situation, but the case is not left there, though the points in general are instructive.

We must now face additional evidence. The word for ‘words’ in Psalm 12:6 is in a form which reveals its gender: it is feminine. However the alternation of ‘them’ and ‘it’ or ‘each one’ in Psalm 12:7 is masculine. Why would there be a change of gender to masculine in verse 7, from the feminine for ‘words’ in the preceding verse, if THAT was the gender of the referent ‘them’ in verse 7 ? Would you change gender in order to show that there is an essential continuity of thought ? It would appear that this would be an ideal way of showing PRECISELY THE CONTRARY. If then we choose between two possibilities, then the one which has an exclusion notice expressly given is not going to be the one adopted!

Instead of being conformed, they are disparate. One road is marked, 'Closed'. Verse 7 refers to the persecuted.

This means that the concept of parallel with a possible intimation of a second level of meaning is diminished. Is it to zero ? As far as translation of the term of different gender is concerned, yes it is: the other point, the poor, had the major basis in any case. Does it however remove the interesting feature that the mind is jolted by proximity at first to the possibility that verse 7 MIGHT be referring to the word of God ? The fact that implication produces an equivalent result, in all practicality, the words with their predicted deeds bound together in joint warrant and integrity, then weighs into thought.

Thus the configuration of the Psalm is not only clear,
but instructive and this not only by its direct reference, but by its form.

The word of God is wonderful indeed!

It is the implication which, as in Isaiah 34, which remains to the point on the topic of the Bible as revelation. What is GUARANTEED absolutely BY words must therefore imply the absolute reliability of the words themselves, right down to the level of specific points; and this applies for the term in view for the site and time in view, one aspect being eternal. In the case of Isaiah, it means the word, for the specified period in view, is assured in its application to every creature in its association, each will come and desolation will continue; in the case of Psalm 12, it means that the word of God will bring to pass that day when it applies to each redeemed oppressed person, to the level of singularity.

Even before the consummation, precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints. His concern for the poor will not be overthrown, and as in Psalm 72, it will proceed and prosper, to become a ruling feature. Isaiah 34 alerts us to the importance of detail in verbal fulfilment; but Psalm 12 implies no less. The poor ? this in turn is in the context of "the godly man", the poor in spirit, also oppressed who yearns and who sighs, and so each one is before the Lord.

What then is to be realised to the full ? It is this. The word which makes such guarantees is automatically ITSELF inherently gifted with the power and authority, the purity and the strength innately, needed for such a result, even forever! Thus there is no direct revelation in Psalm 12 in the words, ‘each one’, in this case, about the word of God in its continuity, though the idea naturally occurs, for reason shows that the words, if to be faithfully fulfilled to such a level as is implied in the text, must themselves have not only authority, but one in detail to ensure the result stated, to the degree stated.

That ? whatever it says, it WILL HAPPEN (cf. Matthew 5:17ff.), JUST as it is stated.

Thus the poor being the theme, and the word of God the means of instituting His overall purpose and stated intent, both poor and word are involved in the sovereign majesty of the divine purpose and utterance, the two bound together. In this case, it is the ministry of the words (in the plural, verse 6 with an overflow of atmosphere into the start of verse 7) which ensures the ministration of the help to the poor, precisely as stated, yes to each one of the afflicted. Amid His people, committed to His care, precious in His sight is the death of His saints, and steadfast His underlying concern, at the last to become entirely manifest in a restored world (as in Psalm 72).

REVELATION 19:8

*2 Lest there be idolatry, God may give us cause for circumspection

Several examples of this translator's non-infallibility could be given, just as we have had to cite a case in I John for the AV. However for now we shall restrict the exercise to one. It is chosen because it is a grave departure from scriptural conformity, not at all because the Greek text is in any question at all.

This example, by far the most serious, is found in Revelation 19:8. Let us hasten to note that several other translators give precisely the same translation. It is not specific to the NKJV and has nothing to do with its underlying Greek text. It reads, re the bride of the Lamb, that is, the church of believers in Jesus Christ: "and to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints." That is what the NKJV says here...

In fact, two rather obvious possible translations actually present themselves here, simply in terms of the language. It will take other criteria to choose between them. The AV rightly translates in this case, "the righteousnesses of the saints". That is sound. It does not intrude, and leaves the understanding of it to the reader. The term translated from the Greek as "righteous acts" or "righteousnesses" can assuredly be translated in either of these ways.

Before we proceed, let us notice this. In Romans 5:16 and 5:18 there are TWO words translated "justification". In Romans 5:16 it is the same Greek word, though here in the singular (dikaiwma), which is used in Rev.19:8 . "The judgment which resulted from one offence resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offences, resulted in justification." This term refers to righteous ordinance, just law (A), and can also mean righteous acts. It can mean judgment, either negative or positive; but can have a sense of acquittal. The emphasis is on RIGHTEOUSNESS, and the underlying thrust, is law. There is a third word which means the state of righteousness, of things as they ought to be, integrity, virtue, purity of life and so forth. This however is not used in Rev. 19:8 or in Romans 5:16,18. There law is in view.

In Romans 5:18, we read, in part: "even so, through one's Man's righteousness, the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life". Now the "righteousness" of the "one Man" is the same word as the "righteousness" in 5:16, where it is attributed to the saved or justified sinner. It is a case of meeting all that could be required by the moral, spiritual, divine law; and this He did. It is here in the singular.

Now however, later in Romans 5:18, we find what happens to us who are redeemed sinners: the free gift which reaches to, and is indeed received in this case of the believer, is "justification of life"... A different word occurs (dikaiwsis). It means "justification", acquittal (B). Just judgment is involved, and the grounds for acquittal are stated to have devolved upon one thing and one thing only: the righteousness of the One of whom it is written (5:8) that we are "justified" through His blood. Hence there is this righteous attribution, which includes the decree nisi on the guilt on sin. If now you are saved by His death, how much more will you be kept by His life (Romans 5:9), says Paul, grace reigning by righteousness to eternal life, the gift (Romans 6:23), by grace (Romans 5:15).

The point is this: BOTH words, A and B, are used in a similar sense but with a different emphasis, where noted in verses 16 and 18. In one verse, Romans - 5:18 both are used. There, HIS is the righteous virtue, ours is the vicarious acquittal. In Romans 5:16, however, the contrast is "many offences" with "righteousness", the errors which we performed, and the righteousness which we are given, with which we are garlanded; but of that more anon.

In verse 16, it is a case of emphasis on the wonder of what is gained, on the righteous purity of what is attributed to us on Christ's behalf. It is however, for all that, though this is implicit, used in the sense that we are forensically forgiven, in that context. Assuredly, the contrast is intense between OUR negative contribution and HIS positive contribution, and the efficacy of His work, DESPITE the negativity of our own.

WHAT IT IS WITH WHICH we are forgiven
is stressed in 5:16; in 5:18, however,

WHAT IT IS FOR ONE TO BE FORGIVEN
is in view. It is a question of focus and context.

Hence in Revelation 19:8, where the term used is that marked above as "A", found in Romans 5:16, we therefore have the option to take it to mean imputed righteousness, with emphasis on the wonder and glory, the exactitude and thoroughness of the thing imputed, that is, Christ's own righteousness, exactly as in Romans 5:16. Since the emphasis is on the entire cleanness, not at all attributable to sinners, this word choice is very understandable, mirroring that of Paul for precisely the same impact entirely.

The "linen is the righteousnesses of the saints", says Rev. 19:8. Yours and mine, distributively, these are the multitudinous tokens of righteousness, entire righteousness without which no one so much as enters heaven (James 2:10, Romans 1-3, esp. 3:19-20, John 3:17-19). They are in the scene in Revelation 19, seen to be GIVEN, not brought with them. It is "GRANTED" to the bride to be "ARRAYED" in these fine clothes. They are befitting to such people in such a place. They are celestial vestments, given to the choir of the elect, as it were, in their choir stalls, to the bride in her marriage. The array is bought, not wrought.

The wonder of these "righteousnesses" is then either distributive, or it is a multi-faceted thing - the righteousness of sanctification, performance, atmosphere, attitude, spirit, heart, all in Christ, from Christ, and as perfected in Him (cf. The Biblical Workman Appendix 4, Love of Righteousness), for even LOVE TO GOD is required by God's law! All are attributed, all "granted", conferred, all conveyed, all making the party NOT to be THROWN OUT as occurred in the parable of the unclad wedding guest, as told by Christ Himself (Matthew 22:12-13)... The clothing then expressly is what makes the difference between ENTIRE acceptability and ENTIRE unacceptability; wrath and punishment, and grace and acceptance (cf. Ephesians 1:6). In this last verse, the Greek sense is this, that we are engraced in the beloved, surrounded with gracious acceptance in Him.

That is the kind of surround which is Biblically exclusive in such settings of acceptation, Biblically required, required in the book of Revelation, in the Gospel, in the parable of Christ. There is no other name by which we must be saved; and salvation as distinct from damnation is the issue. Let us then revert to the Parable of Matthew 22.

Now in that parable, if one thing is clear, it is this: the guests were not those notable by moral expectation; they were lying about, or in odd places, undistinguished, and they included positively bad people, explicitly. Their robes are not secured by righteous deeds. Neither are they made white except in the blood of the Lamb (I John 1:17-2:2, Revelation 1:5, Isaiah 61:10). Indeed in the classic base to these images in Isaiah 61:10, the robe of righteousness with which the redeemed are covered is paralleled by the garments of salvation.

Hence we choose not to deny the teaching of the Bible by using a translation which ignores all the imagery to which Revelation is so constantly sensitive in other scriptures; which ignores the teaching of the book of Revelation in other parts, and that of the Bible in other parts; departs from the parable, the theology and the situation. We instead are required to choose as in Romans 5:16, the sense of righteous emphasis without pre-empting the source of it in such a contrary way.

Righteousnesses these certainly represent; pure performance of law: certainly that. But whose ? Whose are those gifts of righteousness which we are explicitly told are attributed to us, though here the righteousnesses themselves, as in Romans 5:16 in precisely this sense, are in focus ? Why they are His in whose blood the saints have washed their garments, He who confers the garments of salvation.

It is, as Revelation 7:14 states, "these are they who have come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb. THEREFORE they are before the throne of God..." (Capitals added.) John tells us HOW they got that whiteness, better than any fuller can make; and how they can stand: it is a case of washing and "THEREFORE". Let us not therefore choose this translation option, but accept that of Paul in Romans 5:16. These are the righteousnesses of the saints indeed, but their righteousnesses, precisely because they are saints, by which and in which stand and are arrayed, so that it is this which meets the eye and declares the status and acceptability: they are His. The Greek allows attribution to whomever; the translation resolves the point contrary to text, context and multitudes of scriptures. It is unnecessary, intrusive and excluded.

There is more that might be said on this, but this will for now suffice.

This one major error however does not mean that the NKJV is not a good translation. If other things of the type or of any type were to be found of this appalling kind, such could not be said. Other things are found, but not of this significance; and MANY things are found which are excellent, many common mistakes are avoided, and as far as a sound and useful modern English text is concerned, it is very valuable.

Actually, it is almost amusing that each of the two, the AV and the NKJV make ONE almost incredible mistake. Their general standard however is cause for some rejoicing.

Let us then avoid idolatry and TEST all things carefully, holding fast to what is good in the faith of the Lord who has not left us in any doubt about His word, but who requires diligence^*3. The general advice given about the practical use of these two versions for those not scholars, is simple and leaves no danger. Practising what the Bible calls "moderation", not the subtle evasion of His teaching and truth, but the awareness of seemly circumspection and apt assiduity, rather than carnal strife, it is well to grow in grace and in knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, apprehending that for which we are apprehended, and having it finished. (Cf. QAA 11, pp. 136ff.,TBW 1, p. 20, BB 3, Endnote 1, A Just Balance .)

For a consideration of NKJV and AV renderings of interest in various points, we now turn to our set of useful detailed cases.

*3 EXCURSION on ELEMENT of TRANSLATION APPROACH

WORDS IN THE MILL

(Re *3 above: Perhaps not only diligence but intelligence helps, in that the mind is supposed to be used in spiritual things, not set in abeyance.)

WHAT IS EQUAL AND DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE,
AND THEN AGAIN WHAT IS THERE

It may be useful to note a simple point, first, re idiom and translation, re people who know or do not know the animal or thing or aspect in view, in a given scripture: and how best to accommodate their needs in any translation. There is the concept of dynamic equivalence, and of wooden literalness; and then again, there is that of intelligent integrity, a third and better way. This is eminently to be desired.

After all, in translation, we do not NEED to put in some animal known to a given race, in exchange for the one in the Bible. That is the affair of TEACHING or PREACHING, not at all that of translation. If we did this sort of thing in translating "the classics", the result would be laughable. They are what they are, and we learn from them, rather than teach. What we do with what we learn, this is another matter, but first we need to KNOW what we are talking about, and not something else, for the purpose.

Thus there certainly has to be INTELLIGIBILITY in FORM, in the translation, so that the new language is not merely made subservient to that which is being translated, in its grammar or other essentials of its individuality, which is its own, and not for export at such a time, or in such a function. On the other hand, there must not be a usage of idioms in the language into which the translation is made, which goes beyond the emotion, the overtone of ethos, the grammatical genre and the ideational refinement in the original (not that it is necessarily refined in itself, but refinement must enter in the rendering of it with precision of KIND).

Accordingly, to use the word "fellow" where there may be in English in the context, a flavour of disregard (as in some contexts there is), would be wrong on the claims of idiom, if this were not present in the original; and on the other side, NOT to use it, when there was some sense of importance and grouping, when that particular sense of the English would appear in the translation context, might be an omission. We have to determine, mostly with some ease, but on occasion with some difficulty, WHAT is the FIT.

It is not a question of what is the best fit, in general, but what DOES FIT. There should be no usage of such idioms as present into the translation, an emotion, feeling, flavour, be it formal or casual, not in the original. This requires some knowledge at least of both the current and the former (if it is as here an ancient document) ways, not so as to make one force itself into the other, but precisely TO PREVENT THIS! Further, cultural casualness in one society may because of morals, cultural past or religion, for example, be very different in impact from that in another. The choice must be to convey what was being conveyed; and in English, there is much scope for this, which of course, occasions finesse to grasp from the magnificent assemblage of available words, what FITS all with a reasonable, reliable and sensitive care, and preferably, flair; but if the latter, then not with an input that commands, but enables.

We are not, as dealing with the word of God, trying to make it palatable or unpalatable, to hit the spot or fail to do so (since our own estimates of the 'spot' enter in, in any case, and we are trying to be objective in terms of the whole constraints of the whole context, and the particular context, and the spirit shown in the whole in its clarity).

We are rather trying to make a wholly unintrusive, but utterly sensitive, and in terms of what is actually conveyed in the new language, sensible rendering. It must catch the sense of a flight of imagination, as far as words can be chosen from what, in the case of English, may be a much broader palette of available terms, or a dulness of heavy anger, or the quietness of simple narrative, or whatever else may be in view.

In the end, the translator, if wishing fidelity to the original, most important when this is GOD in speech, must be unintrusive in what is entered, but exceedingly laborious in working on what is there, what is available, the spirit, texture of thought, of culture, of their emphasis or relative emphasis and so on, so that for the one not having the origInal language, it is as near as may be TO IT. Thus the reader, using the translation, ideally can do the individual approach to the word of God, not THROUGH the eyes of the translator, but according as the latter has been successful, through the WORK put in!

WHAT MATTERS OF SPEECH AS IT IS SPOKEN,

AND THEORIES AS THEY ARE NOT

While we are speaking about translations, let us use this opportunity to deal with a related matter: translations of THOUGHT into WORDS, in the first instance, before any thought of other languages occurs. Specifically, we are now in the domain of expression as such, of reportage, of giving accounts of things to one another.

In the New Testament a lot of disquiet has been felt by the agitations of many, concerning slightly different phrasings of utterances made by one or another person, or summarising those made, as found in one Gospel relative to another. Extraordinary statements have been made on the one side and the other, as if this were some major matter. As so often in dealing with life, the key comes from life.

We have made it in our family a matter of mirth and hobby, to watch HOW we describe, narrate, report, condense, select in our record of events in narration to one another. Possibly hundreds of times, we have drawn to our attention this or that case when WHAT HAPPENED or WHAT WAS IN FACT SAID (in detail) was such-and-such, and the WAY WE REPORTED it, or REFERRED to it, or CONDENSED it was this or that. We observe with delicious interest how each case was handled in our normal, unrestricted speech to one another.

The variety is amazing, the liberties were impressive but the principles are quite clear. We then considered how we responded to these various methods of recounting what had been said, in synopsis or simple account.

In our reportage (casual, for ordinary inter-relation and reference as we go about our lives) of this or that to one another, there appear a number of principles, then. We are able to deal with this empirically, since almost countless examples have been dwelt on in our own midst, in which we examine the way it was done in our reporting this time, or that time. What was in common in our methods, our procedure of reportage ?

First, there is frequently found not the slightest effort to get verba ipsissima, that is, the very words spoken. If there is, it is because THAT makes all the difference or is a major INTRINSIC affair; but the cases we studied were not normally of this kind. The precision of using the SAME WORDS was far from central in our familiar reporting. It was the VARIATION and liberty which was central.

What then were the features which constrained, the elements of form and order which we found empirically, like lanes of traffic, which DID APPLY in reporting in this ordinary life setting, what someone said ?

In this, of cardinal importance is the PURPOSE of the report. If it is to recall an event, summarise a reaction, distil the essence or secure the pith of a point of view or statement, then the wording reflects THAT. This is what someone 'said', or 'stated' or 'indicated'. What is then paramount is the accuracy of thought, the aptness of spirit and the adequacy of coverage for the purpose in hand. If the question, for example, is whether X was a communist, then the relevant element of his speech might be taken, summarised and applied. There would be MANY ways in which this could be done, of course, such is the diversity of the vocabulary of some million words in English (as we are told), the flexibility of our grammar and the modes available for summary. The best effort would be sure to keep to the exact essence, but do it with an art of recall which brings it out without any distortion or deformity; yet this, in such a way as to expose the nerve, reveal the point at issue.

Thus there are different senses of 'said' in reportage, and it is for the intelligence to seek to determine from the purpose in view and the manner and style of the account, what is the intention. 'These were his words', or with our punctuation provisions, inverted commas of course puts it beyond doubt for us. In Greek, there are what may be transliterated as remata and logoi, and the first moves in the nature of the actual words, the second in the direction of the thought, content. In both languages, the sense of what is being SAID, and the words that convey it is distinct.

It could, secondly, be put in a SETTING which draws attention to relevant surrounding circumstances, and of these, selection to the point at issue might be drawn.

Thirdly, it was found in our family researches into our own usage and that observed, that the substitution of this or that word or phrase for another was the height of flexibility, the substance being what was precious, with length varying according to purpose and precision of essence.

The word 'say' could be used in the most impressive way, to mean in effect: divulge, reveal, utter, signify, indicate and so on. It by no means meant that the words recorded were the words given, nor we found was this by any means assumed. If it were a question of the WORDING, then this might be signified specifically; but 'say', like 'saying' often merely means the concept, the theme, the substance of what was said. THAT must be entirely exact and without the slightest deformation; but the liberty of re-expression is surrounded with art, purpose and re-construction at the grammatical level, provided only that the relevant issue is delivered without overtone which was absent in the original, thought that was not there; and as to the thought that was there, this could be selected to meet the specifications of the understood purpose of the recall in the first place.

When the concern WAS the exact words, then this became a study, a subject in itself; and of course, in our speech, the question of inverted commas did not arise, rather as in the written Greek of the New Testament. IF we were interested in the exact words, for ANY reason, then out they must come; they could be utilised in a setting which made it clear that because they mattered to the point, therefore they were being citing with the accuracy necessary for the point. If their thrust however was the point in view, then out that must come. Fidelity was to substance, manner, mode and thrust of expression; wording was an extra, and this was understood clearly. In all this, a certain minimum but perfectly natural intelligence is employed, and parameters specified if and when this is felt necessary for understanding.

Had we desired to perform some sort of reconstruction, word by word, for a courtroom, that would have been another purpose. If again, the courtroom needed the correct rendering of the situation, that would come.

An interesting example of both the liberty and the constraint in such matters, has been brought to my attention by Matthew Donaldson. It occurs in Luke 20:16 and Matthew 21:41 and the surrounding ‘verbal tissue’.

Now on the one hand in Matthew 21:41, we find, after the parable of the wicked vinedressers, who assaulted or killed those who came for their produce, on behalf of the owner, and then killed the Son so that they could seize the inheritance for their robbing selves, a particular set of words. It concerns the owner thus misused. It is this: "He will miserably destroy them!"

THAT is the response of the hearers of Christ, who have just audited the story, and been asked, "Therefore, when the owner comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?" Thus we have the RECORDED SECTOR of the interchange in this occasion between Jesus and the hostile hearers of his parable:

Question: WHAT WILL THE OWNER DO ?
Answer: He will miserably destroy them.

Now in Luke 20:16, We find this.

"He will come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others."

Response: And when they heard it, they said, "May this not be!"

Then He looked at them and said,

"What then is this that is written ?:
‘The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.’ "

In Matthew 21:42: "Have you never read in the scriptures …"

Now the first part of this, brought to our attention, could have proceeded as follows. Jesus declares the fate of the vinedressers as is Matthew 21:40. He precedes this in both cases by a specific question, and in Matthew the answer of some standing near is given; in Luke His own. As He formulates this question, the more progressive of His listeners are already muttering or exclaiming or inserting their answer, as students sometimes will.

He pauses, and in summary, detached and the more awesome manner, repeats or adapts their words in His own briefer sketch, transfixing the parable into this end in this deft interplay with His auditors.

Seeing the leading students’ view so categorically endorsed in the obvious thrust of the Speaker’s meaning, some are aghast. They can scarcely believe He would have the audacity, the fearless directness actually to say it; but He has proceeded on the favourable breeze of those who saw the point too starkly to do other than answer His undoubted question. Hence these others now expostulate: "MAY IT NOT BE!" The double affirmation leaves them aghast. Christ then, taking them back where we must all go, to the sole written, authoritative declaration of God to man, at that stage, the Old Testament, now part of the whole Bible, addresses them on the prophecy which indicates such a result, yes, in their own scriptures even!

Now therefore we come to the second point. Did He in fact ask them at that point, "Have you never read…" or did He ask, "What then is this that is written?" What in fact happened ? Both formats appear.

First, quite clearly, He could have said, like one preparing his audience for an impressive impact and result: "What then is this that is written ? Have you never read in the Scripture …" There is no difficulty about that. He enquires in order to confront, then He confronts. That, after all, is precisely what He had just done in the first point we regarded.

Now in our empirical studies on reportage, you would NOT find the word "never" merely introduced as a form of reportage. This has specialised meaning and is not in the confines of conversational precision. Certainly there would have to be a ‘never’ concept, and just as certainly a thrust to the effect, "what is this?" It could have been as we have compiled it, and since this is in full accord with the context, and the wording given, there is no liberty to do otherwise in some flight of imagination. When however there is any question of say, ‘kingdom of God’ or ‘kingdom of heaven’, in some reference to what someone has said, UNLESS there is some peculiar specialty in the context, about the meaning of the one relevant to the (putatively diverse) meaning of the other, we found we ourselves in our own reportage, would in principle, not even be in the least concerned which we would use. (This ‘kingdom’ example is not a specific case in our own conduct, but a specialised result of what we found in SUCH cases in our own midst).

Variations in reportage of a situation at that level, in general were not found relevant, and the report not being verbatim in claim, there was simply no point in trying to do otherwise than convey correctly its substance. As to THAT, however, that was MOST important.

In my work, The Kingdom of Heaven, Ch.2 deals with that particular kingdom question (the two phrases as quoted above), and it is found that in general there is no specialisation, there is nothing generic and certain which can be deduced to which a given context must conform. Hence this is a sound illustration of the point: where there is no point in the specific word, then the only thing that matters is the substance, pith, thrust, point IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE SPEAKER at the time and in the PURPOSE of the speaker at the time. Where that is in doubt, then clearly no liberty can be taken, for the understanding allowing liberty would be absent. Understanding there must be, and without it all is lost.

It is all just a matter of sound common sense, seeing what humans do and how they relate things, and then seeing the very elastic principles of reportage, observing the purposes in mind, the expectations and the results, and seeing what industrious concern for truth in fact constrains to do in such a situation. Truth is such a constraining thing: it requires you to compare, consider, meditate and watch as you speak, comparing impression with impression, purpose with what occurred, impact of report with impact of original, as Paul says, "comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (I Corinthians 2:9ff.). THAT of course brings in the next point.

In the Bible, we are told that the Spirit of God brings about this comparing (I Corinthians 2:13), so that in this case, the result being the word of God to man. The Spirit of God, we are told by the apostle,

so acts that
both substance
and expression

is ultimately, in scripture,
His prerogative to induce and lead into expression.

He knows and divulges firstly, and brings expression to mind which He teaches, secondly (I Cor. 2:11,13). He ensures both. There is superintending, comparing, scrutinising, compiling going on, in terms of spiritual things, and the work of God by His Spirit is such that He ensures that, apart from all our errors in this or that direction, absolute truth is the result, no mistake being made in any report relative to its stated purpose of truth. NOTHING will mislead; NOTHING will bring the auditor a false impression, NOTHING will claim what is not the case; NOTHING will be an incorrect, inadequate or imprecise record of events, in the purpose, propriety and power of reality.

Thus, WHATEVER part the human writer played, it is such that the Spirit of God is in this case so superintending, as Paul expressly declares, the choice of expressive instruments, that not only the substance but the actual expression of the writing is in accord with GOD HIMSELF!

God ? He is the summit of expression, the name of truth and the essence of wonder. In Him, NOTHING is amiss.

We who interpret the scriptures in terms of their own indictment therefore, must then avoid either doubting the record in any detail, or trying at all times to force it to involve the exact words spoken in a given summary of some speech, only the exact force, substance and thrust being categorically certain. Equivalent expression may be used, summarising condensation may appear, selection of relevant elements may happen without distortion or misdirection.

Let us take another aspect such as we found in our own discourses. Thus, the formulation in reportage:

He said, that if I were to do this, there would be enormous consequences,

for example, we found could have come from something like:

"My man, listen to me. I am not about to tolerate the sort of liberty which comes from you, and you will find, surely find, results that will rock your whole life if you proceed in this way."

The précis which could contain this utterance, for the purpose, for example, of deftly exposing the nature and feeling, the spirit and result of the speech, could well be as shown.

We do précis writing as an exercise, ourselves in school; and paraphrase. The latter can lengthen, but could shorten. The disposition of words to convey a matter is a liberty we all take. It is only when the context indicates sound ground for ipsissima verba, the exact words, that we should expect it. In our own way, we often overcome any doubt by inverted commas, such as were not used in the Greek text. In this case, we simply believe that in accord with the purpose of the record, so the character of the précis, essentialising, or direct reportage. Since God is the supervisory and final author of the account, it is not of much significance: either the words themselves or the account of them is with divine authority. Context shows where the ipsissima verba are in view. WHAT they say is always what the case actually was.

Either way, the absolute truth is in view, an infinitely sound report, or the original words, according to the character of the case. Sometimes you see "began to say" which gives the indication of some sort of reportage of what they were indicating in a number of preliminary statements. With the Bible, summary or direct wording, then, God is the undertaker that THIS is the wholly truthful relation of the episode or speech. It is hard not to use the French, Que voulez-vous ? What would you expect ? What do you
want ? Do you want to dictate to others what their purpose shall be, or order what you want provided, whether or not it is, in the Speaker's mind, best for you to get it this way rather than that.

Let it suffice that what you get is the absolute truth, that where the context demands the actual words, these are they; and when reportage does not, the effect is equivalent in the new context in the shaft of the disclosure that is both just and apt. On what is said, you may rely with an utter assurance that moves down to jot and tittle, and up to heaven itself.

End of end-notes

See Bible Translations 2 for individual cases for focus.

AV, NKJV, AND OTHERS

There follow 61 translations given chiefly where there appears some need to consider the AV and NKJV where these differ, and sometimes where something else may be needed, to give accuracy, or to gain needed understanding in view of cultural assault or bondage, readily relating to a given text, and to be as faithful as possible to the text. Various references are made.

In general, for those without any Greek or Hebrews, the AV is very good in accuracy, the NKJV reasonable in clarity, with not many needless changes and few failures, so that the former is a good check on the sense, nearly always, though for this generation, often not on the clarity. Where either diverges and appears on good grounds, to be better, this is noted. Usually, for accuracy, this appears the AV, and for clarity, the NKJV, but there is no rule. Sometimes a translation direct from the original language appears better to preserve the sense, whether from this or that specialist in language, or from context and word study.

One has already made a long presentation in the area of translation, but it seems good to have a short one, concentrating on the translations of the various passages now needing attention. Useful translations, related carefully to the text, are marked thus: §

Frequently, relatively minor comment is given, as the full treatment is more fully available in the volume, On Translations of the Bible. However, some given is longer, where often cultural pre-occupations may mislead, and so make more needed even in this slim provision. Where excerpted from Bible the above volume, this is usually noted; but at times the presentation may be extended, or revised for this purpose. This present volume is essentially a compilation from one's former writings with revision, extension and very often omission of large sections.

CHAPTER TWO

Translations in Brief

1) Genesis 1:1 and following group

§"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
The earth was without form and void... "

2) Genesis1:14-18

§"Then God said, Let the luminaries in the firmament of heaven
be for the purpose of separating between day and night,
in order that they may be for signs, and seasons, and for days and years.
and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens
to give light on the earth; and it was so."

3) Leviticus 19:20

§"Whoever lies carnally with a woman who is betrothed to a man as a concubine, and who has not at all been redeemed nor given her freedom, for this shall be a judicial enquiry, but they shall not be put to death, because she was not free"

4) II Kings 7:13

This rendering appears simply inadequate in the NKJV, while fine in the AV and excellent in the NASB. The last reads:

§ And one of his servants answered and said, Please, let some men take five of the horses which remain, which are left in the city. Behold, they will be in any case like all the multitude of Israel who are left in it; behold, they will be in any case like all the multitude of Israel who have already perished, so let us send and see.''

II Kings 8:9

§"You will certainly not live,
for the Lord has shown me that he will die."

6) Job 21:30

§"That the wicked is kept obscured to the day of calamity,
That they are led for the day of wrath."

7) Psalm 12:5-6

§ "For the oppression of the poor,
for the sighing of the needy,
Now will I arise, says the Lord.

"The words of the Lord are pure words,
as silver purified in an earthen furnace, refined seven times.

"You, O Lord, wilt defend them,
You wilt guard each poor one, from this generation for ever;
The wicked strut about on every side,
When vileness among the children of men is exalted."

8) Psalm 19:1-4

§ The heavens declare the glory of God,
The expanse declares His handiwork,
There is no speech nor language,
Their voice is not heard.
Their line has gone forth through all the earth
And their words to the end of the world."

9) Psalm 22:30

§ "A seed shall serve him;
It shall be accounted to the Lord, for the generation.
They shall come and shall declare His righteousness
To a people that shall be born, that He has done this."

10) Psalm 59:17

§ "For God is my defence,
the God of my mercy."

11) Psalm 90:12

§ "SO TEACH US TO NUMBER OUR DAYS
THAT WE MAY APPLY OUR HEARTS UNTO WISDOM."

12) Psalm 139:15-16

§ "My structure was not hidden from You,
when I was made in secret,
and intricately given diversity of form
in the profound depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed,
and in Your book my formed parts were all written -
the days they should be fashioned -
when as yet there were none of them."

An interpretive rendering:

"My structure was not hidden from You,
when I was made in secret,
and intricately given diversity of form
in the developmental darkness.
Your eyes saw my embryonic substance
and in your book all
(the particular results of developmental processes,
to form the physical equipment of life, organic, structural)
were written,
the (very) days they should be fashioned,
when as yet none (organic, structural members) of them
(so much as) existed."

13) Isaiah 2:22

§"Cease from man, whose breath is in his nostrils,

for of what account is he ?"

Delitzsch has an interesting rendering, much the same:

"Oh, then, let man go, in whose nostrils is a breath; for what is he estimated at ?"

14) Isaiah 7:14

§"Therefore the Lord Himself will give to you a sign.
Behold! a virgin is with child and will bring forth a son
and she shall call His name Immanuel."

This is substantially the translation of E.Y. Young in Vol. 1 of his work, The Book of Isaiah.

15) Isaiah 8:19-20

§"And when they shall say to you,

'Seek to them that have familiar spirits,
and to wizards that peep, and that mutter' :

should not a people seek their God?
should they seek on behalf of the living to the dead?

"To the law and to the testimony:

if they do not speak according to this word,
it is because there is no light in them. "

16) Isaiah 9:3

§ "You have multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy.

"They rejoice before You
According to the joy of harvest,
As men rejoice when they divide the spoil..."

17) Isaiah 9:6-7

§"For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

^"Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,

To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this."

18) Isaiah 13:12

§"I will make a human more precious than fine gold,
a man more than the golden wedge..."

19) Isaiah 23:13

§"This people which was not,

Assyria founded it for wild beasts of the desert.

They set up its towers,

They laid bare its palaces,

He brought it to ruin."

20) Isaiah 26:19

§"Your dead shall live.
My dead body shall they arise.
Awake and sing, you who dwell in the dust;
For your dew is like the dew of herbs,
And the earth shall cast out her dead."

21) Isaiah 33:6

§ I) "Wisdom and knowledge will be the stability of your times,
And the strength of salvation.
The fear of the Lord is his treasure."

§ "Wisdom and knowledge will be the stability of your times,
And the strength of salvation.
The fear of the Lord is His treasure."

Neither is excluded, both conform to other scripture, so each contributes to the total output on the topic. Statements can have nuances, and this appears one of them.

22) Isaiah 53:10

§"When you make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed,

He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand."

23) Isaiah 64:4-5

§ "And from eternity, they have not heard, they have not given ear,
nor has eye seen a God beside You,
who works for the one who waits for Him.

"You have met with the one rejoicing and executing righteousness.
In Your ways they remember You.

"Look, You have been wrathful,
and we have sinned: in those ways is eternity,
and we shall be saved."

24) Jeremiah 13:27

§"Woe to you, O Jerusalem!
Will you not be made clean ?
When once shall it be ?"

25) Ezekiel 34:29

§"I will raise up for them a planting of renown".
The True God ... Ch. 1

26) Hosea 7:1,13

§"When I would have healed Israel ...".

§ "Though I would redeem them..."

27) Hosea 13:1

§""When Ephraim spoke, there was trembling: he exalted himself in Israel.

"Now they sin more and more,
and have made for themselves moulded images, idols of their silver,
according to their skill: all of it the work of craftsmen."

28) Hosea 13:2

§"Now they sin more and more,
and have made for themselves moulded images, idols of their silver,
according to their skill: all of it the work of craftsmen.

"They say of them, 'Let the sacrificers of mankind kiss the calves!' "

29) Joel 2:21-23

§"Fear not, O land:
Be glad and rejoice,
For the Lord has done marvellous things!...

Be glad then, you children of Zion,
And rejoice in the Lord your God:
For He has given you the teacher of righteousness,
And He will cause the rain to come down for you,
The former rain and the latter rain ..."

30) Amos 4:13

§"For behold,
He who forms mountains,
And creates the wind,
Who declares to man what His thought is,
And makes the morning darkness,
Who treads the high places of the earth -
The LORD God of hosts is His name."

31) Habakkuk 2:13-14

§"It is not of the LORD of hosts that peoples toil for the flames,
and nations grow weary for nothing,
for the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea."

32) Zechariah 9:17

§"For how great is His goodness, and how great is His beauty ..."

33) Zechariah 14:5 (with I Thess.3:13)

§"... And the LORD my God, shall come, and all the saints with Thee."

34) Malachi 2:12,15

§"May the LORD cut off from the tents of Jacob

The one who does this,
watcher and answerer,
who yet brings an offering to the LORD of hosts!"

§ "Did He not make one, and did He not have a residue of Spirit ?
And why one ?That He might seek a godly seed.
Therefore take heed to your spirit,
And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth."

NEW TESTAMENT

35) Matthew 10:8

§"Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons;
freely you have received, freely give."

36) §"... Neither does any man know the Father, except the Son and he to whomsoever the Son wills to reveal Himself".

37) Matthew 28:9

§"And as they were engaged in going to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them saying, All hail. And they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him."

38) John 1:1

§ "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and it was God the Word was."

39) Acts 9:35

§"And all those inhabiting Lydda and Sharon saw him -
those who turned to the Lord."

40) Acts 13:9-20

§"And when He had destroyed seven nations
in the land of Canaan,
He distributed their land as an inheritance -
all of which took about four hundred and fifty years.
And after these things He gave them judges
until Samuel the prophet."

41) Romans 3:25

§"Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation
by faith through His blood,
to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past,
through the forbearance of God..."

42) Romans 5:12-15

§ "It is therefore as follows: Through one man sin entered the world,
and death through sin, and so death passed on to all persons
in that all sinned.
To be sure, sin was in the world earlier than the Law;
but in absence of law, sin is not charged up.
Death, however, held rule from Adam to Moses
over those who sinned
but did not transgress a command in the way Adam had done - who foreshadowed the Coming One):.
yet not as the offence, so is the free gift.
For if through the offences of the one, many died,
much more the grace of God
and the gift in grace which is derived from one man, Jesus Christ,
abounded to the many. "

43) Romans 9:4-5

Paul speaks of his "countrymen, according to the flesh" like this.

§" WHO are Israelites,
WHOSE is the adoption,

and the glory,
and the covenants,
and the lawgiving
and the service
and the promises

WHOSE are the fathers, and

                        OF WHOM is the Christ according to the flesh

                       THE-BEING-OVER ALL-GOD,
                        BLESSED FOR EVER.    AMEN.

It might be formed like this:

1) WHO are Israelites,

2) WHOSE is the adoption,

and the glory,
and the covenants,
and the lawgiving
and the service
and the promises

3) WHOSE are the fathers, and

4) OF WHOM is the Christ according to the flesh

5) WHO is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Actually, a better translation, as we shall see later, making point to the use of the participle (being over all - in Greek), for the last point (4), is :

THE-BEING-OVER ALL-GOD, BLESSED FOR EVER. AMEN.

44) Romans 16:25-26

The bullets are added for clarity. They do not form part of the translation; for which simply omit them.

	"Now
	to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel
	and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery
	kept secret since the world began
	but now made manifest,
	moreover through prophetic Scriptures
	according to the commandment of the everlasting God:
	for obedience to the faith to all nations made known:
	to God, alone wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen."

45) I Corinthians 13:8-10

§" "Love never fails.
But whether there are prophecies, they will come to an end;
whether there are tongues, they will cease;
whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when
that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away."

46) I Corinthians 15:33

§"Evil company corrupts good morals."

47) Ephesians 1:3-6

§"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing
in the heavenlies in Christ,
just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world
that we should be holy and blameless before Him,
in love having predestined us to adoption
as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself,
according to the good pleasure of His will,
to the praise of the glory of His grace,
in which He made us objects of grace in the Beloved.

"In Him we have redemption through His blood..."

48) Ephesians 3:21

§ "to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all phases of history here and hereafter."

{Thrifty in words, this is vast in scope.}

49) II Thessalonians 2:2

§"Now brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ
and our gathering together in Him, we ask you,
Be not quickly shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter,
as if from us, as though the day of Christ were at hand."

50) II Timothy 3:16

§"Every scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

51) Titus 1:2-3

§“Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ,
according to the faith of God’s chosen people,
and the sure knowledge of the truth which is in accord with godliness:

in hope of eternal life.
God, who is alien to all lying,
promised this before time began;
and so, in its own appointed times,
He has openly shown what He has in mind,
expressing it through preaching,
entrusted with which am I -
(or , with which I stand entrusted),
according to the commandment of God our Saviour:

"TO TITUS, my own son in terms of the common faith …"

52) Titus 2:13-14

§"looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing
of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,
who gave Himself for us,
that He might redeem us from every lawless deed
and purify for Himself
His own special people, zealous of good works."

53) Hebrews 11:1

§Faith is the foundational assurance of things hoped for,
the concurrent evidencing and evidence-based conviction of things not seen."

A sound paraphrase: Faith is affirming testimony of things not seen -
the confirmatory cry in response,
the conviction which draws on evidence,

54) James 2:18-20

§ "But someone may well say, 'You have faith, and I have works; show me our faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.:

"You believe that God is one. You do well;
the demons also believe, and shudder.

But are you willing to recognise, you foolish one,
that faith without works is useless."

Sermon

webwitness.org.au/2005.10.23.mp3

55) James 4:5-6

§ "Or do you think that it is to no purpose that the scripture speaks ?

Does the Spirit which dwells within us yearn jealously ?

But it is more grace that He gives

As it is written, God resists the proud,

But gives grace to the lowly."

56) II Peter 1:19-21

§"Knowing this first: that no prophecy of scripture
is sourced simply in itself;
for prophecy was never introduced by the will of man,
but by the Holy Spirit, being borne along,
did holy men of God speak."

Again:

"Prophecy never came by the will of man,

but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit".

57) I John 5:7-8

Translation of all the AV provides here, is not here relevant, since this total text is not evidenced to any significant extent in manuscripts- see 57.

For what remains, it reads:

"For there are three that bear witness:
the Spirit, the water and the blood:
and the three agree as one."

See also Ch. 1 as marked

58) Revelation 13:12

§"And he exercises the power of he first best in his presence,
and ordains that the earth and those who dwell in it should worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

"He performs great signs and even makes fire to come down from heaven onto the earth in the sight of men.
Moreover he deceives those who dwell on the earth
by those signs which he was granted to do in the sigh to the beast, causing those who dwell on the earth to make an imagine of the beast who was wounded by the sword and lived."

59) Revelation 19:8

§ "And to her was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright,

for the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints."

60) Revelation 20:4

§"I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded
because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God,
and those who had not worshipped the beast or his image,
and had not received the mark
upon their forehead and upon their hand;
and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years."

61) Revelation 22:14

§"Blessed are those who keep His commandments,
that they may have authority to the tree of life,
and enter through the gates into the city."

CHAPTER THREE

THE LIST OF 61

in the Biblical Order

GENESIS TO PSALMS

1) Genesis 1:1 and following group

§"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void...

The NKJV is quite sound in wording here, right through to 2:4, our area in view. However, some review is needed, even in this shortened list.

In Genesis 1:1 we find that in the beginning God created. The first two letters for 'beginning' and 'created' being the same, there is an indisputable pulse of dynamic. The two go together, are wedded: the One who acts, and the Creation which is the act.

We have examined before the exact nature of the text (cf. Gracious Goodness ... Ch. 6) and its context (cf. Dayspring with the preceding reference). We have seen that Genesis 1:1 is not a part of a sequence but a bold, cardinal declaration. In the beginning, God was there and He acted. We then move to the earth which commences the sentence, so divorcing it from any mere bound connotation of a serial character from verse 1. 1:1 is not then an intimation of a sequence but a declaration of illimitable majesty. The Spirit is then seen brooding, hovering, active over the creation.

The right kind of environment is created for what is to follow, organising, ordering and constituting a system of provision. Then the desired kinds are created. Actions from verse 2 on are in sequence not only grammatically, but in the enumeration of the days, designated in ordinal notation, in a way which in the Old Testament only refers to the rotation style days, in our day approximately 24 hours in length. Whatever however the exact rotational time, the concept is the same.

Indeed, the numbers, first, second, third ... are even enfolded in days, real days with evenings and mornings, days that have acute correlation with their initial invention.

Thus, since light for the universe was created after substance (v. 3 is after v. 2), the first day started with darkness, not with light, so that the phrase, 'the evening and the morning' is born, and becomes the descriptive usage for the rest of the days of creation - each day has light for one part of it, and starts wth the darkness as ordered from the first, before the light came on the scene commenced without it. Thus the ordinal connotation, the nature of the action, its integral relation to the context show us that here the term 'day' is not used to confuse or to confound, but to show us what the term 'day' which we use, has as to its origins, including the sequence of day and night - but no, night and day!

How loose is that exegesis that is nothing but eisegesis miscalled! For 'ages' instead of days, we must distort consistent Hebrew usage in the Old Testament, invent a new scope for the ordinals in such cases, ignore the birth of the phrase in conjunction with the sequence of matter and light, and ignore the fact that the account of the divine creation is showing us HOW we got what we HAVE^*A.

Let us look further. God did it in the beginning (separate statement Genesis 1:1); the stages are noted (rest of Genesis 1); then as part of the narrative, we are again categorically told a crucial point: SO IT WAS ALL ENDED. It was not in some other way. Indeed, God, having so acted, and the matter being ended, He rested .from His work. That is it, beginning and end. He began it, took steps, it was ended, He finished, and rested. This is the totality in this position.

It does not simply say that He began, took various steps, including the sixth day of work, and then rested. There is an abstract statement in between. It is this: Thus all the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. HE made it all, separate statement (1). The steps then begin and reach the last one (2). Then it is announced that it was finished, the whole entity of creation (3). So God ended His work (4). These last two points are not presented as one, but as two!

Then He rested (5).

Points 4) and 5) are not duplicates, but indexes of a basic nature. Thus HE started it, IT was finished, and then we learn that HE finished it, and He then rested. If it was finished, WHY note that it was finished, separately from the fact that God finished it, and rested from His work ? Since God was doing it all from first to last, thus this was not meaningless repetition in the midst of terse, ultra-brief report. Rather it means that this is the way it was done, here is the record! SO it was FINISHED. It is just as His work of redemption was finished on the cross (Hebrews 9:12-28). SO it was finished. This is the authoritative and correct account of the whole happening. T his being so, God rested.

That is the stated way it was completed, and this definitively. The work did not go on in some other way; nor was it done in some other way. Part of the narrative is its end, and this is a comprehensive part, in that it is affirmed that all this was so, and so completed. What is here put on record is the accurate, the sound, the essentially comprehensive, the account to answer the question: HOW did it come to be ? THIS way. To alter or to add, to bring in new and disparate ideas not in the ambit of the account of explication is not to boil it down, but blow it up.

What then ? Statement One: God did the whole heaven and earth creation in the beginning. Second logical point: God took the steps noted on the way to this result. Third logical point, this being so, the work of creation finished. That being so, God had finished His work.

Could that possibly be it all it means ? I think not; for that would be a sudden dip into repetition. Rather the point is this: that in the beginning God created it all; then He took itemised steps progressively in a decisive series of carved categories; and SO it was all finished. As stated, SO it is. The situation as described, was a completed one. The ambit of creation was not only by means of Deity, but by the chosen methods with the sequentially concluded result:

ALL DONE, DONE THUS! sums it up.

What then ? With the sequence thus concluded and the creation itself all ended, NEXT it is noted that God ended what He was doing. The preceding statement is thus one of summary, that it was so, an affirmation of the totality and correctness of the account both of the start and the finish and the totality. It is not here a statement about what God was doing, but one about what was done, the nature of the case, the rails on which it ran, and the engine which pulled the train of events: there! there it is, just as it is given. If you will, here is protection of divine rights to the entire statement, and the whole creation to which it refers, and that, an ended one! Thus it makes the end like the beginning, to be of God, adding that it WAS finished SO. THEN it announces that God finished His work.

As clear as are the kinds, the categories of action for life and in it, so is the ending of the work as a work made categorical, its soundness as an account, and its affirmation as to what happened from the beginning inscribed, as surely as the start itself, and the One who did the starting, and the categorical creation which it comprised. It was not there. HE put it there. Creation was the mode. The steps were the notches. Finish is the status of the affair. God thus finished it. He rested. There is where we are, as you sometimes see in shopping centres: YOU are HERE.

God rested from specified days - summed up in Genesis 2:4 for all to read. They stood as the record stands. Introduce some idea of non-days, or non-categories, or non-finish, as if it went on, or other agents than God and the correctly noted overall steps He discloses: then that it would be an abandoned action, in danger of being a war on the work and the word of God. Wars can start in many ways. When it is with God, it is infinitely sound to avoid them.

Filigree within would be one thing, human study seeing detail in accord with the record. Adding, subtracting or changing is mere contest with the Creator, and it is no surprise that it always loses. Kinds, categories and the modes of fixation of creation and its information, merely becomes more emphatic as time goes on.

For such a distortion of meaning, then, as ages or continuing creation, we must also ignore that the text is using terminology consistently and persistently both here as the book of Genesis develops, in the frank usage of normalcy. It is thus showing in the terminology of the comprehensible and the structure of the deposition of what we have, both mode of derivation, source and dynamic, all associated with the divine actions and their inter-relationships.

It is this which has led to these situations to which our common words apply. Thus "Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, all the host of them." Those wanting to make a different one could use different methods, if they had the power, the nous and the intellect, and no contrary competition. Then THEY could use intelligence to create information, as God did. However, also in fact, there is nothing to match the One who has given us what we have got; and it is finished, has long been... nothing else matches, has the power, or the program or the performance: let alone a sub-moronic 'nature', and that before it was even there to do it!

ADDITIONAL NOTE not in Bright Light 9

from *A above

Then He rested (5).

ALL DONE, DONE THUS! sums it up.

2) Genesis1:14-18

"So God fashioned the two great luminaries,
the greater light for ruling the day
and the lesser light with the stars for ruling the night."

"Thus God appointed them in the firmament of the heaven
to give light on the earth,
and to rule over the day and over the night,
and to divide the light from the darkness,
and God saw that it was good.

Some excerpts from Let God Be God, Ch. 12 appear below, and the entire disquisition is available in that Chapter.

Biblical days are correlated, then, quite explicitly with our world and its inhabitants, and in the divine action, there is a certainty of sequence that relates closely to the condensed coverage in Genesis 2:4. Present is no sense of arresting process. On the contrary: there is a sense of immediacy, there is a sublime monergistic or sole-worker emphasis, staccato commands coming like light into darkness, plenary power dictating and action happening to match with despatch. There is the utmost correlation between the divine power, mind and result in a manner which intimately associates with the use of the verb 'bara', indicating as its basic position, what we call creation, as distinct from mere forming. Thus Colossians 1 uses a most emphatic Greek term, in indicating that Jesus Christ created all things. Interspersed in Genesis are the formative actions, with the different verb we have in verse 14,16, which may mean making, forming.

When one refers to the Creator, in such a function, one is in the vein of what His power performs, as it is deployed in executing what He has in mind. We ourselves use such terms similarly, such that in our 'creations', process is not to the point: the idea and its outcome are closely related, and the more powerful the mind that has the idea, and the more profound, the more intense and intimate is its correlation, in general, with the outcome; and the more entirely irrelevant to the contribution in what is depicted, is anything else. Creation is a derivation of the one who creates; and where it is to God that we refer, it is to infinitude of creative power. Forming or moulding is then in another domain, less intense, not in the least presupposing anything such as what 'creating' constitutes.

We have earlier reasoned that the days of Genesis 1 are of a kind which correlates not with ages but with our rotational days. In the case of days 2-3, where there is not necessarily the same rotational mechanisms at work, this is nevertheless the basic situation. We are speaking of the prima facie requirements of the text at this point. Day one, we reasoned, while not divorced from such a conception, held somewhat more richness of meaning, because of the institutional element, as distinct from the constitutional processes coming later; yet it also, in its monergistic irruption (Genesis 1:3), is not to be divorced from the character of the declaration.

The days of Genesis 1 are in line with the days we now have, once instituted, in their character. This fact correlates intensely with the monergism of method, the infinity of power of the Creator, and the terminology, so that anything further from patient, inventive process would be extraordinarily difficult to express. The presentation was first the institution of the platform, and then of the different parts upon it, all in the area of creation; this to be followed in each case by performance of the thing created. There is crisp, sovereign, undeterrable fluency combined with the eloquent dynamism of speech.

Never was saying more clearly correlative to doing.

Thus, the intense emphasis on `spoke', and `was', is without doubt
an explicit indication
of the utterly irresistible (I should prefer even `resistless') power
and unhindered performance,
untouchable divine majesty... a streamlined and no-obstruction work pattern and procedure,
the production from infinite power.

To deny such things is merely to distort the words provided, which are as radical in terms of utter power performing, without restraint from anything or anyone, of utter resolve at work with exalted and majestic specifications fully fulfilled, as one could wish. It is nothing to do with vague nugatory thoughts, elements of distilled possibility, structural analyses abstracted, or even logical constructions outside the camp of actuality^*1A. To imagine such sublimations would be like subliminal advertisements: ludicrous intrusions. Here there is neither money for it, nor good from it.

To continue: Archer, as noted, states that the Hebrew in Genesis 1:14 may be rendered,

"Let the luminaries in the firmament of heaven
be for the purpose of separating between day and night,
in order that they may be for signs, etc."

(This professor with Laird Harris has produced
The Theological Word Book of the Old Testament.)

Then verse 15 signifies their basic function as giving light (apart from being seasonal and signalising), once again, a verse on fire with purpose relative to BEING, verse 16 following with the performance, also stipulating purpose with specifics.

Further, it is profitable to note more on verse 16. The action here is a MOULDING one which would lead on to a PURPOSIVE specification: rather like making a car that moves in structure, but then later, as a concentrated and applied act, completing all the specifications so that the whole gamut of its operations is possible.

Indeed, the stage is set for the heavens, not only verbally, but in parallel intimation with the earth.

Just as, following the creation of the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1, there was some kind of earth, an entity requiring action, so we are in simple parallel from the one set of directions, to expect some kind of heavens, also and likewise requiring action. Verses 14-16 supply this, when the rest is ready.

When therefore their turn comes for attention, at Genesis 1:14-18, the inchoate state of the heavens is in its own turn, given moulding, and subjected to due forming to enable its full working order, just as was the earth, quite definitely present and ready as recipient for fabrication, was wrought on in verses 6ff..

Just what purposes were in view for the earth were in part duly spelled out and executed in 1:1-13; and so now at 1:14, is it the parallel case for the heavens, they too operative but only in a rudimentary way.

As the earth has its rudiments and so was a base for action (1:2), including light and its divine deployment (1:3-5); so is it with the heavens, already seen in operation in the specified light variation of 1:5, and now to be subjected to vigorous, sequential action as was the earth in 1:6ff..

The functional purposes are most clear, in both the domains stated in 1:1, namely the heavens and the earth. First there is the basic institution, with light, and its humanly normative fluctuation, set in the normal terminology for the same. Then each domain is focussed with detail and dynamic, in which the divine does not pause to dabble in needless detail, but in ample proportions, sets forth the immediate history of these foundlings, heaven and earth.

In the case of the earth, the movements of the divine on the creation are specified and collated. Then starting in verse 14, the divine attention is given to the astronomical aspect. Now we have the parallel in the processive, progressive work labelled, done and considered in review.

The simple fact is that Genesis 1:2 specifies that the earth WAS existence following verse 1, just as verse 14 takes up the celestial parallel. Forming in each case then proceeds. The text excludes any other option.

God created heaven and earth, done: we proceed to the earth case, as a topic, and are shown the divine actions and reasons, and then to the heavens case, as a focus, and are shown the actions and reasons. In each case, what is said to have been created, was; in each case, what was done about what was there, follows.

Hence the heavens were there at verse 2's inception, like the earth; and thus there is no excuse any plausible, even conceivable, for pretending they were not, and that the evening and morning were a divine exercise in rambling exegesis, a flit of thought or a fit of forgetfulness. Being there, their exercise in whatever initial state, as paralleled in that of the earth, morning and evening can flow readily enough, for God knows what He is doing, and those who wish to indicate He could not have put them in a state which could in His view indicate light and darkness are clearly more knowledgeable than God. Such is the way of entrance for those who, entranced with the sophisticated follies of unbelief, set their hats and direct their thoughts to the horror of combining man's ever evanescent thought with the clear depictions of the divine.

This is then the clear intimation of the text regarding the reality of day and night, and its ready formulation in those terms, without difficulty of any kind. Whatever He does is seen as operative at the level of His action on the one hand, and its activities post-action on the other, ready for the next. This is simply the consistent way of things. In vv. 14-16 the purposive element on the basis of the original action to form and formulate for the initial result, morning and evening, is so highlighted that without this impetus to understanding it would be stylistically obtuse and superfluous, repetitious in a coverage where brevity is not merely present, but a work of art.

There is no excuse or ground for departing from the text, whether one conceives of the light and darkness this way or that. It is the permission for departure as if some problem warranted it, which is wrong, awry, amiss and perilous. To actually sanction (splitting the infinitive reminds one of splitting from the doctrine of the Bible) things underivable from the text, is merely to add tradition to the text, and make a neo-Protestant Romanesque lunge. Let us be clear, the word of God is in authority and NOTHING else in doctrine. NO church has power to sanction may not be gained by good and necessary inference from the text; and in this, the stress of the Westminster Confession is just (Ch. 1, VI).

Setting out such things in the name of the church for church comfort, connivance or acceptance is a breach not merely of agreement, alien to the word and spirit of the Confession's teaching, but of condition of membership. Worse, it is to use a church as an pseudo-autonomous entity, and bring in offence, on the one hand, and decline on the other. Against such things, exhortation must be made, and if not accepted, it becomes necessary to leave.

We therefore must cleave to the days as they go, so when they come, in basic notion. In this way, the author is not induced, if it were possible, to retract or to add or to differentiate without saying so, in his use of terms. It is true some thought does need to be given to the direct, miraculous, operations in days 1-3, including the institution at the first, as with regard to light; but it is also true that any real movement imported into that frame merely invents a novel feature, makes the account which is of ACTION AND RESULT to be divorced from its whole context, and passing by the specification of nature, becomes an incursive doctrine. "ADD NOT to His words lest He rebuke you and you become a liar," says Proverbs 30:6.

Sensitivity of conscience in any such domain is not merely permissible, but to be desired! From lack of the same, many churches have fallen into the mud, the thud scarcely noted as the delusive cultural approval of compromise resounds in the socially sated ear.

Indeed, in that way, the record would become not really an account but a combination of what it purports to be, a creation account, and what it neither purports to be nor presents at any demonstrable point: a series of partly explicated and partly submerged operations not noted, but operative nonetheless in the most basic of levels.

Such a diffuse concept contradicts the entire formulation and formula used throughout. Yet unfortunate as that appears, it is as nothing compared with the next step, where imagination gains no rein. It is then that we find, with these or such unwarranted preliminaries, the next and fateful step: the clear, well-known and normal usage of day and night which in verse 15 is EXPRESSLY designated in terms of the WORK of the formation and fashioning of the luminaries, is to be set against some entirely different sort of thing, not merely miraculously brought about by intrusive supervention in the laid out scenario, not only without announcement of that fact, but with total transformation of type from what follows^*1B

Day becomes daze.

This begets a conception in which the same terminology in the same mini-context is to be attributed to NON-day and NON-night: the same vocabulary becoming stupefyingly mutant, and within a few words of each other. Day and night in the context of sun and moon AFTER day four, which is a virtual DEFINITION of the meaning, are now to be revised into an erratic concept, which junks these indications, given before. Terminology becomes like an evolutionary dream, and clarity becomes an oddity at the will or taunt of the 'scholarship' which ignores the testimony continually made, in the text.

Who could pass such a paper at the most elementary of levels! Its slides are a slither and a wandering. Worse, to imagine that because God is great, He is not great on clarity in giving HISTORY, is merely a contradiction in terms, an evacuation of meaning, a nullification of phraseology, and of Proverbs 8:8. Moreover it comes close to lending insult to our Maker, as gratuitous as unguarded. It has, then, nothing whatever to do with interpretation of the biblical text either in its immediate or in its overall aspects.

Clearly therefore it is necessary to see genuine light and darkness gradings diurnal in portion, before day four; and while it is not a priori necessary to have these performed by the luminaries in precisely the present way: yet it is sufficient that they should loom and contribute something after this kind, although doubtless lacking in decisiveness just as the purpose of verse 14 had not yet been propounded and met. It could be argued that God could have turned OFF the light to create darkness, but this is to add to the text. The darkness-light progression is INSTITUTED, and proceeds as a specifically created thing, entity, duality, process following divine procedure antecedent to it, without alteration in kind, but with alternation of progress, as a thing in place, and working.

Darkness was. Day was. Day and darkness are both definable in terms at least in kind, of what we know as we find in the overall context. Though naturally the importation of more divine action than stated is unfortunate, its main danger is that it leads on as a precedent in principle. Like tripping on the sidewalk, it can lead to death by impact from a car when you are where you do not belong. It is, then, what follows that is fatal in this arena. It is the discordant divisiveness of double dealing with 'day'.

For full account, see Ch. 12 as noted above.

3) Leviticus 19:20

§"Whoever lies carnally with a woman who is betrothered to a man as a concubine, and who has not at all been redeemed nor given her freedom, for this shall be a judicial enquiry, but they shall not be put to death, because she was not free"

See Bible Translations 3, Note 2,from which largely the following is excerpted.

In Leviticus 19:20, the AV has "she shall be scourged" in the text, for the case where a slave girl, betrothed, has intercourse with some man.

In the margin, it puts "there shall be a scourging". Actually, the use of 'she' in the text, when the Hebrew is so impersonally rendered in the AV margin, in such a case, is not good. The fault is mitigated by the margin which has for the AV a better rendering; but the error in the text is merely the more obvious from it.

Other renderings are "there shall be an inquisition" (Revised Version, margin, set as the 'Hebrew') , "a court enquiry shall be conducted" (Berkeley), a judicial assessment which does not of course preclude the finding being innocent, though the possibility of a negative finding is certainly there. The reward, result, is not to be presumed. Indeed, Harris, Archer and Waitke in their Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, speak of the possible rendering, 'compensation', query 'scourging', and show the root in terms of the concept of searching and care. We might safely render:

§"there shall be a judicial assessment".

What is clear is this: investigation, care, concern and results are to occur because of the incident; and what is required, short of death is to occur. In view of this, it was important not to put the 'she' in the text, along with the Hebrew margin 'there shall be'.

II Kings 7:13 appears simply inadequate in the NKJV, while fine in the AV and excellent in the NASB. The last reads:

II Kings 8:9

§"You will certainly not live,
for the Lord has shown me that he will die."

Time passed. Defeat of Ben-Hadad was now long past. Death crawled to his bedside. It was this bouncy King who now lay ill. His desire is for life. Can he live ? Where does he turn ?

Like so many, it is to the God whom he has opposed, ignored, mocked and disregarded that he looks, yet impenitently, merely trying to influence His decisions. To the prophet Elisha comes Hazael, his emissary. An enormous gift is a sweetener, carried on camels! Will God yield grace to such reward ? "Shall I recover from this disease ?" he asks via his sent servant (II Kings 8:9).

Now here both the Authorised version and the New King James version err. It is not so in that expert linguistic work of Keil and Delitzsch, however, which renders the reply thus: "Thou wilt not live, and (for) Jehovah has shown me that he will die." (Commentaries on the Old Testament, the Books of the Kings, pp. 334-335).

What is amazing is this, that many have ignored the k^ethibh, the written text preserved by the Jews, as distinct from the Keri, the oral suggestion. The formal text has just this! To be sure, some have suggested that an exceedingly rare use of al to mean 'to him', as if the word were wl, and this should be assumed to be the intention of the writer. However, wherever the utterly abnormal is in view, one might expect some cue, in clear writing, to enable one to depart so drastically from the wholly established norm! Taking, then, as Keil does, the word al to mean what is its vast and wholly normal case, "not" - for it is indeed a basic word in ANY language, we come to this result:

§"You will certainly not live,
for the Lord has shown me that he will die."

That is the message given to the king's servant, Hazael, a not disinterested recipient, as we shall see.

Meanwhile, let us observe that the same grammatical construction, and order, as Keil points out, is used in Genesis 3:4. Here there is a classic example. The devil is interested in subverting Eve - a massive undertaking. When she (inaccurately) relays what God had said to them, the prohibition (thus, apparently already slipping into the sin mode), the serpentine devil takes her up, and to use the colloquial, has her on. In other words, he uses her now manifest interest in his offer of interested involvement with her, to exploit the weakness and secure his target. That ? the 'alternative life style', his own.

He tried the same with Christ (Matthew 4:9), without success. It is not for nothing that one approach to the concept of worship in Hebrew is to 'serve'.

Let us however return to Eve. She has just intimated to the devil that should she take a certain action, she is informed that she will DIE.

The devil does not agree.

You will not surely die! quoth he; or as Berkeley brilliantly has it, "No, you would not die at all!" - just as Elisha gave the message to Ben Hadad: No, you will not live at all! There is a perfected parallel, between these two cases.

6) Job 21:30

§"That the wicked is kept obscured to the day of calamity,
That they are led for the day of wrath."

This is undoubtedly a fascinating case, but it would show also that the AV and indeed the NKJV are by no means all comprehensive in their perfections, excellent as they are in different ways. They do not absolve all men for all time from the need with chaste care to research and consider the translations. In this case, Keil and Delitzsch bring out a coherent and strong translation which is not disjointed or lacking in flow. "The wicked was spared in the day of calamity," they render. This gives something of the sense of the verb, in the context.

Both the AV and the NKJV put for verse 30, something similar. In the former case:

"That the wicked is reserved to the day of destruction ?
They shall be brought forth to the day of wrath."

The latter:

"For the wicked are reserved for the day of doom;
They shall be brought out on the day of wrath."

Unlike these, the Revised Version at least allows for the sense of it, namely that the simplistic concept of those who attack Job, in view of his calamities, assuming him wicked, is denied by a broader knowledge of what happens in the earth. Evil people escape, reserved to judgment, and are led on the way, none daring to challenge them (Job 21:31) :

§ "That the wicked man is reserved to the day of calamity,
That they are led forth to the day of wrath."

While this is not as clear as it might be, in the RV, it is not alien from the thrust. The text proceeds to illustrate his escapes, saying,

"Who condemns his way to his face ?
And who repays him for what he has done ?"

THEREFORFE, Job indicates, they cannot comfort him with their urbane, superficial words! Hidden, obscured, the text indicates, the wicked person is kept till calamity comes (so don't pretend I am wicked, the line is, because I was NOT kept, for see now innocently vulnerable I am!). Indeed they are led to the brink at the end, as if on schedule, relatively secure to meet their end, exposed at last. So don't try that one on me! he snarls.

The thrust is his being kept in obscurity, darkness, tended, to the time when the day appointed for judgment comes. That is in the singular, for an envisaged wicked man, looking at a life which seems to Job not uncommon, as if he were peeping at such a one, to see his stout-looking performance, deceptive though he deems it, so unlike his own! Indeed, turning to the plural, he indicates that this type of person is LED to the day of wrath. The primary meaning is to LEAD, as when God led the children of Israel.

Thus the RV, different in tenor from the AV, and NKJV renderings, captures better the thought. This one, like the Berkeley Version, which is stronger yet here, allows for the point at issue, for the stated argument of Job, which the other translations merely interrupt, tending to disperse the thrust of thought, rather as if the new data to be gained by questioning travellers were merely that the wicked get what is coming to them,

How insistently is the irony pursued: from travellers Job reinforces his view of the deliverance of unjust men, their escapes from calamities, all solicitous, even the physical grave appealing in its presentation. It is not a direct and simple matter, in living, of do this and get that: God is far deeper than this. Often evil men are given their bait, and allowed for quite a time, the inducements of their folly. They provide, Job urges, a contrast rather than a confirmation with himself, innocent as he deems himself to be!

Time may swallow up the realities in superficialities; but in the end, truth will come out, and justice with it. God will see to that (Job 9:1-13; 28). Superficial condemnation of the just in the meantime, is contemptible. Brute fish may be allowed quite a lot of line, while the righteous suffer. Such is his presentation, in his turmoil.

7) Psalm 12:5-6

A translation below is recommended, in line with the thought of Delitzsch:

However, a further possibility which feels best in the development of the Psalm is this:

§ 'Because of the desolation of the afflicted, the sighing of the poor,
Will I now arise - says the Lord -
'In safety will I set him who yearns for it.'

The words of the Lord are pure words,
Silver melted down in the furnace, to the earth,
Purified seven times.

Thou, O Lord, wilt defend them,
Thou wilt guard each one {of the poor} from this generation for ever;
The wicked strut about on every side,
When vileness among the children of men is exalted.

*Literally "him" not referrable to words (feminine), but in English leaving a feeling of singularity that "each one" tends to capture. It might be thought that poor is the rendering which needs a bracket, but in this case the Hebrew has a grammar which MAKES it clear, and if we follow i closely we need clarification. If you want it neater, it would be like this:

§ Thou, O Lord, wilt defend them,
Thou wilt guard each poor one, from this generation for ever;
The wicked strut about on every side,
When vileness among the children of men is exalted.

Thus the actions of the Lord abut onto the plains of the ferocious so that, without
borting liberty, He does bring sanctions to pass which are ultimately protective of His saints, while leaving them to carry out His glorious tasks in service, before judgment sits.

Thus "them" is seen as naturally following on from the reference to being purified seven times, the words, and then moving in thought and understanding from this SOURCE feature to the poor who are thus safeguarded in terms of this pure word of God, who keeping it, will so act. The "them" in this way is not so much a hybrid but a turning point in a poem, so that like a swordsman twisting from this to that posture, in pursuit of just one aim, it is a dynamic term, a ground of union of concepts.

Either way, the meaning is kept: both the words of God and the poor ones of God, who belong to Him, are to be given a divine ground surpassing mere appearances, as in a match, where the winner is not the best looking. Because the words are sure, pure, therefore the poor in those terms have assurance.

In terms of thought, it would then come to this: The words are pure, and He will keep them, AND SO will He guard each one of the category, the godly poor, of His concern. The three verses as set out above, foster this approach. The vignettes of poetry then give ground for the vigour of the defence. This seems the best comprehensive resolution.

8) Psalm 19:3: Note the translation: there is no word 'where' in the text. It is inappropriate to add to the text. Check the text as it is given to us.

As they speak, it is not in language. There is no Arabic, Hebrew or English (anachronisms are purposeful as we are seeking the intent, and it is sometimes stimulating to consider aspects in the light of our own day). There is no voice to be heard. No one is articulating phonetic sounds. Like the directed sound from a megaphone, or from cupping the hands, however, there is a line which reaches the soul of man; their mute but eloquent speech is directed very clearly to us.

This is an elegant oxymoron. Speech ? none. Language ? nil. In fact there is NO speech, no language. Yet their 'words' have penetrated to the uttermost even to space. What then is the "speech" ? It is a word to the mind, an indication to the heart, a broadcast not only of light to the eye, but to the heart, an exhibition of the intrinsic testimony of what is created.

Day to day, they utter. Who hears ? Night after night, as the luminosities work out their intricate splendour, they inform the mind, instruct the spirit, woo the soul to worship.

9) Psalm 22:30-31

In Psalm 22:30-31, the KJV has

"A seed shall serve him;
It shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.
They shall come and shall declare his righteousness
Unto a people that shall be born, that he has done this."

The NKJV has:

"A posterity shall serve Him.
It will be recounted of the Lord to the next generation.
They will come and declare His righteousness to a people who will be born,
That He has done this."

However, there is no word "next" in the text, which is simply invented in the translation, changes the meaning and is a major flaw. The next hsa "the generation", and in this the N KJV is correct. Simply taking the text, then, we have this:

§ "a seed shall serve him;
It shall be accounted to the Lord, for the generation.
They shall come and shall declare His righteousness
To a people that shall be born, that He has done this."

The LORD Himself, whom after all, Psalm 22 focusses and describes, HE, as Isaiah 53 tells us, had NO offspring, because He was cut off from the land of the living; and if any Psalm tells this with emphasis, it is Psalm 22! In Isaiah 53:10, we learn that when His soul is an offering for sin, it is then that He sees His seed (see No. 8 above). In other words, biologically He had no children, but spiritually He has many. This Peter picks up in I Peter 2, where we are who are believers in Christ are a CHOSEN GENERATION, a royal priesthood, a special people.

WHO ? Why there, those born of the Lord, begotten by His word (I Peter 2:23). They are both the testimonial and the replacement generation. Instead of normal children from marriage, the Lord has spiritual children through His sacrifice, and these are a special generation, a royal priesthood as I Peter 2 advises us. It is ALWAYS best to keep to the text, preserving its flow and thought in translation, not innovating. It is then that you see the wonders of the Lord.

10) Psalm 59:17 NOT My God of mercy, as in NKJV, but literally, § "the God of my mercy," as in AV . God is the One in whom he finds his needed and necessary mercy, appropriated from the vastness of His eternal Godhead.

11) Psalm 90:12 (See Bible Translations Ch. 93, No. 9.)

In Psalm 90:12, the KJV has : "SO TEACH US TO NUMBER OUR DAYS THAT WE MAY APPLY OUR HEARTS UNTO WISDOM."

This has a beautiful sound, is most instructive, but is not precisely a rendering in any discernible way, of the words written. The sense relates; the translation is not simply of what is there.

The NKJV is more accurate here; SO TEACH US TO NUMBER OUR DAYS THAT WE MAY GAIN A HEART OF WISDOM. Keil and Delitzsch, the noted and amazingly scholarly commentators of long fame, whose knowledge of the original languages is immense and who are very articulate, considered possible translations. They criticised with careful grammatical exegesis various possible translations and supposed renderings put forward in this case. Their translation is the one given by the NKJV. They of course wrote long before that was ever made. It is pointed out that the verb in view 'bring" (in the phrase rendered in the KJV "apply our hearts") may have an overtone from agricultural usage, bring is as a harvest, as a product, as a gain. How then will you render - that we may bring a heart of wisdom ... in view of this ? One rendering is just that: bring a heart of wisdom.

In our idiom, however, this is not exceptionally expressive. What then? It is possible to ponder and consider the nuances of this verb, and seek the meaning... that we "bring in a heart of wisdom" or gain a heat of wisdom, bring to pass a heart of wisdom. Thus these commentators and translators present the version that the NKJV adopts.

§ "So teach us to number our days that we may gain a heart of wisdom,"

with a note, perhaps, as in bringing in a crop. Another word might be "secure": a heart of wisdom. As you number, count, consider your days, intent like a planet circling around the earth, on keeping in contact, with force continually exerted upon you, which you desire, so your trajectories come more and more aligned with truth, your habits more apt and your heart more settled, as the Lord blessing you, your whole atmosphere becomes increasingly taid upon God, drawn by Him, feeling the pull of His purpose, with no idle or small joy. Our liberties are so great that gaining in so many spheres a heart of wisdom, we draw, as water from a well, the things which sustain, righteousness confirming itself, truth teaching wisdom in the joyful fear of the Lord.

12)

In Psalm 139:16, an interpretive rendering follows:

This is the situation:

none of the noted bodily members is there,

but there the program is,

celestially contrived,

each day of development being nevertheless determinate,

yes, even when not a member was to be seen in the embryo

in its initial simplicity.

That simplicity in marked contrast with its prepared potential, means this:- Amazingly it is all marked out in His book as to days,

each organic whole is envisaged, prepared, pre-designed,

ready to burst forth, like flowers in Spring,

indeed to be moulded,

even when

not one of the members has as yet appeared.

Yes, it is timed!

§ "Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed, and in Your book my formed parts were all written - the days they should be fashioned - when as yet there were none of them."

Thus "Thy book" was divinely inscribed to cover the case, even when these members, to be made and co-ordinated, were visually absent. By vigorous application, what had to be done, was achieved and as we might say in our idiom, "it was all hammered out," an aspect of meaning here. Where it had to get form from active fashioning, it got it, in a sort of secret sanctuary for building. (This of course is precisely what is being said in science now, as the genetic code is considered and claims are made that its content for a single human nucleated cell is worth a thousand large, complex volumes of writing. The intense symbolic, code content is prescriptive, directive, executive, integrated, cohesive in kind and synthesising in practice, the most stupendous material design by far, ever visible on earth. It is also, no less, intensively verificatory of the Biblical vision imparted to the prophet who wrote Psalm 139, by the inspiration of God.)

CHAPTER FOUR

ISAIAH

13) In Isaiah 2:22, in the AV, we have:

§"Cease from man, whose breath is in his nostrils,

for of what account is he ?"

Delitzsch has an interesting rendering, much the same:

"Oh, then, let man go, in whose nostrils is a breath; for what is he estimated at ?"

This is the sense, and this is the severance in view: from man who, estimated as empty in pride when divorced from God, is the inflated but spiritually fallen object one must cease to follow.

As Delitzsch points out justly, "it is preceded by the prediction of the utter demolition of everything which ministers to the pride and vain confidence of man…" MAN the generic is the one exalted, to be debased. THAT is the message, and Isaiah 2:22, showing his end, prescribes the finale, CEASE from MAN (or mankind).

‘Man’ is in the Hebrew text precisely the same word with precisely the same definite article as in Isaiah 2:17, "the loftiness of man shall be bowed down," translated as such in the NKJV. But amazingly, leaving this consistent emphasis of the text, and this total parallel in construction, it wishes to translate "man" in this generic sense, as "such a man", which is not in the text at all, but simply reads, "the man" or as a generic, "man".

I4)

Isaiah 7:14

See SMR pp. 770ff. for the full account, source of the following slightly revised excerpt.

§"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold the virgin is with child and shall bring forth a Son, and a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

One should first read Isaiah 7-10-14, and preferably 7:14, to better grasp discussion. We see in Isaiah 7:14 a Hebrew term which denotes "the lass", something as E. J. Young points out in his Studies in Isaiah (p. 183) rather more definite even than 'damsel', since there is no evidence it was ever used of a married woman. A simple girl, unmarried (a 'laddess' as Dr Duff Forbes rendered it), is to be with child. This Hebrew word is unlike bethulah, a technical term which, though it may mean 'virgin' may also be associated with marriage (Joel 1:8 - where a bethulah mourns for the husband of her youth). Young notes this other term may also be used with the addition, 'who had never known a man' (loc. cit.) which, in view of the betrothal arrangements, is not meaningless.

'Almah,' however, the term in Isaiah 7:14, conveys the sense of simple, normal, as yet unwed, uninvolved, untouched youth. It is divorced from marital maturity or participation like Spring from Summer.

Now rightly denounced, in no uncertain terms, has been any sense of a fornicator or slut.

There is simply no ground for assuming an immoral or fallen or guilty young lady. "Innocent till proved guilty" is merely one facet of the case. You don't engineer a focus for deliverance (as is the context in Isaiah 7), a 'sign' as this young lady in that place undoubtedly is, with a reference to the perversion of youth or the squandering of sanctity in sexual licence - as a mere guess! "

The context says no such thing; nor does it censure. It speaks rather, categorically of youth outside child-birth considerations, that would in any way relate to marriage. It is indeed set in idyllic atmosphere (Isaiah 7:21 ff.). Further, for God to designate a simple young lady in His holy plan as a focus, (Behold the virgin, He announces, "the unmarried maiden with child"), and for us to assume that He has a 'dirty', distorted or specifically fallen thing in mind: this comes near to imputing to God a breach of His own principle, "whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy- meditate on these things" (Philippians 4:8), and breaches this one: "Love hopes all things" (1 Corinthians 13:7).

We have no right to enter here such territory, no warrant, no ground or basis, without being instructed so to do. It would be eisegesis - that is the importation of thought from outside the passage, not exegesis - the expression and bringing out of the passage, what is written. To add to God's words is forbidden (Proverbs 30:6), and to follow such a procedure would be to become a joint author with God, without invitation so to be...

Yet the 'case' for avoiding the virgin prophecy is far worse than that. How can a straightforward and not very uncommon 'fallen woman' syndrome be a sign (Isaiah 7:ll) of such magnitude as is found here, and found rather rarely in Scripture. As Machen points out (op. cit. pp. 290-291), the divine offer of the sign in this passage would naturally lead us "to think of some event like the turning back of the sun on Hezekiah's dial, or the phenomena in connection with Gideon's fleece" - the first in Isaiah, the other in Judges - such focus was made on a sign...

Such focus ? some such focus, for in this case the focus is explicitly more than merely astronomical, it is CELESTIAL. "Ask a sign!", God challenges, reaching up upwards into the heights, down into the depths in His invitation to Ahaz to ask amazing things, past all measure. There is not only a request to ask a sign, and this being God, the limits of magnitude are not there; these limits are explicitly off as well. Here is a sign to end all signs, making history a preliminary! Events in the coming will 'unwrap' what is more than remarkable, or even unique; they will paint, portray, institute a supreme marvel even in the action of the divine One, of God Himself, upon this earth.

As Machen puts it, "Equally suggestive is the elaborate way in which the 'sign' is introduced. The whole passage is couched in such terms as to induce in the reader or hearer a sense of profound mystery as he contemplates the young woman and her child." The offer to Ahaz was virtually infinite and the Lord's choice of sign, when Ahaz declined to activate the matter, is in the category that has no bounds. Such is this setting, situation and scope. Moreover, the sign is for the king to take courage, be transformed with delight in the face of the lethal seeming enemies facing him, breeding then in him, great concentration. The base ways of the world are not at all to the point. That is not even surprising!

To seek a simple, common, all too natural signal in the sight of such supernatural initiative is to ignore what is written, be blind to the context and to miss the point... which is that here is something prima facie all but incredible! It is to be something out of the mind and power, the purity and majestic impact of God Himself! Ask going UP, ask going DOWN, but ASK!

The Lord is asking him to believe, and the sign has this abundant office; but Ahaz declines. Thus the sign comes anyway, and in all majesty, not so much now a help to the failed heart of Ahaz, but to the race, to the people of whom he is then King, when the time COMES. Thus do people miss what God is providing, because of petty pre-occupations, lack of faith and asthenic heart. They do not even allow the Lord to strengthen their heart, not even with the most invigorating of 'medicines.

But that 'sort of offer is precisely what we have been led to expect, might expect in any case perhaps, but certainly must expect in such a context. God appoints it on His own, with scathing effect on the welfare of Ahaz, but no remission of His intended utterance. Weary God they may, but God is not wearied to perform what He will (Isaiah 7:13). "Therefore - [in the very face of this weary faithlessness of man], the Lord Himself will give you a sign!" activating on a personal basis what they failed to appropriate, in a way that might have brought blessing personally as well.

The divine irony is intense, for the onset of Assyria in desolating triumph over Jewry is announced at once (Isaiah 7:17-20), an even worse challenge for the present, though the initial one is still set in abeyance. Thus penal clauses proliferated in the face of this rejection of mercy by jesuitical jousting, on the part of Ahab (Isaiah 7:12), with God (Isaiah 7:15-22).

Certainly this blessedness of Immanuel is far removed from the people whose faith (Isaiah 7:12) seemed almost as far distant from accepting the unconditional gift and glorious deliverance so lightly esteemed by Ahaz (Isaiah 7:2). This, their defaulting king, was all too fitting a representative of the people (Isaiah 1:4-17), for which only chastisement was fitting. Yet it was this very nation, to whom IN THE LORD'S OWN TIME, THE virgin would nevertheless come. It WOULD come THEN, however wearisome (Isaiah 7:13) the contemporary hardness of heart and blindness of eyes, deafness of ear, might be! It would come when once the penalties were come, and the realities of trifling with God, were found. as if to try His patience. They would be long years in which the people would need in patience to await their deliverer, so lightly esteemed by the nation in its authorities, even when He came (Isaiah 49:7, 53).

Does not this action of Ahaz, then, rise to the peak as the very exemplar for all the straight, liberal radicalism, frothy existentialism, games of the name changing neo-orthodox and neo-evangelical lethargy now provided by the parallel deviations of the Gentiles ? He, Ahaz would not tempt the Lord by believing what He said!

Such sanctified restraint by which to characterise rebellion! He would not accept the unlimited bounty of the divine gift - ASK! (Isaiah 7:11-12). Was God simply mocking him in giving such a gift as this ? a gift which was later, despite the lack of hands at that time to receive it, to come in any case as the Lord Jesus Christ, not a god without power, but the power of God and the wisdom of God (I Cor. 1). It was, in any case, the gift Ahaz needed, to cleanse his soul, purify his mind, alter his heart, pardon his offences and bring peace; but not taking it, he could then see it predicted to come, God with us!

Yes, the Gentiles have come and, as in the time of judgment which began to settle on Judah, now themselves are near the end of the Age appointed (SMR Ch.8). This time it is not Judah but the world which comes to a vast domain of judgment.

Now it is their falsetto evasions and spectrum of deviations to match the error of the Jews at that critical point, that makes its evil flower. Now they too in droves will not 'tempt' the Lord by believing in obedience what He says, by acting on what He gives; but rather from the midst of the structures of many churches, they build with Ahaz of old a resort of verbal subterfuge, a substitute for the wholehearted acceptance that walks with God in the way He assigns, as well as talks about Him (cf. Ezekiel 33:32) with the infallible word He has given.

They even contradict the Bible and imagine that in this way they still can worship the One who declared that not one jot or tittle would depart form the law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17-20), till all was fulfilled: and that includes the judgment on breaking commandments and making idols to worship, which are in fact other gods!

But let us return to the tableau in Isaiah 7. How delightful that in reply to the barren stultification of unbelieving Ahaz, the unparalleled sign is to be given in any case: THEREFORE THE LORD WILL GIVE ... From Him, it has all the glory of His wonder, however it may affect the laggard Ahaz. What is it, then, in this context ? It is a virgin who is going to have a child. Here is no prophecy concerning a queen to marry, but concerning a solitary individual. It is indeed THE virgin, just as in Psalm 22:30 we have THE generation, since Christ had no children of His own, and when YOU make of His soul an offering for sin, THEN, we are told, He will see His children! born again people of His own. So THE virgin in Isaiah 7:14 is the vehicle for this substitution of spiritual children for earth-born ones, for the Christ. Thus He may indeed receive as one of His names, Everlasting Father, since there is no derivation as to entity, for there is One God, one Expressing, One the Expression, both deity.

What then of THE VIRGIN ? She is not incorporated in any marriage, actual or implied, and is merely as VIRGIN seen in the stated condition. She is not conceived as in any anticipatory social relationship, but as a stand-alone, suddenly brought on stage,. her condition the subject of scrutiny. It is a sign because this is not merely not usual, to say no more, but is signalised for a purpose, and it is to be a marked signal, symptom and sign when it happens in the context of the Messiah. Indeed, as E. J. Young points out in his Studies in Isaiah, the term is not in the form of a participle, as if she were engaged in having a child, but instead a verbal adjective, signifying her condition as presented, both virgin and with child in the womb, and so, in the LXX, Isaiah 7:14 has this, that a virgin shall conceive in the womb. There is the virgin, there is her womb, and she as such has this condition in that womb. This is the bald statement. These two elements, items, are juxtaposed with joy, without qualification, addition, circumstance for orientation. The statement has two facts put together AS SUCH. Not only is it this unusual combination, but it has an even more remarkable result, God with us, as the very name of the result, the child, one that veers into exposition in detail, in Isaiah 9. l

This simply stresses the point: SIGN ? Surely, consider this, a virgin with child, describable in this manner, not only as lacking any male relationship in the picture, but focussed IN this state! It is a wonderful thrust from any norm about virgins who WILL bear children to one who IS in this condition. It is so in terms both of context and grammar.

THE virgin then ? Not some woman of unknown character, unnamed, in the crowd whose time was coming fast for desolation, castigation and correction. Rather the one who would do the job, perform the function, encompass the man (Jeremiah 31:22). He is was to be One who, as sinless for a human offering (Isaiah 53, Leviticus 4:3, Hebrews 9:14) and of eternal divine character (Micah 5:1-3, Psalm 45), REQUIRED a parentage which was not encompassed by sin. THE virgin is the one predicted, THE virgin is the one written, who must bear the MIGHTY GOD (Isaiah 9:6), the one who can be called the Everlasting Father (cf. John 14, Zechariah 2:10); for this is the name of Isaiah 9:6. She provides the flesh, to be suffused by the presence of God, and He provides the eternal deity as Father. SHE is the mother and GOD is the Father, eternal, and so in this infinite intimacy in the Trinity, the Son may even have as a name, Everlasting Father, to show His essential position.

I5)

§Isaiah 8:19-20

The NKJV and AV once again present no problem; but other translations need attention, as does a wandering car, if one sleeps at the wheel, and it is better to be ahead of the action then!

There is no other God, or way or salvation (Isaiah 45:22, 41:29-42:1, 43:10-11, 66:2, Acts 4:11-12). When God the Creator speaks, it is man who must hear, not speak! If he speaks, it is to reject or receive. Playing with words is mere fatuity.

As to God, as He is, so He speaks, not regionally, not tribally, not with favouritism, not with changing ideas, not with short cuts, not with equivocation, not with sensuous appeal or for pride and pomp: not for the actions of man, but to His own mercy, He calls. There is no other, only vacuity and noise. All competitors for man's attention are gross violations of truth, evidence, verification, validity and idols (Psalm 96:1-5).

As Isaiah puts it in 8:19ff.:

"And when they shall say to you,

'Seek to them that have familiar spirits,
and to wizards that peep, and that mutter' :

should not a people seek their God?
should they seek on behalf of the living to the dead?

"To the law and to the testimony:

if they do not speak according to this word,
it is because there is no light in them. "

Why seek for dead things where the living is required ? Is it not as in the tomb when the disciples were told by the angel,

"Why do you seek for the living among the dead ?
He is not here, but is risen" (Luke 24:5-6)!

There is a derisory, a derogatory splendour in both the invitation and exhortation to seek to their God, and the negative, NOT to seek to the dead on behalf of the living.

Then this same challenge was uttered in the face of the divine incursion into history to the Cross, encapsulated in the format of man as the Christ, offering Himself as the living, before Abraham was, and the living, after death came, rising in precisely three days from the dead in a world of space-time dimensions, where these we inhabit, to these He came, and these He overcame on our own behalf!

Here then Christ came, in the most staggering wonderful act of all time, its motives singular, its performance perfect, its naturalness such as only the supernatural God could achieve in the world He made, its results its testimony. Here was the climacteric event, for which all else panted and longed, where judgment is covered, death's sting is removed and the victory of hell is quashed, by the living God for the living who seek Him and for all who find Him where He MAY be found! (Isaiah 55). .

Earlier, to Israel, it was in the same principle; here put by God into salient practice! Always the same, the Lord presents life, just as He made it in the first place, and life must seek life, even His! That is the point, not some opposite desecration of truth and witless substitute for thought.

What else ? Otherwise life would be stranded, in His image but without His presence. He however has made it easier, having come; but man is where he is, and needs to come, and seek the living in life, not in the dead prognostications of varied insulations from God, often masquerading as if they related to Him in ways other than those of rebellion!

In Christ, God was present and accessible direct. The word was divine, final, the way was as declared, immediate. It is no different now. What then does God say in the Bible, that book of verity, verification and unique validity ? He declares Himself, His salvation, His redemption, alone given from Himself, in the One sent to do it, in His Word equal with Himself, who is the Redeemer, issuing from Himself, in glorious trinitarian majesty, to redeem! (cf. Isaiah 48:16).

That is the part found in Isaiah 8:18, as Hebrews points out, a Messianic reference (2:13). It is not Isaiah in some pseudo-messianic role who is referring to himself like this:

"Here I am and the children whom, the LORD has given me!
We are for signs and wonders in Israel from,
the LORD of hosts, who dwells in Mount Zion."

This segment between Isaiah 7 and 9 is dealing with one more impact from the coming salvation and Saviour; indeed just here is the approach to the gloom at the end of Ch. 8, the anguish leading directly and connectedly on to the light of the Lord in the babe, focussed in the next Chapter, to which this is the spring-board.

Endless pre-occupations with human resources again mars Israel, and it is the Lord and His children on the horizon now, which are to be signs and wonder; for the gloom is to go and the bright light of glory as in Isaiah 9:1-3, is to come, even to Galilee, and it is this group, the Lord who speaks, and His children, joint signs and wonders as in the surrounding chapters, who again appear here.

As the ONLY GOD is saviour and redeemer, and Christ is in Himself, Saviour and Redeemer, paying in the coin of His own life (Isaiah 53:6,8,11), He is God, who alone is and does this; so that just as the same applies to Him as Creator (cf. Isaiah 43:10-11, 53:1-12, 44:24, 45:18,21-22, 46:9-10, Colossians 1:15). He is by name, nature and standing, God. It is essential to understand this revelation, this deposition, this testimony of the incarnate Christ, of the prophecies preceding Him, of the state of man in sin. There is simply nothing else testable, verified, of the dimensions of deity in effect, available for comparison. What then ? It is this, as found at the end of our current text in Isaiah 8, in verse 20..

"To the law and to the testimony:

if they do not speak according to this word,
it is because there is no light in them. "

There are in this, no gradations. You take God at His word, and by His works (as in John 14), or you do not. One is to take Him at His word; the other to make of Him a liar. Hence the divergency between those for and against, is not like that between those preferring cheese and those meat on their sandwiches. It is that between light and dark, joy and gloom reality and afraud (I John 4:1-3, 2:22-25).

It is not then difficult. He became a babe. His rule comes from One who became man. It is at hand, these signs and wonders are in focus. How then not call! Should not a people seek to the living ? should they then seek to the dead on behalf of the living! How ludicrous! Such is the impact.

Creation, accordingly, prior to His incarnation, it is what that eternal Word of God wrought (cf. Proverbs 8, John 1:1, Colossians 1:15, John 1:1-3); and the Creator is God, and there is no other! The word become flesh is declared definitively as deity, just as the Lord has declared Himself in written words (Hebrews 1) for so long. He, the living, the revealing, the expressive and the expressing is to be sought, not some dead invention of flesh, some demi-god or idolatrous construction of mind, spirit or society.

This is the emphatic, dramatic, direly direct and re-iterated biblical message: there is none in heaven like God! (Psalm 89:6, Jeremiah 10:6, Isaiah 46:9). Creation, salvation, HE ALONE performs. From Him comes the earth, from Him man, from Him his salvation! God is one, and Christ is His eternal expression, in the heavens, sent to earth, accomplishing the Gospel in Himself, sending forth the Spirit from the Father (John 15-16, 17:1-3, 8:58, 5:19-23, Isaiah 48:16). That, it is God!

He even gathers His children, His disciples, is even on earth for some years, signs and wonders, He as God and they as called and enabled by His presence (as in the missions of those sent out, in Luke 9 and 10).

There, in this living One, it is there that people should seek, not to the dead! It is this living water that is to be found, not the dead and desultory dead waters of brackish philosophy and confounded culture!

16)

§Isaiah 9:3

"You have multiplied the nation but not increased the joy;
They rejoiced before You
According to the joy of harvest,
As men rejoice when they divide the spoil."

There are several excerpts to follow from Bible Translations Ch. 8. In this case, they have addition or change as best meets the case for this version of Translations, perhaps more than usual.

We learn, as the prophet Isaiah in Ch. 9 builds his presentation from the Lord from this dimness of anguish and this unhallowed gloom to the liberty of light, that it is in Galilee that the specific brightness will shine. Upon them is highlighted the incandescence, and for them is a vast relief provided. As Matthew 4:9-13 shows, this was precisely where Christ settled, filling the seaside environment and scene with mighty works, and refreshing it with astonishing words that gripped and delighted many (cf. the impact in John 7:40, Luke 4:22, Matthew 7:29), leading to life and power in grace, healing and joy in fellowship with the Lord.

This is said as to locale, for the word of God is habitually specific, testable, instructive, dealing with the world which God made with the precision with which He made and the particularity. With this, He also has provided principles of interpretation and understanding with which to live in the beauty of holiness within it. However, what is to occur in this predicted locale to which the Messiah duly came, and in what sort of way will this light illuminate ?

In Isaiah 9:3 we learn, in the kethib, or written text as handed down, the Massoretic text, that

§ "You have multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy.

"They rejoice before You
According to the joy of harvest,
As men rejoice when they divide the spoil."

The point of textual interest here is the NOT, before the joy. While Symmachus, the Vulgate and the Massoretic text, that place of careful presentation and preservation, all have "not" increased, yet the Syriac and Targum have no 'not'. Many efforts have been made to comprehend how the 'not' could be there. What, some ask, could this mean ? It is always wise, in such a case, to cling to the objective evidence and to the site of maximum application of scholarship, without regard for the alien concept that God did not bother, and to find where one can, the interpretation without invention, or following other lines just because the meaning is not at once apparent.

It is the case with much that is passed on, even in contemporary terms, that a little thought is needed.

Especially is this so when there is in the context a movement of light and shade as here, a maximum of contrast and an ebullience of joy, as the coming wonders render the more abysmal the deceasing sorrows.

What then is to be said about this text as above cited ? What does it mean ?

We have, in the Chapter 9, just found that the great light has shone, so that in the intense darkness with its threatening depth of death looming in prospect, dismal in retrospect, there comes a vast change.

Now in Isaiah 9:3, we are being given a partial recapitulation. It is not being said that the nation has been increased with joy, even though it was in gloom! It is not being said that they rejoice before God, who were in dull constraints! The whole nation is not about to rejoice, for the death of Christ at its hands rapidly approaches (Isaiah 49:7). That! it is the delight of those to whom the hand of the Lord is to be revealed in Christ (Isaiah 53:1). "To whom is the hand of the Lord revealed ?" asks the prophet. In the succeeding verses of that chapter, as he outlines the failure to follow the Lord when He came, there is acute grief, alleviated and indeed transformed only in Christ's triumph through death to life.

As to those receiving Him, however, it is to them that the joy comes (Isaiah 55:1-5, 61:10). That is singular not universal. The gloom that preceded is not receding for the nation which betrayed Him, nor was the method of redemption delightsome but dire. As far as the NATION is concerned, that political setting and authority-structure which governs, there is ANYTHING BUT JOY, for they are not only blinded by the said authorities AS A UNIT, as a going-concern in itself, but about to EXHIBIT that blindness for all to see for millenia to come. Further and indeed, they are not about to relent AS A NATION (which is the point in the text at issue) from what they did till judgment so comes to the Gentiles as well, that it is all or nothing, Messiah or ruin for them all. Small wonder the targum of tradition leaves out the NOT.

The nation ? joy! what a misnomer that would appear to have been, and how understandable in a realm where lips honour the Lord, but the heart is far from Him (Isaiah 29:13), where in contrast to the coming Messiah, to be abominated by the people (Isaiah 49:7 at His time) is the suggested alteration of the Q're or suggested version. In heart, in the relevant part, nationally those who are to be filled with something when they kill Christ - but it is not joy - are taking this fateful step because of their spiritual sleep.

"They are drunk," says Isaiah 29:9, "but not with wine.
They stagger, but not with intoxicating drink.
For the Lord has poured out on you the spirit of deep sleep,
and has closed your eyes, namely the prophets,
and He has covered your heads, namely, the seer.

"The whole vision has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed ..."

It is not at all the message of Isaiah that the nation is now to become great: both multiplied and increased with joy. On the contrary as in Isaiah 7, an amazing obtuseness is seen in Ahaz in Isaiah's own time, and a parallel deplorable failure is coming when

· "He is despised and rejected by men" and

"We esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God and afflicted",

so that

"we hid, as it were, our faces from Him" (Isaiah 53).

Alas, as we see in Isaiah 30:8ff., a vast blindness faces the light, though not few are those who come to Him, and it has an age-long continuity. It is in this that the Messiah is seen as near as in Isaiah 8:16-18 (cf. Hebrews 2:13), where the 'children' with Him (Isaiah 53:8-10) in this one of many parallel focuses on Him, are indeed to be signs and wonders, from the only source of wonder. One reason for this 'wonder' is His power, but another is the unbelief of the many, to whom they signal but in vain! for whom the apostolic caress of truth with courage in the very FACE of the nation is singularly strange.

What then ? It is, contextually this that is being said: Grief awaits the nation, where joy beckoned, to one and to all!

"YOU have increased the nation," and it is true that as you down history from Isaiah towards the coming of Christ, with the Maccabees there was some pomp and a restoration of more of Solomon's Empire than at any other time; but alas with what a series of shames, shams and shambles all this had become associated. From the divine light the nation is as an authoritative unit, largely dissociated, though here and there is your Nicodemus and your Joseph of Arithmathea. Do we not read in Acts 13 of the reaction of the Jewish contingent when both Jew and Gentile are surging about in the melee of the second Sunday of the apostle's presentation, and with envy and blasphemy it appears the line of Jerusalem the betrayed, is followed there. Moreover, even in Thessalonica to which Paul and his contingent speedily went, that surge came down from Pisidian Antioch, to turn them against Paul.

Indeed, in I Thessalonians 2:14-16, Paul itemises something of the assault suffered from that source, declaring alas of those so standing with the error of their nation that they were "forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to filll up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost." The nation ? oh no, there is no joy relative to the Messiah as His arrival is prophetically made a matter for intense rejoicing within the land, for those who have indeed seen the great light! While the expanded nation did not increase its joy (as one might indeed have hoped, after so long a time presented with so great an opportunity, a fact on which Christ mused as in Luke 19:42ff.), yet as to those who "have seen a great light," their eyes not closed. As a result of their grievous hostility to their own Messiah, for them and the Gentiles as well (Isaiah 49:6, 42:6), as in Psalm 69:19-23, their eyes are judicially closed.

Their hardened hearts and pitiless passion have led in the end, where the action is, to the Lord's closing their eyes which they had themselves so tightly shut for so long (as is a generic for all men, to be faced with fear because of irrational rejection of the Lord - II Thessalonians 2:4-10), so that although indeed the LIGHT SHINED, yet what good did that do to the spiritually drunk, those tipsy concerning the truth as in Isaiah 29 ?

The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light, but not yet, in the day of advent here celebrated by Isaiah prophetically, not yet is the nation in view in this light from which, as a political entity, it has abstracted itself. But as to those who HAVE seen a great light, including such as the apostles and the multiplied thousands of Jews who joined the Church in Jerusalem after and during Pentecost, "THEY rejoice before You according to the joy of harvest ..." for to them in their hearts, as ultimately after a long time (as in Hosea 1 and 3) to a great multitude in Israel far later, it has come. THEY HAVE SEEN A GREAT LIGHT, and whether it be Jew or Gentile, it is indifferent: in this, WHEN it happens and you DO see, it is then that you rejoice, looking ahead to the millenium of Isaiah 11, 65, Micah 4, Revelation 20, where indeed, not only in one's own heart, but in this globe, "the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of God as the waters cover the sea." There the Messiah rules outwardly as now inwardly, and whether in the one or the other, such is the joy.

II)

Now it is one thing if the earth is plagued because of its iniquity, but quite another when it is plagued BY it! It is one thing to receive atrocity from without, another when it is sought from within, amid confusion and unbelief, and that cry is heard!

At the end of Ch. 8 leading into Ch. 9, where he characterised what would be the plight of the people in that time when Christ, God incarnate, would come on the scene (cf. Psalm 102:16-22). It was like this:

"And they will pass through the land hard pressed and famished, and it will turn out that when they are hungry, they will be enraged and curse their king, and their God as they face upward. Then they will look to the earth, and behold, distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish, and they will be driven away into darkness. "

Thus the prophet, just before the above description of the plight of the gloom-encircled people, made a martial spiritual cry, not for blood but for truth:

"To the law and the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word,
it is because they have no dawn" (NASV).

The people, then, had in large measure forsaken the only God who can do things and speak as He will do, do as He has spoken, by verifiable testimony, as exhibited in the case of Israel exhibited in so many ways and functions, facilities and cases that the failure to trust was like that of a mathematician deciding to stop using 2+2=4 any more, in favour of an intellectual trip. The results of such disfaith (cf. SMR pp. 172, 774, 999-1002C) were co-ordinate with such a vagrancy, for Israel. Dimness of anguish ensued; nor are they alone, for many civilisations have gone from the obvious facts of God, to the severe and astringent, to that repressive of reality and not the expressive, to the human inventions of wrath and horror, where little pundits of people push, moguls of repression force their evil mental lusts in the name of God, by blasphemy, onto the people. There they routinely put their victims, sometimes tabbed as whole nations, as the case may seem to require, into a well of horror, like those feeling the clammy flesh of snakes in dark pits.

So do humans invent their decline, and decline with their inventions, whether Jew or Gentile, throughout most of history, just as Solomon so wisely expressed it in the book the Lord gave him (Eccles. 7:29):

"Truly, this I have found,
That God has made man upright,
But they have sought out many schemes."

· Yet in Isaiah 8, we are not left with this derelict hulk of humanity, like a rotting boat, in the first place hired by criminal smugglers, people smugglers, wanting to profit in some way, in libido, in macho satisfaction, in money, in power, in importance, in management superiority, in dream fulfilment or whatever, by mismanaging the lives of others. Subjugation by sin is the theme at the end of Isaiah 8, so the anguish is there, and the matter starts thus; but far better is to come. Meanwhile, the case is very much along the false prophet lines of Jeremiah 23, as they push people as if they were chips in the palaces of sin (Isaiah 8:19-20), the cabarets of unrighteousness, the dream worlds of money, the casinos of corruption.

· Sad, however, as is the plight of the Jewish people there depicted, the joy impending is even greater. So does Isaiah 8 move to Isaiah 9.

It may be thought that no greater joy could be found, to offset upward, what that gloom beforehand, had provided downward; that no delight could possibly be greater in kind than that misery: and often man in his hopelessness of spirit, finds this thought. It is however not so.
Just as live birth for joy is so far beyond the sorrows of child bearing and labour, the weight and the sore back, the loss of food in morning sickness, the troubles and uncertainties of the pregnancy, and the intense pain of actual emission of the child, so these other 'problems', after God Himself is met, seem as dreams in the night. Compared with the joy of the result of labour, a boy or a girl, a real living person, so here the pains and pangs recede into the wonder of the light, where the burden is light and the yoke easy.

THE PLIGHT BEFORE THE LIGHT

The people, we now read in Isaiah 9, who walked in darkness have seen a great light.

In that former gloom, a glimmer would be relished. However in fact, in the bounty and purpose of the living God, who does not willingly afflict the children of men (Lamentations 3:33), it is a great light. It is in fact from the domain of infinite knowledge, love and power, from the Creator Himself. As if this were not enough, it IS the Creator Himself, we find, in human form!

There is a GREAT LIGHT. That is wonderful. It is not finished yet. There could be one not seen, but here many see it, for "the people who walked in darkness have seen a great light." Some with eyes shut (Isaiah 6) might not see, but the light is exposed to all.

It is to be noted that we are now moving in the vision into the day of Jesus Christ, and the emotional, factual, historical changes and the situation at hand.

This marvel of might and gift of grace now comes into the life of the land. It is not pretended that the anguish and the desperate plight of spirit were not enormous. It is not that the grief did not cover the soul like barnacles on the laden prow of the ship, making it clumsy, hard to manoeuvre, dirty and laden with filth. It is just that the LIGHT to come makes the darkness to go look like a mere introduction to a book. It was there, to be sure, and the question of the point and meaning of the book seemed perhaps oppressive, but now, look, it is clear and arresting. No longer is one considering the preliminaries: suddenly the plot is pulsing with life, the development is gripping in its force, the imagination whetted, one proceeds to read like a ship in good wind under sail.

GLOOM OF ANGUISH is now replaced by the force and pregnant meaning of A GREAT LIGHT (Isaiah 8:22 to 9:2). As in Isaiah 4:6 and 32:2, a great, a mighty rock appeared, refreshing and restful, sure and majestic, dominating the dithers and littlenesses of life, providing shelter and strength, so here in the gloom of oppressed mind and spirit, a great light provides the power to see, to know, to understand, to go with confidence, to see the truth and perform in it, and access accomplished by His divine grace, to perform in it, what is right.

Reviewing in Isaiah 9:1 the troubles of the northern area of Israel in Naphtali and Zebulun, and coming thereby to GALILEE, the prophet then presents AT THAT SEASIDE LOCATION as epicentre if you will, this simple contrast between what was, and what is coming (and now has come according to the dating of Daniel cf. SMR pp. 886ff., News 87, *1, Biblical Blessing Chs. 1, 2, 6). That of course is the Messiah whose domain of service indeed centred not a little precisely in Galilee as thus foretold!

"The people who walked in darkness
Have seen a great light."

· Not satisfied with this declaration, the prophet is inspired to write the parallel:

"Those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death,
Upon them a light has shined."

Death has been like an exercise squad, the various ways of reaching it being like the individual exercises scheduled for the day. Life has seemed an oppression, an escapee. Now suddenly the dim objects of glum anguish are replaced in the great light provided by comprehension, and the dimness is dealt a death blow.

Not by killing is this accomplished, by vile violations of the human spirit in faith-manipulating violence, degrading and degraded, seeking to move a degenerated human heart by the idols of the nations, the false religions, for as the word of God declares, "all the gods of the nations are idols" (Psalm 96:5). That is, this light is for healing, and does not act for killing of the oppressed people, the doomed individuals, the pushed, prodded, deprived, often ultimately the self-deprived, whose delusions are the basis of their confusions.

Sin brings anguish in the end, and whatever the cause, the consequence is to be pitied. For many, the apparent 'crime' in the eyes of their human tormentors is to want to live in liberty, not die in the dungeons of this or that 'system of man' prescribing like a drunkard with dictates to the heart, derived from no source other than delusion.

Israel the nation did not accept the deliverance, the death of the Messiah being by that nation sought and acquired, not received in salvation as sacrifice for sin. Hence the joy in the nation was decidedly NOT increased; though in the lives of the believers, whom Isaiah focusses distinctively for example in Isaiah 53:1, there is all that the gift of this light intended. Not yet however is Israel, in terms of the prophecy, in that position; only the believers in this light are shown basking in its blessedness, as Isaiah 9:1ff. unfolds..

III)

In Isaiah 9:3 we learn, in the kethib, or written text as handed down, the Massoretic text, that

§ "You have multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy.

"They rejoice before You
According to the joy of harvest,
As men rejoice when they divide the spoil."

It is the case with much that is passed on, even in contemporary terms, that a little thought is needed.

What then is to be said about this text as above cited ? What does it mean ?

"The whole vision has become to you
like the words of a book that is sealed ..."

· "He is despised and rejected by men" and

"We esteemed Him stricken,

Smitten of God and afflicted",
so that

"we hid, as it were, our faces from Him" (Isaiah 53).

THAT is the NATIONAL SITUATION, far from joy in acceptance, rather in the onset, a gripping spasm of grievous rejection, mounting to the convulsion of preferring a murderer! That set the tone for some 1900 years, alas.

Indeed, as we see in Isaiah 30:8ff., a vast blindness faces the light, though not few are those who come to Him, and it has an age-long continuity. It is in this that the Messiah is seen as near as in Isaiah 8:16-18 (cf. Hebrews 2:13), where the 'children' with Him (Isaiah 53:8-10) in this one of many parallel focuses on Him, are indeed to be signs and wonders, from the only source of wonder. One reason for this 'wonder' is His power, but another is the unbelief of the many, to whom they signal but in vain! for whom the apostolic caress of truth with courage in the very FACE of the nation is singularly strange.

· What then ? It is, contextually this that is being said: Grief awaits the nation, where joy beckoned, to one and to all! WHO as in Isaiah 9:1 HAS believed our report. THAT is the question answered in the main as in Isaiah 49:7, that He was abhorred. Surely, it does not matter if you spill tea on a lady's frock, as a waiter, not especially, but if you throw the scalding fluid at someone's head, that is quite a different matter; and murder goes rather further in the same direction, a not very obscure proposition.

"YOU have increased the nation," and it is true that as you go down history from Isaiah towards the coming of Christ, with the Maccabees there was some pomp and a restoration of more of Solomon's Empire than at any other time; but alas with what a series of shames, shams and shambles all this had become associated. From the divine light the nation is as an authoritative unit, largely dissociated, though here and there is your Nicodemus and your Joseph of Arithmathea. Do we not read in Acts 13 of the reaction of the Jewish contingent when both Jew and Gentile are surging about in the melee of the second Sunday of the apostle's presentation, and with envy and blasphemy it appears the line of Jerusalem the betrayed, is followed there. Moreover, even in Thessalonica to which Paul and his contingent speedily went, that surge came down from Pisidian Antioch, to turn them against Paul.

The nation ? oh no, there is no joy relative to the Messiah as His arrival is prophetically made a matter for intense rejoicing within the land, for those who have indeed seen the great light! While the expanded nation did not increase its joy (as one might indeed have hoped, after so long a time presented with so great an opportunity, a fact on which Christ mused as in Luke 19:42ff.), yet as to those who "have seen a great light," their eyes not closed. As a result of their grievous hostility to their own Messiah, for them and the Gentiles as well (Isaiah 49:6, 42:6), as in Psalm 69:19-23, their eyes are judicially closed.

Further, Isaiah 26:12-18 has already, in the sequence of Isaiah's prophecies, shown the type of contradiction between the increased nation and its decreased spirituality, its natural fads, faults and decline, and its supernatural opportunities. Focussed in the babe of Isaiah 9:6-7, these are offered to all, but not received by all, whether in Israel or elsewhere.

There is as so often, on the one hand,

	the lasting joy of the elect (Isaiah 51:11, 49:6, 52:1), whose faith is resting in the "Rock of Israel," Isaiah 30:29, and not of Israel alone (Isaiah 49:6, 30:29, 32:1-4, 28:16, 44:8), in Him who is the truth;
	and on the other, the superficial strength, the actual shallowness of superficiality and unspirituality of disbelief, which faces a very different outcome!

That ? It is for those who, whatever their base and basis, code and conduct, tradition and hope, will not place their trust in the Lord (cf. Isaiah 30:15-17, 53:1,3), according to His word, or their sins in His atoning work in His incarnate Word, the Messiah, Jesus Christ, for annulment of guilt. Rather are they refusing to look for His return and resurrection of the body (Hebrews 9:28 and 2:1-3), their minds not ready for His shaping, that truth may become like a stream within, and peace like an atmosphere in love. Closely contrasted are these two groupings, again and again as in Isaiah 8-9, 26, John 3:15-19, Romans 5.

Yet, in time for many, this restoration through redemption to reality will come even in Israel, and indeed come in a great measure (Isaiah 30:18-21, cf. Romans 11:12,25ff.). Meanwhile, the division continues, as in essence to the end, it will, when at last the light becomes too brilliant for bearing and the darkness the wound of desolation, for those who do not believe in Him where faith flames into place, in Him who is the Truth, incapable of replacement, alteration or equivocation.

There is the light and the darkness; and what changes with the latter, and the body, as a nation, which emphatically and disparately DOES NOT! The topic being the light and the nation, the joy is NOT increased. So it is written.

This vast pit of division is seen in Isaiah 26:15:

the beaming concept of the grown nation, immediately followed by the dire plight of the sinning nation.

Here is exposed in fatal contrast, the lost loneliness of those who yet have not found HIM and the weed-crop diversion apparent at the end, sown at the first! The appearance and the reality, these swiftly follow one another in 26:15-18 like night and day. The parade is precisely as in Isaiah 8:22 - 9:2.

Then, once more without introduction, Isaiah 26:18 in its gloom, most suddenly reaches total transformation, in 26:19-21. There we find a call to "My people," to those His own. In this phase and focus, we come first to this culmination in and for His elect, triumphant in Christ only. Here in verse 19 is the physical finality of the bodily resurrection of the saints to come (Romans 8:30, I Corinthians 15:42ff.). This in turn is followed by the admonition to enter into the Rock to hide in 26:20-21, for safety; for now the Lord comes to exercise generic judgment on the earth. He then is the Rock for hiding indeed (Isaiah 32:1-4, 2:21), and the supervening source of spiritual life, as judgment flows out like consuming flames.

Overall, then: The unspiritual, the ungodly, the merely cultural and natural, these may swell, runs the divine message, their traditions may accrue, they may exult; but their disaster is selectively redeemed to triumph only by the Lord who comes in person, as in Isaiah 7, 9, 12, 22, 26, 32, 35, 49-55. Indeed, it comes only only through specific faith in Him as the babe born to die in manhood, and to bring in His own resurrection, and that of those faithful to Him.

It is a matter of continuing on, out of control, or else moving into His kingdom, through faith in Him whose actions are stated repeatedly, whose plan of salvation is focussed the babe, through whom alone is blessing for blight to come. Without faith in THIS ONE (Isaiah 53:1,10), there is nothing for lasting joy, and indeed then disaster continues, to the uttermost, the two opposites, conjunction with Christ the Messiah and disjunction, in acrid contrast.

This NATION! What is it at that time? (29:13-14, 30:8-13, 49:7), what sort of a spiritual relic had it become and would it, with chief spiritual symbols in abhorrent hands, with priestly matters in the chains of traditions, with politically expedient hereditary recipients of high priesthood, while noxious parties continued sparring, both wrong, both inflamed and inflated!

No! The case is as it is written. "You have increased the nation and NOT increased the joy!" Neither before nor in the time of Christ on earth is the whole nation changed. Its chastenings were to come!

Thus there is an intense NON-national stress. It is a nation increased in many things, in numbers, but not in joy. It is indeed in contrast to this only ostensibly pleasant and agreeable development of some new sort of significance that there is to come an acutely, a deeply and a definitively divine exhibition of the need of man, and its meeting, both. THIS, it is to be a delight above all! but not for all, for murder intervened, with the vast hinterland of political and ecclesiastical corruption so acutely envisaged and directly predicted from afar off (Psalms 2, 69, Isaiah 49:7, 50:4-8, Micah 5:1).

Hence we find as it is written in the Massoretic text:

"You have increased the nation,
But not increased its joy:
They rejoice before You according to the joy of harvest,
As men rejoice when they divide the spoil."

IV)

Very well: it is in 9:3 the case that the nation is by no means to be glorified. E.J. Young, that so delightful defender of the faith, has nevertheless erred here (in his The Book of Isaiah Vol. 1), in speaking of the nation as here being made 'great' as in the Abrahamic covenant.

Alas this is not the day of its greatness, of which Isaiah speaks in Ch. 9, but of its shame. Nor is it to become a national centre in THIS way of the new covenant, simply adding Gentiles to the Jewish core. It is emphatically and demonstrably NOT this nation (as shown with such intense stress and drama in Isaiah 65:13-15) which is to be added to, but rather subtracted from, and this spiritually! A new name arises (Isaiah 62:3, 65:13-15). It is that of the Messiah (and of course 'messiah-ans, or Christians).

While Israel spiritually lies in abeyance as the showcase for God (as in Isaiah 43:21, Romans 11:7ff, 11:25ff.), others follow the light, just as many from AMONG those of Israel, were like a vast invasion of the realm of darkness, brandishing the gospel like a sword, so much better than the blood-thirsty scimitar which was to come, and is to go!

It is a remnant from among Israel then which is in view as in Isaiah 8:11-18, 53:10, 11:10-11. It is brought as often into focus here in Isaiah 9 also.

The greatness of the nation was clear with David and Solomon, and in handing on the covenantal writings filled with the prediction of Christ, an amazing marvel of provision which the LORD chose them to hand on (cf. Romans 9:4-30). As for the nation, its spiritual day following the Christ is yet to come (as in Romans 11, when much of it is regrafted back into its own old Olive Tree!). It is not however in Christ's day as the Lamb on earth that its greatness is seen, though with some of them, a new tabernacle is built, that is, the Christ is given (cf. SMR pp. 1109ff.) and by many followed (as in Isaiah 4:6, 32:1ff.). Here, in the day of the Lord's ministry directly on this earth, the nation is as one entity, divorced from glory. From this, some separating in spirit, indeed rejoice, and HOW GREAT is this, their rejoicing!

But as to the nation, it wanders off into categorical rejection. Indeed, WHO has believed our report, asks Isaiah at the outset, and to WHOM is the arm of the Lord REVEALED! Indeed, "we esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted," in prophetic review.

Thus God had indeed, at this stage of the advent of the Messiah (around B.C. 4), increased the nation, but NOT increased the joy. This situation was set to continue and even intensify AS a nation, despite the great light, for a long time to come! and only then is the promise to come to pass for the nation, and that in two stages, geographically and then spiritually as specifically outlined in Ezekiel 37 (cf. SMR Appendix A, The Biblical Workman Ch. 1).

The restoration to joy for the nation has STILL to come as in Zechariah 12:10ff.. But it WILL come, in its day(Romans 11:25), at the right time, and then indeed it will be applicable; but that is far off from the prophecy of Isaiah in Ch. 9.

THEN, as Paul declares, there will be joy indeed; for, he writes as led of the Lord,

"For is their being cast away is the reconciling of the world,
what will their acceptance be but life from the dead !" (Romans 11:15).

THE FORCE OF 'FOR'

The term FOR is repeated in monumental grandeur in verses 4, 5 and 6, like one of the musicians filled with the desire for and delight in some phrase or melody, adorning it and repeating it, involving and intricately linking it here and there, leading to a climax of invention.

The music here is of great joy. Those whose eyes are enlightened by the light, being not shut as with so many (as Isaiah specifically prophesied, and was critically anointed to prophesy in 6:10ff, with such DISASTROUS consequences for the nation): and while this occurs individually, it is indeed in considerable multitudes that they are awakened. These ? they have MANY reasons for this joy!

The parallels of harvest and spoil are invoked in Isaiah 9:4-5. It is indeed the ULTIMATE harvest, come after long awaiting: it is the MESSIAH! It is the ultimate treasure, GOD WITH US! It is what Ahaz (as shown so nearby in Isaiah 7) had missed through subtle spiritual obfuscations and diplomatic substitutes for spiritual truth, so failing to receive the blessing. In a sort of spiritual regicide, or suicide, Instead of finding his own place in the preliminaries to the Messiah, and securing blessing for his generation in some further preliminary ways, in the power of Him who would come, indeed finding deliverances immeasurable (as in 7:11), he acted with such spiritual chicanery that it was as if he wearied God (v. 13). What a king!

"Hear now, O house of David!" the Lord responded.

"Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also ?"

The coming of the Messiah was therefore and thereupon given as a sign to a generation closed to the glory! It would come, when He was ready (Isaiah 7:14ff. cf. SMR pp. 770ff.).

NOW in Isaiah 9, we are seeing what happens when He does come. How long, some 700 years since Ahaz, has been the waiting! How good therefore at last (Galatians 4:4, Daniel 9), is the coming. Moreover, it is to be very glorious for those who receive Him. Why ? It is going to have short-term and long-term effects. In the short-term, He is to be a shadow of a mighty rock, as in the long term (Isaiah 32, and 4:6) this and more, a splendid Majesty ruling on this earth for a period of vindication and decisive divine operation, so that it will be filled with the glory of God as the waters cover the sea (Habakkuk 2:14 and cf. Millenium in Indexes).

Now, He is to be a Temple. Indeed as in Isaiah 53, He came to become a High Priest and to offer Himself as the victim, the sacrifice, and to pray for those who so made Him. In this phase and style, there is to be such a rejection that it will be that He is as a nail cut off, or a stone inscribed with the sin which enables the just procurement of pardon (Isaiah 22:23, Zechariah 3:9); and this is specified in detail in Isaiah 53. But as to the image in Isaiah 22, WHO cuts ? It is the nation of Israel who does this. While His fall is the arising of many, the fall is in the short term, tragic, indeed calamitous for Israel. To those who believe the report of Christ as God on earth, there is indeed joy; but to the nation, the nadir, the denial, for any joy was short-lived as the schemers moved and the people were sedated into sinfulness, and then aroused into storms of evil. Certainly NOT increased is the joy for THAT entity. The AV indeed does a good job in preserving the Massoretic text here. Praise the Lord for their stability in the matter.

As Christ put it (Luke 23:28ff.), if in the green tree they do this to HIM, what will be the state of the art, of the world, the character of the situation when the Age ends! That, it is coming and it is nearly here. It is not so delightful to anticipate as was His coming; but for His own people, it is a just joy and a delightful prospect. Blessed are those who eagerly expect His return, as Hebrews 9:28 expressly declares!

No, though this be so, it was far from a pleasant prospect for the nation of Israel as it set about His crucifixion with all the preliminary trimmings (as in Luke 11:53-4 for example). It was hardly a glorious time for them; though their time will come. In the meantime, it is a glorious time for those among Israel and elsewhere (Isaiah 49:6) who have eyes for the LORD, above all as leader of life and Saviour of the soul (Isaiah 54); though in His own timing and sequence, He is indeed to be bringing deliverance to Israel, most notably in spirit (Isaiah 66), but yes, in national entity relationship as well (Micah 4, Isaiah 2).

That however ? Only after a most painful interlude! A tragic time is to intervene (Isaiah 49:7). and a chaste one is to resume (Isaiah 19:24). ONLY GOD will get glory in that day (Isaiah 2:17 - cf. the end of Age indices in Isaiah 24).

But what! It is joy indeed to the remnant, to the residue^*2, to the elect of Israel when the Messiah comes, born of a virgin, exhibiting the Father, the Mighty God, the Counsellor. What joy, what nectar, what wisdom, what wit, what imagination, what knowledge, what power to speak, to penetrate, to deliver, to heal, to pardon, to act. The YOKE is to be broken, and is it not the same yoke as in Isaiah 61, part of which was quoted by Christ Himself at Nazareth (Luke 4)!

"The Spirit of the LORD God is upon Me,
Because the LORD has anointed Me
To preach the good tidings to the poor:
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD,
And the day of vengeance of our God,
To comfort all who mourn,
To console those who mourn in Zion,
To give them beauty for ashes,
The oil of joy for mourning,
The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness:
That they may be called trees of righteousness,
The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified."

It is a spiritual joy as in Isaiah 61:10:

"I will greatly rejoice in the LORD,
My soul shall be joyful in my God,
For He has clothed me with he garments of salvation,
He has covered me with the robe of righteousness,
As a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments,
And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels."

It is "righteousness and praise" which are to appear before the nations!

It is however not a case of competition. All elements occur in their time. The spiritual is assuredly as always, primary; but the details of the word of God, in the world which He made, these also are spiritually relevant. This emphasis^*2 includes such non-details as covenantal faithfulness, on the part of Him whose name is "faithful and true" (Rev. 19:11). To do and to to fulfil is to attest His own reliability (cf. Ezekiel 36-37). Thus the little points to the great, and the conscientious to the incomparability of His faithfulness.

The point remains: it is all to happen, but all in its time as Romans 11 makes so nobly clear (cf. The Biblical Workman Chs. 1, *3, and 3, *1).

I7)

Isaiah 9:6-7 with 7:14

§For to us a child is born,
To us a Son is given;
And the government shall be upon His shoulder.
And His name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor,
Mighty God, Everlasting Father,
Prince of Peace.

"Of the increase of His government and peace,
There is no end.
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order and establish it
with judgment and justice
From that time forward, ever for ever.
The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this

We turn then to ISAIAH 9:6-7.

We find that the sort of transformation to be effected through this now much focussed CHILD is to be characterisable by relief from oppression of heart, light for the soul, stimulus to the mind, the occasion of immense, intense rejoicing. In Isaiah 61, we find it is to involve "beauty for ashes" and deliverance from "prison", but in its rejection, destruction. It is to be like the Jewish JUBILEE period (cf. Leviticus 25), only spiritually, for then debtors could be loosed, but now spiritual indebtedness to God is covered, pardon is presented to faith through redemption (as in Isaiah 52-53), and it is FREE (Isaiah 55), without price or money.

The reason for this is noted in Isaiah 9:6. It is a concern of a CHILD BEING BORN. It is a matter of a spiritual scion, indeed God with us, as in Psalm 45, where the throne concerned is statedly the very throne of God (cf. Hebrews 1:8). THIS is the nature of this CHILD. Small wonder it is to be born in spectacular disregard of ordinary nature from a virgin, a simple girl, for the Father is none other than GOD.

Thus we find that there is immense focus on the NAME of this child. In the Old Testament, names indeed tend to do something modern science does: provide a CHARACTERISATION of that to which they refer. They can act almost as if definitive tags.

The name then, as for the case of the prophet's own child which we noticed,
is of signal importance. We have seen the name of judgment to come, so what of this one ?

First, it is apparent that it is a regal personage, for "the government shall be upon His shoulder". No cabinet is involved; the power and the right is HIS OWN.

What then will be the name by which He is to be called ?

With due reference and respect to the miraculously announced birth to come of Samson, it is the very word which was used by the angel of the Lord when he spoke of Samson's miraculous power and amazing conception, to Manoah (Judges 13). What is YOUR NAME ? asked Manoah of the angel. Why ask, since it is WONDERFUL ? replied the angel.

This then is a designation for the Lord, as implied likewise in Psalm 72:18, which is the very psalm (Messianic) in which the redemption BY the promised descendant of David, and His mercy, kindness and compassion, combined with regal rule, is displayed as on a screen!

"HIS name shall endure for ever,
His name shall continue as long as the sun,
and men shall be blessed in Him"
(as in the promise to Abraham, of Genesis 12).
His shall be "dominion also from sea to sea",
"yes, all kings shall fall down before Him;
All nations shall serve Him."

This then is the ONE.

His name shall be called WONDERFUL, but also COUNSELLOR.

own earth and future and hope (cf. Romans 1:17ff.).

Thus in Isaiah 40:13--23), we see the Lord on earth as the Shepherd, the One of whom the messengers are to say: "Behold your God!" (cf. Ezekiel 34, where the Lord promised to come personally as the Good Shepherd, cf. John 10).

Though man spoils the world, by contrast, the counsel of the Lord is to be focussed, featured and dispensed categorically through this CHILD. Thus in Isaiah 11, in its Messianic profile, we find this:

"The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him,
The Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
The Spirit of counsel and might,
The Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord...
He shall not judge by the sight of His eyes,
Nor decide by the hearing of His ears,
But with righteousness he shall judge the poor,
And decide with equity for the meek of the earth."

Indeed, "He shall strike the earth with the rod of His mouth," just as the Lord invoked the world into existence by His mouth, His speech, His word in the first place (as in Genesis 1), a fact so abundantly verified in the intense use of conceptual symbols and commands in creation, to an enormous extent (cf. SMR Ch. 2, That Magnificent Rock Ch.1.

In fact (as in Isaiah 10:21 where the Mighty God is shown to be the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY^*1), He is to be named likewise "the Mighty God". This is not surprising in the least, in view of Zechariah 12:10, where His death is accounted by the Lord as a death of Himself in human form, and Psalm 45, where His throne is that of deity; as of the fact that the birth via a virgin is to be so extraordinary a thing, while the name "God with us" already implies the cause of this phenomenon. Thus was God the Creator, bypassing the human mode of reproduction, directly causing His Son to be made from and in the maid (as in Luke 1:35, Matthew 1:20-23). Yes, as the angel told Mary, it was a case of this, "He shall save His people from their sins."

A look at Isaiah 52-53, that great repository of the Gospel some 700 years before the coming of the King, the Counsellor, the Prince of Peace (another of His titles in Isaiah 9), shows that this is precisely what He is to do. NONE among those of Israel could BEGIN to supply this need (as in Isaiah 41:26-29). Yet by brilliant and total contrast, the One to be effectual for the underlying and basic needs of His people would be not merely the adequate; not only would He DO, while none other would or could as Isaiah pronounces it so long ago: HIS life would be the one in whom the Father DELIGHTED; and HE would constitute HIS CHOSEN vessel, who would bring forth justice to victory, bearing with the slow, the infirm, the inadequate with masterly grace, patience and profound spiritual power (Isaiah 42:1ff.).

The "everlasting Father" is the next name accorded to Him in Isaiah 9. Since the throne of God is His, this is not new. However it IS singular to have the SON called the Father! It is less so when you realise that biologically speaking, there is no gender in heaven (Matthew 22:22-33). Hence precisely as announced in Luke 1:35, this son would be CALLED the Son of God BECAUSE of the overshadowing, generative work of the Holy Spirit. Always going forth with and from His Father (as the One whom He expresses with definitive perfection, spiritually - as in Hebrews 1, Micah 5:1-3), always that wisdom of God (as in Proverbs 8, I Corinthians 1:30 cf. Barbs, Arrows and Balms 28), the One sent AS God by GOD (Isaiah 48:16), it is He who can say (as He did), "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." THAT would have been virtually insane blasphemy if He had 1) had any sin 2) been less than deity 3) been other than the Word of God, His precise and definitive expression in the format of flesh, as a man to man (Hebrews 1, John 16:28, 8:42, 6:62, 3:13).

Thus, as of the status and stature of God (as in Philippians 2 where His form WAS that of God, which naturally no non-infinite being could comprehend, far less BE, so that equality with God was not something to be regarded as a gain), His lens to the Father qualifies HIM as able to bear such a title. Thus there is little so monumentally plain, in telling us humans NOT to imagine there is any barrier between us and God, when we belong to Christ the Lord and Saviour; for in Him, we are ALREADY THERE!

His name ? It has also this staccato exultation: "the Prince of peace". Not ANY prince of peace is He, but for peace, HE IS THE PRINCE. It is His and at His donation, it comes and stays (John 14:27).

By this stage we find that the "government shall be upon His shoulder" ( Isaiah 9:6), is paralleled by this, that "Of the increase of His government and peace, there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom" 9:7), and indeed, that this will be "to order it and to establish it with judgment and justice."

As befits an eternal Person, there is no terminus, for it is to be: "From that time forward, even forever", and God commits Himself to this display, doctrine and rule, in this way: "The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this."

No Ahazes could finally defer it, no Manassehs defile. God Himself (as in Ezekiel 34's explicit promise) would do it, even Himself, even to the death (Hosea 13:14). His determination is absolutely stressed in all this. For such a thing as to bear the sins which He abhors, in the Person He loved, for the sake of sinners, it is little wonder... The wonder is that He did it! That is ONE of the reasons why He is called, Wonderful. He IS.

III

ASSAULTS ON THE VERSES,
CO-ORDINATE WITH THAT ON CHRIST IN ISAIAH 53

COMEDY HAS ITS PLACE: IT IS NOT HERE

This Son is not only wonderful, as the Lord. He is intensely rejected by many, and no small abhorrence was it predicted to be, which gripped the nation (Isaiah 49:7). ABHOR is not too strong a word from the divine vocabulary. They killed Him (as in Psalm 22 also).

This rejection is a syndrome more prominent than any other disease on earth (cf. SMR Index, Rejection Syndrome).

Hence we find that this verse is attacked with a special relish. Efforts are made to demolish it, like an enemy division!

One such effort would have us take it to read,

The occasion, His birth, the results, utterly transformative for this whole earth, the name to accompany this occasion, focussed on this wonder as He on His vast functions through His calling and sending, leave this name rushing upwards and up, as if never to stop. Even the eminence of the Everlasting Father is not a thing to be contested, but as His are all that the Father has, so is His name of such an eminence as that, in its resurgences.

The deity of Christ is a natural for what hates God, since it presents Him in the cherishing love, crescendos of mercy and magnificence of self-humbling, even to self-sacrifice in the fleshly format, that is so irresistible to reason, and to what is not a contestant, without base or hope. One expositor of this passage of Isaiah 9:5-6, had this rendering to present.

"For to us a Child is born, a Son is given:
And the government shall be upon His shoulder,
And His name shall be called 'A wonderful thing is counselling the Mighty God, the everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government....' and so on. That of course is a ridiculously dysfunctional name, called by one commentator sesquipedalian, that is, like one and a half beats instead of just one.

This, like the crucifixion, cannot stick. Let us resurrect the fact. Let us look at the text, actually!

WHO is to have the government upon His shoulder ? The CHILD. WHOSE is to be the increase of government without end ? The CHILD. As WHAT is He to have such an increase ? As the PRINCE OF PEACE, so using His shoulder. What then is the meaning of the last of the titles in its end context ? This: 'Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government'. In other words, the context forces us to use the last of the NAMES with the succeeding context. This is for a Davidic Messiah on the throne as promised from II Samuel on, and manifested in detail in Psalm 72, Isaiah 11.

Thus the last name is that of a Person who is to fulfil the Messianic role, and have an eternal rule over the hearts and lives of His people (Isaiah 9:7). It is however impossible, going backwards, towards verse 6 above, to remove from this train, the preceding names. If it is the Prince of Peace who has this property and propriety, then it is true no less of the Everlasting Father, the Mighty God. These things are His cognomens, His characterisation. They cannot be removed.

It is of HIS kingdom there is no end, with peace eternal (Isaiah 9:7); and it is accordingly HIS NAME which is "prince of peace" (9:6), and for that matter, "the mighty God", as we there read, in perfect harmony with Psalm 45, and Hebrews 1:8, Philippians 2. The PRINCE OF PEACE designation requires the preceding names to be its company. The couples, or the sententious series in this name refrain are undivorceable, and this not only because if this were not so, it would be peremptory, arbitrary and intrusive, as if to presume some lapse in divine concentration, some carelessness in composition, some abstruse and unevidenced complexity of speech.

They are undivorceable likewise because it is a person who is promoted, exposed and exhibited, who though a child in coming, is yet ‘Everlasting Father’, for that Father is to perfection exposed by Him, and moves by and through and with Him (cf. John 14, Isaiah 48:15ff.). It is not per se a statement about the Father, but about the Son, His dealings and His advent, His Kingdom and His power, His future and His qualities.

The Father and the Son are not speaking as one Being, as in the mistranslation, but God is speaking about Father and Son, in terms of the name of the Son, followed by the works of the Son (Isaiah 9:7), and showing the total manifestation of the Father inherent in the Son, transmitted in human form, as appropriate, and to be manifested in the Son's rule of the eternal kingdom,.

What then ? There is no confusion except in the mistranslation, abortive, intrusive, eisgetical, irrational. This would leave this this assault, this time not on the body of the Lord but on the body of the book, as follows: "And His name will be called a Wonderful Thing is Counselling the Mighty God, the everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government ... upon the throne of David."

As at a great natural wonder, we regard this supernatural verbal-historical one. It is the Prince of Peace - with an everlasting Kingdom - which His name is to be called, and His power is to continue as in the thrust of Isaiah 9:6-7. The five great verbal columns of His name are both inseparable from each other and the last one, which refers to a human being on a throne, which has just been named, that of David. As the Prince of Peace has eternal rule, so the names conjoined to that in parallel with its force, position and ascription, are of the dignity of deity, yet gifted to One in the form of a man incarnate: God Almighty Everlasting Father. As to the latter, as Christ pointed out, He who has seen Him has seen the Father also, for all that the Father has, is His (John 14-16).

It is there, in Isaiah 9:6-7, that the Messiah is in focus, His works in view, His name announced with accolade, deposited in profusion. THAT, it is no scope and position for the Father to take, post to fulfil, become as in this false translation, but for the gift, the sacrifice, the ruler to come. It is for Him, both Son and Lord as God incarnate, of David to bring the glory of God to the earth (Psalm 110, Matthew 22:44). Is the Father to be counselling AS the Son ? No, the word of God instructs us concerning their relationship and actions. Why indulge in comedy! That would mean that the everlasting Father would be on the throne of David, in terms of this parade of spiritual squalor in the false translation...

Ponder anew. THAT, it is no name for the Father, as distinctive speaker, but for the Son as centre here of attention, Him whose kingdom shall know no end (Isaiah 9:7): for how would it be a specific for the Father when it is specialised in the precise person of the Son in this way! The Son may be (and is) elevated to this level, but the Father is NOT made to act in the specific actuality of the Son, becoming a Son of David. It would be simply untrue as well as unwieldy and dispersive of what is joined together in spirit, results and context.

Consider it historically in the Isaiah 7 setting. Names may be stacked, but persons do not act as BEING one another. Is the Father to be the son of David, sitting on the throne of David ? How far must confusion go ? as far as with Ahaz, who simply WOULD NOT ACCEPT plain dealing and unambiguous blessing from God, and who dared to pretend reason backed him, while false humility helped him to ruin his people by trifling with God. It was as if he were some magical modern theologian, inventing gods that are not there, and fittingly enough, failing to worship the gods he makes to the extent worshi9p of one's own creations can be more onerous than attractive, as well as most irrational.

In sum: It is not ONE Person exposed as taking upon Himself the name of ANOTHER, as mistranslation would have it, and as if it were the Everlasting Father BEING the Prince of peace, and so coming to take office on earth Himself! It is rationally rather ONE NAME for ONE PERSON, concerning the Son only as recipient, one who has the infinite criteria of deity. It is He who as Saviour and Son, possessing all the Father has (John 16:15), is thus having His deity displayed in exaltation. It is just ONE Person who on His birthday on earth, as a babe, is being given vastly important names, piled up even to the height of the Father, for discernment and realisation, just as Christ gently exposed the reality, so that faith m ight have its object at hand, believed in heart, in John 14:7-11.

Thus the virgin does indeed beget GOD WITH US. It is not a confused medley of two persons, but a simple donation of One of incalculable eminence whom God so designates, just as in Psalm 45. It is the eternal Word translated through the virgin to the virtue of office, God as man to deliver man.

But let us question. What then could be both "everlasting Father" and "Prince of peace", as a man? nothing could have both except an incarnation, express and unique, categorical and complete, depictive and declarative of God without essential diminution... indeed, without being such as Paul describes in Colossians 2:9 as a matter of fact - "in Him was the fulness of the Godhead in bodily form." Despite irrational efforts, this remains what is taught, wriggle as any may.

For this incarnation, then, the context of Isaiah more broadly asks, as indeed does that of the prophets; and Isaiah 7 gives the medium. This is met by the young damsel, the virgin it is, the one without whom genuine incarnation could not occur: the incarnation which is so often assumed, but now as in Jeremiah and in Micah 5:1-3, is spoken of in more terrestrial terms. This is how and through whom the Christ of the Psalms and the prophets (Psalm 40 tells us that a body is to be gained by the One who is to dispense with sacrifices), is to gain that body, which as man on earth He would need to have. Not through a splendid creation of a new frame without man; but through woman will this Messiah come. This Immanuel is the crux.

Let us then pursue this parallel to Isaiah 9, since Isaiah 7 and 9 are like twins here.

Hence THE virgin is announced with the clarity of mid-day sun overhead in the open fields; the virgin whose offspring had been so long predicted, the seed on its female side, of woman, whose heel would be bruised in crushing the serpent's head (Genesis 3:15). There is exactly no other specific for the "THE" which signalises, except the signal given, which is 'God with us', through the medium of the one chosen to bear His incarnate form.

Let us move further. There is then simply no other option but something like Jeremiah's "new thing" (31:22) and at that, a new thing in the world. What was that? "A woman shall encompass a man!" This is in the context of a change from catastrophe and calamity, in the midst of tender and solicitous divine love and appeal, leading to incalculable blessing. The term 'encompass' is, as Harris and Archer point out in their Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, related to concepts of damming, shutting up, encircling, being shut up to something so that it is all around you, as to God's will for our life. The totality of word and context indicates categorically a human prodigy of divine basis which is transformative of malignancy to benignancy, in the love of a tender and seeking Father.

This therefore is precisely what we find in Isaiah 7, with the differences noted, and this we discover in particular: that this blessing is delivered to unbelief; for the day of its coming is by the sovereign will of God. It fits magnificently with Isaiah 9, the whole gamut of revelation here dealing with the staggering in kind and in implication.

Thus Jeremiah adds to the total context also, despite great and intimate similarities between these contexts. In this case, the new covenant is spelt out (Jeremiah 31:31), seen alike with Jeremiah 31:22 as a new thing, in all its transformative, and inward wonder; and as a procedure for a new inward thing for all who receive Him. We are in the same transformative, infinitely sacred and vastly significant arena. The vistas merge both in content and uniqueness, in preliminaries and in results. As in the Isaiah 7 case, we marvel at the human vehicle in its providing certain convenient bounds to so amazing a result as this prince; in Jeremiah we wonder at the exclusion of the human male partner.

One deals with the inclusion of deity via roll call and result; the other with the exclusion of the human male, by method. Both share the consequences, the need and the prodigious character of the stakes, significance and wonder involved, with the intense blessing to come to those over whom this incarnate Sovereign will rule in peace with hearts who know this peace (Jeremiah 31:33-34, Isaiah 9:7).

In all this is this transcendent wonder and absolute novelty, the key, the king, the incarnate One, the penetration of God in Person into this realm, with uncontainable results.

In Isaiah 7, in particular, it is to be something so categorically different, celestially filled with initiative that even among signs it will have an initiative and wonder that will stagger. So it does and that is both the demonstration and verification. In Isaiah 9 the names themselves in their undivorceable integrity create precisely that duet: it is God who arrives, it is wonder He provides. Yes, the prophecy means just what it says: not in a common way, but in a unique and celestial way, which God only could do, there will be a sign among signs, reaching as we see in the outcome - up, upwards, as Isaiah offered to Ahaz in the sign available, yes up to God Himself and coming down to earth from God Himself, in a way that will spell categorical, absolute, spiritual and effective deliverance. This is what was offered to and missed through deviousness by what is here the anti-opportunistic, unbelieving, devious-seeming Ahaz (Isaiah 7:11).

The splendour of this thing in 7, as in 9, is illimitable, boundless, incomparable: those are its criteria, this is the offer to Ahab. And to this ? To this in the case of Isaiah 7, the king relates his negative to a divine offer in terms of a specious humility; a reckless, feckless word slips out, and he remains Ahab, the self-dumper, also peril to the nation!

Small wonder it is deemed a weariness (Isaiah 7:13) to the sparkling glory of the practical and performing divine love, to encounter this jesuitical (to allow the anachronism for the sake of the spirit of the thing, which matches to perfection) substitute for faith, on the part of Ahaz.

Thus there is simply no other meaning but that given by Matthew in rendering the prophecy. A young damsel is to be with child, without marriage and with morals. A donation of deity is to occur, as Isaiah 9:6 and Micah 5:1-3 make so clear, as does indeed Isaiah 48:16, in human format.

Similarly there is no other way to take Isaiah 9:6-7, not one member of the Trinity, becoming incarnate as Son, being called BY the Father, Everlasting Father; but one member of the Trinity in focus at His birthday, being given a name of such eminence as befits Him: for this is His name, and this is what He is to be called.

ANOTHER INEFFECTUAL ASSAULT ON THE TEXT

There is a second attack which deserves a brief reference. Jewish commentators, perhaps distressed by the result of rejecting the ONLY SAVIOUR (Isaiah 43:10-11), who is God and who is THIS CHILD (Isaiah 52-53), who by His knowledge shall justify many, and who shall bear their iniquities, have in effect acted as if to secure another invasion of the text. It is, if possible, one even more ephemeral and manipulative and what is actually written. What is WRITTEN in Hebrew order, is this:

FOR A CHILD IS BORN TO US, A SON IS GIVEN TO US, AND WILL BE THE GOVERNMENT UPON HIS SHOULDER, AND IS CALLED HIS NAME WONDERFUL, COUNSELLOR ETC..

How people under pressure can be ... pressurised into unwisdom! Thus the Targum suggestion is this:

"The God who is called and who is Wonder, Counsellor, the mighty God, the eternal Father, calls his name the Prince of Peace..." (Delitzsch, on Isaiah, p. 248).

As to the actual text (red print above), there is nothing unusual in principle about specifying the verb and then putting the all important word NAME right next to what the name in fact is, as you can see in the red print is what is in fact done in Isaiah. Nor is it unusual for emphasis to put the verb "will be" before the thing about to be revealed. We also can use inversion for emphasis.

Why the Targum should add "the God" and why they should transpose to the distance, "His name" way off to "PRINCE OF PEACE" when in fact it is next to "WONDERFUL", and so transpose what is statedly the 'name', put right next to the same, so that this irrelevant, intrusive, unwritten reference to the Father is forced in, like a carrot mark with text above, in defiance of the textual order and array, is a very interesting question! THAT it is wholly impossible, and not merely richly implausible follows from the simple fact that the word of God has to be taken as it comes, not where it is placed (Proverbs 30:6). That is precisely the work of tradition, as so perilous in Romanism, so that what is given is not what is gained! (cf. Mark 7:7). As the profoundly scholarly Delitzsch justly remarks of this particular effort by some Jews, "this rendering evidently tears asunder things that are closely connected".

Proverbs 30:6 condemns such gross additive fiddling with the word of God. Why not add a zero to a cheque figure, after all, for is it not a thing of nothing! EVERYTHING matters in an investigation, the more so of the word of the living God, and to intrude is to obtrude, to add is to be listed in the hall of infamy, of specified rebuke from God as in Proverbs 30.

IN THE END, when the text states clearly that this Messianic event is a prodigious coming, a transforming work of revelatory magnificence, is light in pitch darkness, joy in anguish, then the name being announced has portent. We expect to find what IT IS, with some expectation and excitement just after it is stated that "IS CALLED HIS NAME". To suppress the name in view of this impelling and obvious feature is mere obscurantism. It also leads to dispersion, disruption, collision and mangle, absurdity.

But that, it is precisely what happens when the Lord Jesus Christ, God Himself (as in Psalm 45, Zechariah 12:10, Psalm 2, Isaiah 43:10-11, 52-53, Micah 5:1-3, Isaiah 48:16, Zechariah 6:14, 3:9, 2:8, Isaiah 52-53 with 43:10-11, Psalm 72 with its redemption and with Hosea 13:14) comes into sight. He is nearly dropped over a cliff in Nazareth, His sweet place of youth, and dropped on a cross into the soil, perhaps jolted in the process, as a combined reaction and feed-back from the Jews of priestly dimensions and from the Romans, in the Governor. The Messiah (until His return shortly, Luke 21:24), is always heavily ABUSED, REJECTED (cf. Isaiah 49:7, 53:3-4, John 16:2, Matthew 10:24-25, John 15:20), and many of those who seem to receive Him, deceive themselves, following Rome or New Age or other name changes which merely disperse and disrupt, precisely the treatment accorded the text (cf. SMR pp. 864ff.).

In THIS case however, though the option is as brutal to the words as His assassins were to His body, it does not stand. It is error demonstrable, eisegetical and intrusive.

18) Isaiah 13:12

This text, in the NKJV has "mortal man" as that which is precious. However the Hebrew does not necessarily have this translation, and it does not satisfy all the components of the broader context. It is more "human" in the sense of mankind, on which the focus is made. The term "rare" again, has a strong connotation of "precious" as in the KJV translation of this passage. The word "man" on the next line is also one which has the sense of a son of man, of mankind, sons of Adam. It could be translated less intrusively by putting it:

§'I will make a human more precious than find gold,
a man more than the golden wedge..'

Now in Isaiah 28:6 we find this same word "precious" use of the great foundation stone, and that is of great contextual significance both as to language used and meaning in view (cf. Isaiah 11:2-4, 12:2, 40:10, 41:29-42:1, 49:6). Is it not the small valuing of HIM (Zechariah 11:12-13) at 30 pieces of silver, who is THE LORD \ the speaker there, which brings in the trouble to the uttermost? GOD is NOT mocked!

The sense here would appear NOT to be, that you will not find a man, except most rarely - for there appear numbers of them; but that a MAN a HUMAN, a member of this race as to form at least, will be precious, will be incarnation of God, will be rendered vulnerable, will be available. In view of what elsewhere in this book of Isaiah is shown of the infamous treatment accorded this precious cornerstone (as Isaiah 28:16 calls Him), there will indeed be a "shaking of the heaven", as the very next verse in Isaiah 13 tells us.

As Hebrews 12:25-28 puts it,

"For if they did not escape, who refused Him who spoke on earth,
much more shall we not escape if we turn away form Him who speaks from heaven "

It is only in the precious human, seeminglyl so weak, that the Lord is going to show mercy to Jacob (as in Isaiah 14:1, and persistently in Isaiah 22:24-25, 32, 40, 42, 49). It is one who comes as in Isaiah 9, prince of peace, who set amid all the turmoil of judgment, being precious, brings mercy.

19) Isaiah 23:13

This is a wholly fascinating piece of lyrical drama, flaming with judgment, ripe with message, incandescent with glory.

As E. J. Young points out in his work, “The Book of Isaiah,” Vol. 2, the ‘towers’ may be those of Tyre’s making or those of an enemy, assault towers. The context must show it. Again, the AV and NKJV ‘raised’ is better razed, or laid bare, as Young indicates, adducing the nearby Isaiah 32:11: this is contrary to both the AV and the NKJV but appears the common rendering, and for good reason. The translation appears, then, from this and in view of Delitzsch’s contribution (Commentary on the Old Testament – Isaiah Vol. 1), to be as follows: Behold the land of the Chaldeans:

§This people which was not,

Assyria founded it for wild beasts of the desert.

They set up its towers,

They laid bare its palaces,

He brought it to ruin.

The NJKV appears particularly misleading here, actually adding in italics an ‘and’ which assuredly is not in the text, but which, in the setting the translators here provide, appears to imply a plural subject: for those preceding the ‘and’ inserted, are plural. This however is not the case. As a basic datum one needs to know, it is singular. Italics should reveal the underlying next, but this does not do so.

What then is the sense ? It seems that the Lord, in full parallel to the whole chapter 14, is denigrating the lofty and presumptuous oppressors and haughty imperial magnates who multiply their own praise and significance. Thus though Babylon indeed is to assault Tyre and flout its glory, yet it is the LORD who will bring about Tyre’s desolation! It is HE who will bring it to ruin. Indeed, in the day of Alexander the Great this unqualified ruin, this utter ravishing occurred, when that conqueror took the stones from the coastal city of Tyre, in order to construct WITH THEM as building materials, a causeway THROUGH THE SEA thus allowing the conquest of the Tyrian State, removed in flight to the island adjoining.

Thus as Young appears to have in mind, it is from a series moving from a desert people, the Assyrians, that Babylon itself came to be.

Indeed, it is from such a non-glamorous base that assault comes, on the splendour of Tyre in its presumption. The point indeed is that it is the LAND of the Chaldeans, Babylon, which is statedly in view as a battering platform for Tyre, one that Assyria held and now Babylon; but even so, it is God who in the end did the final job on Tyre (through Alexander, in fact, later).

20)

Isaiah 26:19

§ Your dead shall live;
My dead body shall they arise.
Awake and sing, you who dwell in the dust,
For your dew is the dew of herbs,
And the earth shall cast out her dead.

The assertion is clear. It is as the dead body of the speaker, who of course is the LORD, that the people are to arise in the end of the Age. This is quite physical. They are seen as those who 'dwell in the dust'. "The earth shall cast out her dead!" Daniel presents precisely the same message in Daniel 12 at the end of the long-drawn out Age, before the coming of the King in His glory. The DATE (SMR pp. 886ff.) of the DEATH of the Messiah is presented on the one hand by Daniel 9, and the FATE of the unfaithful who reject the Messiah in Daniel 12, but that dulness of doom has this blessed addition. That ? It is the RESURRECTION to glory of those who are His! (Daniel 12:2, Isaiah 26:19).

This, then, in Isaiah 26:19, it is an end of the Age phenomenon. In fact, since Ch. 24 Isaiah has been dealing not a little with this phase of things. There has been a huge dynamic which deserves our attention now. It is not merely the END as in Isaiah 2, Micah 4, but something of the dynamics which concern it which are here revealed. So does Isaiah 24-29 provide a vast canvass, in parallel to the later developments of detail in 40-66, installing the buttresses of understanding for that latter end, in the initial phases of his predictions. The interplay is intense and immense, and the themes and dynamics move like flitting swallows, now here, now there, throughout this closely structured book, taking us with it like flight in the emigratory pattern of birds, until we nest down at the end, ecstatically content with our new place of settling, of understanding. Isaiah 24:16 is one of the mordant exposures on the way to the fuller presentation in Isaiah 50-53, while 24:19-23 deals with the judgment on the globe and the Lord's rule to come.

21)

Isaiah 33:6

§"Wisdom and knowledge will be the stability of your times,
And strength of salvation.
The fear of the Lord is his treasure"

Confessedly, this is one of the more difficult verses to translate. Both possibilities have much to commend them, and both interpretations are completely truth in themselves.

Our task however in approaching the scriptures in which God the Lord has reposed His word and revealed His will is not to have an uncertainty, as an aim, but to find what He means. It is as wrong to be brash in superficial opinionativeness, as to be lax as if there were no answer.

Thus Proverbs 8:8-9 has this incitement and invitation alike:

"All the words of my mouth are with righteousness;
Nothing crooked or perverse is in them.
They are all plain to him who understands,
And right to those who find knowledge."

Let us then seek the meaning in this verse, whether it be:

I) "Wisdom and knowledge will be the stability of your times,
And the strength of salvation.
The fear of the Lord is his treasure"

2) "Wisdom and knowledge will be the stability of your times,
And the strength of salvation.
The fear of the Lord is His treasure"

The difference, as far as English translation is concerned, lies in the capitalisation of one letter, the "h" of "his"!

Matthew Poole in his remarkable commentary is of the view that translation 1) above is correct: that is, that it is not "the fear of the Lord is His treasure" as in the NKJV, as if the One who is here said to treasure it, is the LORD; but shows that it is the one who fears the Lord to whom it is a treasure.

In immediate resonance with such a theme of course is Psalm 119:35-36:

"Make me walk in the path of Your commandments,
For I delight in it.
Incline my heart to Your testimonies,
And not to covetousness."

in association with vv. 47-48

"And I will delight myself in Your commandments,
Which I love.
My hands also I will lift up to Your commandments,
Which I love,
And I will meditate on Your statutes."

and with vv. 69-72

"The proud have forged a lie against me,
But I will keep Your precepts with my whole heart.
Their heart is as fat as grease,
But I delight in Your law.

"It is good for me that I have been afflicted,
That I may learn Your statutes.
The law of Your mouth is better to me
Than thousands of coins of gold and silver..."

It also tolls like a bell in carillon association with Psalm

"The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul;
The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple;
The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes;
The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever;
The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
More to be desired are they than gold,
Yea, than much fine gold;
Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

"Moreover by them Your servant is warned,
And in keeping them there is great reward."

In this last, you see the sense of treasure, no less than in the reference to its being more desirable than gold, sweeter than honeycomb, as well as in the relationship of the human soul to what God says, in this, that it is a clean 'fear' or awesome reverence. And why ? it is not least because it is a PURE commandment which enlightens the eye. What more of treasure then is in view! It is the very written word of the Lord whose living word has all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:9), and this word is an avenue of access, a call, an invitation and a place of empowerment in understanding, for it leads to Him to whom, from whom and for whom are all things, whether judgment or mercy, boon or blight. To know Him is beyond all blight, and past all discipline is the end of the matter, to know God as one's knows a friend, but more intimately and with total consummation of what one is made for, in Him who made in the first place!

Again, in Psalm 119:69-72, so great is the delight in the way, will, word and precepts of the Lord that though a lie be forged against his righteous zeal and path, though enticement or repudiation set in like black or acid rain, yet the law of God is better than thousands of gold and silver; and what is more, even the refinement of spirit which came to the Psalmist, in his afflictions and persecutions, are deemed to be 'good'. Why is that ? It is because it all brings out the wonder of the will, witness and way of the Lord in which one is enclosed. It rubs like polish on tarnished brass: painful but necessary that the truth of the metal be exposed and the wonder of light upon it be seen.

Here, yes here is a treasure incomparable, except of course in the very Person whose word it is; but then, as His direct product, His express and intimate, bold and clear revelation, it is like light on the countenance of the beloved, inseparable from the thing it reveals.

Thus IF you love Me, you will keep My words! is the very strong stress that Christ makes in John 14:21-23. "If anyone love Me, he will keep My words!"

So far, then, we have seen in what delicious intimacy with the surrounding arena of thought, lies this conception of the fear of the Lord being like a treasure to the man who loves Him, trusts Him, inhabits His presence and looks to Him, to His face for enlightenment and knowledge of His will and way. Just as in Isaiah 33:6, we find elsewhere in a strong salvation, in wisdom and knowledge, in stability, the surrounding arena of thought.

Now, far is this from suggesting it is not a treasured thing in the Lord to find the fear of the Lord, a thing quite apparent in the book of Job!

It is true that it is a thing of much value to the Lord that one should reverence Him and show the awe and adoration which is apt to His wonder and meet for the redeemed. It is not for one moment less true than that one treasures His fear. Thus we find in Isaiah 66:2, that to this man will the Lord look, even to the one who is humble and contrite and trembles at His word. To which interpretation then of Isaiah 33:6 is one to move ?

First, we need to realise that our concern is not what might be appropriate for speech, but what is said in Isaiah 33:6.

Thus, it cannot well, in this context, be forgotten that in a very little more, the same chapter dwells on and expatiates about the "sinners in Zion" - namely in 33:14-18. There is a sense of the presence of the Lord who is to act, and make His majesty to be revealed. NOT fearing Him is being shown up as a playing with a furnace, at its very mouth.

The response is for the sinners in Zion to fear, and the question becomes acute: "Who among us shall dwell in the consuming fire ?"

While none is more emphatic in the Old Testament than is Isaiah or David on the necessity of imputed righteousness if one is to stand before God (Isaiah 53, Psalm 32, 17), yet there are certain good fruits which grow on trees planted by the Lord (Matthew 7, 15:13). Among these expressions of sincerity and the reality of a living faith, some are named a little later in this same Chapter, Isaiah 33. The man whose way (as in II Peter 2) is so adorned, he will

	"see the King in His beauty" and his eyes
	"will see the land that is very far off," so that
	"you will not see a fierce people ... Your eyes will see Jerusalem, a quiet home, a tabernacle that will not be taken down..."

Here the emphasis in this very setting of stability and strength has one thing in common with that expressed in Isaiah 33:6. It is that we are in the presence of GIFTS, of DIVINE PROVISIONS, and things donated, or of conditions induced. We are in a stream of gifts and graces. Thus similarly and in parallel in 33:6, we find that there is GIVEN the quality of stability, of wisdom, that knowledge is imbued, salvation has a strength in its enduement, and for the one who is in this situation is further regaled in this mercy, goes the flow and sequence, in this, that "the fear of the Lord is his treasure." Given strength of salvation, wisdom, knowledge, caressed with stability, this man on whom the focus lies, is seen now enshrouded in this superlative accompaniment, as if someone were accompanying a singer on the piano, that "the fear of the Lord is his treasure."

If you do not reverence the Lord, you do not have even the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10), but this man, for him it is not merely present, it is "his treasure."

Relative to the word "his", rather than "your" as in the "stability of your times", Poole notes that this change of persons is common in these writings. Thus in Isaiah 33:22, "the Lord will save us" and in 33:24, "the people who dwell in it will be forgiven iniquity", for which the NKJ naturally enough, adds "their" as intended. In other words, in that case, it is incontestable that "the people" is third in person, and "us" is first person. Thus, it moves in perspective.

Even nearer in parallel is Isaiah 50:10-11, where for making the point, pronouns in view here will be emphasised below:

"Who among you fears the Lord?
Who obeys the voice of His Servant?
Who walks in darkness
And has no light?

"Let him trust in the name of the Lord
And rely upon his God.
Look, all you who kindle a fire,
Who encircle yourselves with sparks:
Walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks you have kindled—
This you shall have from My hand:
You shall lie down in torment."

This passage has this advantage for us, that it lets see the main THEME unleashed, namely the vast emphasis on having the fear of the Lord, its intimate association with trust and reliance on the Lord, and its inseparable character from a life of abundance and relish in the presence of the Lord. It is in precisely such a context that it appears in Isaiah 33:6.

Isaiah 48:17-19, moreover, is even more closely intimate to this alternation of the personal, from second person in this case to third, with an intimacy and easy which as Poole says, is common. Again the emphasis will be added.

· "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer,

· The Holy One of Israel:

'I am the Lord your God,
Who teaches you to profit,

Who leads you by the way you should go.
Oh, that you had heeded My commandments!
Then your peace would have been like a river,
And your righteousness like the waves of the sea.

'Your descendants also would have been like the sand,
And the offspring of your body like the grains of sand;
His name would not have been cut off
Nor destroyed from before Me.' "

Further, as to the alternation coming here near the end, it has precisely this sense of suddenness, as if someone were appealing to you personally, and then suddenly looked at things in the round, and dealt impersonally or at least in the third person again. It is then as if a more overall perspective replaced the personal discourse, by way of reflection. This is not only common but of great impact, as one feels first the address to one's person and then sees the thing in its place!

Finally, we return to the intimate contextual consideration in Isaiah 33:6, namely that it is a passage in which like the other cited above, there is one vast thematic and obvious emphasis. There is RECEPTION, there is CONCENTRATION on the operation of the gift, environmentally, circumstantially, personally, in a cornucopia of donation and operation from the divine bounty to the surface of the earth and those fortunate so to function in such a situation.

Accordingly, we find wisdom, knowledge, stability of times, these things come like a rushing torrent from above, and we see them in situ; and just so, then, is the last, the fear of the Lord, in situ, that indispensable, that incomparable, that essential aspect which as seen later in Isaiah 33, is to be sought in the fire, and is wrought in the heart, the fear of the Lord. It is all in a generic: things donated, given, attributed to the one below, to the redeemed in view, in a very wonder of liberality and a fund for finding grace imbued.

Such is the vastness of the superiority of this time, its consummatory magnificence, that not merely is the fear of the Lord PRESENT, as it must be, scripturally, for wisdom to have so much as a beginning, but here, it is present as the treasure of the one so placed. In other words, GRACE ABOUNDS! We are not suddenly taken from the consequences of the outpouring of such splendid wonders to enrich and enable the saints, to what contextually would be an isolated consideration in the Giver; but rather we continue in the welter of wonder with which they are adorned, as the robes of salvation are placed graciously upon the redeemed (cf. Isaiah 61:10, where just such an action is specialised and specific, on the part of the Lord

In conclusion, both renderings are possible; it is a matter of considering what fits context, message and thrust the better. In fact, of course, both are true, and the one given is preferred for these reasons. In seeking reasons, one gains understanding as an important result.

22)

Isaiah 53:10

Where marked, this is taken from Biblical Translations Ch. 3.

§"When you make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed,
He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand." -

Thus despite His having no earthly children of His own as in Isaiah 53:10, since He was cut off from the land of the living, yet when you make of His soul, His life, an offering for sin, instead of using a lamb for example, realising His meaning, method, sacrifice and plan of salvation, and coming in faith to Him, yet there is this transforming joy! WHEN YOU make of His life your sacrifice for sin, then in YOU He has a new child, and from all nations do these come, over all climes. How marvellous is the Lord, and how wonderful His wisdom, and grand to become a child of His, who had none of His own because of the required regimen of sacrifice. Great is the appeal, and great was the gift. It still is!

THE NOTED EXCERPT now proceeds.

The NKJV has a capital for "You" in Isaiah 53:10. This is one interpretation, the
riginal not determining this point. If you take this then that GOD is making the
SACRIFICE for sin in this verse, the translation "if" would be ludicrous, for the thing s seen as DONE.

If it is translated not "if" but "when", as it may be, then you have the paradox that WHEN He makes this of His Son, in the most poignant moment in history, THEN the Son sees His seed. Not so. Then the Son cried out, My God, My God, why have you forsaken ME! There could hardly be any less apposite concept.

Further, as Professor E.J.Young points out in his trilogy The Book of Isaiah (Vol. III, p. 354), "God is not addressed in this passage but rather is spoken of in the third person both before and after this verse. Furthermore, sacrifices were offered up not by God but to Him. Although the Lord does bring about the death of the servant, He is not the Offerer. In verse 12 the servant receives the reward for his work, which proves that it is he himself who offers the sacrifice." We may add to this. God in heaven, as distinct from the human-formatted servant, is not addressed in this verse, nor in the preceding chapter, nor in the two following! It is indeed the action of the offerer, the labourer, the sufferer which is rewarded, "He shall divide the spoil with the strong, because He poured out His soul unto death" (v.12).

Indeed, if you consider the mode of address, the milieu of terminology, the intimacy of the passage, not only is God being addressed constantly in the third person, so that any question must relate to this mode, if the context is to make things clear (Proverbs 8:8), as we must expect when any ambiguity might otherwise arise, but there is another fascinating feature. "You" or if you will, "thou" is a term in constant use in this chapter, the preceding and the two succeeding. It is used in this way directly or by implication (as in an imperative) - some 15 times in Ch.52, and some 39 times in the next chapter!

It is not too much to say that the address TO the sinner, or TO the people is constant, evocative, intimate, persistent, penetrating, occurring as if one were looking over one's shoulder to a fellow labourer and constantly stating or implying 'you' almost at every turn. Thus, there is the comforting closeness of 52:1-2, where God is telling Zion to re-dress (cf. 61:10, where justification is in view), as in 45:25 - "In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and glory", as in 53:5,8,11, in our immediate context. Such themes are woven into the work like threads in tapestry, constant, thematic. "Your God reigns!" is the cry to Zion in 52:7. "Depart!" He exclaims in 52:11, as the tardy sinner is addressed in terms of holiness to the Lord. It is all focussed on "you" or "thou" and "He", the Lord who speaks in solace, comfort and the offers of salvation to the one addressed.

Similarly, at the very start of 53, "Who has believed our report?" is a personalised proposition, searching into the soul of the listener. In Ch.54, there are numerous encouragements to the same addressee: "Enlarge the place of your tent!", "Do not spare!", "You will forget the shame of your youth!", "For a mere moment, I have forsaken you, with a little wrath I hid my face from you for a moment, but with everlasting kindness I will have mercy on you," says the Lord, your Redeemer."
In this last case, not only is the subject spoken to as 'you', but the Lord speaks of Himself as 'your Redeemer'. The material before us is soaked in 'you', in individual, in joint, in continual circumnavigations of the soul of the listener. "Oh you afflicted one!" , "Great shall be the peace of your children!".

In the next chapter, 55, it becomes if possible more intensive. "Ho, every one who thirsts, come to the waters, and you who have no money, come, buy and eat!" The evangelical thrust, the penetrating appeal, the solacing spiritual challenge is vigorous but tender. "Why do you spend your money for what is not bread, and your wages for what does not satisfy? ... I will make an everlasting covenant with you - the sure mercies of David. Indeed I have given him as a witness to the people, a leader and commander for the people. .. Seek the Lord while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way..." Such is the continual thrust and command, offer and appeal in this whole area of Isaiah.

Therefore, we must confirm mightily what E.J. Young has to say on this particular point: that God is not the One addressed. Not only is God NOT addressed in this context, but Zion and the individual sinner are both addressed in the second person, literally scores of times. This is the whole tenor of the passage - what HE, God is doing, what His servant is doing in His name, and those to whom He is doing it, repeatedly called to mind and called in heart, with 'you'. The sacrificial physician, spending his life for his patients, is being exposed in honour, while the patients are being appealed to, so that they take advantage of His labours on their behalf. HE does this, and YOU should do that, receive it, eat, drink, dress, come out, receive, be covered from sin.

That then simply confirms the need to AVOID the third personal rendering. Equally however, we must emphasise, it confirms the need to USE the second personal ending, which is the dominating feature with the interchange between "Him" and the appeal, in the overall passage; and this to such an extent that it is rather a matter of seeing why to think of it as at all varied from this pattern and format at all, than why to render in terms of 'you' as so often.

We therefore cannot rightly force into the context either verbally or in terms of the connotations, 'You' as the divine addressee in 53:10. It is NOT - "When You shall make His soul..."

What however if one should consider putting not 'You", but "his soul" as the subject, so that the force is this: WHEN HIS SOUL makes a sin offering... ? This would certainly be an extraordinary variant, since we have been considering the servant as "him" or as "he' all through, rather than a "soul". We might in context have expected, perhaps, When He shall offer His soul...", since then the contour of thought would be unvaried. That however is not what the text provides for us. In form, it is EITHER second person singular masculine, or third person singular feminine.

This contour, this mode of address and of interchange between the One in whose name these words are given, and the one/ones to whom they are addressed, of course does not HAVE to be unvaried. When however ambiguity can arise, it is important to consult the evidence which ANY writer has seen fit to provide, to guide one into the chosen thought. Otherwise the writer becomes unclear, something God forbids in Proverbs 8:8 for the wisdom of His speech.

If nevertheless, you put, "When His soul shall make a sacrifice for sin" (which in grammar here you may), then we appear to have contorted language. In the Old Testament, the priest made a sacrifice of the soul of the living creature... of its life. Now, at Calvary Christ was offering Himself, thereby being both priest and sacrifice. Does it then mean to say this: When His life shall offer His life? Actually, it is His spirit which offers, the spirit which was heavy at Gethsemane and which He commended at the end of the agony, into His Father's hands (Luke 23:46). It is also a variation from the norm of expression for sacrifice. The LIFE is OFFERED. It does not offer. The priest offers, the spirit, or the person, it is this which offers the life.

Indeed, in verse 10, already, the operation of sin-bearing by appointment has been covered; it has 'pleased the Lord to bruise Him'. Now arises the consequence FROM this PAST. When YOU later act, Zion, or individual sinner, to utilise this offering, THEN HE will see the efficacy with joy. When the individual, when Zion should so act, when the "you" who has been addressed, is being addressed and is about to be addressed continually in these chapters, as we have just shown: when THIS is to act, as constantly exhorted throughout to act, and to act in this sacred way, THEN, as constantly throughout also, THEN the purpose of the Lord will be fulfilled. THEN?

It is THEN that the evangelical marvel will be appreciated, its fruits gained, its justifying power will arise and be satisfied - indeed THAT is precisely what the very next verse goes on to relate. "By His knowledge, my righteous servant shall justify many!" and THIS, continually upon the listening ear-drum like rain, is what is beating, beating on the mind. YOU eat, YOU drink, YOU dress, YOU come out - and here, YOU take as a sin-offering HIS soul.

His "soul" or "life" here becomes apt as the receivable offering, in that at death it is as one slaughtered. It is as such that it is received. The whole ignominious insult, the degrading lump of flesh concept is here. It is WHAT He is made of, HOW He is disregarded in SLAUGHTER which comes through; as it is not His soul which offers, but His life, His soul which IS the object of slaughter, the one to be received, in whom the impending justification about to be mentioned, occurs.

It is God who puts Him to grief, we find in verse 10; and as to the servant, it is He whose life is to be received.

We do not, on the contrary, in verse 10 find a finished act of being "put to grief" suddenly unfinished, any more than we find a tragic phase allied WHILE IN FOCUS, with joy. Sequence - the sufferings and afterward the glory . Even if it were a parallel expression, it would be a movement from past to present, from a death already in view re suffering (v.9 "He made His grave", with v.10a), to a death merely in prospect; and it is looking at joy in the presence of the death as about to occur. The joy however is for the future, not at the prospect of dying, which was accompanied by loud cries, as Hebrews 5 tells us, beforehand in an agony of grief. To refocus the 'operation', in prospect, while speaking of joy in terms of this operation, is neither natural nor necessary. The joy was set before Him, not experienced then: that is the position as given to us.

The "putting to grief" and the "trespass offering" being set are different aspects of the one thing. It is the UTILISATION of the offering which is the moment of marvel, the transforming of the tragedy, when the whole enactment, completed in resurrection, is publicised (cf. 53:12). Then indeed He who faced an initial situation which appeared as if "I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nothing and in vain" (49:4) finds His "just reward", for it is "too small a thing that You should be My servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob... I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, that You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth." THAT is the payload! There is the transformation!

Hence the rendering preferred, objectively supported, is this:

§"When you make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed" -

the same as the NKJV except for this, the 'y' in You is not capitalised. Without children of His own physically, He gains them, nonetheless spiritually, WHEN anyone makes of His sacrifice an offering for sin, faith being the avenue and salvation being the result, as grace is the efficient cause. Ch.54 goes on "For the Lord has called you", "Sing, O barren", "This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of Me!"

In sum: While the NKJV is better here than the putting of 'His soul' as subject, as some do, it is worse than leaving the 'y' small. A note would have helped here.

23) Isaiah 64:4-5

§ "And from eternity, they have not heard, they have not given ear,
nor has eye seen a God beside You, who works for the one who waits for Him.

"You have met with the one rejoicing and executing righteousness.
In Your ways they remember You.

"Look, You have been wrathful, and we have sinned:
in those ways is eternity, and we shall be saved."

This text is of great interest, the more since 64:5 is stated to have occasioned immense difficulty in interpretation. Obviously, how 64:4 is rendered will greatly affect the flow and sense of sequence to 64:5. What meets this need, if solving any puzzle, hence would be commendable for rigorous care.

In this case, there has been a considerable addition in the material given, to that first appearing in The Kingdom of Heaven, Ch. 9.

a) THE THEMATIC ASPECT

The AV renders Isaiah 64:4 like this: "For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him." Certainly, 16th century English does not help. Why should it! Using former usages does not aid modern problems.

However, let us pass on from this. The beauty, dignity, perception often involved in the AV are genuine arguments for its high place in the arena of translations; its facility in our speech at the contemporary level, quite naturally and indeed necessarily, is not. But there is more here, much more. In this instance, it appears to be giving a quite indefensible translation. Before we consider this, let us note some other renderings of this verse. Thus the NASB has (to take the main area of divergence only): "neither has eye seen a God besides Thee, who acts in behalf of the one who waits for Him." Delitzsch in his magnificent and famed commentary set, has this here: " a God beside Thee," and proceeds to the point of His action "on behalf of him that waiteth for Him."

The Berkeley version: "seen a God besides Thee who works for him who waits for Him."
E.J. Young in his immense Isaiah commentary: "a God beside thee, he doeth to the one waiting for him." This gives, he states, in v.4 a reason for what was stated earlier in verse 3: thus God is in v.3 stated to have DONE wonderful, astonishing things for Israel in past times, and the principle is now enunciated: He DOES (acts) for the one who waits for Him. He is not an illusory, philosophical, clairvoyant's muse type of God. He acts. He has power. He used it before. He still does. THESE, the 'waiting' for HIM, are conditions (cf. Hebrews 11:6).

While the sense in all these is much the same, it is fascinating in the context to consider the very literal translation: "seen GOD, besides Thee. He acts for the one who waits for Him." The last clause is from a participle, "the one who waits for Him", and the thrust preceding, 'GOD', is dropped into the scene like a vast, awesome wonder. Here is the ONLY ONE WHO as GOD is there; the rest are NOT GOD (Deuteronomy 32:17,18,21). The last has this: "They moved Me to anger with that which is NOT GOD" (last caps. added). Besides HIM, nothing intelligible, real at all. It is this God who IS, the I AM, who ACTS (being able) for those who wait.

Attention has been drawn to Deuteronomy 29:2 and Joshua 23:3 where quite the same emphasis is being made. Moses recapitulating, says to the people,

"You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh, and to all his servants and to all his land; the great trials which your eyes have seen..."

Here, it could readily have been part of this very address in Isaiah, so close is the wording, the concept, the emphasis! It is a case of what the Lord DID, and indeed did BEFORE YOUR EYES, and further, the things which YOUR EYES HAVE SEEN. This moreover fits with the recurring emphasis in Isaiah 41-48, that God is the One who DOES IT, fulfils it, makes it happen, whether in general, as in Ch.48, or in particular, as for Cyrus the coming deliverer for the Jews, who would send them home from Babylon. (We shall emphasise the point below.)

In the latter case, that of Joshua, we find:

"And you have seen all that the Lord your God has done to all these nations because of you: for the Lord your God is he who has fought for you."

Again there is the relevant action, the rescuing action, the notable action.

This is a frequent theme.

In Psalm 78 it is the same; and there too, you see the additional challenge. THEY despite all this have sinned and provoked the Lord, in the very face of such repeated and marvellous ACTIONS, wonders, things DONE!

In Joshua 23:14, we read a further strand in this theme:

"... not one thing has failed of all the good things which the Lord your God spoke concerning you; all have come to pass to you, and not one thing has failed..."

GOD reveals Himself as He will! The NOT-GOD crew are wholly deficient in evidence; God abounds in it.

b) THE GRAMMATICAL ASPECT

The AV adds here. It provides what the text does not state. The word 'what' is added. Hence and hence only, they get the ... rendering, 'WHAT HE HAS PREPARED'. It is however the translators who have prepared that word 'what'.

To add a word, however, when the sense is both clear and straightforward, the sequence cogent, is indefensible. That way, anything can be made ambiguous, and things can be manufactured, rather than translated.

Poetry may require understanding that perceives words which are omitted from a necessary intended sense, for stylistic reasons; or dropped out because of the constraints of metre, etc., so that the alert reader, seeing there is no way of AVOIDING addition, is willing to see the implicit point and put it in.

However this is a part of the words of God which are 'all clear to him who understands', as Proverbs 8 expressly states. It is not a matter of strange oracles for powerful prophets to make sense of some way or other, to their own personal and highly individual satisfaction. It is intrinsically clear, not crabbed, contrived.

That is the point: the word at times be difficult, challenging, profound indeed, and what more natural when it is God who speaks: but clear? THAT is another question. The word before us is eminently clear, and unless some reader fashions on the mistaken idea that you can treat a clear statement as having optional extras which would profoundly change an already clear meaning, clear it stays.

The additional mode here would be to interpret the word of God contrary to its own claims and constraints, and for anyone, would be playing somewhat fast and loose with the words actually given. In other words, when what is present is both exceedingly clear and impressively direct, and flowing like one stream with other scripture and context, to add to this is to put the words of God into the hands of men - never a wise procedure, and NOT a divinely PERMITTED PROCEDURE.

c) CONTEXT

Verse 5 in this passage of Isaiah 64, at once keeps to the exact sequence given. God acts (verse 4), and God meets (v.5 - one form of ACTING, not being mere dream or thought or ideal or inclination, but personal, powerful and active in our affairs - in certain specified WAYS, as is the case in all the other contexts noted!). Whom does He meet ? The text tells us of 64:5:

"He has met the one who rejoices and works righteousness" - indeed, "those who remember Him in His ways".

What could be more straightforward, cogent, elicitive, impactive!

"You have met the one who rejoices and works righteousness,
those who remember You in Your ways"

GOD HAS ACTED in spectacular fashion in the days of Moses and Pharaoh, for the people. More generally, GOD ACTS for those who wait for Him. So far, that is the thrust or movement in verses 3 and 4, respectively. Indeed, GOD acts in a SPECIAL WAY for those who wait for Him, at the now individual level. After all (verses 5b-7), there is a massive movement AWAY from God before us in the context, so that God is acting differentially towards those who in fact WAIT for Him.

What is this special way noted so boldly in verse 5: "Thou meetest him who rejoices and works righteousness" - not merely some homogenised 'righteousness' but the sort which arises in those who remember Him in His ways, His words, His witness, His past dealings. Why however this: 'rejoices'? That is indeed a question for our own generation set so firmly in so many sad ways of degeneration (see "Generation of the Dispossessed" - Appendix 1, Barbs, Arrows and Balms). Literally, here, it is "hast met" or "You have met" and despite idiomatic considerations, it seems best to retain this; but to do so with some thought.

Thus, what precedes is this , "He acts for the one who waits for Him," and we then have "You have met him who rejoices ..." and then literally proceeds, "In Your ways they (will) remember You" or "remember You" (either tense is here possible). It appears always best to be as sensitive as the bounds of comprehensible language in the language into which one translates, to the original. It can, and here it seems, does make a difference to the depth of understanding. Thus here, we could render much as Young does, with a little less literalness but a little more flexibility to the style of our language, together with some effort to be even closer to the text. In the last statement, effort is however made to relate more intimately in rendering the context :

§ "And from eternity, they have not heard, they have not given ear,
nor has eye seen a God beside You, who works for the one who waits for Him.

"You have met with the one rejoicing and executing righteousness.
In Your ways they remember Yolu.

"Look, You have been wrathful, and we have sinned: in those ways is eternity, and we shall be saved."

Thus then we have for Isaiah 64:4-5.

CHAPTER 5

JEREMIAH TO MALACHI

24)

Jeremiah 13:27

§"Woe to you, O Jerusalem! Will you not be made clean ?
When shall it once be ?"

This is taken as a short excerpt on the topic, from Christ's Ineffable Peace... Ch. 2.

You can refuse to talk of two divine wills (mercifully), as Calvin did, but whether it is phenomena in the will domain or facets or aspects, it is all one. GOD SAYS by the mouth of God, by the living and eternal WORD of God incarnate, what He means, and these words will NEVER pass away. They will be replaced operationally by sight, but never cease to be right.

Other attempts to exclude this word of the Lord, in Matthew 23:37 are rejected in SMR Appendix B, and it is simply impossible to make a scriptural case for such a liberty, any more than for that in Luke 19:42ff., where in pangs of grief and tears, the WORD of God which DEFINITIVELY expresses Him (Hebrews 1), is filled with a sorrow to the heart, that IN THE DAY of opportunity, Jerusalem did not heed Him.

Such language is not singular, but consistently throughout the Bible. Thus in Jeremiah 13:27 you have one of the many such profound sorrows at the ultimate refusal to receive the designed and desired mercy which God is offering.

It is vastly important not to allow the smoking candles of theological 'insight' to void the clarity of the divine day, shining in the Bible, and in particular not to reduce the scope of the divine desire that all might be saved. That is simply as He states it, in I Timothy 2, that all be reconciled in heaven or in earth, as he emphatically asseverates in Colossians 1:19ff., and this represents the divine antithesis to any concept that He is in any sense desiring the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11 so states). Nor is He too occupied to bother; nor is He moved by strange indifference. This is he EXACT opposite of what is written in John 3, and the texts above mentioned.

It is the WORLD to which He sends His Son (and the concept in the context is as in I Timothy 2, all that pertains to mankind as such, as ratified in Colossians 1, not only for this world, but the heavens themselves). It is that it be not CONDEMNED that He came. His initiative, enterprise, suffering, motivation are all stated categorically many times. To assume what is the contradictory of what is written, is to direct the thoughts of God, a useless ambition, to say no more.

To be sure, when the case is to the uttermost resolved and made manifest, even in history, God may indeed as in II Chronicles 36, show the end of the beginning, and the nature of the end WHEN all that has been for a long time, has been rejected, vitamised, vitiated by the rebellious spirit of man. Equally surely, since foreknowledge precedes predestination in the (at least) logical sequence in Romans 8:29ff., so that the predestination is founded on the divine knowledge, not vice versa, at any time God may reveal the predestinative outcome of this foreknowledge. It is, thirdly and of course, as in Romans 9, NOT a foreknowledge of the works, meritorious or other, of the sinner which is the decisive factor, or even relevant in the divine decision. Nor therefore is there any question of merit in achievement, where achievement as a factor is statedly null.

Nevertheless, there IS the divine longing expressed repeatedly, categorically, cumulatively, in New and Old Covenants, and it is habitual.

Neither Calvin nor any other has any place in seeking to move things around in the divine heart, whatever may be the intention. It is what it is, and stays as it is declared to be, as manifested in Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever, to whom every knee will bow (Philippians 2), in the end, as stated rather nearer the beginning of God who ALONE is to be worshipped, in Isaiah 45. It is He, WHO IS THE TRUTH, who in predestination was operative as the word of God, as He was from the beginning; and it is as He wills, that anyone can know the Father, having Him revealed by the Son (Matthew 11:27). All that the Father has, is His (John 16:15), and their intimacy is infinite (John 5:19-23). As to Christ, moreover, He does not change, ever the same (Hebrews 13:8), whether before time, or in it.

In predestination, in foreknowledge, in things of time or beyond time, Christ is the TRUTH, and His word written stands, for ONLY fulfilment can remove its tenure; and that, it is not to make of it error, but completion, so that the thing, like birth as noted, is now over. But over it is! It does not alter, nor is it to be made a chameleon for the imagination of men, whether at this or any other point.

THE PASSION FOR SOULS OF THE LORD:
NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS
BUT KNOWING WELL WHO ARE HIS OWN

Let us then for much interest in seeing further what God DOES reveal, the case of Jeremiah 13:27. First, let us cite from Bible Translations (9), concerning this text.

Let us look then for a moment at Jeremiah 13:27. Confronting the innate sin that dominated in the array of rebellious hearts of that day, that thus DID have dominion over these to whom the prophet speaks, Jeremiah from the Lord makes this declaration, and asks this question:

"Woe to you, O Jerusalem! Will you not be made clean ?
When shall it once be ?"

To this writer, this is one of the most poignant of the verses of the Book of the Lord! There you see

	1) a divine yearning, as from a mother.
	2) a fatherly caution, crisp with realistic concern.
	3) an interrogation, as from a surgeon, foreseeing inoperable lung cancer, and speaking to an uncontrolled tobacco addict.
	4) an implicit attestation of long continued abuse.

Being clean is NOT a matter of drawing near with the lips while the heart is afar off (Isaiah 29:13); it is a matter of WASH and BE CLEAN! (Isaiah 1:16, I John 1). When you respond, you obey, and when you confess in due faith, you are covered. Cleansed and covered you are accorded authority to become the children of God, and these, as His, have the paternal authority always at hand, for their welfare and as adopted, for their confirmation.

What then do we find in all of this ?

Operationally, when you are first so cleansed, you are also regenerated, and when you are regenerated, you are fundamentally changed, and when Christ lives in you, the carnal nature, at war with God, though still a trial and source for Satan, is NOT in control. The washing of regeneration (Titus 3:3-7) is followed by the washing of each working day. The one creates a new relationship with the Father of all, and His Redeemer. The other exhibits its dynamic warranty, and its working of its power. Not for nothing does Deity so yearn; and not in nothing is its culmination to be found!

As a child of God, we see from Matthew 7:21ff., you DO the will of God, though it be ever so poorly. You are His and as Lord He is not a mere verbal ascription, but the living God dominating and dynamising, directing and correcting you. You are HIS: and nothing can change either that or the testimony of the change (Romans 8:30ff.); for it is known from of old, and sustained for ever (John 10:27-28, Ephesians 1:11). God knows YOU and He leads you in His presence (Galatians 5), so that you are indeed LED BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD, as Paul declares in Romans 8:16, in the very context of morality and divergence from the old life.

Is God then blind to who you are ?
and is He who brought you to the birth, not in order that you be not born,
but as borne by Him to this place, not to bring you to the light of day as a child of God ?

and if a child of God, do you act as if your old genes were still operational and it is not a regeneration at all (I John 3:9) ?

Can you leave them behind, your new spiritual genes, evidence of birth and its necessary concomitant ? No more can you do this, than be perfect; but God, HE KNOWS the difference between imaginary perfection and ravaging impurity, between temporary setback, as in sickness, and the morbidity of necrosis (John 6:70). Implanted, these your new genes, the actualisation of the birth, are inseparable as in ordinary life. Indeed, if you are and become a child of God, you may stumble, and need correction, training and help from your Father; but is to stumble to fail, or to learn to be lost (Hosea 11:1ff.) ? rather is it growth in the domain of vitality, the Lord the presence, the word the witness.

Let those, says Paul, who are the Lord's, depart from iniquity. Why ? The reason given for such departure is this: "for the Lord KNOWS who are His" (II Timothy 2:19, blocks added). Departure from iniquity is not unakin to keeping the commandments! Nor is it grievous, to wash, and to love and to relate to your Father when your whole nature is so changed that HE IS your Father, by adoption through Jesus Christ.

In this way, confronted with such a challenge to understanding, we are kept on our toes, forced to examine ourselves and all the evidence, the very fundamental principles profuse in the word of God, lest we should somnolently allow ourselves to stray.

In this way, above, we first see the ingredients of emotion and longing, their quality and nature, in Jeremiah 13:27, and then relate these to the case of actual conversion, noting the extreme divergence between the two. It is however the LONGING, the DIVINE eager and assiduous seeking with all the heart, as in Ezekiel 33:11, Luke 19:42ff., Colossians 1:19ff., Hosea 7:1, Jeremiah 51:9, 49:30-33). As to Jeremiah 13:27, this is a word which is inescapably poignant, powerfully arresting and the thrust is dramatically apexed in this passage.

Before we proceed further, its full intent may become even clearer when we look at its translation.

Thus the Hebrew is saying this:

Will you not be made clean ? How long ... yet ?

The portent in English, considering the pathos in the ellipsis, is this:

Will you not be made clean ? How long is it that you have already been in this condition of denial, and how long will you proceed, thus polluted, and yet unwilling to have it changed!

Is it still the same with you ?

The time dimension may indeed be twofold, past and present, but what is clear is this, that it is a long time, and that its continued duration is being challenged with a poignancy second to none.

Again, the intent may be phrased slightly differently (as when seeing facets of a jewel):

Not clean, is that your will ?
Does it come to this ? Consider, how long has it been so ?
Is your case still the same ?

Further, and at more length, we might seek to interpret it:

there is a throb, and this seems to be it: NOT CLEAN, HOW LONG, STILL!

How long has it been ?
Is it still the same ?

Verbalising the thrust further, we find this impact:

Do you still decline to be made clean ?
After how long a time does this persist ?
Do you procrastinate still further ?

In the light of this, what of the AV translation at the end of this verse:

WHEN SHALL IT ONCE BE ?

To the mind of this writer, that rendering is almost a work of genius. It is a very bold idiomatic seeking for equivalence, but it seems to touch the strings of the heart at exactly the right place for the context. If it ever so slightly oversteps in the positive direction, nevertheless, the intense thrust of the feeling seems to hang precisely there.

You DECLINE cleaning, and for long how has this been so, and for what time to come is it to be - for HOW LONG ... and is it to be STILL the same ? Thus comes the haunting question, and here lies the divine entreaty, reproof, analysis, plea and arrest... This means that there is a divine pressure, placed upon man, to look at the continuation, by rebellion, of what resists to its own devastation, the most intense desire of the divine Lord, who exhibits a deploring with intense pathos of the same. It is as in Proverbs 1, where there is such an entreaty, so lovingly assembled, but with the rejection, there follows the indictment which is the measure in judgment of the love and mercy's pleading and presentation. That is WHY it was so urgent!

What then do we find in such instances ? This is not at all a sovereignly inflicted blindness by the power of a mysterious God. NOTHING could be CLEARER! He desires what He does not find, but is unwilling to perform any operation which would frustrate the very nature of creation of man, that is, in the image of God, and simply overthrow the relevance of human will in a remake which would bypass the entire issue, and thus by violence over will, make God responsible for human evil, all being dependent on Himself! Instead, the blindness comes when the entreaties, multiplied for so long (as in Hosea 12:10, as in II Chronicles 36), proceed "till there was no remedy."

Such is not the word of God amplitude of His yearning, its outreach beyond limitation, however its payment is restricted in the end; nor does it anywhere suggest any such thing, rather presenting in all but innumerable cases, just this poignancy of patience, this research of heart, this intensification of desire (as in Jeremiah 17, where despite the settled fate of the city, the Lord still pleads and offers an escape: He who knows all, but has a heart of truth and which is settled forever).

It is a pleading and an exhorting which we find to a decadent and disordered will, such that were it not, at least in the all-penetrating knowledge of God, vitally responsible despite His willingness and indeed passionate and most intense desire to save, His word would be a casuistry, His solemnity farce, His concern superficial and the ambit of His speech hideously awry.

It is of course NOT the Lord of whom this can be said, but rather might it apply in some degree, to those who manhandle, quite literally, the word of God and snuff out clear statements, categorical and repeated utterances and the entire impetus and dynamic of expressed and explicit divine love of no small or marginal intent, but rather seeking for SALVATION. When it is they or the Lord whose word must be challenged, one infinitely prefers to challenge the sons of men to the Son of God! His IS the truth, and it has no shadow of turning or variability. He is what He is, and always tells the truth which endures forever.

Of course He knows who are his (II Timothy 2:19); but this does not alter His heart.

It is nothing less than salvation that He seeks, concerning which He delivers His charge, His challenge and His lament; and no hidden agenda disturbs or denies the purity of His utterance, who is light and in whom is no darkness t all (Deuteronomy 32:1-4, I John 1:5).

When at such a time, the hardness before Him who sees all, in those who always resist (as Stephen put it in Acts 8), the Holy Spirit, comes historically to be in the realm of the unforgivable (for there is a limit to the striving, lest the spirit of man should fail before the Lord, Isaiah 57:15 - man is a limited being), then indeed His judicial assessment and assertion alike can flow into its blighting force (Matthew 13, Isaiah 6). Then what was foreknown, is duly implemented and shown.

25) Ezekiel 34:29

§"I will raise up for them a planting of renown".

What is to be planted, is to be greatly famous. It is to be an action of setting what is to be set, in the ground, on the earth and in it, to become a living being on this earth, and o to be able to grow. To this we are about to move. But before doing so, we note simply that the Ch. 34 of Ezekiel is one of the most magnificently direct, direly dealing in deity, concerning the coming of God HIMSELF in mercy and person, to this earth, to do the proper work of pastoring His people. It is the VERSE OF THE INCARNATION, in parallel with Hosea 13:14, in terms of the principle of the need, the willingness and the pending action of the Almighty to carry this out. The planting is the botanical image in this realm, in this site, fitting partner to Isaiah 53:2, in its site! It is the Messiah planted, the one who as a Son is elsewhere glorified in grandeur of spirit, amidst His humiliation, as the atonement is worked out before our eyes.

EXCERPT

This text is to be found in the context of the ultimate restoration of Israel to the Messiah, as evidenced and attested in detail in Ezekiel 36-39, and expounded for example in SMR Appendix A, Great Execrations, Great Enervations, Greater Faith Ch. 4 , It Bubbles ... Chs. 1. 10, Highway of Holiness Ch. 6, VICTORY 4.

WHO or WHAT is this planting of renown ? As to the translation, it varies in different versions from garden of renown, planting place of renown, to plant of renown; but as seen in Keil and Delitzsch’s Commentaries on the Old Testament, it appears that the desirable rendering is plantation. However, this is not to the point at all in Isaiah 60:21, where the same term is used in the rendering "a branch of My planting" relative to Israel. Indeed, here it is even a ‘branch’ or part of a tree, which is “of My planting”, a highly specific thing. It is the planting which is common to all.

In the Theological Word Book of the Old Testament of Harris, Archer and Waltke, the word appears both as 'planting' and as 'plantation' as distinct from allied and near words designating plant simply, or the same coupling of thought with the two options.

The root of this word is often used, the Word Book work states, of agricultural matters; vines and vineyards are mentioned as being planted. A vine out of Egypt in the notable reference of Psalm 80, was planted in Israel. They had to be plucked up in their sin (Jeremiah 45:4), but this was a merely temporary thing, since in II Samuel 7:10 we learn that ultimately they will be so planted as never to be plucked up. That of course becomes applicable to the believing remnant (Isaiah 11:10), whose Messiah is at last recognised (Romans 11, Ezekiel 36-37), when the period of blindness is over, and the whole integrity of the divine operations is vindicated. That, it is much to the delight of the apostle Paul, and who indeed would not delight in such a sweep and scope withy such majesty and mercy, such faithfulness (Ezekiel 36:22), reliability and yet purity! It is this which Paul outlines in the allegory of Romans 11.

This permanence and consummation of covenant is reflected in Jeremiah 31:28-34, as in the permanent mode in Ezekiel 37:28ff., with 39:28-29, where in the sequence from 34-39, there is intense characterisation in high detail of the specifics of Israel the nation, here past, present and future. In an interesting word study, Harris, Archer and Waltke point out that God plants not only Israel, but the root word from which our term in Ezekiel 29 is derived is used of the planting of nations (Jeremiah 1:10), 18:9, the heavens (Isaiah 51:16), and even the ear (Psalm 94:9). Moreover in Psalm 144:12, we find this: "May our sons in their youth be like plants full grown."

The term in view in Ezekiel 34:29, a planting or a plantation, a thing associated with plant, is therefore in its root and usage quite clear. To be sure, Keil in his commentary on Ezekiel uses 'plantation', in view not least of the fact that the RESULT in the context is to be that they will not hunger, but the question is this: What SORT of hunger is in view!

Alike with not hungering, we read in context that they are not to 'bear the shame of the Gentiles any more'. What is the shame of the Gentiles ? It is that a foolish nation should overlord them and control them or abase them or make them seem weak and miserable, afflict them and seem strong and stable while little foolish foibled Israel is allowed to be overcome, just as, by contrast, in the days of its glorious closeness (relatively) to God, it overcame and triumphed famously (cf. Deuteronomy 32:21-28).

What however is the basis of this strength, this dignity, this resolution, this determination, this wit, this wisdom and this overcoming, this NON-subjugation and this triumph which Israel once knew, and of which it is now deprived ? Is it food ? Is it this which is the criterion of power, or is food rather, as in the siege of Samaria by Assyria in the time of Hoshea, king of Israel, merely an expression of all the host of losses, and above all the Lord of hosts Himself, as not supporting them. He is bringing them “into the bond of the covenant” through their unbelief (Ezekiel 20:36).

Of course, it is this latter, the power of life which comes from its Provider: since the provision of food as in the case of Elisha, is a small matter by comparison; as indeed the days on the way to the Promised Land with manna, made overwhelmingly obvious.

Of course, famously, Ezekiel 17 has the massive parable of the eagle cropping off the highest twig of the cedar and carrying it to a city of merchants. This is later interpreted to show it means that the king who was taken to Babylon, the king of Israel, and his retinue, and why ? It was so that "that the kingdom might be brought low, and not lift itself up, but that by keeping of his covenant, it might stand." Rebellion however followed (Ezekiel 17:15), so that Babylon went further and ruin came on Jerusalem and Judah. Pharoah would be of no help (cf. Isaiah 31), for

"the Egyptians are men, and not God,
and their horses are flesh, and not spirit."

Indeed, "when the LORD stretches out His hand, both he who helps
will fall, and he who is helped will fall down: they all will perish together."

Now we come to the part of the parable in Ezekiel 17 which currently concerns us.

"I will take also one of the highest branches of the high cedar
and set it out. I will crop off from the topmost of its young twigs
a tender one,
and will plant it on a high and prominent mountain.

“On the mountain height of Israel I will plant it,
and it will bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a majestic cedar. Under it will dwell birds of every sort, in the shadow of its branches
they will dwell. And all trees of the field shall know that I the LORD,
have brought down the high tree and exalted the low tree,
dried up the green tree and med the dry tree flourish:

”I, the LORD, have spoken and have done it."

Thus we are being compressed by context, constrained by perspective and enabled by scriptural emphasis to find the way to render, and more importantly perhaps, to understand the reference in Ezekiel 34:29.

There is an enormous play in Ezekiel on the image of planting, pride and the contrast with humility, obedience and the divine salvation which HE ALONE and HE BY HIMSELF without the aid of any, will bring to the sinfully cloistered kingdom of Israel. While it is in so much shut in to itself, its idols of political hope, of religious travesty, much like the world today, in its own vanity and futility, its little graspings, hopes and vast chasms of uncharity and confusion: yet its hope is in none of these, not in the slightest degree. This is the message constantly.

Thus when we come to the planting or plantation of renown in terms of which they shall be fed and never allowed to be desolate any more, it is at once apparent that this can only be the Messiah; for no food is enough for goodness, and no material is enough for security. Neither Israel nor any of its works, hopes or powers is even relevant to their security.

It is the LORD HIMSELF ALONE (cf. Isaiah 2:10-11, Ezekiel 36:22, Isaiah 19:19-25) who is going to be exalted, and Israel is always going to find that nothing that comes from itself, work or wit, is going to suffice for freeing or feeding its soul, finding its security or guaranteeing any grace. The covenant's POINT is this, that you do it by FAITH (cf. Deuteronomy 29:18ff.), and if you imagine it is YOU or your works, then you are as good as a cinder in the oven of hot pride.

Was it not for this, even in a temporary outburst of frustration, that Moses, although an earnest and blessed servant of the Lord then and now (cf. Matthew 17:3, 22:32)! You see this sad episode in Numbers 20:1-13, just as the principle is enunciated with divine emphasis in Deuteronomy 32:18,28ff.).

Hence it is a PLANTING of renown which is in view; and the renown which is their stay and buttress, it will be this which is divine.

But what precisely is it that is being planted ? It is a DIVINE ACTION of PLANTING which is to the point, but what is its object ? It is not hard to find this, since in this very chapter God is at pains to make it abundantly, crystallinely clear, that HE is dissatisfied with the works of folly which emanate from Israel, yes with its pastors and will HIMSELF come and DO what has to be DONE, and that it will be HE who will do it in the thoroughness and merciful lovingkindness which has been so conspicuously and iniquitously missing in the false 'shepherds' of the flock. It is HE who must do it, and it is HE who WILL do it.

This is extensively revealed in Ezekiel 34:11-22, and indeed in great detail till 34:31.

"Therefore I will save My flock, and they shall no longer be a prey, and I will judge between sheep and sheep. I will establish one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them ... and I the LORD will be their God ... I will make a covenant of peace among them ... and they shall no longer be a prey for the nations ... I will raise up a planting of renown..."

It is not that a crop will save them, that is themselves, for this was so often their condemned and inglorious, not to say spurious pre-occupation; nor is it some rotation or a continuation of crops; not at all. That has precisely nothing to do with it. It is in essence the coming Saviour who will make ALL the difference and the ONLY difference to the point. The whole chapter 34 of Ezekiel is all about this coming Shepherd, God as man, who will have all that is required. As to His being man, metonymically he takes the name "David", but of course it is the promised Messiah who, of his lineage (through Mary in fact), is to perform and fulfil the divine promise of II Samuel 7, Isaiah 4,7,9,11,12,22,32, 40, 42,49-55, 59, 61.

THIS is the entire context of Ezekiel 34:29.

Hence it is the planting, and not some ‘plantation’, just as it is in Isaiah 53:2, in the context of Ezekiel 34.

In Isaiah we learn this, in answer to its question:

"Who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

"For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,
And as a root out of dry ground.
He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him.

"He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

"Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted."

The most relevant part for our survey is of course that made bold, above. Just as in Ezekiel 17, there is to be planted a tender twig which shall grow into a stately and protective tree of comfort and safety, so here we see it in the ground, but not very wonderful ground at that, for it is a 'dry ground', since Israel was exceedingly parched in spirit at that time.

This was so, even to the point that the ruling junta (for they were not legitimate any more than those false shepherds of Ezekiel 34, whom the Lord dragooned and exposed so thoroughly, just as He did when He became flesh and dwelt among us, as shown by His words in Matthew 23).

He who “by His knowledge will justify many” (Isaiah 53:11) is a tender plant, as in Ezekiel 17, and the terms of that chapter are quite incontestably personal, to the point that the former twig was in fact the contextually defined symbol for the king! Here however, in this planting, is another king, one who HIMSELF will DO ALL that it takes, with NO help from ANYONE, since HE AS GOD will act as only HE has the power to pardon, or the power to secure. Indeed, we see that in HIS VERY COMING, the action is in view of the utter default of help from man. Such are the words of Ezekiel 34:1-10, which thunder from lightning strikes showing up the CURSED condition of those who fail to help where help is required.

It is just the same in Isaiah, in two passages of like intensity. The first is to be found in Isaiah 41:28-29, the negation, flowing on to the Messiah who is to BE the covenant in Isaiah 42, the One in whom, by starkest possible and even conceivable contrast, God delights. The second in complete parallel is seen in Isaiah 51:18-20, leading on to 52:13 - 53:12. It is the LORD ALONE who is singular in saving Person, who is to be found in this action to bear sin, to bear glory and to complete the covenant in Himself, for HE it is who finds it too small to be the restorer of the elect of Israel, it is HE who will be a LIGHT TO THE GENTILES (Isaiah 49).

It is therefore beyond any question not a plantation of renown, that thing planted, but a PLANTING of renown^*1. It is a setting forth in INCARNATION which is to be renowned; it is after that, as we see in Isaiah 49:7, 50 and 53, an execration of the incarnation by the people who act in the name of the Lord to be despised, that follows. This is all part of the assiduity and comprehensive coverage which the LORD assigns to Himself as HIS OWN WORK without help from ANY, in Ezekiel 34. It is precisely this same work which was attested in Hosea 13:14, where the Lord GOD Himself will constitute the plagues of death and destruction of the grave.

Note (abbreviated)

The denominative of the relevant Hebrew verb, formed with the m prefix, signifies

a place,

or instrument

or something in general connected with the idea of the verb, Davidson's Hebrew Grammar informs us.

As Baumgartner points out in his lexicon, this term, here translated 'planting', is in fact a derivative of the verb 'to plant'. Obviously, there is little more closely connected with the verb, 'to plant', than 'planting', and this term constitutes one of the translations of Harris, Archer and Waltke in the work noted.

26) Hosea 7:1,13

§"When I would have healed Israel ...".

§ "Though I would redeem them..."

In Hosea 7, in fact, 7:1 and 7:13, you have in both cases a present tense optative. A word of clarification is needed here. In Hebrew, the basic concepts in the two major tenses are perfect and imperfect, or completed or uncompleted. The latter can involve many aspects in terms of their concepts: for example, present, future and various conditional aspects, or as here the optative. The essence is the mode of conception.

One prefers above to say 'present' tense, lest the 'imperfect' name which Hebrew uses for this tense, might suggest the English or Latin imperfect tense, which indicates continuity in the past. This is not so in the Hebrew division between these two tenses. It is DONE or NOT YET DONE, finished or unfinished in THOUGHT. Those are the basic options. If you call one tense in Hebrew 'imperfect' as is customary, then you need to realise that it is simply negating the ‘perfect’ concept, diverse from that.

As to the latter, the perfect tense in Hebrew, it is in a special sense, such as in Greek you have, where the concept of completion can be related to perfection, in that it is the end of the road to whatever it is. Im- perfect then, the ‘imperfect tense’ in Hebrew is one which means im-complete, that is not yet done, if done it will be at all. So is it here in 7:13.

What then is the context in this 'imperfect' verbal case, this indication of non-completion so that the redemption did not occur ? The context in this case is not at all simply what God is doing NOW, since it is not being done! On the contrary, this blessed opening to mercy is being withdrawn; it is INCOMPLETE, so that the action in view did not reach its fulfilment. It is NOT what He has done.

Nor is it what He will do, for the reflection is on the failure of this thing at the present time, and the results of this. It is rather indicative of the willingness of God which has been shown, just as Jeremiah 18 makes it so exceedingly clear, even when judgment is on the threshold: a divine preparedness to engage in the healing of this people. It does not however transpire. Instead, as Jeremiah 19 makes clear so soon after the action of Jeremiah 18: the inveterate and chronic failure of the people to receive His mercy, this now transforms the situation. What had been not merely on offer, but was in fact a CONTINUING and UNCOMPLETED movement towards mercy, is now to be halted.

God will not ALWAYS STRIVE with man (Isaiah 57:15-16). Man’s spirit would fail before Him. He is limited. There is an end (cf. Proverbs 1!).

What then now ? As we see, now judgment sets in, as if a man with cancer should be shown a way out by immediate cessation of smoking, but still refuse to stop, in which the case the disease migrates.

It is thus here as in Hosea 7:1, an indication to the willingness that God had, as in Jeremiah 18:7-8: at that INSTANT that there is the change from the evil, to remedy and remove the judgment; but alas, it is not so here. Israel is NOT healed, so that the rest of the chapter, as in 7:13 reflects this lugubrious and mournful fact in the face of the often protested divine exhortation to return to Him, and invitation to mercy.

Thus in Hosea 7:13, - §"Though I would redeem them" as the ASV and Keil and Delitzsch, respectively, have, and correctly point out - it is not perfect or completed tense at all! It is the 'imperfect'. The AV and NKJV rendering "redeemed them" is not what is there. A difficulty is not met by changing the base, but by exploring what it in fact provides: and here what is left and meets all the demands of the context fully, is the optative, which does no violence to the text and gives sustained meaning to the point as in 7:1.

In 7:1, the AV joins the rest, correctly, "I would have healed Israel!" This is the theme of the chapter, and in 7:14 we see the explication of the negative result in the face of the divinely positive entreaty and willingness. "They did not cry out to Me with their heart." THAT is where they went wrong so that the divine willingness does not reach its completion in their pardon.

Hosea 7:15 further details the past, where though the Lord disciplined them (exactly as in Amos 4), yet evil was still actively being plotted in their hearts. The thought is extreme. It is almost as if in the very preparation of the medical team for surgery, the patient bites the forefinger of a major surgeon, requiring stitches. It breaks its own mercy.

Hosea 7:16 then proceeds to generalise the case: they return (indeed, as might be protested by them), but it is not to the Most High. They are inveterately devious like a crooked bow. Thus 8:1 announces, in a transition precisely as in that between Jeremiah 18 and 19, the blowing of the trumpet and the onset of judgment.

As to this mode of divine willingness, aborted by rejection: You even see it said of Babylon, that eventual paragon of parasitic infestation with spiritual pollutions: Thus Jeremiah 51:9 also provides this word:

"We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed. Forsake her and let us go,
everyone to his own country; for her judgment reaches to heaven."

END OF EXCERPT

It is of the utmost importance to realise what the Lord would have done; for He would have gathered Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings; but that generation of Jerusalem WOULD NOT. To David He would have given great new blessings, but David was carried away in absurdities of desire, in a fitful suddenness quite contrary to his normal life! The love of God is willing, who would have all men come to a knowledge of the truth. The sand needs removing from the machinery, and the folly from the heart, and the great thing is that the One who does it, opened the door of rightness to this, by becoming flesh, and dwelling among us, that through believing in Him, the heart is pardoned, the spirit is renewed and life is granted for ever. Never minimise willingness, nor ignore it!

27) Hosea 13:1

§"When Ephraim spoke, there was trembling: He exalted himself in Israel;
But when he offended in Baal, he died."

In the next item, 28, we have:

"Now they sin more and more,
and have made for themselves moulded images, idols of their silver,
according to their skill: all of it the work of craftsmen."

Two matters, one after the other, arise in this case.

Hosea 13:1

First, let us consider the translation to be given, and then see the reasons.

"When Ephraim spoke, there was trembling: he exalted himself in Israel.

"Now they sin more and more,
and have made for themselves moulded images, idols of their silver,
according to their skill: all of it the work of craftsmen."

Keil in his Old Testament Commentary, wrought with Delitzsch also, favours with reason the translation of the first line. However his understanding of its import is different. To him the trembling results from the force, power and prestige of an uplifted Israel. It is then that his exaltation is noted.

This however would be, while not dissimilar to some of the actions of Ephraim, far from biblical ground of being exalted in Israel by DIVINE measure!

To understand this, it is first necessary to realise that Ephraim had very fertile land, and it is even used as a synonym for Israel (as distinct from the kingdom of Judah, which resulted in the division of the 10 tribes from Judah and Benjamin, after Solomon's rule, in that of Rehoboam). This is seen in Isaiah 7:2, 5, 9, 17. Samaria of course, here mentioned, was the capital of the entire northern kingdom called more often, "Israel".

Ephraim as a tribe had been itself leader enough! Judges 8:1 shows the chaffing at lacking a prominent place in a conflict; and again, the early pitching of the tabernacle was at Shiloh, in the territory of Ephraim. You see a rather rancorous seeming reaction of eminence and assurance likewise, in Judges 12:1ff..

However it is as a nation designated under this name, as a handle, that we find the usage in Hosea, the topic of which is not specialised to tribes, but to the two nations (Hosea 1:1).

You see, in fact, even an alternation between referring to the nation as 'Israel' and 'Ephraim' in this very prophecy, at Hosea 11:1-3. "When ISRAEL was a child, I loved him ... " the Lord declares.

He proceeds in a little,

"I taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by their arms;
but they did not know that I healed them.
I drew them with gentle cords, with bands of love,
and I was to them as those who take the yoke from their neck.
I stooped and fed them."

Here you see the real way in which Ephraim was exalted. He did it by receiving from the Exalted One, the tenderness of His service, the stoop of His grace and the lovingkindness of His compassion. At such a time, when Ephraim spoke, there was trembling. That was the nature of the relationship through which Ephraim was exalted, seen as from his genesis; and it was before the haughteur and self-willed aggrandisements and furies, flurries and worries took hold in the tender soil, like vast weeds. God exalted him when he humbled himself, for the Lord looks to this man, the one of a human and a contrite heart, and who (Isaiah 66:1-2).trembles at His word.

Again, in Jeremiah 31, you see the Lord referring again in tender terms to Ephraim, as if this sinning segment of mankind, so dear to Him in His historic placarding to all the world of His power and His ways, and His scope for salvation amidst them, and again, Ephraim exalts himself by humbling himself, by baring his heart. For it remains true: "The Lord is near to those who have a broken heart, and saves such as have a contrite spirit." It is always true this, that "Blessed are the meek, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"! (Matthew 5). God does not change, nor do His ways (Habakkuk 3:6).

Thus it is not that when Ephraim spoke, as in Hosea 13:1, OTHERS trembled, so that he exalted himself in Israel. Far from this is the case. In fact, God resists the proud (James 4:6 cf. Proverbs 3:34), but gives more grace to the lowly. Keil, whose works are usually so delightful in erudition, therefore, though presenting the Hebrew well, does not present its meaning well. The Authorised Version in this instance, however does! It is well that it is so.

Let us see moreover in Jeremiah 31:16-21, the extent to which it is the TREMBLING character of Ephraim's speech, known to God in its reality, is the strength of his placement!

^"Thus says the Lord:
'Refrain your voice from weeping,
And your eyes from tears;
For your work shall be rewarded, says the Lord,
And they shall come back from the land of the enemy.

'There is hope in your future, says the Lord,
That your children shall come back to their own border.

^'I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself:
"You have chastised me, and I was chastised,
Like an untrained bull;
Restore me, and I will return,
For You are the Lord my God.
Surely, after my turning, I repented;
And after I was instructed, I struck myself on the thigh;
I was ashamed, yes, even humiliated,
Because I bore the reproach of my youth."

^'Is Ephraim My dear son?

Is he a pleasant child?
For though I spoke against him,
I earnestly remember him still;
Therefore My heart yearns for him;
I will surely have mercy on him, says the Lord.' "

It immediately proceeds to show Ephraim the ways of stability and godly strength, culminating in the revelation of the Messiah to come! (Jeremiah 31:21-22), that phenomenon in which the Lord is to change all things, something immediately confirmed in Jeremiah 31:31ff., with the very interstices of the New Covenant to come! (see further, Tender Times for Timely Truth Ch. 1).

Here is the strength, and it is necessary to humble oneself that one may be moved upwards in due time: it is the former, not the latter, which forms the pertinent contrast to Ephraim in former times, and the debased state in which, in the time of Hosea, he was to be found. The nation had NOT been exalted, but humbled, because the day when he spoke, and trembled, has long past.

Now he speaks amiss: indeed, in Hosea 8:3-14, we find these words concerning its debasement, its glorying where glory was not to be found!

"Israel has rejected the good;
The enemy will pursue him.

"They set up kings, but not by Me;
They made princes, but I did not acknowledge them.
From their silver and gold
They made idols for themselves—
That they might be cut off.

"Your calf is rejected, O Samaria!
My anger is aroused against them—
How long until they attain to innocence?
For from Israel is even this:
A workman made it, and it is not God;
But the calf of Samaria shall be broken to pieces.

"They sow the wind,
And reap the whirlwind.
The stalk has no bud;
It shall never produce meal.
If it should produce,
Aliens would swallow it up.

Thus when Ephraim spoke tremblingly, this figure of Israel, he exalted himself in his land; but now! Baal worship, most devoid of fear of the Lord, has brought him down, degraded his very nationhood to the ground, providing ground for condemnation. In other words, it was in the atmosphere of trembling before God, who in His goodness presented wonders of supervision and kindness, that Israel was brought to a high pitch, but in his bursting with pride, he decided to have some other god for his enjoyment, addition, and so depravity spoiled contentment with richness of blessing. The colon in the translation is intended to signify this. The capital in "He" is merely to increase the sense of flow from trembling to exaltation.

28) Hosea 13:2

Hosea 13:2

The Stupendous Outrage

The rendering of the first part of this verse occasions no challenge. The theme of accelerating, rampant and ramifying sin is not uncommon, and is the 'normal and natural' prelude to disaster, to which alas, Israel in its ways found with abundance but no felicity.

Indeed, so like the current Gentile world is the Israel of that ancient day, that we find they even receive this denunciation: "Because Ephraim has made many altars to sin, they have become for him altars for sinning."

Altars for sin ? In this case, 'high places' for worshipping God in their own non-appointed way would become one way of allowing intoxication with the naturalistic fallacies and religions which surrounded them, each one according to his art, or even a city according to its wish. This is the aggregative, the synthetic field for religious reality from God, PLUS man's ways, cultures, morals, if such they may be called.

Thus in Jeremiah 2:27-30 we have these elemental charges from the Lord to His people. What have they been doing ? it has been things like these:

"Saying to a tree, ‘You are my father,’
And to a stone, ‘You gave birth to me.’
For they have turned their back to Me, and not their face.
But in the time of their trouble
They will say, ‘Arise and save us.’

"But where are your gods that you have made for yourselves?
Let them arise,
If they can save you in the time of your trouble;
For according to the number of your cities
Are your gods, O Judah."

Thus the Lord asks:
"Why will you plead with Me?
You all have transgressed against Me."

His remonstration tingles on the very air.

Cities have city-gods, like local Baals, that territorial sink for sin which produces like giant weeds, the altars for abominable things, perversions and deaths, as collective infamies breed. When one protests, when a prophet speaks to correct them, from the Lord, it is as when Jehoash slew Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, who had nurtured him. And why did the king act in such heinour hauteur ? It was because of his lust for change.

They use the sword, they 'devour' the prophets like a destroying lion. It becomes like some autocratic land, like Russia, which for so long has slain so many who dared to criticise, in so many sometimes original but always insatiable ways.

This sort of movement we see in II Chronicles 24:17-22:

"Now after the death of Jehoiada the leaders of Judah came and bowed down to the king. And the king listened to them.

"Therefore they left the house of the Lord God of their fathers, and served wooden images and idols; and wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem because of their trespass.

"Yet He sent prophets to them, to bring them back to the Lord; and they testified against them, but they would not listen.

"Then the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, who stood above the people, and said to them,

'Thus says God:
"Why do you transgress the commandments of the Lord,
so that you cannot prosper?
Because you have forsaken the Lord, He also has forsaken you."

"So they conspired against him, and at the command of the king they stoned him with stones in the court of the house of the Lord. Thus Joash the king did not remember the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but killed his son; and as he died, he said, 'The Lord look on it, and repay!' "

It is in such a development, over the centuries moving like a aeroplane laden with atomic bombs, set upon yielding doors in the bomb-bay, in the midst of it, that Hosea speaks. What new thing, then, have they devised ? what fresh synthesis, laden with the weight of hell has come to afflict their people ?

'New' ? It is not necessarily a genuine novelty, but may be merely a digression from truth, an impression from the rampaging passions of murder, religiously dressed, with pagan concepts of appeasing the gods by slaughter of children, as with Moloch, or in general of mankind, which could also occur with Baal. Indeed, they even import it into scorching substitutes in high places of synthesis, where with the very name of God, they might indulge in such unprincipled works. This they did while both metaphorically sacrificing men (as with Jehoash's llaughtering the son of his protector priest, when challenged to forsake `(II Chronicles 24:15ff.).

The Lord countered their folly with such words as these (Jeremiah 19:5):

"They have built also the high places of Baal,
to burn their sons with fire
for burnt offerings unto Baal,
which I did not commanded, nor speak it,
neither came it into My mind ... "

High places, synthetic religiosity! Murder plus sacrilege plus blasphemy plus tragic distortion of the tenderness due to the child, what an array for judgment; and if a practice, what a thrust for the overthrow of a people!

Now we revert to the translation of Hosea 13:2. We come to the last segment,

"They say of them, 'Let the sacrificers of mankind kiss the calves!' "

Kissing the calves refers to the use of a calf as a symbol for the Lord, perhaps after the style of Aaron's colossal evil, when as a leader of Israel out of the literal slavery in Egypt, by the mighty power of God, he yielded and made a golden calf, so that they could say of it, that this was had led them out of Egypt.

Since such an animal could be sacred in significance in Egypt, this was a synthesis of the things of the Lord with Egyptian power and culture, which God had overthrown, withering their false gods with a literally devastating scorn!

Therefore, when later such things as religiously devised calves were used, there was a ridiculous recidivism, a yearning for the days of slavery if followed to its end, and a mockery of the power that had saved them! How many modern nations are now doing just the same, and are the USA and even Australia coming into this field even now ?

In ancient Israel, what had been exposed as fiction and vapidity, man-religion for the heart of man, in the defeat of Pharaoh's harsh rule over the people of Israel, mere slaves, had thus been brought into the realm of the God who provides, like an imported boil. It was an affront to history, to their escape, that escapade, that miracle chapter in history, but most of all to Him who had rescued them in one of the most scintillating actions of all time, systematic, verbally explicit, wrought in food and water to provide for millions for years, involving not only escape but escapade, not merely deliverance but triumph.

To CONTINUE such practices was of course an action of systematic rebellion, concocted impudence, deliberate duress in the relationship of the people with God, like a divorcee insisting on using the signature of his wife on dud cheques, when the relationship was a mockery! Such was Samaria, with its golden calves. KISSING the calves became an expression of tenderness amidst perversity, worship amidst idolatry, spiritual promiscuity amid rebellion, adorned with sentiment, outrageous in infelicity, a holy hypocrisy.

Thus the charge is that those who deal thus with mankind, that they even SLAY them, in the field of religion, outrageous, inhuman, atrocity-makers, covenant breakers, murderers in the realm of the divine, 'SACRIFICERS OF MANKIND', then come and aggravate their spiritual crimes. How do they, how can they make things worse after religiously drafted murders ? It is in this way.

They then make such a pseudo-sanctified folly of it, that they DARE, even dare to mix their faiths and beliefs and ways with the Lord, and at that, with Himself under the idolatrous guise of a calf, and at that, a calf which looks back to the hideous defilement of giving an Egyptian cult figure, cattle, to the work of the Lord, and at that, doing this when the Lord had just led them out of that culture, and at that, led them out of the slavery which had soiled their spirits, crushed their hearts and riddled their race with ruin.

Moreover, being so callous, they KISS the calf, as if there is to be no end to the mismatches, to the mischiefs, to the perversions and diversions which could be found, as if folly were an art form and the architecture of religion were made an innovative affront to its object, even to the Author of the human race, of 'mankind'.

What more of provocation is POSSIBLE!

This then is the result of sinning more and more, earlier in Hosea 13:2, and here is the climax to it

THEREFORE, the LORD indicates, they will become like the morning cloud and early dew - it just passes with time; and like chaff blown off, like chimney smoke (Hosea 13:3). There comes a time when calamity can be kind, and an interruption of hideous practices by blight can be the only redress to reality.

The Hebrew actually indicates, sacrificers of men in a tight phrase, a participle, those who slay, being bound in the construct state to the following word, man, generic man in emphasis. The plural participle indicates MANY performing an act of slaying relative to something closely bound, and what more so than the word to which follows the construct, namely not men, a plural, but man, in the sense of mankind, most general. But it is NOT general, as MAN, mankind is not so involved. What is involved as man, expressed in the singular but by collective, as mankind, MAN it is which is being sacrificed as the word closely following the connective construct indicates. This is a kind of entity, the sacrificing ones of man, let them kiss... Not among man, readily put clearly by preposition, but in close association with man, combined in alliance by construct form of the participle.

MAN in horror is the term used as to the CAATEGORY offended against, by this slaughtering noted in the construct state, closing with the word following. That is the apt and exact word. The concept that some special feature is to be invented as if sacrificers were simply acting (well or badly), and these are then ironically asked to kiss the calves, is vain. The text refers to those sacrificing relative to, in connection to MAN, what is IN TOTAL and always wrong, quite a sufficient ground for ironic and caustic condemnation.

This solves the situation; the other merely increases its perplexity.. It could have used the relative pronoun if this had been desired, and put it clearly as let men who make sacricies ... but this would be vast over-statment. So it was not put. What was put is precise and excoriating elegance and entirely reasonable.

Indeed, what is the point of dealing with the human race as such when the criminal actions are of a highly specialised segment of it, engaging in select impudence against their King in the Covenant ? It is the RACE which is brought into horrific subjection in this way, and this is an offence of utter abandon before the Lord, who so treats it, in its CATEGORY.

The sacrificers-of-man, let them kiss the calves, the statement comes in dual irony and aghast horror, resounding in scorn.

29) Joel 2:23

§"And ye sons of Zion, exult and rejoice in the Lord your God; for He gives you the teacher for righteousness, and causes to come down to you a rain-fall, early rain and latter rain, first of all."

The excerpt below is taken from Bible Translation 11, n 24. In review of this section of Joel, we have moved from devastation to the beginning of a shower of mercy.

Q) MESSIANIC MERCY

Meanwhile, there is a need. It is of faithfulness, loyalty, stability, earnestness, sincerity.

In Joel 2:23 we read of the former and the latter rain being sent, and the Teacher of Righteousness who beyond all the words of Joel, will Himself produce that final warning, ultimate rescue system, total salvation which is so needed. As Keil translates this verse:

"And ye sons of Zion, exult and rejoice in the Lord your God; for He gives you the teacher for righteousness, and causes to come down to you a rain-fall, early rain and latter rain, first of all."

The temporary judgment is removed, the final court of appeal is preceded by the arrival of the Judge Himself, strangely however robed in teaching toga, to deliver His people before the end so strongly indicated in the preceding vastness of THE DAY OF THE LORD, in its finality.

There is of course a play on words. The term for the rain and for teacher are such that the translation can look at these as options. However, the rain for righteousness would be a strange procedure when the people had forfeited all but the ground for judgment. A rain in mercy, surely, would seem apt and even appropriate; but a rain in righteousness to come when the DESERTS were deserts, this will not do.

Hence the TEACHER FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS, the call, the need, the base for reform and redemption, this is the way. As Keil says, most of the rabbis and early commentators have followed the Chaldee and Vulgate, and taken 'moreh' (the word in view) in the sense of "teacher". He notes that later people often did not, but proceeds "although moreh is unquestionably used in the last clause of this verse in the sense of early rain; in every other instance this is called yoreh (Deut.xi.14; Jer.v.24)." In fact, we may add, in this very verse, 'moreh', THE TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS APPEARS with the definite article, while the use for rain, later in this same verse, lacks it. As we shall see, this omission is what is found for the rain usage.

Thus, right here, both the early rain and the latter rain, one of them the SAME word, appear according to idiom, WITHOUT the article, as normal. The earlier use, appears by CONTRAST, with it. That is precisely the sort of warning for a pun, accompanied by the usage of no article for this rain...

Keil, then, notes that it thus seems most reasonable to take it that the word moreh in the last clause was selected there, precisely to echo the previous occurrence in this sentence of moreh meaning teacher. In other words, it would be a strange rarity to introduce this term without ground for the rain; but not at all strange if its use were conditioned on an intentional play on words, just as the article similarly would be strange. TEACHER first, and THEN RAIN. This is exactly what many teachers do both to alert their (sleepy?) students and to help them remember. To the student mind, this can act rather like a pneumatic drill, and quite often this may be what is needed!

In particular, Keil stresses that the definite article "the" is placed before the term translated as "teacher" whereas this is never found for the 'rain' meaning, and as he indicates, "no reason can be discovered why moreh should be defined by the article here if it signified early rain." It is however "decisively confirmed" by the phrase 'for righteousness' which follow the term rendered 'teacher '. This, he states, is "quite inapplicable to early rain," since it cannot mean either 'in just measure' or 'at the proper time', or 'in becoming manner' as 'righteousness', in the term here chosen, is never scripturally used in the physical sense. To 'the teacher' however it is eminently applicable.

But why would a pun be used at such a point ? Surely it would be to link the teacher and the rain, just as is done in Psalm 72, where of the Messiah, the son of David to come, it is said:

"He will bring justice to the poor of the people:
He will save the children of the needy,
And will break in pieces the oppressor.

They shall fear you,
As long as the sun and moon endure,
Throughout all generations.
He shall come down like rain upon the grass before mowing,
Like showers that water the earth.

In His days the righteous shall flourish,
And abundance of peace,
Until the moon is no more."

(Cf. Item 16, esp. pp. 92ff. above.)

The pun then would be perspicuous, granted it is indicated: it applies, is apt, follows an earlier usage concerning the Messiah in His righteousness in practical things.

Further, our verse in Joel is in a vein of exultancy (Joel 2:21-23):

§"Fear not, O land:

Be glad and rejoice,

For the Lord has done marvellous things!...

Be glad then, you children of Zion,
And rejoice in the Lord your God:

For He has given you the teacher of righteousness,

And He will cause the rain to come down for you,

The former rain and the latter rain ..."

It then proceeds, exactly as in Psalm 72 to specify the emblems of flourishing.

The so-called prophetic perfect is in use: the Lord "HAS DONE" marvellous things, while this is in fact to come, being seen in His mindful eye as present, and placed before the prophet thus graphically, vividly, as if here now.

The 'marvellous things' remind one of Isaiah 29:14 (cf. SMR p. 788), which Paul refers to the coming of the Gospel: it is a passage showing the work the Lord will do to open the blind eyes. It is quite parallel to the preceding passage in 28:14-16, which ends with the laying of

"a stone for a foundation, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation",

adding this:

"whoever believes will not act hastily."

Indeed, in that context, Isaiah proceeds (29:17ff.) from the foundation stone, to the detailing of the specific functions in healing body and spirit, to be performed by the Messiah:

"In that day the deaf shall hear the words of the book,
And the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity and out of darkness.
The humble also shall increase their joy in the Lord,
And the poor among men shall rejoice
In the Holy One of Israel."

This then is the phase of marvellous work, and it corresponds like Psalm 72, precisely with our present passage in its similar exultancy. Just as Isaiah 28 brings in the Messiah in 28:16, the sure foundation, and declares an "awesome work" in 28:21, expanded to "a marvellous work and a wonder" so that the wise lose their knowledgeable pretensions in the face of it, in Isaiah 29:14, and hypocrisy is exposed (as in Matthew 23!), for those who draw near with their lips, their hearts yet obdurate: so here. The Messiah is first seen, in this case the teacher of righteousness, and this is MARVELLOUS just as His name is "wonderful" in Isaiah 9:6, and great things are done (as in Isaiah 29:18 cf. Ch. 35), seen in Joel 2:25-26, and the Spirit is poured out of from on high: Joel Jole 2:28 cf. Isaiah 29:19, 32:15. Thus there is perfect and indeed intimate parallelism of presentation of Isaiah and Joel, in word, phrase and substance.

Further, the intense emphasis on the wonder of things in the sequence is more than merely verbal (signal as this is): it shouts from both contexts (as in Joel 2:21,28ff.) and its vibrant echoes bore into the heart, as one reads the various throbbing and impactive attestations of the world-shattering, spirit exposing, evil rebuking freedom and power with which the Lord in astonishing fashion, is to act (as was the case in those predictive days, leading up, in due course, to the coming of the Messiah). Everything is a turning upside of established sin patterns, a subduing of specialised follies with a liberality of love and splendour of mercy, that moves from Isaiah's child who is to be called wonderful (Isaiah 9) to Joel's "wonders in the heavens and in the earth" and "marvellous things" that surround the events of such substantial ultimacy. Paul captures and expounds further, from the Lord, in I Corinthians 1.

This rendering in Joel, "teacher of righteousness", moreover prevents a four-fold reference to rain, which otherwise occurs in Joel 2:23. It likewise means that "the teacher of righteousness" with the idiom appropriate is used, followed by the generic reference to rain, and then the division of rains into former and latter.

It balances and all is thus explained, but not otherwise.

The pun, let us stress, is moreover explained; for it is a large part of the script that the bounty is mercy, the Messiah is the ground and the result is in blessing. The link is didactic, educational, inspiring, and ... needful. It is not some flick of feeling, but a well-grounded mercy which proceeds at enormous cost, that of the Messiah, as elsewhere so often shown; and here, as to emphasis, with wonderful input of real righteousness, the enduring and close relation of exuberant joy in the mercies of God.

Let us however return to Keil's own point to the effect that there was no way that this rain would be a rain of righteousness, if that rendering were given. It would not fit; indeed its non-fit would be quite as conspicuous as the fit when it is rendered teacher of righteousness. "THE RAIN FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS" ... that is what it would be.

However, the people were seeking compassion not righteousness, and to render the rain as for righteousness when drought would be the proper assessment, would invade mercy and cloud the whole doctrine of scripture. It is not in STABILITY and FAITHFULNESS despite sin that the rain comes; it is in mercy to cover sin that it is sent. Righteousness is NOT the point. It is contrary to it, and evacuates it, for rain. For the TEACHER however it is His intrinsic nature, and their absolute need. Thus negatively and positively, idiomatically and contextually, grammatically and intensively in the sentence itself, we find one thing.

We conclude on these many grounds, then, that it is a ... TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS AS THE STRONG TRADITION OF RABBIS HELD, and not doubtless without reason; and as the Chaldee and Vulgate present. A... ? No, "THE" TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. The results will be proportionate!

What then do we learn from this Messianic marvel: the arrival of this teacher?

That this is part of the apparatus of mercy, and a large part. We have moved from the preliminary judgment to the final one in Joel 2, and we move similarly to the first advent of the Messiah in 2:23 to the second one in Joel 3, making yet one more parallel (3:14ff.). And this Messiah, HOW spectacularly HE teaches, yet not sensationalistically at all: Isaiah 11:2-4, 32:1-3. Indeed, it will be the sort of speech with strength and savour, unique and splendid, which though filled with mercy, holds scent of judgment to come (Isaiah 11:4, cf. John 7:46ff., Matthew 23, Luke 19:41ff.) And it holds rest, a resting place indeed, on which souls may rest from the tempest (Isaiah 11:10, 4:1-6, 32:1-4), the rest which comes from imputed righteousness (Psalm 32:1-4), which comes from the purchase of all time (Isaiah 53:4-11).

We now proceed to what follows in the text. Now it comes with the force of relish. The Messiah having come, there is naturally a profoundly powerful consequence, and this theme, the vital force of the New Covenant proceeds just as it does so often in the Old Testament (cf. Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 11, Isaiah 54-55). The Messiah first, and then the fruits that extend like showers that water the earth. What then do we find?

PREVIEW OF PENTECOST AND
PREPARATION FOR JUDGMENT

"Afterward" (Joel 2:28-32), there is what came to be quoted at Pentecost, that description of dream and vision, power and wonder, calling upon the name of the Lord and the rapid approach of the final crisis and juncture with judgment itself. There is here what we realise to be the whole reign of the church age in the New Testament format following the incarnation.

The meaning is clear. After all this, first the removal of temporary judgment and then the coming and work of the Lord as Christ, the Messiah, the crucified, mourned for in due time as shown in Zechariah 12:10, there is to be an epochal wonder leading on to the end of the entire Age. In this is to be, then, the outpouring of the Spirit of which Joel speaks in terms of such scale, in 2:29. They are epochal in three dimensions: 1) the power 2) the revelation and 3) the judgment looking down at the end, coming precipately as the Age comes to its closure, without further ado. It is post-Messianic, pre-judgment. Let us look further at this Age.

It will be vast, on the lowly and the many;
it will be dynamic, dreams and visions ,
it will touch the whole house,
and it will be to the accompaniment of the gathering clouds
which will rain judgment for some,
though there is this same tenderness in the meantime,
with the early and latter rain to be remembered.

The Lord does indeed send His rain on the just and on the unjust, but on the unjust, it is IN MERCY. Thus the chapter 3 goes on to it tempestuous ending, reminiscent greatly of Habakkuk 3. War is dramatically indicated (3:10-11) in an irony not without pity, as the foolish fastheads amongst men do their utmost to be their own salvation, so slaughtering inordinately in their falsity, and flashly bungling.

Thus we find a cohesion and a mercy focussed and multiplied in many phases, even amidst judgment in this far from the inspired writings of this merely minor prophet, Joel.

30) Amos 4:13

§ "For behold,
He who forms mountains,
And creates the wind,
Who declares to man what His thought is,
And makes the morning darkness,
Who treads the high places of the earth -
The LORD God of hosts is His name."

The point for translation lies in line 4.

The excerpt below is taken from Bible Translations 7, No 13.

Here, the difference is small, but not so small is the issue. The NKJV has this, that God is the One who "declares his thought to man" in a context where capitalisation is used when the Lord is in view. Thus, if it be the Lord’s own thought, then this would be "declares His thought to man". The NKJV, therefore, excludes God here, in favour of man. It thus becomes the message that God is the one who psycho-analyses or discovers in man his little thoughts, and as it were, shows them up on the screen for man to see. Is that however the thrust of the passage ? Hardly. It is all declamatory, declarative FROM GOD TO MAN! The chapter starts,

"Hear this word, you cows of Bashan, who are on the mountain of Samaria, who oppress the poor,
Who crush the needy… The LORD has sworn by His holiness,
‘Behold the days shall come upon you …’ "

The whole chapter is an exercise is exposure of sin, BY the word of the holy God, who SAYS what is to be done, and what He has done, so revealing both His majesty and His mind, relative to the foolish, unjust and rebellious ways of man. It is NOT the declaration of what man is thinking, but of what he is DOING, and what the LORD is saying about it, which is the emphatic and unmistakable context!

In advising them to be ready after they DID NOT LISTEN TO WHAT HE SAID AND DID FOR SO LONG, he comes to the climax in 4:12-13. Thus in Amos 3:7-8 where He even makes the generic point that it is He who declares His thought:

"Surely the Lord GOD does nothing,
Unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets.
A lion has roared!
Who will not fear ?
The Lord GOD has spoken!
Who can but prophesy ?"

The prophecy indeed near its commencement, after the declaration of who the prophet is, has this in Amos 1:2:

"The LORD roars from Zion,
And utters His voice from Jerusalem…
For three transgressions and for four…"

It continues almost unrelenting, with the precise depictions of what the LORD has chosen to do, conveyed through what He has chosen to say. In Ch. 3, it starts, "Hear this word that the LORD has spoken against you, O children of Israel," and then exhibits the text in 3:7 noted above, in which the LORD’s undertaking is made clear, about what He will REVEAL, SAY for Israel to HEAR. He proceeds to divulge these words, until 4:1, where the exposure becomes vehement. He then in Amos 4, exposes what He has thought and done, relative to punishment of Israel in five stages, and then in 4:12 declares that now - having heard and received all this, His deeds replete complete with detailed explanation, following this rehearsing of their failures before Him - they must prepare to MEET their God. Discipline did not create the pangs of conscience, and punishments did not lead to repentance, so now only the direct and fateful meeting is left.

"Prepare to meet your God!, O Israel!"

Now is this sequence, series and stress, a revealing of the will and mind and word of GOD or of man! Is the dénouement one of crisis through man’s thoughts exposed, or man’s deed exposed by GOD’S THOUGHTS and the DIVINE WORDS of retribution and judgment! To ask is to answer. Thus it is properly, "Who declares to man what His thought is!" To import man here is not merely contrary to the ENTIRE strength of the context, and of the preceding chapters, and of the key note commencement, but contrary to it. This is simply not what it is about! It rather reflects what has been said in 3:7-8, and applies it in a more totally retributive situation, a climax to all that went before in 4:13, in one of the most beautifully majestic utterances essentialising and giving vast perspective in its consistent thrust… To fail here, is like talking about flowers, while visiting the moon.

NOTE: For more on this verse, see VICTORY Ch. 9, where linked on the Web version..

31) Habakkuk 2:13

§"It is not of the LORD of hosts that peoples toil for the flames,
and nations grow weary for nothing;
for the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea."

The excerpt below is taken from The Bright Light and the Uncomprehending Darkness, Ch. 8.

DARKNESS OF SPIRIT IS NOT OF THE LORD

AND WILL MEET HIS SWORD:

UNCOMPREHENDING AND COMPREHENSIVELY STRICKEN

Let us consider Habakkuk 2:13-14, and with this, allied scriptures to show the lively loveliness of the Lord, who neither as dictator, disenables the liberties of man, nor supine, ignores them. Instead, showing all things over time, and dispossessing devilish dynamic of its pretence by allowing its actual ways to reveal themselves in our time, He acts in His own critical axis of action, and completes the lessons of the ages with the eventual rebukes to shame, and overthrow of shambles.

This theme of using history to educate powers and bodies of various celestial kinds is seen in Ephesians 3:7ff. (emphasis is added, to focus our point):

”Of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of His power. To me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to bring to light what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world has been hidden in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

”To the intent that now to the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be made known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by faith in Him.”

This theme is more generally apparent in such places as Habakkuk, and relative to the nations of the earth, in Ezekiel 37:28. The same theme is exposed in the book of Job, where trial of faith is made in the very light – or better, darkness, of the Satanic challenge, so abundantly met, that Job served God for reward!

(On the case and procedure for Job: See SMR pp. 95ff., The Power of Christ’s Resurrection and the Fellowship of His Sufferings Chs. 3, 4, 5, 6.)

Consider it again.

§ "It is not of the LORD of hosts that peoples toil for the flames,
and nations grow weary for nothing,
for the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea."

With the intial force of denial, it is as if to say: NOT OF THE LORD IS IT THAT ... these things happen. It resembles the force and thrust of Psalm 50:21-23! (italics added for the point in view).

"You sit and speak against your brother;
You slander your own mother’s son.
These things you have done, and I kept silent;
You thought that I was altogether like you;
But I will rebuke you,
And set them in order before your eyes.

"Now consider this, you who forget God,
Lest I tear you in pieces,
And there be none to deliver:
Whoever offers praise glorifies Me;
And to him who orders his conduct aright
I will show the salvation of God."

No, God is not at all like this, His way is wholly contrary to the woeful and self-important contaminations of spirituality to be seen in the vapid ways of this cluttered world; and His zest and zeal is that people realise this, repent and seek Him, for both now within, and when He acts in power, for all to see most manifestly, there will come suddenly the vindication of His righteousness and the devastation of what opposes it. If now liberty allows folly, yet it divinity does not endorse it, merely letting it declare its heart.

If now in patience, He lets things show their inward realities, then in His time they will meet their full disclosure. In the interim, what massive delusion to imagine that it is OF HIM that these things happen. What preposterous impudence of vocal pollution, as if devastation had its voice, or a serpent could talk as well as crawl!

Did you imagine, in effect He is asking, that the liberty that allows abuse of truth and righteousness meant that the Lord neither knew nor cared, or rather that He endorsed it, because this is what HE IS LIKE! So far is this from being the case, that it is as urgent as seeking an operation on melanoma, to remedy such misconception. It is precisely thus that comes the message in Habakkuk. Let us then see! IT IS NOT OF THE LORD that all this festering horror of human invention, this imagination of the evil heart of man so proceeds, any more that at the time of the flood (Genesis 6:1-6). It is repugnant to Him, and He deals with it at times and places of His choosing; eventually in such a way that the whole earth will resound with the realities now so misused, and so blasphemously touted!

Meanwhile, let us see some translations of the passage in Habakkuk which concerns us.

NAV ^"Is not this from the LORD of hosts:
peoples toil for the flames,
and nations grow weary for nought!
But the earth shall be filled
with the knowledge of the LORD’S glory
as water covers the sea."

"Behold, is it not of the Lord of hosts
That the peoples labor to feed the fire,
And nations weary themselves in vain?
For the earth will be filled
With the knowledge of the glory of the Lord,
As the waters cover the sea."

BERKELEY VERSION

"Consider, it is not from the LORD of hosts that people exert themselves
for what goes up in smoke, and that the nations exhaust themselves for nothing.

For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD
as the waters cover the sea."

REVIEW OF THE REVELATION
AND PROTESTATION OF THE LORD IN HABAKKUK

TEXT AND CONTEXT

These are opposite preliminaries to the statement of faith, that "the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea."

One would think it would not be too exceedingly difficult to choose between these two translations, which actually are working from a text which simply says "not from the Lord of hosts that ..."

Does it mean, "It is not ..." or "Is it not ?" It comes in calamitously in reproach, NOT FROM THE LORD OF HOSTS THAT ... It is an almost belligerent announcement.

The context must determine it, both local and overall, but one thing is sure: the writer was led to write in this way, so that the reader is EXPECTED to see which it is, and not only so, but to see it emphatically, for as written, the statement IS emphatic!

There is a close parallel in Isaiah 11 which depicts the rule of the returned Messiah in power and majesty, and the emphasis just preceding it in 11:9 is the protective prevention of the Lord on earth, so that "they will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain", the dual aspects of the destruction of unrighteousness and the nurture of what is good and righteous, being prominent.

In this case, where we have "for" following, it also precedes the words, "the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea." In other words, in view of the dual presence, as the Messiah, seed of David on the human side, and protection and power, the earth will be so blessed.

Here then we see the expression of just this theme in positive terms, so that BECAUSE the Lord is present in this unveiling of His intents, THEREFORE the earth will AT THAT PREDICTED TIME be so filled with this knowledge of His glory. Indeed, in that day there will be "a Root of Jesse," the context proceeds, "who will stand as a banner for the people: for the Gentiles will seek Him and His resting place will be glorious."

Thus in harmony and application of this knowledge of His glory is His call to the people, and His comfort for them when they come, in words of course close to those of Christ as seen in Matthew 11:27-28.

The suffering to start and the glory to come was a theme of Christ as shown in Luke 24, where He deems it obvious and conceives that they ought to have known of this sequence in His Messianic ministry.

This glory to follow then is expressive of the heart of God, and it is unfolded in the ultimate with safety, comfort and protection in the midst of majesty: such is the message of Isaiah in the parallel.

It is of some interest here that, in Habakkuk 2, there is the addition of the words "of the glory" before "of the Lord". However, in Isaiah the emphasis is on this closeness, which though glorious, is preserved from being lost to the reader in any sense of a glory which might deflect from the reality of the personal; whereas in Habakkuk, where the vision is more general, the glory of it all is added in emphasis.

His 'glory' moreover suggests a sense of unfolding from the very heart and source.

What however IS this heart and source in this case ? Is it not that God is, after all, zealous for this provision of kindness, love and charity, comfort and relief to man, if only he will return to Him and receive Him, so that WHEN He comes it is precisely this which is presented, which always was in heart! (CF. Ezekiel 33:11).

Turning now back to Habakkuk 2:13, what does one encounter ? There is to be found in the preceding verses an emphasis on the oppression, injustice and evil bases in which the city is appallingly operative, and on the woe to those who engage in constructive enterprises where murder and oppression are but tools of the trade. We see by contrast the huge transformation that is to come in 2:14.

Thus, the message is that despite the blundering, cluntering, obstructive presence of traitors to truth who vainly and in pride build and operate, the actual ruler and sovereign of the earth is not at all like this; for it is not of His heart and mission that such things should be.

While, then, there is in the contemporary scene such pillage and pollution, such oppression and intrusive passion of wickedness that it seems almost as if this is the story of things: yet far from true is such an impression. Indeed, the Lord is affirming, it is NOT OF THE LORD that such negative gnashing, gashing works of evil occur, and as testimony of this supervening fact is this: that the unfolding of things will reveal that the earth will be filled, not just able to discern in measure, but filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord.

It will not have to content itself with some abstraction, some implication or impression; but on the contrary, it will be covered with the reality which lack of faith hid from the eyes of the sad or sceptical (cf. SMR pp. 257ff.). KNOWLEDGE to the contrary of the sad effronteries of self-exalting flesh, oppressing flesh: this will be not merely available, but overpoweringly obvious. What had been hidden, will be shouted from the house-tops!

More: this filling will not be merely some royal tour, as if part of a program so that when it passes, the evil continues. Far from such superficiality will be this glorious reign, this expression and manifestation of the glorious Lord. In fact, this knowledge of His goodness and truth, to the contrary of the knowledge of impious transgression in high places now so conspicuous in the earth, it will be this one which suffuses the whole earth.

The awareness of the glory of the Lord, the knowledge of it, the realisation of its sanctity and sovereignty will be so great that the earth will not be able to lack it in any groove, under any rock, in any pasture or in any valley! The FILLING of the earth with the knowledge of this glory of the Lord will thus be impregnable in power and pervasive in coverage, so that it will resemble a natural event of which we are so very aware. What event then is this ? It is the waters of the sea.

In what way do the waters cover the sea ? Do we find that there is an inadequacy ? or do the proud waves surge and pound, so that they need the restraint of the Lord lest they should proceed too far and move onto the earth and inundate it (Jeremiah 5:22). A perpetual decree, we there read, stops the ocean from proceeding too far in its raging torrential powers. The ocean is indeed both deep and strong, a vast concourse of waters and currents, a huge display of aqueous wonder, now calm, now storming, now surging; and it is in just such a way AS the waters COVER the sea, that the knowledge of the glory of the Lord will COVER or FILL the earth.

There will be no barrier here, but on the contrary, this is like water in the domain of the sea, where its coverage is its VERY ESSENCE!

It is, then, in this way, despite the contemporary wickedness which is to receive its come-uppance in various ways (cf. Ezekiel 29:17ff., Jeremiah 25), and terminally in the day of the Lord (cf. Habakkuk 3:4ff.), that the Lord will unfold, will disclose, will unveil and exhibit, manifest and exuberantly declare His glory over all the earth, so that it is KNOWN in the earth!

That then is the meaning of Habakkuk 2:13-14, and not the precise opposite. What would that show ? That this horrible musty, measly and pathological, this impure and conceitedly grasping of bloody hands on earth, this invasion the social scene with its fiscal improprieties and inequitable grabbing is OF THE LORD. It is OF HIM that this ravage is in place! He is basic to and ensurer of the situation of such dynamic drabness and corrupt folly. It is just like Him, accords with His nature. That is why He starts with NOT OF THE LORD ? Scarcely! On the contrary, He distances Himself vitally from, this ludicrous abuse of man by man, which freedom which H e has indeed granted enables, but not ultimately. For the earth, He has in store the utter opposite, when tests done, and evil exposed, His will is for earth as in heaven.

The idea of making 2:13 as a question, would turn the point on its head, and have such a result as backer of all evil. Far is that from, Him,, whose mercies have so often and for so long prolonged opportunity, before bringing judgment (as in Ezekiel 16, 20, Jeremiah 18). Nothing could well be further from the Lord than this, who reluctantly and eventually so acts as need be, or to expose folly which disdains Him,, to what it is really asking for.

Say what you will about sovereignty, this is not some junta running God, but the ground of expression of mercy, justice and ultimate control in a world given vast freedoms for a great love. Let us consider it further...

It is just what He is ordaining, and as witness of this, it is then - on such a model of interpretation, horrible as it is - to be assumed that the ground for such a belief, such an inundation with evil as occurs so often, is this, that the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.

That would be a perfect contradiction, and thus enables us to see that the thing is emphatic, and the ellipsis, "not of the Lord" rather than "it is not of the Lord" is perfectly safe in its dramatic mode; for the alternative option in reading it is, if not ridiculous, at least perspicuously in collision with the context, both here and in the case of Isaiah where it applies, at the outcome phase when the Lord is actually present.

Even though, and of course, the Lord does indeed determine that in view of His creation of human liberty and its nestling place for the exhibition and reception of love (and thus of the opposite, which liberty enables), there is scope for such evils, these are not the ground for the ensuing statement that the world will be filled with what is the actual reality of the nature and heart of God, in His time of disclosure and judgment.

The context in Habakkuk 2 proceeds to indicate the force of judgment to come on those who, despite the actual lovingkindness and equity of the Lord, and the judgment to come when all is to be revealed, continue in their hoodlum ways. These, or people such as these, we learn "are filled with shame instead of glory" (2:16), and "the cup of the Lord's right hand" is to be "turned against" such people! (cf. Jeremiah 25).

How vain, Habakkuk 2 continues, to look to fabricated, to made gods; for it is the actual one who is considering and will act.

In this way, the message of the contradiction between man's ways and those of God is simply and clearly continued from before to after the 2:14 statement on the filling of the earth with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, which in the midst of these moral and ethical censures, is to come as Habakkuk 3 shows, in implacable and illimitable measure, when all the intervening rebukes done, and the allowances for liberty over, He acts manifestly to invest the earth in its ways, with His own.

Then will be rest and sufficiency, if now there is test and there is exposure of what man is; for as man shows his hand now, so God will show His hand then; and even in the interim, His heart is against these marauders of morals, these spiritual idolaters and people of grasping injustice with whom He deals as empires or persons, from time to time, yet not so much as to collapse the liberty of man, nor so little as to leave him complacent or merely co-operating for gain! It is indeed that latter case that the book of Job so painstakingly exposes! (cf. SMR pp. 95ff.).

Looking back before 2:14, we see the preliminaries to this exposure to come, when all will be wholly manifest in an inescapable fashion; for in 2:11 we find that in the midst of this plundering passion of iniquitous man, there is a future:

"for the stone will cry out from the wall
and the beam from the timbers will answer it."

What is the nature of this architectural discourse then ? It is summed up in the next verse with the word "Woe!" It cries before it is ravaged, and the indictment long endures before the calamity strikes. It is not of the Lord, but of the persistence of folly, that it inherits over the head of His sacrificial love, what comes to the obdurately lost (cf. Acts 7:51ff.).

The nations proceed thus, BUT It then proceeds to tell us that all of this is NOT of the LORD, and there is a ground for making this statement. WHY is it not of the Lord ? It is seen in the disposition of His heart: FOR the earth will be FILLED with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea, and thus, as the theme is completed in Habakkuk, that what is now done in darkness, will perish in light.

And why ? Because it is NOT of Him, and when His hand is fully revealed this will be an inescapable component of His majesty! ALL the earth will see what now is a moral declamation, and KNOW what is now a statement to faith by the observation of manifest transformation of the very earth by the transcendent power of God (Isaiah 11, 65,Psalm 72, Psalm 2, 67:7, Micah 7:15ff., Revelation 20)..

§ 32)

In Zechariah 9:17 the NKJV does not contextually rightly render, except in the margin, where it correctly shows what is actually written, the text.

§This is :"HOW GREAT IS HIS GOODNESS!"

We are not referring to the great goodness of many, but to that of one, of whom it may truthfully be asserted.. It is not to an entire people, themselves rescued only by the blood of the covenant (Zechariah 9:11), that such an accolade is given, but to Him who by His own blood (cf. Zechariah 12:10),does the rescuing .There IS ONE in the context, God to whom, in His meticulous mercy as here illustrated, the praise applies. Someone rescued from drowning is not normally deemed heroic.

The singular has a natural place, that of only ONE which, or who is in view. There is no ground for introducing the word "its" in the context; and in putting "its" for "his". In so doing, you embark on an intrusion, if not invasion of the sentiment both here and as is normal in scripture. This is that it is GOD who is good and the greatness of goodness is HIS, definitively!

GOODNESS AND MERCY FOLLOW, but I do not LEAD with them. They find their place in me by derivation and it is the source I signalise, praise and acclaim. In the Bible man is not his own s aviour, nor is the one occasioning the vast work of salvation, deemed to have great goodness; indeed, anything but in the natural state (Isaiah ). Thus turning His to its is a work which, quite simply, the context does not warrant or permit. It is, in particular, the Lord who DEFENDS them; it is HE who will SAVE them(9:15-16), and it is He who in His gracious deliverance, deems them like jewels. Such was it His grace to favour, them, and it is in Him they glory (cf. Isaiah 2:17).

33) Zechariah 14:5

§Thus the LORD my God will come,
And all the saints with You.

Deuteronomy 33:2-3 gives a vitally interesting background to "all His saints", with whom Christ comes as shown in I Thessalonians 3:13, in terms of what this phrase signifies in translation, in concept. The references in Revelation 19, where the saints are first shown arrayed as the bride in the costume which is precisely that of those who, after the marriage feast in heaven, accompany Christ, as He returns in triumph to the earth, have the significance of symbolic consistency: His raptured and received people are those who are His company in heaven, and as demarcated there, are enumerated with Him at His coming.

In Zechariah 14:5 similarly we see Him come to earth with all His saints, while in Deuteronomy 33:2-3 we see a reference to His coming with ten thousands of saints, and immediately afterwards, a designation of "all His saints", which are so much the redeemed, as to be seen in this context:

"Yes, He loves the people;
All His saints are in Your hand:
They sit down at Your feet:
Everyone receives Your words.
Moses commanded a law for us,
A heritage of the congregation..."

This is in precise accord and indeed striking accord with John 17 where the unity of the brethren is so INTENSELY and IMMENSELY desired, that the world might believe, and see that Christ was indeed sent from heaven, and that God has loved them as He loved His own eternal Word, incarnate as Christ (John 17:21-23,1-3, 1:1-4, 5:19-23). This impactive parallel is the more obvious in this, that those concerned, in John 17, are a limited selection compared with the large number of nominal Christians, being in fact those of whom He has made an identifying statement. It is this.

"I have given to them the words which You have given Me;
and they have received them, and have known surely
that I came forth from You;
|and they have believed that You sent Me" -

John 17:8, and this:

"the glory which You gave Me I have given them",

with this great resultant desired,

"that they may be one just as we are" - John 17:22.

Comparing this with Deuteronomy 33 above, we see Christ as the greater than Moses, the One of "more glory than Moses" since "He who built the house has more glory than the house" and He who built the house is God, while Christ has the place of "a Son over His own house, whose house we are", who are His. In this Christ is fulfilling His decisive role as acme and ruler, as designated in Deuteronomy 18, being He for whom the Jewish people looked, wondering if Christ were "that prophet": though indeed many did not receive Him when He came. Those who did however, were so regarded.

Hence those who accompany Christ as He comes in judgment to the earth, "all His saints", are converted, regenerated people having a spirit of oneness on the basis of a written word which is wholly endorsed, received, a Lord who is truly acknowledged as deity and indwells them, whose word rules (Matthew 28:20, 5:17-19) so that they not only believe it, but in obedience to Him, teach ALL that He has commanded, or forward the work of those who do. It is not just believing the book 'cover to cover', but what is in it: accepting its teaching.

While we must therefore seek unity with "all His saints", we must never make THEIR words a criterion, but HIS; and when, through deficiency of understanding, one is less aware than another of the meaning of His word, provided it is not gross and clear rebellion against what is written, a unity of heart can and should still be manifest beyond the imperfections of comprehension. Sometimes in this way, both learn! Nevertheless, where there is rebellion against the teachings of the Lord, there can in this case be no organic unity (see The Kingdom of Heaven, Ch.7).

§'ALL HIS SAINTS' then both literally as to the people in view, in their integrity, and the primary background in Deuteronomy, include those who are called in Christ, who sit as His feet, receive His words, to whom He has imparted His Spirit (cf. Romans 8:6-9). While this does not here affect the actual translation, it does affect the understanding of it

34) Malachi 2:12,15

§But did He not make one ?
and did He not have a residue of the Spirit ?,
And why one ?
He seeks a godly offspring.
Therefore take heed to your spirit,
And leet none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.

Malachi! the last book in the Old Testament, with lustrous references to the coming Messiah, both to save and to judge, and interrogatory dialogue exposing hypocrisy in a way suggestive, like foothills, of the X-ray words of Christ to the Pharisees, it is easily categorised - amiss!

In fact it has depths of beauty.

One verse of these has had translation almost sufficient to transform the hair into erect, bristle like structures!

It is to be found in Ch. 2:15.

To translate, in general, you need the words, any idioms, the sense, the flow, the direction, the message, the logic, the felicity, the beauty or thrust of aim. With the Bible, you need ideally, a love of the Lord in order to understand the more intimately the character of His utterance. Love tends to understand!

Let us look at Ch. 2 as an approach to verse 15.

THE FLOW OF CHAPTER TWO

After the excoriation of Ch. 1, we find in Ch. 2 various applications of a message. The PRIESTS first, these are found most lax, slack and disinclined even to give the GLORY to the name of the Lord which is its due. Spiritually nonchalant ? too fat ? too professional ? they "do not take it to heart". The results of this are to be bitter; but the beginning of it all is mused upon. In verse 5, we find that God said up a covenant, a solemn agreement at His divine initiative, and calling the priesthood, He looked upon its operation. "My covenant was with him, one of life and peace..."

In fact, "the law of truth was in his mouth, and injustice was not found on his lips. He walked with Me in peace and equity, and turned many away from iniquity" (2:6).

We turn to the requisite: "the lips of the priest SHOULD keep knowledge, and people SHOULD seek the law from his mouth" (v. 7).

There is a stabilising, clarifying, inculcating, distilling function from the priest. He does not invent, but represents what is to be given, for what it is.

Quite the contrary was the practice. It tended to be very much like that of the Sadducees, rebuked by the Lord in His own day on this earth (Luke 11:52), and small wonder (11:54). Vehement and unruly, they hated the Lord they seemed to represent! You have DEPARTED from the way; you have caused many to STUMBLE at the law, and "therefore I have made you contemptible". Such was the charge in Malachi. That is perhaps one reason why the prolonged TV show, Dad's Army made the Church of England clergyman a butt for unveiled satire.

Malachi then moves to the national level. Even Judah, the southern section of the divided nation, where the temple indeed was, itself "has dealt treacherously". This nation has PROFANED, secularised religion (rather, perhaps like that Anglican Primate who made it unnecessary, really, to have Christ as the only way to God, indeed, felt this not now permissible!). This too is quite like the case in New Zealand, where the author participated in the confrontation with rank unbelief, duly sanctified by the apostasising church. There, a Principal had felt that the physical and the supernatural were not quite amenable as too distinct, to the modern mind; hence, the bodily resurrection was deemed best ousted.

Bare-faced as all this seems, then in that place, where intolerance of truth bloomed like desert cactus, we heard in debate ludicrous irrelevancies, such as this, that it would be too bad to be still legless or lame in heaven! What in the world has a NON-bodily resurrection scenario, to do with a bodily resurrection transformation. However, when the tides of unbelief roar, it is hard to be heard, but not to be assailed for the merest fidelity to faith, logic and truth, and this above all, to Christ.

With such nearer to contemporary cases in view, it is not hard to imagine the divine displeasure with the extraneous, the imperious and the unfaithful, strutting in clothes of authority. Small wonder too that we hear the metaphor, that many were married to the daughter of a foreign god. It appeared as heartless disloyalty, pretence and pretension all in one blighted broth. That then was the situation in the Israel of Malachi's day, in no mean measure.

To them, it was too much to see the sacred place in the heart of God, of the sublime, divine covenant, and all its specifications and revelation. It was one, nevertheless, whose unbounded cost was such that its requirement was covered only when it was all consummated in Christ. Assuredly, this covenant, this sacred preliminary to the finale in Christ, was a "holy institution which He loves".

This reminds us of the fearful penalties, due and spiritual, which relate in the Bible to tampering, toying and trifling with the objective truth of the word of God, while still maintaining some sort of semblance of relationship to Him. Whether it is radical liberal neologians, in their intoxication, or inter-religious congratulations, as with PM Blair and President Bush of late, whether it is WCC amalgams of religions, or social, psychological or other 'interpretations' of religion, which subordinate it to culture and culture to man, so making God not there, and man divine: it all tends in but one direction, and to be one thing. (See Lord of Life Chs. 8, 9, and Chs. 8 , 13 of Red Alert ...)

That ? It is this: they are a mockery of the God whose revelation has been given as authoritative, actual and final.

· §"May the LORD cut off from the tents of Jacob

· The one who does this,
watcher and answerer,
who yet brings an offering to the LORD of hosts!"

(Malachi 2:12).

This is italicised, since there is some variation in this translation also. However, what is given is literal, and obviously you could INTERPRET it to mean teacher and student, or guard and challenged and so on. These would be sub-categories. However, as we shall see later, one rule in translation must surely be this: translate what is THERE! Interpret ? yes, afterwards.

Thus in this case, ALL are involved in this stricture, whether in authority, or under it, whether engaged in teaching, or learning from those who propound, whether those who query, or respond and so on. It is reminiscent of Isaiah's great word in Ch. 24:

· "As with the people, so with the priest;
As with the servant, so with his master;
As with the maid, so with her mistress;
As with the buyer, so with the seller;
As with the lender, so with the borrower;
As with the creditor, so with the debtor.
The land shall be entirely emptied and utterly plundered,
For the LORD has spoken this word.

"The earth mourns and fades away..."

Such attitudes of slack spirit, then, exemplify TREACHERY (Malachi 2:16-17). Small wonder there is the scene of judgment, of being cut off, for those who make a practice of such things.

Man against man, fails in HIS part in the covenant; and man versus GOD so universally fails to fulfil what is divinely in force. The folly is seen, then, in the national pastime of "marrying the daughter of a foreign god" (2:11). This then leads us to the concept of execution, removal of this presumptuous humbug, which formally comes to the LORD, and yet oils with words, caresses with comfort, gives succour and comfort to the ENEMY, to the NOT-GOD (Deuteronomy 32:21), which we have seen before, is that searing insult to God from a failing people.

They turn from Him who is, to what is not, and worship the shade, the nothing, like misled physicist or vacant pantheist. It is an abomination, the LORD declares. What would one expect if a husband or wife began adoring and making love to a maiden or young man not in existence, while continuing to perform the farce of being married to a real wife or husband. Increase this infinitely, by the factor that that is HUMAN, and this is DIVINE, and you begin to realise the abomination in all the intensity which God gives it, repeatedly in His word, as here.

We are then pursuing the flow and thrust of this passage, on the way to 2:15.

Now it turns to strictly inter-personal human relationships. However these are here viewed from the divine perspective, which oversees, superintends and understands. HOW can God accept offerings from those who bring grief to the tender wife of their youth, the loved maiden, sweet and tender who gave herself in marriage, bore children and has worked hard, now thrown away in the pursuit of some sexual fancy or fantasy, as if she were a mere dream, and lust were lord!

The thing is appalling.

MALACHI 2:15

We are now in a position to feel the waters of the exact passage in mind.

Let us then see the fast and vigorous incandescent lightning thrust of verses 13-15, by paraphrase, itself lodged securely in the terrain preceding, and to follow.

This is the second thing you do, because the very temple, the environment of the altar is covered with a dew not so sweet. The tears of those once so loved, so tenderly, now with callous disregard, subordinated to a current flame of sexual lust, or romantic recrudescence, these mock the reality of your worship. How can you so treat your wife!

You would even interrogate the LORD further on such a topic ? Why ? you ask! It is because the LORD is not dead or deaf party, but is intensely aware of you, and He witnesses precisely what are your deeds. HE KNOWS! There is a case in existence, pressed at law or not, before the LORD. It is one between you and the damsel you married, now much older. You have deceived her, become playful with another, or others, and so are a treacherous being.

Political treachery is poisonous ? can lead to war ? What then of this! The wife is your friend, your personal companion, your fellow, and yet you do THIS to her ... But did not God make ONE when it came to marriage! Did He perchance make three or four for choice, for use at different age categories as the brutal male got older, and felt playful ? Was THIS what He did ? Or did He not make one!

There was a remnant of the spirit, and God did not stop at the male, but made the female, also a person, also endowed with spirit, and JUST ONE did He make.

Can you not see the ONE for ONE relationship from the first, and take account of history at all!

Why, then, do you imagine, He made just one ? It was of course so that in the holy intimacy of one father and one mother, one pair, one procreative partnership, one fellowship of souls of the one procreative part and of the other, there should be a delicious unity and simplicity, this providing an inter-personal linkage about the child. So might they have reared a godly offspring, not some social construct, some alliance product, some spawn in some nursery in some situation with some parties or other in some way or other having connivance with the thrust of lust, and no concern at all for the physical, psychological, moral, historical and spiritual realities. Gone are these in such token affinities, and gone for parent and child the nurture of the truth in the nature of His design.

SO, He made one, and not exhausted in enterprise for this undertaking, He gave it duality of complementarity, not a two-headed monster but a diversity in unity along the male-female line. It is this which makes divorce so disruptive, and not merely disturbing. It is in effect to cancel what He did with the "residue of the Spirit." It is clear that this the sense, because the "one" made with the residue of the Spirit is directed towards a "godly offspring", this being the defining parameter for the one in view. The residue of the Spirit appears thus to have been towards not only complementarity but its use in multiplication of man, and specialisation of partnership towards that end^*A.

BE ASHAMED! You have broken covenant with God ? You have broken it likewise with your wives, you men of Israel, in adultery. AS the explicit comparison is made of 'marriage' in taking on board another god (Malachi 2:11), so here there is the literal fact - for you are also adulterous in lust, as well as in spiritual adventurism. What horror it all is!

(Now we proceed to the context after 2:15, in 2:16ff..)

Divorce, that tipsy topsy-turvy dizzy thing of lust and sorrow, of grief and rupture, the LORD hates it! It is not the way of peace and delight, the fitting outcome to two godly lives such as should be lived at all! It has a sense of brutality, like ripping out an organ.

Therefore be aware, and do not be treacherous, to God or to your spouse.

Indeed, you are becoming lawyers, wearisome in language (and here the parallel with Luke 11 and the strictures on the Sadducees is intense), and you will even ask more after all this, HOW are we becoming wearisome ? That is your unabashed question, is it ?

It is then well to listen now: You are actually concocting blasphemies in your tired, virtue robbed spirits, attributing in your materialistic and pompous pretensions, happiness to the ungodly, even daring to suggest that they are the real favourites of God, since you estimate their lives in their own terms. What an unspiritual assemblage you become, like mathematicians who find it too much to add 1 and 1; for spiritual things become as foreigners to you, while in spiritual and social ways, you act the thug, the deprived, the unaware (Malachi 2;17).

Of interest is just one point in this strongly connected, forcibly presented, divine exhortation and rebuke, each part of which is set with the next as jewels in a star of beauty, an engagement ring of distinction. When it says, "Did He not make one, having a remnant of the spirit ?", is the reference to a residue of the SPIRIT OF GOD, as it were, seen as dynamically proceeding to make one more soul and spirit assemblage, in the person of Eve; or does it mean, that He already had one more human spirit to dower, in readiness and prepared, so that it needed simply to be despatched to Eve, so that there be ONE, to match the ONE man, so that the ONE on ONE combination might produce the godly seed ? or does it simply mean as first noted above, that His imaginative construction was not sated in man as one, but diversified the production to make parents as one unit in engendering, children under their joint care and supervision to be led in, to and through the Lord to a blessed maturity in turn.

This last is taken because it assumes NOTHING, being a minimum interpretation in terms of results and upbraiding.

The One who makes the design is the One offended by its abuse; so that the capital H is warranted. Since He is speaking in terms of His creation, as in Genesis 1:27, Isaiah 45:12,18, where we learn not only that He created earth and man, but earth to be inhabited, this is highly relevant to the present point.

While choice of interpretation in these limits, may not vitally affect the argument being made about divorce, design and divine deliberation; yet in this very book we are seeing the importance, and it is essential, to GIVE GLORY to God, and hence never to intrude into what is not revealed in unwarranted assumptions... When it comes to actual translation, one would not DARE to present the first option. One does not wish to presume as if one knew whether the Lord was as it were, storing up this creative surge ready for exemplification and consummation in the making of a spirit for Eve. As to the second, nor does one wish to presume in the affair of assuming a ready spirit, for despatch. These are to intrude into the creative realities of divine procedure.

His desire for further creative enterprise, however, to complete the specifications in their wholeness, is clear in results. Further^*A, such a thought does fits well with the thrust of the passage.

Thus, the concept of the spirit of Eve ready for despatch, already as it were, batched and prepared with that of Adam, a human totality in the divine mind and power, already of ONE, and as ONE, with the first instalment for the man, given, the other to be given to the female, this stresses most greatly the unitary emphasis of the passage, and the sense of the utter depravity of the rupture of this created unity, which was one from the start.

The passage, we might add, has NOTHING to do with what someone's supposed intelligence might see, since it is a MORAL issue; and such an insertion into the thrust of the passage would not merely be forced, with no background, but grotesque, with a departure from the contextual phase of consideration. Further, it would even interrupt the indictment, built from the first, and proceeding to the last. Again, to take another case, while Calvin is on the right track, it is not so much what God in His divine power COULD have done, which is the emphasis, as what God in His intimate wisdom DID do; not a question of the delimitation of His power, as the exhibition of His meaning in design, not a cessation of possible multiplication so much as a robustly simple, designer beauty which in its elegant sufficiency, moral integrity, balanced mutuality was WHAT HE DID!

In fact, the overview, the perspective is covenantal to the core. The covenant was BROKEN in Israel and in husband-wife relationship, metaphorically and literally, both. The covenant at the START (2:11) was something God loved. Right at the first in the covenant, the priest was of the nature described. From this, we moved to the nation, thence to husband-wife relationship, and in all this, COVENANT is the construction. So we go in covenant relevant to the institution not of Israel alone, as relevant for the priest, or for the nation, but also to that pertinent to marriage, and all this, it is a continuity and emphasis not hard to find.

NOTE

The NKJV adds ‘them’, inserted, without warrant, and with intrusion to limit the sense and flow of thought: "Did He not make them one ?" The ‘them’ is NOT in the text.

The KJV has not added in this needless and in fact misleading way (a principle well applicable is this: Do not ADD without necessity for the sense, and even then only as idiomatically required). Nevertheless, it sets it out like this: "And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit" (bold added). Again the ‘yet’ removes or blurs that causative element which is precisely the thrust of the argument. It reads: "and did He not make one ? and a vestige of spirit for him."

Again, the movement from additive to contrary with two cases of the same conjunction here would be, to say the least, a strain on the sequence (i.e. ‘and’ and ‘yet’ as in bold type above). In the Hebrew, while the conjunction used MAY have varied meanings in context, its primary use is ‘and’, and when you want to vary the translation, there are normally limits if you want clarity. Here the limits are strong. The text is terse, dramatic, and not available for filigree work.

If then you take it simply,

§Did He not make one, and did He not have a residue of spirit ?

you are taking no liberties, and assuming clarity. Since this ALSO brings out a deep thrust of unified argument, it is doubly assured. He made one, and having a residue of spirit, He made it a singular duality adapted for joint production of children, in such a schema giving glorious opportunity for the rearing of godly offspring. Such was His creative thrust, desire and attainment; but to MAN there is requirement not to abuse the delicacy of the design, by being boorish or self-indulgent. Rather should he respect the issuance of godly offspring by keeping to the appointed place, not joy-riding in wife-renegacy as if God had not made him for another type of project with a better result!

It is always dangerous to insist on this or that translation vehicle, like the KJV or NKJV. This is wholly unscriptural, there being no assurance whatever concerning any such particular effort. All things must be tested, and idolatry or at best emulousness can arise when one attributes to some one translation, the values which are brought in various inspirations of understanding and talents, through many. To be sure, many translations there are which do violate various clear principles, take liberties and so forth, as noted in detailed work in The Kingdom of Heaven Ch. 7.

Nevertheless, to assume all things, cannot be and is not the same as "test all things". Testings do not generalise: they are particular and take every aspect as it comes. While our testings indicate excellent work in both the NKJV and the KJV, in various key studies and regards, they also indicate that neither is perfect. We cannot be arm chair nonchalants, but must study to show ourselves workmen who need not be ashamed (II Timothy 2:15). God has not authorised the use of some king’s authorising, nor has He proposed a principle to limit oneself to one. The true limit is what is written, not what is translated, and wise is he who makes no other.

THE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES

CHAPTER 6

MATTHEW TO ROMANS

35) Matthew 10:8

Now we come to a case where both the AV and the NKJV, indeed nearly all more recent versions, are of one kind; whereas the vast majority of the Greek text is to the contrary. This seems to come about because those stuck with the Westcott and Hort love of the defective and careless manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, follow what they have; and those who follow the Textus Receptus have just the same. However in this relatively rare instance, the Textus Receptus does not follow the mass of its family of manuscripts of which it is a part. Remarkably well chosen for its time, it is yet in this instance not in accord with the very basics of its selection criteria.

Thus in Matthew 10:8, "raise the dead" does not appear in the large majority (M, as recorded in The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text) and it likewise fails to appear in the parallel passages in Mark (3:15) and Luke, the latter in 9:6 even specifying the thrust in retrospect, without including it. Luke 10, where the 70 are sent on a similar mission, has no reference to it either, though the specifics of
coverage are long. In other texts, it is omitted by many of the "fathers" or early writers, and versions - translations from early times; and there are erasures and even a re-writing here, in Sinaiticus, which as shown by Dean J.W. Burgon*, is far from reliable.

The reference of Christ to raising the dead is found in His OWN account of His fulfilment of prophecy, in order to re-assure John the Baptist, who sent enquiring (Matthew 11:5, cf. Mark 5:41, Luke 7:11, John 11), in a list of far greater magnitude. At that, however, no doctrine is involved, since Peter raised Tabitha (Dorcas) , as shown in Acts 9:37-41 and Christ includes the point. It is simply a matter of the evidence for Matthew 10:8 in particular.

It is true that in an early place, the disciples are seen baulked indeed, when Christ triumphed, even in a case of demon possession, though it seems this one was very special ! (Matthew 17:14-21).

Christ's work was beyond measure (Mark 7:37, 6:56). After Christ went to heaven till His return in triumph (Acts 1:7ff., 3:19-21), it was delightful to see Peter used in raising Dorcas from the dead; but of course the omission of raising the dead from Matthew 10:8 does not entail that it was not done by any disciple before that.

It is therefore appears that there was scribal involvement of some kind in this text, but that the united testimony of many kinds weighs too heavily to be ignored, in the providential pluralities and objectivities of the textual situation as it stands revealed. It appears then that "raise the dead" should in this instance be omitted in terms of general criteria. Although as noted this does not affect any doctrine, it is nevertheless a reminder that 'rules of thumb' such as we may construct for pastoral convenience are no more than that. On the other hand, as to doctrine, no difficulty appears ever, and the thoughts of the Lord, His directions and divulgements, are maintained with splendid precision, fulfilling His undertaking of continuity for His word.

*On textual matters more generally see . On Translations of the Bible, Words about Words Ch. 1.

36) Matthew 11:27

Next, Matthew 11:27 is of much interest. Here the AV has this of the Son, concerning those to whom He will reveal Himself: "he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Himself". This is inaccurate, quite simply. It is in fact:

§"All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son and the one to whomsoever Son wills to reveal Himself" - similar to that in the NKJV. One may note in passing that the term "whomsoever" if a little old-fashioned sounding in English, is fully warranted by the particular construction in the Greek. It does have a selective sound to it, as if in survey and sovereignty, each one taken specifically among all, and hence is here retained, though it is not in the NKJV. This point is relatively minor, though everything matters in translation.

It is the last eight words in the translation with which we are concerned. The Greek verb added (there are two in action here) signifies this action of Christ's will, His disposition to determine or decide or resolve, and it is much more than a simple expression of the future tense, which is all that appears expressly in the AV in this case!

This is another case showing the folly of idolatry, or even obsessive disregard or neglect of what the Lord has done outside the admittedly excellent KJV. It is quite wrong to neglect these workings of His body (cf. Ephesians 2:20ff., 4:16). This, His body, is MADE with a view to interaction, and scholarship is simply one way of assisting this over time, including the past in review of translations, and proceeding onwards. It is no part of purity to adopt a translation in a blindfolded fashion, though it is true there has been much and even gross provocation in the form of the use of indefensible theories concerning manuscripts, to limit the word of God, divorcing it from its own eloquent and elegant preservation testimony; as it is also true that the AV has in degree great translating tact and perception, wisdom and accuracy, if not always clarity..

Let us however return to dwell for a further moment on Matthew 11:27 and what the actual text, now exposed, has for us to learn when the "wills" is added, as found in the Greek.

It brings to light that the Son is not some sort of quasi-mechanical device with no personality, who simply implements like a CEO. His relationship to the Father is far more profound than that. It is quite true that as the word, He is the One sent, from the speaker, if you will, the One who speaks. It is equally accurate that He spoke as His Father commanded (John 12:48-50). It is however also true that He is in delighted (Psalm 40:1ff.) correlation with His Father, is heard by His Father (John 11:41-42), has upon Him "the Spirit of counsel and might" (Isaiah 11:2), and that in Him is "all the fulness of the Godhead in bodily form" (Col. 2:9).

The concerted collaboration of Son and Father, especially in the glory before this world was (John 17:1ff.) was such then that there was no smallest question of Christ's character and love being at all short-circuited, cramped, crimped or pinched. What HE was on earth, He was before it, in heart and mind, only the FORM (Philippians 2) having become lowly, and subject to explicit direction in a vulnerable setting.

Hence as shown in Predestination and Freewill, it is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of deity, to imagine that the Christ who as on earth, was absent in the predestinative activities of the deity, or that His principles and perceptions, His values or His character were mutative: for as to God, in Him there is no shadow of turning or variation (James 1:17), and He, Christ is God (John 20:28, 8:58, Philippians 2:6). It is no question of sovereignty dictating away, and the sovereign putting a stamp on it. HE IS THE SOVEREIGN: GOD is not under sovereignty, but sovereignty is under God: it is HIS, and expresses HIMSELF. The FATHER is precisely mirrored in His Son, and the SON precisely mirrors His Father and it is from both that the SPIRIT comes (John 15:26), who shows forth the Son, and through whom is given the word of God (II Peter 1:19-21, Acts 4:25, Isaiah 34:16), which we have preserved for us, as is preserved likewise the soul of each, by His grace, when we know Him!

Fully inscribed in predestination is the reality of the Christ who showed the Father in His own Person (John 14): fear of it is as foolish as is fear of Christ not receiving one who in faith comes to Him. These things we know from the Bible as shown in Predestination and Freewill; but Matthew 11:27 helps us to recognise them perhaps even more clearly.

37) Matthew 28:9

§Now as they were engaged in going to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "Rejoice!". So they came and held Him by the feet and worshipped Him."

It is all but amusing in a grave sort of way, to see heretics and those 'concerned' who may also at times not 'see' how some part fits, and who change some manuscript in antiquity, so creating some minor tradition of their own; and then to see how the vast mass of the text remains, both clear and challenging, as from the first, and penetrating and enlightening at last.

Thus in Matthew 28:9, the Westcott- Hort tradition omits "when they were going", but not so the vast majority of texts.

In fact, the verb for 'going' is in the imperfect tense, signifying a continuing or repetitious act or series of actions. Quite possibly, the sequence is this:

a) the women concerned all told the disciples in Luke 24:10-11, of the message that Christ was risen from the very dead (without any mention of the transcendentally important personal meeting with Christ being recorded there, because quite simply, they had not at that time seen Him in this way, but received report from the angels only).

b) Then, like Mary in fact (John 20), they went back, drifting perhaps and drawn irresistibly, pondering, wandering, attracted like moths to light, seeking more in the face of the disbelief of the disciples.

c) Christ then met Mary who perhaps because of her profound need, and sense of it, went back more quickly following the race of Peter and John (cf. John 20:11ff., Mark 16:9). She, truly concerned and deeply moved, addressed the One she thought to be the gardener, through her tears, the mist of eye compounded with the fog of heart, saying, "If you have carried Him from here, tell me where you have laid Him" - John 20:15.

d) Later, in the same vicinity, He meets the women, meandering back unsated with anything new to provide the disciples, and gives to them also, this direct confrontation and confirmation. They also held His feet, in worship (John 20:17, Matthew 28:9). Rising from the dead without even a prophet as intermediary was no small divulgement, like the transfiguration (Matthew 17, where the divine voice punctuated the divine light), unique in all recorded history; but in this case, it was also unique in fulfilling the unique prediction.

However, let us revert to the text itself. To depart from the overwhelming and vast attestation of the text as INCLUDING the words "as they were going" or "engaged in going" , is neither necessary, safe nor wise. Except there be overwhelmingly clear objective evidence of a transmission error, nothing can be done. It is the word of another. In this instance, the opposite is the case. This objective reality is always paramount, lest people become authors of what is then not the word of God, but the surmise of man. Subjective surmise has here no proper place, lest the word of man thrust itself into the mouth of God, who in His infinite wisdom, speaks what He will.

Incidentally, John 20:17 more literally has "cease clinging to me", a more informative translation, since this particular (present) imperative holds the concept of continuity. Hence its negation is a CESSATION of that which was continuing: i.e. a ceasing of clinging.

38) John 1:1

§In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and it was God the Word was*.

Similarly, the translation shown for Genesis 1:1 is:

§In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth,
and the earth was without form and void.

For a substantial consideration of issues involved in John 1:1, see On Translations of the Bible, 17.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and it was God the Word was.

In this case, the italics are being used as in normal in the KJV and the NKJV to mean that these words are supplied for clarity in terms of English idiomatic usage, but do not appear in the Greek text. To the mind of this writer, this is the most secure translation, since it is virtually impossible to misunderstand it.

A further feature in favour of rendering it in this idiomatic English way is that the following verse now is far more perspicuous as to its repetitive element. The meaning would be, as in bold above, followed by this statement: He was in the beginning with God.

Thus the development would be in this style. In the beginning, as in Genesis, before anything was made, was the Maker, and the One to whom we look now is the Word. He was, in this pre-creation, and thus pre-temporal phase, with God. Indeed, God it is that He was. He was in the beginning with God.

The explicatory force now flows as smoothly as a stream in mid-Spring. We meet this Person before creation. It is not surprising that He was with God before creation, since everything is either God or creation. We are told further than His was the status of deity, Himself, and this being so, neatly and compactly for the understanding, we are to picture Him, before all creation, one God. As shown in the main text of this chapter, that is precisely what is to be expected as soon as we learn that the ONE GOD was in fellowship with the Word, so that that which is affirmed of the ONE GOD, is affirmed no less of the WORD, so that in verse three we learn with that sobering relish for the inter-relation of all things to be found in this Gospel, that all things were made by Him, and nothing that is made was made without Him.

Than this, nothing could be clearer: one Being consists in Sender and Sent, Speaker and Spoken, Father and Son, and being ONE GOD, He was there from the first, and has control of things to the last of creation. We learn as John's Gospel proceeds, that He also has control to the last of it (John 5:19-23 cf. Matthew 24:35, John 16:15).

Note.

*Greek allows inversions to be clear in such a case, with the verb to be connecting two terms, so that inversion of subject could mislead. Thus the subject equipped with the Greek term for "the", is distinguished from the complement, not so equipped. In this case, it is literally, God was the Word (plus the information that 'the Word' is the subject, plus the emphasis inherent in putting the complement before the subject.). That is what we have to translate.

Now in English we could put this third part of the opening statement, as is done here, "and God was the word." The emphasis implicit in inversion, so that what would normally come later, comes instead first, is preserved by italicising the word 'God' in English. It has just been used, so that its meaning is clear; and now it is to be emphasised. In general terms, this might suffice.

However, it is just possible that someone might read this is simply meaning that God and the Word were co-extensive, whereas of course, there is the Father and the Spirit, and the Word. This is not what the text is saying. Hence to match English idiom and mannerisms, perhaps the best translation would be this:

39) Acts 9:35

§"And all those inhabiting Lydda and Sharon saw him -
those who turned to the Lord."

The case of Acts 9:35 is of much interest. Here both the AV and the NKJV have an excess beyond what is written. Thus the latter has - "So all who dwelt at Lydda and Sharon saw him and turned to the Lord" , while in the former we find, "And all that dwelt at Lydda, and in Sharon saw him, and turned to the Lord."

Oddly enough the Pulpit Commentary prefers the Revised Version (English) here, saying that the addition of "they" to make it, "they turned to the Lord" is better; but it proceeds to exegete it as if the REASON they turned was this healing. This may have been a significant feature; but the text does not say this either. These then are two sorts of translations, one too broad in extent, concerning the populations, and the other too restricted, in requiring the cause of turning to the Lord to reside in the healing.

Berkeley does a fine job in precision, translating it,

"And all the inhabitants of Lydda and Sharon, those who turned to the Lord, saw him."

This is almost a literal translation. The Greek has this, forgetting for the moment the Englishness of the translation (or otherwise!): "and all those inhabiting Lydda and Sharon saw him, those who turned to the Lord." It is a way of speaking that they have, that Luke in particular has, and it is found in a very similar way, and case, in Acts 13:48: "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

This is an accurate translation, but if we take, again, the way it appears in Greek, for parallel purposes with 9:35, it has, in terms of word order AT THE POINT of our interest: "And hearing it, the Gentiles rejoiced, and glorified the word of the Lord, and believed as many as were appointed to life eternal life."

Thus first you get the ACTION: "they REJOICED", and "GLORIFIED" and "BELIEVED" - and then with a similar relative pronoun, we get the qualification as to precisely which category did these things, "AS MANY AS WERE ORDAINED". Thus Luke not only uses this limit, grammatically, but he does it again nearby in a similar limiting, adding the limit or qualification, AFTER noting what it was that happened.

This is not trivial, though of course it is not doctrine as such. It means that there were people in the two cities mentioned in Acts 9 who SAW the healing, and there were people were TURNED TO THE LORD, and the two categories were the same. Whether SOME HAD ALREADY believed (presumably, as Peter went to the Christians already there) who saw the healing in the Christian midst, and what proportion of the population of the 2 towns believed, we are not told.

A good translation is found as noted in Berkeley, but if we tried to make it sound more natural in English idiom, we might render it:

§"And all those inhabiting Lydda and Sharon saw him -
those who turned to the Lord."

:We can compare this with Acts 13:48: "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

As to Acts 9:35, We often do this, appending a qualification; and it simply means this - that no Christian did not see him as healed, in that place, and there is an emphasis on action "turned", which suggests it had a strong bearing on the faith of many, possibly leading to it, to salvation in a number of cases. These are the inferences, the sentence in quotation marks, however, is what we are TOLD. It is wise to separate text from inference! Let it say what IT wills, while we think what we may, but separate our thoughts of appearances and possibilities from what is stated. Is this not what we like others to do to us; how much more do we do this when it is the Lord who provides the data!

40) Acts 13:19-20

This is a case of wide interest, because of its implications. In this illustration, both the AV and the NKJV rather astonishingly, and rarely indeed as a combination, fail to provide a satisfactory translation. It is found in Acts 13:19-20. "And when He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land to them by allotment. After that He gave them judges for about four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet."

The NASV, duly covering Egypt, 400 years, and the Exodus (13:17-18), proceeds:

The Berkeley version translates similarly.

The time noted for Israel’s period in Egypt was 400 years (Genesis 15:13), the wilderness 40, and a little time was needed from Egypt to the failure to enter the land, as in Numbers 14, while Joshua, who began his military entry at a late age, proceeded for a small number of years to the allocation of the tribal lands, as seen late in the book of Joshua, and anticipated in Numbers 33:54. This fits both grammatically, as we shall see, covering all the data both aptly and well, and historically as an approximation, which it statedly is.

The Majority Greek text has, literally: "And having destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land to them as inheritance. And after these things, within about four hundred and fifty years, He gave them judges until Samuel the prophet."

Two major points at once obtrude. FIRST, the phrase "after these things" is FOLLOWED AT ONCE by the dative case reference to time, which would be construed as TIME WITHIN WHICH.

Unlike this, the time references in vv. 18,21 are in the accusative case, and would indicate duration of time. In those cases, one sees the time of action stretching out as it is lived; in the dative example, however, it is posing the time within which the action in view had happened. That is the difference.

That time within which the action described in some detail, occurred: 450 years. The action ? what preceded, here summarised. The sense: after these things, themselves occupying a period of around 450 years, He gave them judges ... There is a reason for the case change, which equates to a time concept change, and this presents perspective backwards, by disjunction from the earlier and later methods of timing, which are in the accusative or duration time approach. The change interrupts mere ongoing duration figures, with time within which figures, and it does this for a reason.

The reason for not putting the new time, about 450 years, with what FOLLOWS is simply the dramatically disjunctive change of case. It is not wise to ignore grammatical change of case in a varied series of references to time. It is as if for a doctor there were a change in inflammation, and one simply ignored it, or for a mechanic, a change in engine noise, and one was listless about it. In other words, instead of flow-on, on an established time frame, there is disjunction, for an intervening remark which, stopping progress, brings summary.

What then do we find here ? The judges would be conceived as living it, as stretching forth like the case of the wilderness 40 years, and Saul, bearing rule over the same period of time! As to the 400, there is certainly, in simple grammatical terms, an option, to take it as summarising what had been said or anticipating what was about to be said. However this would be to miss the significant and indeed conspicuous case change for time reference, which significantly interrupts simple time duration figures, occurring both before and after it..

We are rather having a change of speech to cover a change in aspect. Otherwise why write at all, if data are ignored! No more is it as in v.18 a duration happening as it were before our eyes, 40 years; for now a time slot is carved out in review, a survey note on time elapsed, before the action proceeds to more things graphically before the eyes, another 40 years coming in v. 21, exactly as in the wilderness case in v. 18: both duration of time.

As to the grammatical evidence, in terms of case change, then, in v. 19 on the one hand and 18,11 on the other: this is survey; that is living. The former has it transpiring, the latter sees it elapsed. The NASV gives attention more aptly to ALL the evidence and thus is here preferable.

The other reason is this: it was NOT about 450 years from the distribution of land by allotment for inheritance purposes, to Samuel. If he were born about 1050 B.C., having been young as a prophet, and we allow the normal 30 years before maturity for spiritual service, then we have about 1020 B.C. If the Exodus was at 1445 ( Archer op.cit.), then the date in view would be a little after 1400, say 1380. But from 1380 to 1020 is not about 450 years.

Further, if it took Joshua more than 20 years to the distribution, then the disparity would be greater. It is much less near if the Exodus were, contrary to detailed evidence, at some imaginary later time! In this, the early date of the Exodus^*1is confirmed; one underscored in Archer "Bible Difficulties" in such decisive manner (pp. 191ff.). That in turn is indicated clearly in I Kings 6:1, as in Judges 11:26, this making a third affirmation. In biblical terms, it is one more harmony, from different quarters in it. It is of course confirmed here in Acts 13.

What is the length of time, then, from the exaltation in Egypt through the 400 or so years there, and the 40 in the wilderness to Joshua's distribution ? It would be 440 plus perhaps 20, or about 450.

Even if we leave the field of approximation in which the text is in fact moving in Acts 13, then the figure still relates. Then, from the day of the exaltation of the Israelites in Egypt, till the end of their residence there would be 430 years, less such time as it took them to reach that exalted state, which might have come no later than the days of Jacob, as we read of the flourishing situation in Genesis 47:27-31 some 17 years).

Whether the round figure of 400 years, therefore as in Genesis 15:13, be used, with 40 years for the wandering in the desert, and a relatively short additive for Joshua to reach the point of land distribution, so making about 450; or instead, it be taken as 430 plus 40 or 470 with some extra for Joshua to reach the events of Joshua , with something omitted from the 430 for the exaltation of Israel, to be reached a the starting point: both come to much the same.

It is in round terms to be considered as about 450 years. The use of the 400 as in Genesis 15, plus the 40 in the wilderness, in terms of KNOWN approximation, in a field statedly one of approximation, however, would seem the most likely meaning. Stephen appears to use precisely the same approximation in Acts 7:6, in confirmation, just as Genesis 15 is in anticipation.

450 is just what one would expect on such a basis.

A further detail of interest is Joshua's precise invasion time for reaching the distribution of lands as in Joshua 13ff..

Thus, if he were 40 when made Commander in the assault on Ai, and made a close associate to Moses as suggested in Exodus 32:17 at the time of the golden calf episode, then it follows he would be 80 at the time for the entry into the Promised Land, so that if the main distribution took till he was 100 before death at 110, we would have 430 plus 40 plus perhaps 20 making 490, minus time for flourishing and exaltation in Egypt as the point of departure.

It is all approximate; but it seems for that very reason to take the 400 year base as in Genesis 15, because of its fame in terms of approximation for that period, with the 40 and the 20 or so for Joshua to reach the point described in the text. At 460 this gives a relevant approximation of 450.

That would appear an almost elementary fact, for one versed at all in what would be for Paul, national history, religiously significant. In lecturer style, he is expanding and compressing, giving action and then time slotting it. Again, there would not seem any ready way of explaining away the case change, unless there is precisely that difference.

Now let us reflect. The majority text, of which the textus receptus made use in important selections of this family in the AV, is beautifully conveying to us the fact. It is showing itself reliable. Certainly, one could as in the NASV expand with italicised words; but that is only to bring out the sense of what is in the Greek data.

God has not left Himself without a most clear witness; BUT that is not at all the same thing as saying this: that the AV is THE standard, the ONLY translation to be used, that it is so honoured of God that it must be the criterion.

Great as that translation is, and normatively reliable, it does not reach to that grand height all by itself! Here once more it slips. Alas, it even - with the NKJV, puts the time of '450 years' after the words "He gave them judges" ,so displacing the word order in the Greek text. This makes the ordinary reader STILL MORE confused, for it then appears that that is a closed case. In fact, the time reference comes before that topic is mentioned, and the rest of the point is as above.

Now this sort of thing in the AV is a rarity, for it has a care and alertness hard to match, despite its imperfections, elsewhere: the main problem being clarity; but that is something which does occur in the AV, at times, partly because of the passage of time and change of language. .

Similarly, as with all translations, there are books or areas where the special expertise of someone is most helpful and a feeling for, a flair comes to light as in the NIV in Job. It is unwise to ignore this. It is unwise also to idolatrise anyone or any thing; to make a monument and authority, a PILLAR as Paul put it, of anyone, or any creation. ONLY GOD, ONLY THE LORD, ONLY HIS WORD is that. It is simply a failure, if one should do otherwise; be it to honour someone or something, most cordially, it is still an error, and how well I John 2:27 guards against it. Indeed, let us remember that the AV is the PRODUCT of people, and you must look NOT to them but to the Lord.

Now someone may say, It is not idolatry to prefer a version; and of course, this is so. What is idolatry is to have such reverential feelings toward anyone or anything not the Lord, with whatever good intention or even in one sense, admirable loyalty, that one dispenses with the full breadth of what the Lord is doing. That is why it is quite unscriptural as noted in Repent or Perish 1, End-note 1, to have this ism-itis, the inflammation of the 'ism', this tendency to set some one theologian as one's real parent, the name by which we are called. Paul condemns it explicitly, expressly in I Cor. 3.

It is FORBIDDEN. How long does it take for people to realise that just as the RC horror of cordially disobeying Christ (Matthew 23:8-10) in calling people 'father' is not the ONLY way to fall. In that sense, of spiritual supervisor and master or authority, it is for CHRIST ONLY. It is not only by EVERY word which proceeds out of the mouth of God which one is to live (Matthew 4:4), but by no other AT THAT LEVEL! NOTHING may add even a jot! Suggestions may abound, authority however is vested not elsewhere, and its administration is not another name for its supervision with complexes and cords, chains and additives, stringencies and requirements, provided courtesy of some kind party - again, however well-intentioned such may be!

What then ? The AV is fine, but not final in all things. Its eminent and justly famed serviceability is indeed a useful barrier to some of the subtle intrigues in the area of the Greek text, which so many for so long have seemingly so supinely accepted. That however is no excuse for idolatrising it, or treating it in such a way as to contravene Biblical restrictions for our liberty and our walk in love in the Lord; for the simple fact is this, that as soon as you set up these human instruments (i.e. work of a particular set of translators to the exclusion of all others, or the same in a particular theologian) , you are limiting the liberty of the word of God, and that inhibits the love which abides in His word: it is polluting your inheritance, in the very desire to preserve it pure.

How one praises the Lord to have put the things before us in this external evidential way, letting the testimony of His due care and wonderful control of things appear in this also, the preservation of the thrust and meaning of His text to achieve the fulfilment of His promises.

41) Romans 3:25

§Whom God set forth as a propitiation by faith through His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed.

Here, in Romans 3:25, the NKJV has an advantage, in putting, "by His blood" instead of "in", for while both translations are permissible, the latter may suggest to idolatrising minds an idea not in the original. On the other hand, the NKJV also changes the order from "through faith in His blood" to "by His blood through faith".

It is best to preserve where possible the order given, often indicative of intimate meaning or emphasis, however. Perhaps the best way of all might be this:

§by faith through His blood.

Such matters as these show chiefly, perhaps, the importance of actually understanding what is being said, in stead of relying on what some one translation or translator has to say, with however good an intention. The body has many gifts, and where there is no clear contrariety from the Lord, it is best to use them.

The point is that the blood is indeed the transmissive basis, but that it is NOT the objective fluid: it is its having been shed and the purpose of it which is to the point. Thus Colossians 2:21-22 shows it is HIS DEATH which the blood symbolises, and that it is HIMSELF in whom faith must rest. This passage tells us: "Now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and irreproachable in His sight...", and this is all dealt with at great length in Hebrews 8-10 (e.g. Hebrews 10:10,14 and so on). Similarly John 5:23-24, 3:16, Romans 10:9 make it clear, as so often, it is in HIM we trust; but of course, it is HE who has done these marvellous things, even to the point of blood, which testifies of the payment and its adequacy, the suffering and its completeness, its setting and its efficacious character.

42) Romans 5:12-15

§ It is therefore as follows:

As through one man sin entered the world,
and death through sin and that passed to all persons since all sinned

(for until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not charged up,
law not being in place, but death reigned from Adam to Moses,
even on those who had not sinned after the manner of Adam's transgression,
who is a figure of the Coming One):

yet not as the offence, so is the free gift.
For if through the offences of the one, many died,
much more the grace of God and the gift in grace which is derived from one man, Jesus Christ, abounded to the many.

This is taken from On Translations of the Bible Ch. 10. Because of the centrality and notable character in terms of form as well as function, the fuller presentation is preserved for this Romans 5 case.

In Romans 5:12-21 we find that there was a first man who went astray, a thing which personality is and must be, perfectly able to do, in its initial stages at least: for otherwise it would lack the qualities integral to BEING a person. Programmees are not persons. Freedom is not a mathematical, economic or moral necessity. Without freedom, there is only rule, not reality for man. It is the reality of man that he weighs and considers, proposes and disposes, often messing things in the meantime; and that his standards are as far from being set, as on the contrary, they are set in the Artic to Antarctic bird programs by their Designer^*2. Freedom was considered in Predestination and Freewill, Part I especially, as in SMR pp. 348ff., Licence for Liberty Preface, I , 2 and elsewhere, in Things Old and New Ch. 1, Beauty of Holiness Ch. 5 , 7, 8; News 145 (see also indexes SMR and other).

For the moment, our concern is the OUTCOME. In empirical fact, man went astray: it was his prerogative, he exercised it. It was a consumer-pay proposition. He paid.

He is still paying; he is still sinning. The direction is the same, the speed can increase as multiple assaults are institutionalised more and more, and good teaching is replaced with a moral invention of goodness, whereby evil is treated to glory (cf. Mystery of Iniquity and The Kingdom of Heaven Ch. 8).

Now in Romans 5:12 we find the generic, historic declaration. The first man sinned, gained death and his condition became universal to the race as it then was. In verses 13-14, we learn that this was an exceptional case, like your first smash after gaining your driver's licence. It is not a particularly memorable thing, but it is remembered!

SINCE then, we there learn, man sins in a different way from the original idea of sinning, which then was indeed quite original... He sins in a derivative way, lest monumental in kind, but still fatal in type. When Moses was given a heavily codified law, we are told, then sin was decisively, if you like arithmetically accountable. However, before then, it was still sin; God was still divine, man human, results still accrued, and in particular, death.

In making this distinction, chapter 5 of Romans provides us with a link. The sin of man in the first was of one kind, and in the unity of that first man it was dowered to mankind! The first man was a type, illustration, forerunner, of the COMING ONE, we read.

Paul then resumes the argumentation of explication.

It runs well in the Berkeley translation^*1. The case is this (this is the sense of it): the first man sinned, getting death and this spread. The case was different in the first, from that of others, who came after the first episode. They sinned with sin already resident. However the first sin was from ONE agent, and the Coming One, to meet it, was another Agent. Each was one. Each was crucial. Not however like the first sin situation is the second man's or the second representative man's action. Sin multiplied by the first; grace abounded by the second.

The basic movement is this, then: Here is the position (v. 12). Just as sin came by man, and spread like a plague, so in complete contrariety, grace came by man, and spread like a bounty. Sin came like that; but otherwise did the coming of grace from the Coming One occur!

This then in verse 15 is the first of no less than 6 parallels, law court sounding presentations, each reinforcing the last, each proceeding to a new phase, and sometimes gathering strength from what went before as well. It is not possible really to interrupt this amazing flow of analysis with brackets and imagined recall of verse 12, as done in both the Authorised Version and the NKJV. It is a cohesive, coherent, deeply integrated series of propositions, like arms and elbows, and hands, each articulated so closely with the other, that interruption is dysfunctional.

The Greek does not carry brackets, so we have to use our own perception. Thus the bracketed part PRECEDES the 6 parallel presentations, starting at verse 15, in the translation as given. What is clear is found in two points. The verse 12 is explained in verses 13-14 in terms of the first and later sin, and the difference between them. Then in verse 15, we have the adversative parallel: That happened in one way, but THIS, it happened in the opposite.

· The respect of contrariety is this: THAT was negative, this is positive. That was fatal, this is a balm of life. But BOTH were multiplying in results, like a cyclotron. So begins the education by contrast! in its extended series.

THE SIX PARALLELS

1) Thus in verse 15 we have the first of the six parallel statements, mutually developmental. Here is the dismal multiplication contrasted with the delightful abundance, the salient stripping of sin, and the exotic abounding of grace.

2) In verse 16, we have a further and related contrast. There is, in the first man, Adam, the movement to judgment. There is via the second man (as Paul puts it in I Cor. 15 "the Lord from heaven" defining the term), the movement to justification. The one is to sentencing, the other to quashing. The one is to the bar of justice; the other is to the car of deliverance. One indites the guilt; the other waives it. This is the judgment-justification contrast in the parallels built about Adam and Christ.

3) In verse 17, we come to one offence of one man leading to the REIGN of death. Man could not escape, and the preludes and passions of death were the thing that ruled, de rigueur. However as to those who receive the GIFT of righteousness (cf. The Biblical Workman Appendix 4), donated with abundance of grace, these escape that reign. For them there is a substitute reign. It is the reign in life, THROUGH the One, Jesus Christ. This reign is very delightful. Life does not control you; but you in Christ find it is amenable to direction. HE as Lord is able to subdue it, control it, endue it, vitalise it, renew it, endue it, bring to the fore its proper qualities and project it into the space of grace like a missile. It is a reign IN LIFE, through Jesus Christ.

The contrast here is between reign of death and reign in life... THROUGH Jesus Christ the deliverer.

4) In verse 18, we move to the realm of offence and righteousness as performance criteria, rather than moral and legal directions. Here the one man achieved a result, offence. It produced condemnation, like decoration on a cake. It followed and exhibited what it was all the more clearly. The other Man however, also achieved something. It was transcendent in its superiority, opposite in its result.

He performed, and this was this was a life of righteousness unblighted, undimmed, exhibitive of that perfection which no sin touches, no judgment assesses and no fault maligns.

The gift if you will, of the first man was a performance contribution, like a father's will in the monetary sense. You get what you are given. He gave offence and judgment. The other, the One in parallel but in quality and wonder, beyond all comparison: He gave perfection and this, if received, presents justification, that is, the entire re-reading of your record in terms of your Saviour's attainment which you take. This is the OFFENCE achievement, RIGHTEOUSNESS achievement parallel and contrast. Here the direction of results is clarified for all, in the universal offering, one effective however only where received.

5) But the apostle is still further inspired. There is more to follow.

Thus there is the glory of verse 19. Here is the constitutive question answered. The first man's disobedience constituted MANY sinners; the second man's obedience made MANY righteous. Of course, as we have already been shown, the 'many' in the first case are all! Paul has emphasised this repeatedly. In this EFFECTUAL RESULT section, however, to preserve the parallel, Paul uses 'many' for both the fall and the finding. Thus, in the second, which uses the same parallel term in this garden of parallels, it is indeed 'many' as in Matthew 26:28, Romans 8:32. Many have fallen and many arise. The first is the entire multitude of mankind; the second is the entire multitude of those redeemed.

The parallel is thus in format beautiful, and it is for this reason that we have moved from the 'all' above to the 'many' in the case of this verse. It is manifest that Judas was not righteous, but indeed the devil entered into him and it would have been better for him, the Saviour said, if he had never been born.

Thus the word of God declares that "many are constituted righteous". The movement of justification was towards ALL; but the movement is, in terms of constituting people afresh, of regeneration, something quite different. The one has potential, the other actuality. The one is rich in hope; the other rich in fact. There is in some, those who receive the free gift of verse 17, a change that is more than one of the grace that looks differently upon them (and this is of course crucial, since only perfection is acceptable or indeed workable in heaven where sin is excluded, a colour bar that nothing will lift, a moral colour - Revelation 21:8,26).

In this case, it is one of the spiritual transformation of heart and value, priorities and power, of zest and passion, which fixes on God as a man on a rock, in the middle of the ocean. It is moreover not only a new stability and deliverance, but a change within. It is as if climbing onto the rock, the man finds his nature miraculously changed also. It is a transformative rock, not only situationally, but intrinsically.

That is because it is alive, and personal: it is the Creator, and it is in this mode one of transfer of power to create a clean heart, and to renew the mind (Ephesians 3:16, 4:23, Psalm 51).

While to God is known HOW many, the fact that the 'many' is put in parallel here is exhibitive of the grace which would have all men to be saved, however irreparable the reproach of many more, who will not have 'this man to rule over us'. One can sympathise with this for a mere man; it is when the man is what God became in order to save that it is a privilege to obey, a delight to serve and a delicious joy (I Peter 1:8) to be acquainted; and with that, to be a friend of God, it is a bounty beyond all. So has been the way since Abraham was shown the way of grace, till Christ paid for it (Genesis 15:6, II Chronicles 19:7).

6) To Romans 5 verse 20, we now may proceed. The law, in this additional facet of the perspective, says Paul, came to expand in a vigorous realism, the offences. You cannot shrug. It is right or wrong, black or white, and no grays are tolerated, no argumentation. You do or you do not. It is simple, a snare for the self-justifying hordes of non-holiness living, who prefer the vacuity of talk to the virtue of walk. Here then you have OPPOSITE ABUNDANCES.

This said, the apostle continues, the abounding of the law, in defining sin, was outdistanced entirely by the superabundance of grace. But to what did the grace then move its recipients ? Just as sin brought on the reign of death, Paul continues in enrichment of verse 17, so grace now reigns through righteousness to eternal life. NOTHING has been left, in these enclosing parallels!

Hence the reign in life THROUGH Jesus Christ, now becomes the reign of GRACE through righteousness, that of Christ, to something endless: eternal life.

Thus there is a changing of the guard, the death squad out for the redeemed, and the reign of grace is the reign under the face of Christ, for God, as Paul observes in II Corinthians 4:6, who commanded light to shine out of darkness ... has shone in our hearts in which is revealed the light of the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus. This is transformative continually (II Corinthians 3:18), just as the receipt of grace and the free gift of righteousness is a total change of status, initially.

THEIR AFTERMATH

What says Paul, in Romans 6, are you now going (perversely, as if some enemy were mocking) to say this: That it is so wonderful that there is so much of this wonderful grace, so that we will sin more and more freely, allowing it thus to swamp in in even greater amounts!

God forbid, he declares. Christ had to die to secure this: we who are His die with Him, in Him, through Him. Our sinful personalities, and not merely our sinful deeds, are SIN, and the SIN offering TAKES the sin, of this or that kind, so that we are crucified with Him, planted with Him, buried with Him. This is found in Romans 6:3-6.

Obviously the successive figures have NOTHING to do with the sacrament of baptism, and everything to do with phases of life. They authorise no sacrament; they illustrate the wholly essential elements, the actual ones indeed, which follow when there comes to a person, this dynamic transformation of the Saviour who died and rose, bearing sin, breaking its penalty and presenting life freely, for ever. It is the practice of living, not of symbolic rites which is thrust into view.

ONE AND ONE, ADVERSATIVE, NOT CUMULATIVE

We have then finished this survey of ONE AND ONE, the one dynamically contriving ruin, with initiative, invention, contention and disgrace; the other creating salvation FROM IT, with initiative, invention, meeting challenge and overthrowing opposition to the deliverance, even to the point of resurrection from a penalty-bearing death, comprehending the sins of all who should ever receive Him. The scale is profound, the scope entire.

These two do not add! They are opposite in contribution, wholly diverse in status, divergent in dynamic.

The scenario does however provide entire focus on Adam and on Christ. They are added to the scene, Adam from earth, his spirit from God, Christ God as man, who yielded His Spirit without spot to God, He the sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 9:12,19). One adds sin, the other subtracts. One adds sentence, the other subtracts. One adds disobedience, the other obedience; one adds the scope for law, the other the realm of grace. This one and one do NOT make two: they are adversative, not cumulative!

The one is adequate for wreckage; the other for reconstruction. The one suffices for sin; the other for salvation. The one breeds disaster, the other relief. The one catapults man into death, the other makes death relinquish its mirthless jaws, by bearing it. Grace did it, love thrust into it, power accomplished it, purity enabled it. It is the work of God Himself (Hosea 13:14, Ezekiel 34, I Timothy 3:16, Titus 2-3).

That then is the reality of Christianity, when you bypass sacramentalism, neo-evangelicism, neo-orthodoxy, Romanism, liberalism, and the rest (cf. The Biblical Workman Appendix III), and simply take the Lord according to His word, and follow Him.

Devils are numerous. God is one. Error is multiple; truth is one. (Cf. Errors.)

Christ is one. He is the only One who is needed, and He is altogether needed. He is revealed in the Bible, exposed by the Spirit, adopted by grace, and transformative by power. In the last case, it is radical in its initiation and continual in upkeep. In scope, it is ONE MAN doing ONE THING in ONE WAY which has ONE RESULT. The conferred and constant result is status (John 10:27-28); the phase result is function. Both follow because God is alive. Both come through faith in the OBJECT which is thus, and this is Christ, and that, not any Christ, but the LORD'S Christ (Luke 2:26).

REMEDY AND RUIN, never better accomplished than in quack remedies
(Matthew 24:24, Colossians 1:19ff., Ephesians 1:19-23, Galatians 1, 3, 5)

All this is clear ? But of course. Very well. Then WHEN this is done and NOT UNTIL, then the sin problem ceases to be like so many radioactive wastes dispersed on a daily basis, like so many atomic bombs with cobalt delivered to the ground daily, and the kingdom of heaven arises within, in the midst.

When it is not, you have this present world, where not only are there numerous false religions, but numerous false versions of Christ, which never lived, were never born, never acted and never rose, because they are but figments of the imagination. There is evidentially but One. If you take someone else in His name (Iprecisely as was done in II Cor. 11 where Paul rebuked it), it is relevant only in one thing: its presumption adds vastly to your sin, and to the folly in the world, hastening its end. It is done likewise with the Gospel of grace, to substitute things like physical violence (and the world is having its face dipped in this tar, since it is so fond of such false philosophies and religions) and imperfect works, as if some arithmetic could determine eternity, where sin has no place at all.

Sin is an interesting thing, is it not ? The more of it, the sooner the world is unlivable; the sooner it is unlivable, the sooner He comes; and the sooner He comes, the sooner we who are His have the privilege of being taken to Him (I Thessalonians 4); and the sooner these things happen, the sooner the judgment sits. God of course knows when, but these are internal dynamics on the scene. Yet for all that, heaven forbid that one should call sin, for all its acceleration of the end, in the tiniest degree beneficial. Like cancer that left alone, kills you sooner, it is hardly a blessing on account of that! The point is to be cured fast, and be rid of the destructive dynamic.

The cancer is spiritually speaking, sin. It is a figure of it, illustrates it. Sin kills and goes on asserting its just desert. It kills all the more when the remedy is denied, for then it is in the arena of the ultimate dimension of sin, like someone formerly of 20 stone, but now of 45. The world is overweight, with sin.

THAT is the problem. It is so because it does not accept the Saviour. That is the secondary cause which rejects doctor, drug and deliverance. That is like pouring atomic waste into your drinking water. In one sense, it is merely one more senseless act. In another, it is nearing the point of being terminal. As you see in II Timothy 3 and Matthew 24, not to mention Jude and II Peter 3 with I Timothy 4, there is a progression. We are about there. Answers to Questions Ch. 5 shows how VERY nearly we are there.

Your own eyes in the light of the word of God should be able to give you an increasingly interesting read-out as the last few phases (cf. SMR pp. 502ff.) arrive. The Moslem answer as occurred in Afghanistan and in so many centres showing vast crowd support for such as bin Laden, throughout the world, is not apt. Force and guns to produce submission to some being is nothing to do with truth, as we have repeatedly seen in the earlier chapters and the last volume (cf. SMR pp. 50-71).

To "fight against such of those to whom the scriptures were given as believe neither in God nor the last Day ... and do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued" is entirely irrelevant, a parody of personality and a misplacement of force where it is an outrageous accessory to spiritual crime, not a vehicle of truth (Koran, Surah 9:27). If then the US is to look to root causes of its trouble, it is not to be found here or in such places as this, nor in circumstances where, as to unbelievers, you "make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme" (Koran, Surah 48). These things are a large PART OF THE PROBLEM, not its resolution. The Jews by jihad must go; the US by jihad must yield. Others by jihad must do this and that. Remove this from the Middle East and the impact from the US and much of the problem would be reduced at once.

However these are but part of the total complex of confusion and infusion of man's imagination into divine matters, to his fatal detriment.

It is useless to look for the solution in the realm of its generation. It is hardly a solution to a hurricane to fly into it. It is vain to expect help from the invading elements, that assault the region of faith with force.

Rather needed is love, understanding and opportunity. If the faith is not received, judgment will come soon enough. People need not bother to play god, though they will, for it is so predicted and the world is hastening with all this acceptance of false religion, now even at State level, into this field as if hungry for its own dissolution.

THE SOLUTION

Not dissolution, however, but solution, this is the requirement. That we have been seeing in Romans 5, precisely, as to its nature. As Galatians 1 makes so clear, the capacity of man to add or subtract to this gospel of divine grace, the product not of flesh but of God, the realm of His own mercy, under His own initiative and control, His only: it is zero. Zero alteration leads to infinite blessing. If purity of chemicals is so important to medicine for the mere body, what of purity of truth for the heart and soul, for the relationship with God who both IS it and PROVIDES it from Himself (John 14:6).

THIS IS THE SOLUTION: the LORD's CHRIST as Lord and Saviour in fact, not in theory, in dynamic not in booking for the hospital. THIS, it is an operation which allows your coming to the operating theatre only in repentance, liike a black robe (Luke 13:13), and allows your deliverance only in a trust in the surgeon (Romans 3:25, Galatians 3 and 5) - a thing which would be madness with men. With God, however, it would be madness to withhold it! That trust allows you to receive His directions. They are His, attested and verified, validated solely among all (SMR Ch. 1, Repent or Perish Chs. 2, 7).

Nor is the Bible an option for this operation, for as Christ said, He who wills to do the will of God will know of the doctrine (John 7:17), whether or not it be true, of God; and again, it is the word He has spoken by which He will judge (John 12:48ff.). There is no alteration. God knows His own mind. He has spoken it in word and in work, in His definitive expression, His eternal word, incarnate as Jesus the Christ. It is not obscure; it is not unknown; it not for millenia unheard of, but flashing like lightning on all sides, ever since the only Saviour did the only things that even in one being totally and absolutely, in all respects and at all costs, in every phase and feature, were divine, incapable of imitation, obfuscation or deletion. His words continue as if spoken yesterday; the world obeys, NOT in DOING them, but in receiving the due and precisely stated outcome of its deeds. As in other disease, these are not anything, but highly specialised and the prognosis and the symptoms alike, are all traced out with prodigious detail and exactitude (cf. SMR Chs. 8 - 9).

The point for this world is this: the gospel of GRACE is given in so many ways, in so many bindings, in so many languages, in so many places that its ignoring is mere wilfulness. The WORK of grace has been wrought in such perfection and attested with such precision that its continued refusal MUST, will and does lead to disgrace, violence and vileness.

THAT was how sin began, in the rejection of the grace of the place provided. It is NOT how it ends. If you want sin never to end for you, so that you either have it in operation or its results in operation, you have merely to reject the Lord's Christ and not receive His words. It is fatally easy. It is as Christ indicated, if one may use modern terms, a four lane highway to hell which is available (cf. Barbs, Arrows and Balms 30).

The other way is exact, exacting but freely given (Matthew 7:13, John 10:9,27-28). It is unbreachable (Romans 5:9-11, I Thessalonians 5:9-10), but reachable (Isaiah 55:1-6). The gate is open (Psalm 118:19, I Timothy 1:10). The gift is free (Romans 6:23, 5:15, 3:23-28, Isaiah 55:1-6). It is without priests (Hebrews 2-10), available by faith through grace, with ONE only your Master, and He, Christ Himself. He ? Sinless, sovereign, the Creator. If you want ot invent God, so be it. You get nowhere, with NOT-God, If you want God, Christ is not a step, but the reality itself (John 8:58), saying, He who has seen Me has seen the Father (John 14:1-10).

NOTES

*1
§Romans 5:12-15 in this version runs as follows.

"It is therefore as follows: Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and so death passed on to all persons in that all sinned. To be sure, sin was in the world earlier than the Law; but in absence of law, sin is not charged up. Death, however, held rule from Adam to Moses over those who sinned but did not transgress a command in the way Adam had done - who foreshadowed the Coming One.

"With the free gift, however, it is by no means as it is with the fall, for if through the lapsing of one person many die, far more richly did the grace of God and His gift, that comes through the favor of one man Jesus Christ, overflow to the many. "

We could with perhaps more consonance with the actual text write.

It is therefore as follows: As through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin and that passed to all persons since all sinned (for until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not charged up, law not being in place, but death reigned from Adam to Moses, even on those who had not sinned after the manner of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of the Coming One): yet not as the offence, so is the free gift. For if through the offences of the one, many died, much more the grace of God and the gift in grace which is derived from one man, Jesus Christ, abounded to the many.

This adversative parallel is most interesting. AS THIS happened, yet not so was it with THAT.

It is even more sophisticated. "The Coming one" in the interpolation or aside, is itself a link within what we put in brackets for simplicity of thought, to the next term. It gives the pivot for the next development in contrariety. If it is NOT as the first thing, the fall, this gracious gift, then in what mode is it to come. Anticipating this need, Paul refers to the Coming One BEFORE he mentions the contrast with the gift. Hence the grace is preceded by the Gracious One, and the Agent appears before the act, hence smoothing the transition, which nevertheless has a most delightful wrench to the heart, and impact on the mind. NOT like that is it when the Coming One comes, for it is OTHER!

*2
This sentence, incidentally provides another example of adversative comparison as in Romans 5, where we inspected it.

*3
The reader interested in pursuing examples may wish to consult the following.

Acme, Alpha and Omega: Jesus Christ Ch. 9 - glamour, stammer, hammer ... flitter and glitter;
Spiritual Refreshings for the Digital Millenium Ch. 3 (the soporific self, and the unity glide, under the sedation of sin);
The Frantic Millenium and the Peace of Faith Ch. 11 - twigs and towers;

News Fact and Forecasts - Chs.

   8 - sham, shame and co.;
   13 - symphony and seditions - two heady heads,
   14 - deadly d's;

Repent or Perish Ch. 5 inventions in mind, gender, politics ...

43) Romans 9:5

§"Theirs are the fathers, and from them in human lineage has come the Christ, He being God over all, blessed forever Amen."

The following excerpts are taken from On Translations of the Bible 6.

A DELIGHTFUL EXCURSION

ROMANS 9:5 and DROPPING OVER A CLIFF
A subtler invasion of life, and sending it away

ROMANS 9:5 in the context of the word of God, and not of the imagination.

The translation in the case both of the KJV and the NKJV is essentially the same, in an area of typhoons and cross-currents, in a show of stability and perception to the glory of God.

Let us commence with it:

"Theirs are the fathers, and from them in human lineage has come the Christ, He being God over all, blessed forever Amen."

Romans 9:1-6 has a deep and sustained message, clothed in a grammatical form that approaches being a formula.

In face of the choice marvels of Chapter 8 preceding, the equipment and dowry of the Christian, Paul laments for the wilful self-exclusion of the Jews en masse, in a vast majority, moving to "establish their own righteousness" as he shows in 10:1-3, to follow.

Indeed, almost he could wish himself a curse, an accursed being, for his brethren, the Jews, we learn - so is He driven by the love of Christ within him, of Christ who DID become a curse for those who receive Him - for their sake! (Galatians 3:1-13).

Now the form, the virtual formula in this passage of Romans 9, begins. It is a list - an embracive, consuming list. It swells, encompasses, expatiates. The relative pronoun is used like an anvil as the apostle pounds his points. The "metal" flattens and spreads, explanatory or epexegetical comments increasing the coverage.

First, as noted above, he refers to the Israelites. Then he commences his eloquent and arresting series of expansions, based on relative pronoun links. Here, the very praises or acknowledgments of Israel's advantages serving almost as an indictment in view of what they have done with them ... or more precisely, NOT done with them! Let us look at the list, and enlist its thoughts to our own, so that we shall be instructed by the apostle.

1) WHOSE is the adoption,

and the glory,
and the covenants,
and the lawgiving
and the service
and the promises

2) WHOSE are the fathers, and

3) OF WHOM is the Christ according to the flesh

4) WHO is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Actually, a better translation, as we shall see later, making point to the use of the participle (being over all - in Greek), for the last point (4), is :

THE-BEING-OVER ALL-GOD, BLESSED FOR EVER. AMEN.

That is a Greek way of putting things, and would be rendered, as by the Berkeley translation: HE WHO is God over all, blessed for ever. In this way, first the Jewish place and race is characterised with the WHOSE, WHOSE, OF WHOM series, and then the summit over all, Christ, is characterised, both according to the flesh, and in His epitome, The all-ruling God, blessed for ever.

Even if this were ignored, however, the point remains as here stated. Either way, it has the same result regarding the deity of Christ.

Notice

Ø 1: the rampant fling of words like ricocheting stones. They tend to skip on past the relative clause base, to provide a soaring addition.

Ø 2: the explanation in case 3) above.

Ø 3: the parallel to it in case 4) above.

Ø OF WHOM is the Christ (explanation following) - according to the flesh,
WHO is over all (explanation) - God blessed for ever (expansion).

It is only by rupture of structure that any ambiguity can arise, and that, it is an invasion, a distortion, a wilful ignorance grammatically speaking; for if a direction is set, and one knows not what to do next unless one follows it, does one then bite one's thumbs and excite oneself in an agony of ambiguity, and ecstasy of concern; or does one not rather take it that the speaker being competent and aware, intends one NOT to invent, to intrude, to invade the context with one's imagination, through bringing in UNSTATED words when this is necessary ONLY if one wishes to make the statement obscure! Such words may indeed be freely added when mere economy is in view, and the meaning is pellucid, unquestionable.

To add them however when the addition - which could have been made explicitly and without any imagination - alone makes for lack of clarity, is an intrusive addition, a wresting of meaning on the basis of what is apt elsewhere, but certainly not when it changes what IS there entirely!

In fact, not only is there -

1) the thrust to explain or extend the reference as noted and shown for this particular soaring passage, but there is

2) the one-sided aspect (according to the flesh) in point 3) as made, which calls for its match in what is NOT of this limiting formal character. Indeed THAT particular emphasis is constant and strong in Paul, a thrust both pre-emptive and perpetual. (Cf. Colossians 1, Philippians 2). In addition, there is

3) the explosive enlargement throughout in this passage, so that a minimisation of the significance which the Jews (as a nation) had and wasted in Christ, would be foreign, even alien, an aggressive disruption to the tenor of Paul's speech, and

4) the following fact...

Paul is reaching a crescendo to his considerations in reaching "Christ", and an "according to the flesh" as the sentence terminus, would damage and even render the thrust ludicrous. Being "over all" in terms of a "flesh" basis is far removed from Christ as Pilate from government (John 19). A king ? yes, but the kingdom is that of the truth.

Moreover, to LEAVE the sentence without even the "over all" phrase would, if it were possible, be yet more antagonistic to the structure and thrust of the passage, making it comic. The heightening winds of name and glory are then ditched and interred in "according to the flesh".

True, the 'flesh' for incarnation, that is what they contributed; but it is to minimise the fact that they were chosen, exposed to His WONDER and DIVINE opportunity, and it would be to leave derelict the mounting enthusiasm of the passage. If one adds "who is over all", this certainly reduces the difficulty, for to be over all is a climax to the preliminary considerations, to the enlargements, and it is a parallel to the continuing explanatory character of the context. Indeed, it is one more of the struck medium of relative pronouns giving enlightenment, by which the passage has both eloquence and clarity, cohesion and construction, provided as if by a magnetic force to keep the particles of speech in order and clear.

However, that expedient of disjunction in what is obstructively conjunctive in form and format, if it is used to exempt from the continuity, and separate from the heavily stylised sentence the "God blessed for ever" phrase which follows: this, though it meets a little more, the magnification of context to a climax, avoiding indeed a stricken bathos - that result being bathetic as well as pathetic - yet it has the difficulty earlier noted.

A pure flesh base for the exaltation which dominates in "blessed" would remove the ground of glory. Having someone over all in flesh contributed by Israel would do nothing to provide supreme delight and superb exultation. The antichrist could conceivably lay claim to some such thing. Moreover, and the more so in this setting, the removal from the structural context of this last phrase, would cut off a terminal passage from the fabric of the context, leaving it isolated like an island, without ground for what would then be its meaning. It would be unclear, uncohesive, bathetic and dispersive of glory, at the very moment in which glory is felt, and blessing pronounced to the wonder of the Lord.

A cut off rogue phrase in the midst of work which would thereby be left full of ambiguity, and truncated ? Yet this is NEVER found in terms of the Greek adjective in view, euloghtos in the entire New Testament. How is it used in this Testament ? Either it is used to start a sentence - II Cor. 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, I Peter 1:3, Luke 1:68; or is used with clear statement - 'who is' in full - Romans 1:25, or as a genitive following a preceding reference - Son of the Blessed (Mark 14:61), or else a verb is supplied before the relative pronoun so making the back reference to the subject sure (as in II Corinthians 11:31) - "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ KNOWS, He who is the blessed..." (blocks added to show the point in view). In this way, the proximity to "Jesus Christ" is prevented from any question of reference, apart from anything else, because the subject "God and Father" has its own verb "knows" inserted before the "He who is the blessed".

In short, there is NO way any ambiguity ever enters in, relative to this word in the New Testament cases examined, and in this present case, it is ONLY when the exceedingly clear, highly visible and indeed almost obstructively and certainly eminently impressive structure of the wording is ignored as a guideline, that the question arises.

That structure and flow of context, grammar and form, however is precisely one of the modes of clarity: to use a form and a structure which acts as a stricture, as a narrow gate, indicating the author's mind and bent and way. Here it is the way to have a mass of continuing relative pronouns - expanding and re-directing course as occasion requires, a sort of tissue of cells of content in this way moulded into oneness, integrity, cohesion and clarity. In this, continuation, explanation and new direction within the progress, is the mode. Paul often uses notable style in making impact, and to exclude this as a consideration is simply to SUPPRESS what is present. THAT however is not to express it, but to summon and seize it, no work of translation at all.

Hence to achieve some departure from this structure is an invasion of a guideline by pure unmixed imagination. Anyone who does this is not finding, however, an ambiguity, but inserting a desire. Proverbs 8:8-9 tells us that the words of God are all clear to him who understands, and what is to be understood is this, that language has its parameters and persuasions, and that to break up a structure is an arbitrary sharing of the creation of the passage concerned, and to act on this is a mistranslation. It is virtually to become a co-author, so that one 's creative imagination in such a case, would be ignoring indication. It is as simple as that.

When, as here, it leads to early separation in the first place (making what is taken as "who is over all" into a new sentence), it ALSO leads to comedy in the contextual train of mounting climax. When, the break in continuity is inserted AFTER that, and before "God blessed for ever", then the style of explanation and cohesion, PLUS the move to grander and greater fields is broken. A new thing is inserted into the New Testament - slovenly writing which admits of no resolution, a new usage for this Greek word 'blessed' within the entire structure of the New Testament, a floating one! Elsewhere the cohesion is tight, as it is here by virtue both of the flow, the characteristics and the direction of the context. Only invasion can make a Kosovo of this land. Otherwise it coheres in its place, both by the force of the meaning of the context, the impressive mounting climax, and its grammatical structure.

Essentially, there is a matter of emphasis to be made. If clarity were in view (as it must be, according to Proverbs 8, with I Corinthians 2:9-13), then other choices were available, as we see in the listings above, which could have achieved this for the phrase (or clause and phrase), if it had been intended suddenly to break it off into a sentence of its own. THESE available and sometimes used indications were NOT used. Hence it is not shown that this is the will of the writer, to impart what he could have imparted by available means. Rather and definitely, it is shown by the eloquence and cohesion and direction of flow, and the complementary compilation of meaning, that precise force, coherence, cogent force, and beauty which otherwise would lack.

All things are possible, but by no means all are expedient. When to make a meaning from a passage in a letter, you have to ASSUME ambiguity, and then RUPTURE the form used, and INVADE the direction of flow, inserting from an assumed ellipsis (no verb for any final short sentence being given, so that to get that isolated phrase, you have to add one), then it is clear that the will of the reader is transcending the will of the writer.

Further, and quite categorically, it is also clear that it is being ASSUMED that the writer is inept or speaks without much concern about points which, from other letters, are known to be - when taken THIS way or THAT - of supreme importance. All that is a large depreciation of the writer, almost amounting to a denunciation. When the writer in the end, as I Cor. 2, Matthew 4:4 (see Appendix D, SMR), here is God in the sense of covering both the substance and the words chosen in superintendence, then it amounts to something so near to blasphemy as to be best left to the judge to determine! People of course do not always realise what they do, the implications of their actions and statements, so we leave that to Him.

No, some other choice of words was not made, as in the other passages when a direction to God direct is made, in the New Testament. That choice of words and of grammar was NOT MADE. To render it thus is therefore a heavy intrusion into the context. It is unworthy, unwarranted and impermissible. It then reads, "God blessed for ever. Amen." Who or what is the referent ? Is it something in the context, or is it suddenly divorced, taken into what (would then be) is another realm, relative to the actual cohesive context! In fact, the preceding person, Christ, is Himself the climax of much preliminary about the oracles of God and promises and covenants, and comes as a primary focus.

Is HE then to be divorced as irrelevant ? and now that He has come into focus and sight, is He to be interred all over again by the mind and imagination of the reader, so that HIS significance is to be ditched and a wholly separate item is to be introduced as if the brakes were to squeal and the car lurch to a halt, leaving it half way over a precipice of confusion and upset ? Is imagination to divorce one of the most emphatic antecedents ever available in all literature, and insert from above, NOT from the preliminaries, whereas the whole context has been dealing explicitly, continually and remorselessly, indeed in the genius and nature of its lament and complaint, with what is BELOW, however it got there!

Further, there is a cohesion not yet mentioned, but brought out in the Berkeley translation of the New Testament, which renders this last part of verse 5, "sprang the Christ, He who is God over all." Not 'who' but 'he who'.

In fact, the Greek does not literally say, 'who is over all', but 'the being over all God, blessed for ever.' Without additives, THAT is what it is saying, and to supply what is 'missing', which in turn aborts the rising crescendo, is mere eisegesis. What is there does not say more than this: the being over all God, blessed forever. If you are interested in what is there: THAT precisely is there. Hence it is to be faithfully translated, allowing for idiom, but not supplementing the sense. Hence the course of translation, if it is to be this and not paraphrase, is as given at the outset.

It thus literally reads, 'from whom sprang the Christ, the being-over-all-God, blessed for ever.' Greek loves to do this sort of thing (cf. Acts 9:35, Romans 8:1), making the most - at first sight - odd sorts of compacted phrases by this use of the relative pronoun with accompanying qualifications on the way to the noun. One gets used to it. So after from whom and out of whom, and of whom, relative pronouns mounting as the case against Israel and for the prevenience of the ever blessed God mounts, His blessedness and His generosity, His gifts and His wonders in stubborn contrast to the unblessed and mingy failure of Israel so much as to respond to Him in such a vast project, thus consummated, we have as climax literally supernatural to end it all in a word, this description of the Christ, who "out of" Israel according to the flesh did indeed come.

His ontological state is noted, His eminence is make eloquently obvious, so that we find this being said: "from whom sprang the Christ, He being the God over all, blessed forever." That in fact is the translation which is not only neatest seeming in English, giving full emphasis to every aspect of the grammar in Greek. HE WHO is God over all, blessed for ever is however to be preferred because it is in English neater, without losing the accuracy of the point in view in the text.

This 'being' in the first rendering above, is exegetical, telling us just WHOM we are now dealing with. Since there is a special word for it, which was not needed on a debased interpretation, we must emphasise the point. There is no occasion to say 'being' instead of 'is' or an omission, if it meant 'who is'. The REASON for the participle here is this, that it is an expressive designation depicting One WHO NOT according to the flesh, but according to His own being, flesh apart, in Himself, is - wait for it, GOD! God ? Over all is Christ, He BEING God, blessed for ever. The tie is more like handcuffs. The Christ has the being noted, to show the direction of emphasis, namely on the One just noted.

Thus what would be sloppy and almost unintelligible grammar, 'who being over all', end of sentence, or 'who being over all, God blessed for ever', becomes not only intelligible, but elegant, just as Paul tends so often to be, as the Lord uses him for His purpose.

In this way, we revert to comprehensibility as in all cases of 'blessed' in the New Testament; we leave a soupy mix created by fog of mind, and USING the grammar to ESTABLISH the sense, in combination with the oratorical prose and thrust of the passage, end with what is the precise parallel to Philippians 2.

Let us be clear, then, is the force of the text, by "God" we mean NOTHING LESS that this, Him who is blessed for ever, God Almighty, the LORD of the Old Testament, Him designated by the famous tetragrammeton, the God of eternity, the first and the last as John is moved to put it in Revelation 2:9, and Isaiah in 44:6 of the Lord God. THIS is He, this is the One who according to the flesh, is from Israel, the One nevertheless to be identified as the being-God-over-all, blessed for ever. Not to Him were the oracles given: that was to Israel, who according to the flesh were kin of Paul. To Christ, who according to the flesh was also of Israel, there is this overwhelming accentuation, acceleration, acme and parade: He, HE for His part being the Being over all, blessed for ever.

What then ? He being that, is yet evacuated from the earth, while Israel revolts. So Paul proceeds in the context to more of his theme.

How terrible then is this lapse in Israel, that far from being 'nothing' or a nonentity, a barren waif in the wilderness (cf. Ezekiel 16:1-7), she - through divine mercy alone - had been presented with privileges and favour not stopping short of the very presence and power of God Himself, personally, who would act in ransom in His own Being direct (as in Hosea 13:14 and Ezekiel 34).

^"Again the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, and say,

‘Thus says the Lord God to Jerusalem:

"Your birth and your nativity are from the land of Canaan; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite. As for your nativity, on the day you were born your navel cord was not cut, nor were you washed in water to cleanse you; you were not rubbed with salt nor wrapped in swaddling cloths.

"No eye pitied you, to do any of these things for you, to have compassion on you; but you were thrown out into the open field, when you yourself were loathed on the day you were born. And when I passed by you and saw you struggling in your own blood, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ Yes, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ I made you thrive like a plant in the field; and you grew, matured, and became very beautiful." ' "

In other words to the present point, Paul is both recounting the wonders given to Israel, climaxing not in some mere authority, but where it began, in GOD Himself, blessed for ever (very much as in Jeremiah 2:13 - broken water containers instead of living waters from the snow's purity, and 18:14), so that not to some mere human eminence is the landmark of gift to Israel compared, but to the eminence of GOD in contrast with the sickliness of polluted nature and polluting sin. This is the thrust of the Bible throughout, the DIVINE is in giving mode and the human is in disbelieving mode, and the divine not only gives things and mercies, but HIMSELF! in patience, in love, in cherishing, in Messianic forecast, in predicted bearing of sin in ransom achieved by the very deity as noted above!

This is the thrust both of the word of God in its highest plaint, and deepest appeal, and it is so here, where the 'the being God over all, blessed for ever' is the height of the arch constructed, illimitable, relevant, in contrast, in contradiction to Israel's self-blight and in horror at the depth of it, the loss of it (just as in Isaiah 7 in the notorious case of Ahab, who wearied even GOD! in his equivocation).

Christ quite simply is at the height and depth of the crusade for Israel, its summary and depiction, its force and its impact, Him 'who being God', as in Philippians 2, and thus most blessed for ever, has so made gifts of such magnitude to Paul that he could even wish himself accursed for their neglect, like Moses, who of course as with Paul, is not about to consider such a horror as being cursed for anything less than the case where GOD HIMSELF is affronted, in view, relevant, in focus and passed by (cf. Exodus 32:32-33). The case moves where it is placed (Romans 9:3). It is as in Hebrews treading under foot the blood of Christ which is so utterly shocking that it evinces the response in Hebrews 10, based as it is on WHO GOD IS, WHO CHRIST IS, as shown so explicitly in Hebrews 1.

Thus it is that the climax being in terms of Christ, from Israel according to the flesh but God blessed for ever in spiritual nature, leads on naturally in the context to the fact that by no means if the word of God broken in all this. How could it be when GOD Himself has come SUCCESSFULLY as Christ (cf. II Corinthians 5:17-21), and done His work effectually, in the ultimate work and gift of salvation, and Israel simply bypasses for the time (Romans 11 shows this emphatically, for the time only!) the gift so great that its refusal by them has Paul almost wishing himself accursed for them.

To what does this bring us ?

As we move on, we find this: Paul proceeds to show the word of God has not been vanquished! His word is NOT made of no effect (Romans 9:6), cries Paul, through this rejection of this ultimate eminence by the Jews. Not at all (Romans 9:6ff.). After all, what has been given goes to the heart of God Himself personally, and the height of the gift brought down so low, to us, this evacuates God from any possible or conceivable challenge of inaction or insufficiency at the divine level of concern and involvement (Romans 11:26-36, 8:31-39, and Colossians 1:19ff.). That is a basic part of Paul's theme and flow in this context. Moreover God has His elect, has found His own, and if rejected for the time by the nation, is found by those who are His within it. If gold is sparse for the mining company, is it therefore useless!

In fact, by Romans 11, we find that there is a vast empire of the empirical, there is as in an olive tree time and sequence, coming and going, nation in and nation out, Gentiles out and Gentiles in, then Jew back and re-grafted. In vain? ludicrous. Indeed in Romans 10:9 we find what Romans 11 with Zechariah 12-13 makes so clear, that it is all coming back to this Christ, God over all, the Redeemer coming PERSONALLY to man, the Lord Himself, the Lord of glory, to cover the cost, provide the service (cf. Matthew 20:28) and bring both individual and nation, yes and even a vast residue of Israel, in its time, by ONE method of ONE Christ, who is the God over all, blessed for ever, in whose blessed face is seen the glory of God (II Corinthians 4:6). Indeed, it is HE who is to return, for which we wait (Titus 2:13), even the great God and our Saviour (one introductory 'the' - the great God and Saviour of us).

NO ONE but GOD is Saviour (Isaiah 43:10-11), and Christ is NONE OTHER than the Saviour who paid in His own Person, gloriously sent, intimately willing (Psalm 40), coming from equality with God to the executive action of the Cross.

Thus GOD has met all that was ever propounded or indeed could be conceived, in what He has provided, for the Jews. By the time he comes to Romans 10:6-9, Paul completes this phase of confrontation and indication of the name, integrity and grace of God. What then ? is there something in heaven to go for, to bring this end of the law for righteousness DOWN? NOT AT ALL! says the apostle. Or is there something somewhere else ? Emphatically NOT! He, Christ HAS come from heaven, there is nothing left of what could come, and the word conceiving Him gives link through Him to His abode (in heaven), as shown in Romans 10:9.

This of course is precisely what is shown in Philippians 2 and Colossians 1-2: in HIM is the fulness of the Godhead in bodily format, already brought down, already provided, already rejected by many, but eminently and astonishingly available, while the day of grace lasts. TO HIM, every knee will bow, just as Isaiah 45:22ff. made clear: this submission of all to one, is to God the Lord, alone. (Cf. SMR Ch. 7, pp. 532-560).

And Christ, He is Lord! NONE other, says Isaiah, but the LORD is God; and it is to HIMSELF that He swears every knee will bow, in accordance with this fact. Thus it is to CHRIST that every knee will bow, in entailment of His deity status; for to have it to any other would otherwise violate the integrity of the divine insistence; and to have it to another as the very focus would violate it infinitely. But to God blessed for ever, who is Christ, it is the one chosen for the purpose from the infinitude of the trinity. Infinite is the blessedness of the infinite God who provided His infinitely loved Son as this glorious focus, incarnate, predicted, performance endued, consummating the preliminaries, covenantally countermanding the rewards of sin for His people. To HIM shall it be done.

Meditation:

There are then times when the NKJV tends to be clearer and truer to the original; while the KJV gives stimulus to thought and can be a stimulus to thought and fidelity. Both together are useful. The above provides valuable illustration. Thus in 17) and 18) we see the NKJV advantage, concerning clarity allied with accuracy; in 1) especially, in 5), 7), 8) for example, we see perception in the AV which can show a sensitive relationship to all the scriptures in its renderings.

Let us consider the results overall now, together with some other considerations. It is found that neither of these translations is infallible, faultless. On the whole, one finds the KJV is inclined to exhibit more spiritual perception^*1, rarely lacking in that, whereas the NKJV frequently has far more clarity, possibly even in terms of the English of the times concerned, certainly in terms of today's English. In that regard, the NKJV is clearer and truer to the original; the KJV however gives stimulus for thought, frequently exhibiting much discernment. Both together are useful.

Avoiding rash options, let us then use what the Lord has provided, circumspectly, knowing His word is surely available. What is in view when this is done, is able indeed to convey the full import of His words to us, and nothing more, and we can live by them, in Him. Without the Greek text before us, or indeed the Hebrew, and relying on only one translation when another basically sound one is available, it can at times be that a well-known and slightly archaic word form will disguise the meaning, which never becomes clear to the reader. But it is not for mantras but for declaration from God that we come. Our task is to use the intelligence God has given us to ensure we

v a) find all we can of what is there, and

v b) do not prejudicially pre-empt the decisions of the Almighty in His gifts to us, by discarding on party lines without Biblical warrant or evidential support. To whom much is given, from him much shall be required.

It is time to avoid the philosophically fostered disdain for the text God has abundantly preserved, and skilfully confirmed; it is time likewise to avoid a slavish dependence on the KJV, though its preservation has been providential. It is of a certainty a magnificent translation of great spiritual tact and care; just as the NKJV often lends superior clarity, new impact from this cause and a certain distilled sense of acuteness which it sometimes achieves. Different nuances of the two can lead to study and understanding being enhanced. It is in some ways like preachers, where Paul was at pains to prevent partisanship (cf. I Corinthians 3).

This is no time for obsessive reactionary blighting of good work and useful clarity, following an admittedly shameless shambles in this area on the part of many manipulators of the Greek text, some basing their extravanganzas on mythical events which neither have the advantage of having any evidence, nor agree with the (statistical) evidence we do have, as if God had not competently preserved His thought and doctrine according to His promise. Nor is it any time to seize one of the translations which avoids this error (AV), in preference to another which shows the same and in some ways a greater sensitivity to the Greek text (NKJV) - though this is purely because we are now in possession of more of that same prolific and superabundant family of texts, justly used by the AV.

With such care on the part of both of these translations in this regard, such preference would be not merely wrong but ironic, making the same error as others, but for different reasons.

For the rest, some other versions can help and hinder, and very occasionally may be a needful blend or in some instances provide a fine clarity, and may be used, with understanding. Item 19) was a fine example of this. These two, AV and NKJV, however in conjunction have a safety net and a sanity to offer which, for those not planning to study the original languages, have a moreover rich texture.

This is not to say that some other translations in some places are not quite marvellous, but their use is often a matter of either being capable in Greek and Hebrew, or of leaving well alone, for they are not all by any means faithful.

Theories founded against the evidence and against the promises of God are readily discounted, and this, it is true, means great caution with most New Testament translations (the areas are not great, do not affect basic doctrine, but nevertheless we do want ABSOLUTE PRECISION with what we have). With the NKJV and the AV we are in good company in this regard, and should reinforce the one with the other, and use the discernment of one to aid the discovery of original meaning, making edifying excavations where there is any stimulus. Speaking of myths, we should equally avoid the concept that God is not allowing His command "test all things" to be apt here, and has in some secret way kept some secret copies of some secret texts which have always been a word for word, precisely identical translation. Let the evidence suffice, in conjunction with what God actually presents, and let us avoid the political sort of see-sawing which never rests while there is any unbalanced surge of airy thought.

The evidence is WONDERFUL, showing the clear and amazing precision of preservation of all doctrine and command, so that what is in textual variation, AFTER one has consulted the overwhelming textual evidence for one family, is so minute in scope as to be wholly divergent from the assurances God has given, and merely assures us the more of the zeal of His cognitive preservation of His word.

Indeed, NOTHING of ANY effectual impact fails to be placed, established on the earth. Follies of disregard and seizure^*2 do nothing to alter this; nor will they (Isaiah 59:21, Psalm 111:7-8, Matthew 4:4, II Timothy 3:16, Matthew 16:18); and the gates of hell will indeed not prevail against the church of the Lord, founded on that rock (Psalm 62) which is and can only be Himself, not some petros of Rome, airily invented and inserted like a trifle, into the foundational rock: rock, not 'a stone', as the text demands for man (cf. SMR pp. 1056-1072, 888, and Intro. xxxi-xxxii). Nor is it some experience without covenantal base, some babbling tongue of man, some conviction of thought: CHRIST is the rock, and His words on which one must build do not vary or vanish; and may not, for they are commanded.

A WORD FOR TODAY

It is in the highest degree unfortunate that a false, liberal intrusion into Greek textual affairs, having led to some peculiarly reckless results, an uninformed or merely radical reaction, should have set in. Understandable it certainly is, and readily so; rationally defensible, it is equally is not.

The almost political seeming squalor of the results is divisive, uninformative, a market place for violent haggles, squabbles and unsophisticated nonsense, which no longer deems "test all things" relevant, but rather, imagine anything!

IF you do NOT believe the Authorised Version is final to the syllable the originally inspired word of God, you are scarcely, if at all, worthy of fellowship! THAT is the conclusion of some, and this is the reactionary ultimatum often enough delivered. Do not worry me with tests, figures, surveys of the actual textual material which God, in His wisdom, has made available, goes the spiel, the implausible patter. The AV has done so well that clearly (sic) it and it alone is the word of God.

S0 goes this new Delphic oracle.

IF you say, 'But there is no textual evidence that the exact Greek text which the AV uses is the original, but rather that it is a member of vast majority of all the texts, a family,' what then ? Then back comes the delusive drama of words: How do you know ?: for secretly hidden, is the evidence for what I affirm. And it is at times added: The AV is to be used as the ultimate text, with no appeal to Greek or Hebrew.

Alas, this is no distortion. This is the sort of thing which is actually said. It is a failure, Biblically, for the Bible is as clear as these remarks are vacuous and woolly. "TEST ALL THINGS," I Thess.5:21 does not and cannot mean, "Imagine anything!"

Test involves the a ascertainment of facts through evidence, not dictation to evidence of what it does not happen to be!

This reaction, therefore, is unbiblical, unreasonable, unscholarly and close to blasphemous, telling by some personal feelings, where the word of God is to be found.

Is that however not exactly what the liberals did in the first place, foisting a fictitious and imaginary meeting for textual revision onto the history of the early church, despite the factual evidence being overwhelmingly this - that it did not occur.

These weird imaginations on either side are an offence, divisive, both the one and the other, and pollutants; and the church of Christ should go on with moderation and self-control, not snared by these devices.

It takes only a little restraint to see that in fact the AV cannot be idolatrised, or with virtual blasphemy, exalted to a standard that has never been accorded to it or indeed any other translation, in the Bible. We cannot add to the word of God, if we would (Proverbs 30:6), any more than we can make imaginary evidence on which to build a view of the text. We cannot, for example, take a point in history, where a culmination of many translations is brought to a new height, and say, Look, God has done this thing. It was always there.

WAS IT ? To such one might ask this: Do you seriously then affirm that before all that work, the thing to which it gave birth was there word for word ? Is this the imagination which needs no test and hence no Biblical obedience ? And what was its idiom ? and if it was there, in good idiom for each piece of English history, before this, why was it not there a year earlier in the case of the AV, when the idiom was virtually the same ? or ten years earlier ? or why was it not all there before Wyclif, in such felicity, or translated into English before it was translated at all, before this, the first Bible in the modern tongue "the first Bible at all in a modern tongue" (The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Vol.1, p. 137, re the Wyclif era) ?

Do facts mean nothing! THAT was there ? Where ? In your mind ? What does that serve ? And in the meantime, when we come to those who look at those little things called facts, what do we find: the ENGLISH did NOT for long have this word to them in their speech, so what is all this talk about God doing this, and this then being what HE HAD to do in terms of His promises, which in fact, as we have in detail shown, do NOT so indicate at all! The Greek was always present, the translations were not; the thought of God was never evacuated, though many were they who suppressed it. Let us not join them by philosophical pretensions not found in the word, imaginations not found in the evidences of history, or slacknesses not found in our forefathers.

If the historical scenario invented implausibly and anti-historically in method, by the liberals was a work of incredible presumption, what of this ? Is it better ? And does it serve, if the AV translators did their remarkable work in terms of the English resources of their day, if we in our day abuse it by not developing the translation in terms of the changing English language, idiom and vocabulary of our own ? Are to create magic in order not to do our own work ? Are we so to rely on their sanctity that we are loose and slack ourselves ? God forbid!

In fact, as we have amply clarified, the AV is a translation from within what, objectively, is a vast majority family. That is fortunate, but not entirely surprising, the majority being what it is.

Its translators were many, and multiplied meetings, which is good. That assisted the development of a fine precision in seeking to present within the vast English vocabulary and specific idiomatic structure of their generation, a finesse of representation of the constraints of the Greek text, to take our New Testament case. As to the AV, its predecessors also included much sacrificial scholarship, as by Tyndale, who gave his life in his toils, helping to develop what the AV translators could use as resource, developed over hundreds of years.

In the end, as to the AV, its discernment in terms of sensitivity to ALL of the scriptures, as it translates any, is excellent, and verges on wonderful. When its time came, it was there; before this, it was not, but the thoughts of the Lord were there.

However, for the AV, clarity is not its chief gift. Sanctimoniously clinging to it with no clear comprehension of significant sections, is no action worthy of a Protestant.

Many NT translations of modern kind indeed follow text rather slavishly outside the majority family. These are to that extent blemished.

However, the NKJ does not do this, and gives us a step towards justice for the whole textual, majority family of which the King James base (i.e. in Greek MSS) is a part. This is an evidentially oriented exercise, in terms of "Test all things..."

PERSPECTIVE

Thus the facts are these: There has been a liberal-radical intrusion, invasion into the textual affairs box, and this has misoriented many, led to a false and indefensible textual approach manoeuvring a faulty careless base into prime position as if God were not in charge, and the testimony of preservation were not a song of triumph. In turn from this, numerous New Testament translations of modern time (20th. century on) have been defective in some things, though not necessarily in overall doctrine nor in general; but they have failed to follow tested data, and instead have preferred unsubstantiated philosophy and concocted history which failed to arrive to verify itself. Naturally this has not always worn a label, nor has it necessarily been intentional.

This radicalism, and thrust of mere imagination, threw much modern New Testament translation work into disrepute, in THIS respect justly, and both invited and incited reaction in some, who then, misusing the promises of God, turned in something close to idolatry to the AV version. This had merit in one point: it IS a very sensitive, apt and careful translation, though, lest one good custom should corrupt the world, as Tennyson has the thought, it is demonstrably not perfect. Notwithstanding this, its performance is nothing short of magnificent, and it is of the greatest sorrow that this excellence, as with so much in human affairs, has led to so fixed an attitude towards it on the part of some, that the undoubted help and fine features of some other translations is radically, and by inept or inaccurate generalisation, simply discarded, thus impoverishing the church in these cases.

So does evil work its witless way.

In fact, avoiding reactionary excesses, and being THANKFUL for providential mercies, both with the actual manuscripts and the AV, one should use ALL God has provided, in good sense avoiding all the excesses of radicalism in the vast majority of modern New Testament translations, but not for that reason failing at all times to use their good features. For many it is indeed safer and better, if not gifted at all in these matters, to avoid all but the AV and the NKJV, since their text background is soundly based. For others however, with due caution, and awareness of the textual defects of many of these modern translations, and realising that the differences are relatively rare, and provided it is a case of actual translation and not paraphrasing of some patronising type, it is both practical and possible to find stimulus from the brilliance of some areas of other translations, and in particular from the Old Testament. True that has also been affected by the prodigious impertinence against the divine authority, that some have exercised in loose 'critical emendations' of the text, as if imagination, once again, were lord and the God of His word were a bystander, but this has been less pervasive in many good translations.

Thus, for example there appear places in the New Standard American Version in Isaiah which are prodigiously felicitous, and in the NIV, Job is a work of paramount excellence in translation.

These points are pastoral as well as textual, but it is time an understanding returned to some quarters, and the spirit of the Age was avoided BOTH in its radical follies and in the reactionary excesses, BOTH of which features impoverish the saints and limit the impact of the word of God. It is in effect just ONE MORE place where philosophy wedded with a lack of precise faith in the promises of God has led to confusion, and through reaction, a profusion of confusion.

This having been said, let us give some more detailed overview of the doctrinal situation in this regard, and summary of aspects of necessary advice, with all good will to all, thus arising.

One should notice:

1) Even outside the majority family, no doctrine is altered though numbers of texts are mutilated; but in principle, INSIDE this family, as in the NKJ version, the variation is minute.

2) Often, with examples here given, the AV does an almost inspired job, surpassing in perception, the NKJ version.

3) Often, with examples given, the NKJ gives far greater clarity, preventing confusion or misconception (take Ezekiel 40ff., for example!), or indeed, for many, little concept at all in some places.

4) In rare cases (examples given) the AV fails.

The NKJV appears to so do more often. Neither version could be called "bad" or heretical. Both are good, but different sorts of translating skills are highlighted in each. For fidelity, nearly always, the AV is best. For clarity, quite often, the NKJ is best.

5) Almost never (contrary examples given) do both fail in the same place.

6) No false doctrine is obtained but merely a lack of clarity or adequacy, from either: although in one verse, one implication of the translation is quite unsound in the case of the NKJV (Rev. 19:8).

7) Some other versions have stimulating or excellent work available in the Old Testament (where for example the NIV translation of Job is marvellous, and some renderings in Isaiah in the NASV are notable), but you have to be careful to check the Hebrew in any divergencies, as the brilliance may sometimes appear unrestrained by due care. Flair can take off into the winds, though sometimes expose excellent perspective.

Reference even in the NT in such cases, though unlikely to be needed, can on occasion be fruitful.

8) The desire to honour God, not to be in the hand of pedantic princes, a mere substitute for papal power, is quite sound

However, to allow reactionary forces to dictate without evidence, specifically going beyond what the Bible authorises, is wholly indefensible, a definite work of schism. We must here therefore distinguish sharply between the motive and the means!

What then ? Let your moderation be shown, the known be honoured above the guessed, for God has not forgotten to be gracious. Cling to what is good: the testimony of the original, immediate inspiration of all Scripture, and the faithful transmission of God's thoughts.

Avoid ANY approach which assumes God has not done this. This leaves the AV and the NKJV as available options. It also allows judicious willingness to find testable examples of real value in some other translations, where the underlying Greek text is (as usually is the case) not affected.

In exceedingly rare cases, where there is some difficulty as to an original text's meaning, place, one must always be willing to examine every line of objective evidence from all historical sources.

This writer has never met case of residual doubt as to the content of the text, in its thought and thrust, induced by any textual variation. No doctrine depends, in any case, to the least degree, on such cases. What He has promised, He has punctiliously, as ever, performed. In terms of Christian Apologetics, this is one more illustration of the flair and care of His word, which is His!

God has indeed transmitted His thoughts, His commands and His mind with (what without miracle would be) an incredible clarity.

This must not be abused or confused by racial schismatics, of the right or of the left. As to the word of God, let it speak for itself. It is there. It does not need help from philosophical theories, or historical ones; whether of the one kind or the other. It evidences itself without these.

God has spoken. Listen. That, not addition, is what is necessary. Test what ? ALL things, and that includes spurious theories of minds astray from the evidence as it exists - and continues to do so, by the grace of God, through His honour.

End-note

The close inter-relation of the text of the Bible, each part with each, is one of its most arresting phenomena. It is by no means exaggerating to assert that it is like the integration of arms and legs. They, while very different to be sure, are of such a close integral inter-relationship, that it is PART OF THEIR FUNCTION to act together in the midst of their specific specialisations, as one whole, or part of one whole, each other member contributing, all individual, all correlated in a triumph of motion.

Thus, a more sensitive document in this respect, than the Bible, it would be difficult to imagine. Its themes, predictions, chaste turn of exact language and enormous directness that never fears to shock or affront mere formalism, or to the godly, to comfort and caress the spirit and challenge the heart, are so deep and comprehensive yet they ring true to each other over the 15 centuries or so chosen for the release of all these compositions from the Almighty; and this is so, from whatever "culture" the inspired writers came (Moses from Egypt, imbued with its learning, Daniel in Babylon, living deep in the heart of its administrations).

Here the text is filling in, there widening detail like some computer pictures, as they growingly appear on the screen, faithful to the original, but gaining in its coverage as we wait, appear with intriguing wholeness before the eyes. In all this, the Bible reminds one precisely of that paragon and perfection of all expression on earth, from heaven, Jesus Christ the righteous in His diction, fearless, frank, tender, triumphant, sharp, insuppressible, indefeasible, direct and able both to do surgery through speech and provide solace to the uttermost depths.

Awareness of this composure and of all the details of the revelatory procedure is necessary in any translator, just as memory is necessary in reading love letters - or legal documents for that matter. Good translations have this as one of their criteria, that the translator with a whole different array of words and connotations to choose from, and in the case of English, an enormously expanded one (some million or so, it is reported), chooses with erudite skill and deft reach.

Alteration, "critical emendation" may indeed be made in the underlying text before translation with a wanton freedom prompted by amazing blindness. This can distort the word of God like sand in a precision instrument; as can unblushing intrusion of rough idiom in translation, over-riding exact statement. In Number 22 above, there is shown an example of no final doctrinal impact, as is always the case; yet it is one showing the direction of flow which may readily enough be found in lax or liberal renderings outside the AV and the NKJV.

44) Romans 16:25-26

In passing we refer to On Translations of the Bible 13, but then to Possess Your Possessions Vol. 12, Ch. 7.

Just as Paul continually reasoned in the synagogues that this Jesus was the Christ of the prophets, so this statement of manifestation of His word is not set at variance with the declaration of the prophets, but in consummation of their words^*1, as in Romans 16:25-26. This has this word from the Lord:

	§ "Now
	to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel
	and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery
	kept secret since the world began
	but now made manifest,
	moreover through prophetic Scriptures
	according to the commandment of the everlasting God:
	for obedience to the faith to all nations made known:
	to God, alone wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen."

(In the NKJV also, incidentally, there is displacement of some words and the result might seem almost turgid and a little unclear, but this rendering above seeks to avoid that. It is rather beautifully done in the main, in the Berkeley version).

A Divulgement

With all this, there is an absolute, objective standard, there are standing orders, and there is a revelation which is the SOLE written, operative direction required of all. It is called the Bible, the word of God written, inspired by the Holy Spirit (I Peter 1:10ff., II Peter 1:16-21), instituted with power as privilege from the divine mind, for the magnificent purposes of God.

It centres on our fallen estate, our opportunities for restoration, and opens up like a bud becoming a flower, as the revelation moves from early indication to eventual consummation in the Gospel of the substitutionary salvation of Jesus Christ crucified, who died the just for the unjust to bring us to God (I Peter 3:18).

It was

	symbolised for Israel,
	essentialised in the coming Messiah,
	culminated in His incarnation from heavenly eternity,
	secured on the Cross,
	exhibited in power in the resurrection, which also authenticated it as the finale on the personal works of Jesus Christ when on this earth,

and is

available to Jew and Gentile alike,
while God fulfils all the specifications of method
which He has had in mind, both to confront this earth,
commend the free grace of the path offered,
and to bring to some eternal life, who believe, and to the rest, judgment
because, despite all this, they do not.

God is a Spirit and the thing is spiritual; God made the earth and man upon it, and the thing is practical; God loves and He took action to show it, did work to implement it and loves mercy to fulfil it.

This brings us to the sheer magnitude and magnificence of His self-revelation and practical demonstration before and for us, and the need to realise our position and act. For this, there is an impelling overview provided, for example, in Romans 16:25-27. This shows the sheer wonder of it, the fact that it centres on a revelation of things without God, mere mystery, but with His act most clear, relevant and wonderful.

It is a work to do justice to this divine declaration, and its overview requires careful alertness.

THE REVELATION

Romans 16:25-27

Now

to Him who is able to establish you

   according to my Gospel

   and the preaching of Jesus Christ,
   according to the revelation of the mystery,

      kept secret since time began,
      but now manifest,

   and by the prophetic scriptures:

       made known according to the commandment of the eternal God,
       for obedience to the faith to all nations -

to God alone wise, be glory through Jesus Christ be glory. Amen.

This gives in translation from Greek to English the sense of vastness which it has. However the Greek has linguistic abilities here which the English does not adequately transmit, clarificatory aspects which require us to use our own language in such a way as to mirror these. It is not that it is too complex, but it needs care in rendering to secure full transmission in this, another medium of discourse.

Thus, for immediate impact it could be segmentalised. so that we look further at ways of translating.

We have something to consider, since in particular, in English we do not have case endings, which here in Greek reveal the track of thought with three participles all of the same grammatical case (genitive), the first following 'revelation' (of the mystery), in that it was long hidden, the second denoting its being made manifest and the third the thrust or purpose of its being made known. They act like sign-posts, very conspicuous in their similarity both of grammatical and visual form, and of impact.

Since in English we lack this way of joining like things together with such endings, it may be helpful to use what we have in our language, to indicate what the Greek puts in its own way. Thus it could be rendered like this.

Now

to Him who is able to establish you
according to my Gospel
and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery,

kept secret from the times of the ages, but now manifest,

and by the prophetic scriptures:

this made known to all nations
according to the commandment of the eternal God -

leading to obedience of faith,

to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ
be glory for ever. Amen.

To make it easier to read, we could segmentalise it a little further^*1:

Now

to Him who is able to establish you

according to my Gospel
and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery,

kept secret from the times of the ages,
but now manifest,

and by the prophetic scriptures:

this mystery

by the commandment of the eternal God -

being made known to all nations
leading to obedience of faith:

to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ
be glory for ever. Amen.

Thus you have the mystery 1) hidden 2) manifest 3) made known.

This guides by its force and its form, both together.

The three participles move us forward in successive steps.

	First is the secretion,
	then the manifestation,
	then thirdly the making known.

The first two are an evocative contrast; the third is a functional application.

BEING manifest, it now has a job to do, and this by command of the eternal God. In fact, it is to all peoples, and leads into obedience of faith.

You could translate, at one point, "leading to faith's obedience." It has much to commend it. One translator has 'obedience inspired by faith', but this is to put a thrust into words which the Greek does not. On the other hand, there is a possessive which could be simply translated, ' faith's obedience' . About faith there is this realism that without works as James reminds us, it is dead. IF you believe, the RESULT will come. What motivates may be hope, what activates, it is faith. Drawing back and withdrawing are NOT faith, but mistiness, wistfulness, romancing or the like.

ITS SUBSTANCE

Let us return now to the substance of this divine declaration, the Divine Charter for Man. It is not enforced. It is revealed. It is not debatable, it is given. It is not a matter of 21st century changes, but of some 35 centuries of revelation. It is not merging with other things, not mutative, but successive, unitary and like a giant ocean wave, coming to issuance in one way only.

In this way, the Christian, now the recipient of the entire revelatory masterpiece of divine diction, will and provision for man, is to be established as Romans 16:25 declares. It is by two divine thrusts. First is the Gospel as given, for one, to the apostle Paul (who was in unity with the other apostles on it as in Galatians 1-2); and this involves the revelation of a mystery, that is, something known to God, explicable only by Him, but able to move readily into the mind of man, despite its distempers, to clarify potential confusion, amplify moving thoughts and give form and precision to his entire spiritual and qualitative nature and life.

It is the Gospel and revelation of mystery, together with the prophetic scriptures (Romans 16:26), which are basis for establishment of any man before God. These are means cited and used by "Him who is able to establish you." So declares Romans 16:25-26. These two operate together as one: the long aggregating revelation through the prophets, together with Messianic focus, on the one hand, and the central and practical focus of the completion in Christ, through the Gospel given legs and arms in His actions, on the other (Hebrews 1:1 - 2:10). Both counter the hiddenness, the one in preparation, the other in completion.

As to this mystery, then, it came in phases, being at first hidden, since only God is able to have and show His OWN mercy as HE sees fit. It is however made manifest, simply because He articulates it. Nor is this simply for notational completion, but practical action. Nor, again, is this merely for visual or intellectual focus, but it has results. Its scope is universal to all nations, not just Israel, which was the initial revelatory channel at the time of Moses, for its extensive formulation and symbolic utterances. Indeed, the revelation goes back to the earliest days, when the hiddenness was far greater, the very time of the fall of man and the prediction of what God would do to deliver him (Romans 5:1-12, 8:17ff.). Genesis 3:15 shows the first beginnings of the lifting of the veil and so is called the protevangelion.

It is not only for ALL nations, but it is so by DIVINE COMMAND, declares Romans 16:25-27. It is not a suggestion from a suggestion box; it is a sovereign declaration for deliverance, from the eternal God. Paul shows, through the word of God, this aspect with magnificent force in Galatians 1, for example, crystallising this further in Galatians 3 and 5, and applying it in Galatians 4, concerning the Israel to Church movement, at the supreme spiritual level. Christ shows as recorded in Matthew 28, that Great Commission which does indeed give divine command that all the Gospel be proclaimed with the teaching of ALL the commandments.

The establishment of those who hear, as in Romans 16:25, is both through this teaching in its fulness, and through the prophetic scriptures, both being revelatory channels; for whatever is hidden, may be so for two reasons. Firstly, it may be there, but the investigatory power or constraint is lacking, so that it is not found; or secondly, it may not be there at all.

The consolidation or establishment of the Christians at Rome, in terms of both the Gospel and the writings of the prophets is certainly co-ordinate as in II Peter 1:19, not only because of the theme, portent, even the unveiling in the prophetic procedure to the full light of common day, nor only because of the terminology, where distinctively, the writings of the prophets is made co-ordinate with the manifestation of the Gospel from hidden phase to full revelation, but because this IS establishment, to see the progressive opening up of the Gospel in one setting, one thematic display. This is one of the means used for the consolidation of disciples in the full glory of the manifest truth!

It is like a day developing, hour by hour, till noon. It consolidates itself to the mind, impresses itself on the soul and it attests itself in its disregard of the constraints of time, no small contribution being there if not substantially realised at the first (Genesis 3:15), and true to the last. However foolish and slow of hearing the disciples might be, yes by Christ's own word, those with Him (Luke 24:25), the plant of prophecy was a large and abundant one, even before the sun shone so brightly upon it.

This is no small part of the method of Paul as he reasoned in the synagogue from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ, of Philip to the Ethiopian, of Paul in Romans 11 and 15, and of Christ in his diversification of testimony to the disciples, emphasising what is there ALREADY together with the impact from Himself, sent direct from the Father, as from His ordained actions in fulfilment of the scriptures as in Matthew 26:52-54.

ITS OUTCOME

Its outcome in thrust lies in the obedience of faith, we find in Romans 16:26. It is the obedience which faith understands, to which it seeks, which is normal and natural to it, which implies the discernment, motivation and love to which it is conjoined: the fruit of the Spirit is faithfulness, love and joy, for example (Galatians 5:22). In other words, what is to be received by faith in the Lord, in His revelation, in His mercy, impels one to faithfulness as a fruit. It is not the obedience of servitude, of cringing, though the fear of God is clean (Psalm 19); but it is that of that faith which knows God, loves Him and seeks His desire with relish, as a privilege of mercy and a testimony of friendship, the work of the Captain and King of mankind, working not by force, though with power, but rather with the impelling attraction of love.

In Ephesians 3:9ff., we see something emphatic. It is that the joining in harmonious unity through this very Gospel, of Jew and Gentile, one certainly, as in Romans 16, prefaced in the prophetic scriptures given to and through prophets in Israel, is now made more manifest in its profundity.

It is no small thing for God to take the format of man and the race of a Jew in order for Jew or Gentile, to bring a common salvation, fulfilling the promises in the prophets and providing the Gentiles with direct access with all boldness, to Himself (Hebrews 2-4).

In Ephesians 1:7ff., we find that "in the dispensation of the fulness of times" -

that is, when the Danielic prediction of the Gospel's time
in terms of the dismissal of the Messiah when He came to earth
(the date for its occurrence as indicated, and shown in Christ the Citadel Ch. 2, for example):

all things are gathered together in One. Who is that One: It is Jesus Christ.

That is the Saviour, God Himself as man (Philippians 2, Isaiah 43:10-11, Acts 4:11-12),

	having been foretold, forecast, and
	given the date displacement in detail, and
	indeed murdered, and
	resurrected, the torn body not left to rot, but as practical declaration of God, for the precincts of immortality:

is now acting in triumphant testimony as the One who is both Lord and Christ.

Indeed, to fulfil this purpose, He both lived and died (Romans 14:9), that He might be Lord both of the living and of those already past their earth's pilgrimage. He is both cynosure and centre. He is both explication and application, testimony and triumph.

Moreover, this Person and this establishment, it is declared, is to be seen as such by all men. The precise way of this unification was not always so clear, but now it is. That is what we are being told. It is in the earlier prophetic scriptures (such as Isaiah 42,46,49-55, Micah 5, Jeremiah 31, Hosea 13:14ff., Psalms 2, 16, 22, 40, 69 and so on), but not always was it understood, for it could be understood that it was revealed for a coming time (I Peter 1:12). That time is now. It is upon us. Its tenure is moving to coming phases for this one Gospel of this one Saviour, with His inclination that all might be reconciled, but in love, and not in force or violence (John 18:36).

The 'mystery' like the sight of a ship near the horizon at the ocean shore, is now brought close, as it has berthed in the harbour. When it is so, it is realised that after all, the outline was indeed in the prophetic scriptures, which like field glasses trained on the ship on the horizon, had not erred! Moreover the symbolic prelude was not amiss (as in Hebrews 1-10), but moved by faith (as in Hebrews 11), men of old acted as seeing Him who is invisible, as those who move to a city which has foundations, whose builder and Maker is God (exemplified, typified and essentialised in Abraham (Hebrews 11:10, Romans 4). Nor is there is no other foundation but Christ Jesus the Lord (I Corinthians 3:11).

Many founder in seeking to change the foundation, or in efforts to make another; but being confounded, they merely address their windy words to no effect (II Peter 2:18, cf. Daniel 7:20), a squalid whine or whimper in effect (cf. Jeremiah 23:16-28), however pretentious for the moment it may appear in deception (as in II Corinthians 11), as the Age of Grace proceeds to its fulfilment, the opposition itself mounting.

The truth will not alter or wither or quiver, though typhoons of truculence or arrogance spend themselves.

We are not dealing with the creations of men, says Peter (II Peter 3:16), but

"with the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,"

the apostles who were with Him

"being eyewitnesses of His majesty,

or He received from God the Father honour and glory ..."

There is a whole matrix of things past concerning His coming, things present when He came and things to come, in finality and completion, when the time of testimony becomes the act of judgment. Therefore be steadfast (I Peter 4:1-12), serious, unmaimed by imaginative flirtations, not dithering but living in the obedience of faith.

Bereft indeed will be purveyors of such illusory substitutes for the millenial work of divine singularity, which is attested alone, invested with divine authority, and has culminated in the crucifixion and resurrection of the Christ who having done all, will return for its consummation, and harvest (Romans 11:25ff., Matthew 24:29ff., Mark 14:62, I Corinthians 15, Acts 1:7ff.).

Again in Colossians 1:24ff., we find that the Gospel of the loving divine desire, and His practical provision, that He might bring ALL men into reconciliation with Himself, as in 1:19ff., is now found in revelation of the 'mystery' of its wonder. It conjoins now things often before needlessly sundered, but now epochally fulfilled, the one in the other. This universal Gospel excels what preceded, being immediate, direct, complete, uncluttered (II Corinthians 3:10). Here is "the glory which excels."

That now it should be so intimate and individual and personal and direct, that without priests we should dwell in and with the Lord, is a wonder and a witness of divine splendour and patience, so that it comes to this, "Christ in you, the hope of glory", Colossians 1:27. That was something hidden in its depth and directness, but now explicit and express. Every feature that had beckoned is now transfixed into place, like hair now set. Now the Gentiles themselves have this richness, by no means limited to revelatory pivots like Abraham, but rather in total fulfilment of all promised.

In Romans 16:25ff., we have a summary of some beauty, indeed of no small magnificence. This now fully revealed Gospel with its vast thrust to all nations, this thing once found in the prophetic scriptures, but now exhibited in all its profundity and scope direct, through the Gospel and the revelation given to Paul as one of the apostles, brings foundation and indeed an establishing certitude to the believer. Moreover, its outcome is found in the active conformity of faith, not to a vague mist, nor to a mere set of instructions, but to the amplitude of resolute reality, to know God and of course to obey Him as an outcome of faith.

This involves: relishing His written word, and proceeding indeed, in the manner which is characteristic of that love which faith feeds on, and desire understands when the heart is regenerated. For this, Romans 5 gives introduction, Romans 8 expatiation and Ephesians 3 amplification.

NOTE

Another rendering of Romans 16:25, similar in most points, but with one significant difference, is provided by John Murray in his work, "The Epistle to the Romans," Volume 2.

With the impressively imaginative idea that WHEN and BECAUSE the Gospel was being spread world-wide, therefore the prophetic scriptures went with it, being as it were unleashed to the globe indirectly by this means, the thing to be "made known" to all nations could be held to be "the prophetic scriptures". This would then be what, by the commandment of the eternal God, would be made known to all nations. This is grammatically possible.

However it does not at all concur with the emphatic stress that Paul continually is making that his Gospel, the one accorded to Him, this is the acme, the bloom, the distillate, the glory that surpasses, the end-product; and thus to have the preliminary prophetic scriptures so linked to this vast and impactive statement about the command of the eternal God in this way, seems disproportionate, an alien emphasis. Truly, the one does go with the other, the Gospel with the words of the prophets; and the one would take the other with it. as may be seen in Romans 15, for example. But the emphasis on what GOES and what it takes with it would then seem reversed: what goes with it, in this way, becoming the focus of the vast and epochal command.

Moreover, in II Peter 1, we see that indeed the Christian is to be ESTABLISHED, and the point in view here is that there was no cunningly devised tale about Christ that was delivered, but in fact His majesty was directly perceived by His people, not least in the transfiguration, and that all this simply confirmed the prophetic scriptures which continue to give help and support, as a light in a dark place, one that should be heeded (II Peter 1:19).

Here there is the same insistence on the Person, the direct and central one; and when it comes to consolidation, then the scriptures of the prophets (the actual phrase in Romans 16:25ff.) are a great asset. Indeed, they have rapport with what happened, are in preliminary mode expressive of the Gospel, and Christ and this word are entwined. But Christ is the tree, and the prophets the creeper, even though in point of time, they came first. He who came 'last' is first!

CHAPTER 7

I CORINTHIANS TO JAMES

45) I Corinthians 13:8-10

§"Love never fails.
But whether there are prophecies, they will come to an end;
whether there are tongues, they will cease;
whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when
that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

Unfortunately, the KJV has after prophecies, "they will fail". This has nothing whatever to do with the Greek as rendered into modern English. Worse, the NKJV keeps this.

The actual import of the Greek term, as found in Thayer's Greek dictionary, is quite clear. First, one should note that it is the same Greek verb that appears both after "knowledge" and "prophecies". The meaning is this: that the thing concerned has finished its job, is complete, no longer functioning. The verb is katagew, here used in the future passive. In that mode, it means ... that the thing in view will be 'rendered idle', or 'caused to cease' or 'put an end to'. With persons, it can mean discharged or loosed from what had held it or its bound place.

The concept, then, has nothing whatsoever to do with a break-down, something that is a failure. It is rather something that having done all, has no more ground to continue, is now out of functional usage, perhaps like some of the old ploughs you see in farming communities, on display to give recognition to former times. The ploughs are BY NO MEANS being disparaged: quite the contrary. They are being given their due, and remembered for the vital and valuable work which they once performed.

The reason why the prophecies, on the one hand, and 'knowledge' on the other, are to cease to be in active performance once one is in heaven, when and when alone 'that which is perfect' is come to all who are the Lord's (which is the topic), is simple. Thus, when the night lights of the train work in the darkness, it is of great value; when, however, the day comes, they are no longer functionally relevant. You would have no occasion to use them: they are finished, done away, rendered idle, caused to cease. Daylight is so much better, revealing what formerly was visible, but not so manifest!

The daylight in this case, that is the consummation, the end of the matter, that to which Paul looks in terms of being a 'child' and becoming a 'man' by contrast, is nothing other than heaven's direct gaze (Revelation 22), following the resurrection. There is no other possible understanding for seeing God 'face to face'. Here IN PART in the order of events; there KNOWING AS KNOWN, seeing face to face is the order. Here the one is contrasted with the other.

Accordingly, 'knowledge', Paul explains in I Corinthians 13, which is to 'vanish away' is something currently present in PART, at this point. When that which is perfect is come, then what is in part will no more have a bearing. Important as a PART was once, occasioning insight and understanding, yet it is now no longer functionally operative, for the WHOLE in the resurrection, is available. The 'part' has succeeded in being a vital part in the 'night' ' but when the 'day' comes, with Christ for His people, it will be outshone as is a torch by the sunlight.

It is therefore best to translate this in some such way as 'come to an end'. Since 'knowledge' in the same way and with the same Greek verb is to have a similar terminus to that of 'prophecy', then we could indeed use the same English verb to translate 'knowledge shall come to an end"; but this too does not fit happily into the context, and suggests in English more than the Greek provides. In translating Greek, you have terms with their own range and spread of meaning, and English partial equivalents, with theirs. It is good to use the genius of the one language and that of the other, so that the best match of English words to Greek, in the context provides the total sense, without doing violence to any one word at the same time.

Hence we could translate as above for both of these cases, one concerning 'knowledge' and the other concerning 'prophecies'. "Vanish away" for knowledge certainly has a particular feeling associated, and when we are given the exact sense, by 'know in part', it is so clear that this rather brusque rendering has a certain felicity. It seems well kept, and only the 'fail' used for the same verb in translation in I Cor. 13:8, needs to change.

Freed from ambiguity or imported senses not present in the original, therefore we so translate, as above in blue, at the outset of this presentation.

In the case of "Love", on the other hand, at the start of I Cor. 13:8, the verb used here is another one: and in this case, it does signify what English translates as 'fail'. Hence this can be kept and only one word, and not this one at this point in the translation, needs replacement. It is rather amusing, in a way, that in the KJV as in the NKJV, the two verbs which are the same in Greek, have different renderings (quite possible, as above), while the one which is different, as in "love never fails", is made the same as one of the two instances of katagew. Thus the twins are separated, and what are not twins are joined together.

Readily however is the case rectified as above. The NASV simply puts 'done away' for both the partial knowledge and the fulfilled prophecies. As often, the NKJV does not seem to have the flair of some, though it seems more reliable than a considerable number. It is best to study the Greek, consider what has been done, look at the context, ensure that there is insurance as far as may be against misinterpretation in the rendering into English, and to remember the point about the profiles of the Greek and English terms available, some languages having more options than others, and using the best interlacing available, in terms of the possibilities on the one hand, and the sweep and content of the utterance on the other. In this way, felicity and art, on the one hand, and accuracy and clarity on the other, may be kept.

46) I Corinthians 15:33

§"Evil company corrupts good morals"

Truth and Tradition

This having been said, it is fascinating in terms of variety, to notice that there is in I Corinthians 15:33 a case where the AV is far surpassed by the NKJV (both apparently erring in the preceding case), in terms of clarity. This is no fault of the AV, but it is a LARGE fault in the approach which would slavishly keep to it. Thus it has,

"Evil communications corrupt good manners", whereas the NKJV with admirable clarity, puts it thus: "Evil company corrupts good habits." The New Scofield rendering is "Evil company corrupts good morals" which has the advantage of being highly idiomatic in our tongue.

How necessary today is such a reminder! How searing is the company of the lost whose addictions of mind, body and spirit are so great that ears, bodily resistance, aims, ideals, objectives are one great bundle of contagion in many cases, which can obstruct health in every dimension, tempt and tamper with rapidity born of great cultural acceptance, TV addiction mechanisms to reinforce, in the interest of money, power or popularity, for example and parental absence in the pursuit of more income, more something or other, while the family tissue is often allowed to rot, a worse than AIDS depression of resistance soon being found in mind, heart and spirit in the young.

Of course it is not only this group which is reminded in our text; but it is a poignant reality that whole lives may be turned, like a just launched ship to the rocks, by an early tug from community, commune or conquest of peer pressure.

It may be well here to note a vast difficulty in traditionalism, whether of translation approach or theological convention, the forbidden man+ism of I Corinthians 3, expounded further in The Biblical Workman, Ch.8. (with special reference also to *2) and in Repent or Perish 1 (and in particular in *1 of that Chapter). On the side of translation, first then, the case is clear. The Latin of the RC dominion of ignorance in pre-Reformation (and some Reformation) times was appalling. It is true that this was compulsory (sundry people could be burnt if they dared to read and understand) in many cases, per the diligent opposition to the word of God on the part of the Church of Rome at that time.

It is true that now the option of consulting other texts is free in most places. However, diligence is not everywhere the same, and the deadening weight of tradition does not always build only on physical compulsion, since cultural constraints readily apply for many. Hence it is dangerous to make traditional preferences for text have any constricting force. In the case of the AV, the tradition is a good one, but as with all tradition, its elevation to (practical) parity with the word of God is evil, because presumptuous, and not always accurate as shown.

The ACTUAL MEANING in CLEAR TERMS of what is written is a first priority. But let us diverge for a moment in a further aspect of traditionalism, as a topic, in a parallel area.

On the side of theological occlusion, obfuscation, through the man+ism device, that is expressed elsewhere as noted, so that for the present it is sufficient to note that not only is it expressly forbidden by Paul, but the simple fact is that the elevation of (admittedly) heroic Christian figures of the past to -ism status for those of the present tends to reduce awareness of weaknesses whether at some point of teaching or approach in the same - and who is perfect among all of us, sinners - so constricting the word of God. This may occur in two obvious ways:

a) areas left untouched, or relatively superficial in the past hero's work, may now require because of the times and their individual pressures, much exposure now.

b) areas of error can be duplicated like someone using an uncorrected master for the making of thousands of copies - all the same in fault. The further this goes, the worse the case, since one may then confirm the other in the error.

The same type of thing is seen in the 1991 action of the Presbyterian Church of Australia, in which it was required that one show FROM THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION any place which would allow one to depart from any of it, in order to gain that ... liberty. This was despite the fact that in the Basis of Union of 1901, by which the people were willing to gather as one, LIBERTY WAS EXPRESSLY GRANTED. Here it is denied in terms of a Confession which itself has the excellent grace to note that since all assemblies in the past are capable of error and many have erred, that therefore it is wrong to make any of them a criterion for faith. And what was the body of those who drew up the Confession except an assembly! Hence the genius, one of the excellent poverties of spirit which adorn this excellent Westminster Confession, is turned on its head, while at the same time, a liberty already granted as a condition of unity is REMOVED, and reduced to NULLITY except the CONFESSION (of all things, in view of what it expressly demands in terms of liberty) may be shown (as of course it in fact may be shown) to deny such stringency.

The net result is both undue and improper stringency, afflicting the union original basis, and undue laxity, since the word of God is bound VIA the Confession, which in this sense cannot be bound. It is of course true that, as the Procurator showed in an official publication of the PCA (Basic Documents on Presbyterian Polity, 1961, p. 92), decades ago, that the definition of "word of God" must be such as to conform to the use of that term in other official documents, such as the Confession, which makes it clear it is "infallible". Since the Word of God contained in the Bible is the UNCHANGEABLE doctrinal basis of the PCA, it is thereby bound, though this fact was disregarded for about 40 years in extreme measure, and is still difficult if not indeed quite impossible to reconcile with some of the practices of the body.

This illustrates aptly the danger of using tradition and giving it undue place; since the word of God alone is adequate, pure enough and sure enough to do the job. Subordinate standards (as the Confession is deemed to be expressly in the PCA, in good Presbyterian practice in INTENTION) have great use; but when the subordinate becomes inordinate it is insubordination! Tradition always has this peril. It is to be used like radioactive material, by one equipped with gloves and protective apparel, however useful it can be when rendered ... safe.

To revert to our I Cor. 15:33 example and its rendering in the AV. The use of this version now for such things as idioms and some nuances runs a great risk. The word of God can be suppressed without inquisitorial torture procedures.

It provides this:

§"Evil company corrupts good morals" -

and to have this put in some ancient version of our native tongue, that actively misleads by suppressing the meaning in our current speech, this is to use what is good to do what is bad. Such is always the vulnerability of elevating to parity with the word of God, the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). It can be direct, dire or indirect, tendential, but it is now desirable. Indeed to require the AV is presumption, the more when it is spuriously presented as tantamount to inspiration, thereby bypassing the evidential reality concerning the Greek and Hebrew text, and adding to the word of God itself, both in favour of rampant subjectivism. Proverbs 30:6, Mark 7:7 with Psalm 19:13 show the way to avoid. Unwise is the man, the church taking any such step.

The word of God is to be presented to every generation with entire and sublime accuracy in the symbols - words - that express to that people what it says. By policy or confusion to do anything less is unfaithful, suppressive, a covering over a light that must shine.

We are indeed fortunate that in most (but by no means in all) countries, we have or can have the implements needed, without overt suppression. With the exception noted ('scourging' and one minor case), the AV does not err in translation AS TO DOCTRINE, that one has found; while the NKJV, with one major exception noted, does not actively mislead, though it has less refinement or sensitivity at times in rendering with a view to all the context^*1, despite its very commendable clarity. With both in hand, the lay reader is really well placed, though at that, a prepared pastor can lead further safely from the vast array of translations, using the original languages as attested.

God has made for us teams, not so that we are utterly reliant on them, but so that in their co-functionality there may be enrichment and strength. Thus the helps which can be given pastorally in this way, or through the student work of the lay scholar, the extensions and the nuances, the touches and the exposures, though not substantial and not affecting doctrine, are yet of great stimulus and blessing. The church is a divine invention, and though it does not MAKE doctrine, for this, the Bible, is in the written word of God from the infinite mind of God; yet it has both opportunity, office and blessing to present it faithfully. This is not less so in the field of translation than in that of exposition.

47) Ephesians 1:3-5

§"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing
in the heavenly places in Christ,
just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world
that we should be holy and blameless before Him,
in love having predestined us to adoption
as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself,
according to the good pleasure of His will,
to the praise of the glory of His grace,
in which He made us objects of grace in the Beloved.

"In Him we have redemption through His blood..."

Ephesians 1:3-5 constitutes an amazingly delightful translation issue.

It could mean

1) He chose us in Him... to be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons

2) He chose us in Him... to be holy and without blame before Him, in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons

3) He chose us in Him ... to be holy and without blame before Him, in love having predestined us to adoption as sons

Punctuation is so helpful.

In Greek, it is not to be found here.

Hence, we need other considerations to enable us to find the best translation.

Many considerations point in just one way, as it happens. Nor is this by chance.

Firstly, let us consider the "in Him", "before Him" and "in love" adverbial phrases, all of this kind grammatically. We are chosen IN HIM. We are chosen to be without blame BEFORE HIM. We have been predestined IN LOVE. The verb chosen, has its phrase, as does that 'to be' and the participial construction of the verb, 'predestined'. That is the position if you opt for 3) above.

We would in that situation notice that the verb 'to choose', has its phrase a little after it, as is the case with the verb 'to be', and that the verb 'to predestine' in that case has its phrase before it.

Thus schematically it would be as follows: We are chosen IN HIM, to be holy BEFORE HIM, IN LOVE predestined...

There is a certain balance of emphasis, each verb with its phrase, and there is just that emphasis on the "in love" aspect which Ephesians 3:16-19, which follows shortly, one of the greatest love passages in Paul, would lead us to expect. How is this achieved ? It is by reversing the order when it comes to love. Chosen in Him, holy before Him, in love predestined... becomes the sense. With love, it comes first!

This fits perfectly with Ephesians 3:18 which contrary to what may appear in some translations, has the same order, the phrase before the verb, which in the Greek appears as this: "in love being rooted and grounded that you may be able ..." Here not only is the phrase "in love" before the verbal form, but it is the SAME phrase, 'in love', in the same epistle which highlights love and uses this primary position of the phrase indubitably in this case of Ephesians 3, before the verbal form. Not only so, the verb is in the participial form, as is the case in the tested case, Ephesians 1:3-5. Thus we have this, in Ephesians 3 - "in love being rooted and grounded that ..." and in Ephesians 1, if we follow 3), "in love having predestined us to adoption".

This gives the following schema. Adverbial phrase, 'in love', for emphasis coming first, participle joined with it giving atmospheric emphasis, a graphical presentation, this verbal form thus adding to the emphasis of having the phrase first; and in each case, it is the precise phrase 'in love', not something merely similar, that is used, which appears rather like this: 'en agaph'. In sense, in the one case, we are found IN LOVE PREDESTINED, in the other IN LOVE ROOTED AND GROUNDED. In each case action results, in the former - Ch.1, that we become adopted, in the latter, Ch. 3, that of Christians being enabled to comprehend the illimitable dimensions of love.

Not only is this so, but the very emphasis on the illimitable in love, both in direction and importance, and in height and sublimity and in depth and wonder, makes an all-encompassing approach apparent from Ephesians 3 which would in the translation 3) for Ephesians 1:3-5, be reflected in full.

Thus structurally and topically, emphatically and positionally, it is all one. Paul is emphasising something, using primacy of phrase to do it, depth of expression, and placing first things first, is presenting divine action in participial graphicality before leading on to more blessing. In the first case, this blessing is adoption, in the second, realisation of the splendour of the illimitable dimensions of 'love', each site using the phrase 'in love'.

As if this were not enough, we find further that in Ephesians 1:11, this same emphasis on the primary in a primary positioning of the phrase is found: IN HIM we have obtained an inheritance, we discover. It is not "we have obtained an inheritance in Him," but that "in Him we have obtained an inheritance." Indeed, the same emphatic technique continues throughout. Thus in Ephesians 2:8, it is BY GRACE you are having been saved persons, once again, the phrase being placed first because of its eminence of consideration, its importance in the theme being presented. The primary has the primary place in these instances in what grammatically is called 'inversion'. The same inversion is found in 2:5, again by grace you have been saved, and in 2:18, where it reads, THROUGH HIM we have access...

Further, in Ephesians 2:19-20, we have a parallel form, in which the persons precede the participial construction thus: FELLOW CITIZENS, HAVING BEEN BUILT, with the two relative pronoun phrases, "in whom" occurring in 21-22, keeping the same feeling of thrust, as the apostle is impelled to write, phrase first, action later (cf. I Cor. 2:9-13, I Peter 1:10--12).

In Ephesians 4:1-3, again, we have WITH ALL LOWLINESS ... ENDEAVOURING, the same adverbial phrase with following participial construction which is deep in the heart of this epistle. It suits it. It is an emphatic device, a clarificatory emphasis, and a merging method, enabling matters in this way to be seen in a clamant perspective which cannot be missed.

These things being so, the thought of ignoring the emphatic mode, the emphatic topic (here love for our Ch. 1 concern) and the spirit of the emphasis throughout being alien, it is impossible to prefer what lacks similar credentials, so that one must applaud in this the translation of the Berkeley Version, the American Standard Version and that of the RSV (all with type 3) translation as above).

This, in essence ? 'In love having predestined'. The phrase is with the predestination!

Further, in Ephesians 1:9, we learn that God has made known to us the mystery of His will according to the good pleasure which He purposed in Himself. It proceeds to state that this purpose involves His gathering all things in Christ: the criterion. It is IN HIMSELF that this good pleasure is purposed. This brings out the intensely personal side of this predestination, and since GOD IS LOVE (I John 4), and since Paul is emphasising in this very epistle in language of the most intensive, the illimitable character of the love of God, these in combination lead to the same conclusion: the intensively personal God who is love, and in whose love is illimitable wonder, has in this mystery of marvel, acted in and with this love to forge links of salvation which do not break (Ephesians 1:11).

As to translation 2) above at the outset, while it is possible, it is rather limping, adding this phrase in that style, when the topic is so impelling in this epistle (and not this alone, as I Corinthians 13 would remind us soon enough!). What do we find in I Cor. there ? It is this, that without love, anything is nothing. It is not different in predestination. To be sure, the apostle in I Cor. 13 is speaking of man; but this is BECAUSE OF WHO AND WHAT GOD IS. Love is not pre-eminent for man because God is other, but because this Being, whose nature is love, is as He is and has made us in His image!

As to translation 1) above, it has no comparable credentials for selection. It would put the love last in the series of features in view for man's conduct, which is of course anomalous here, in this particular epistle. It would omit the 'love' from the 'good pleasure of His will' in a way which is not actually the case. It would breach the form found so often in the epistle, and that allied even to the content 'in love' as shown above. It would moreover tear apart a fascinating parallel. That ? It is as we now find.

Thus in 1:3-5, we have with this priority of love, a predestinating movement concerning His people. IN LOVE predestinating "to the praise of the glory of His grace". What then of this glorious grace, this kindness, this merciful wonder in the Lord which is infinitely filial with love ? It is to an end which is now stated in 1:6, and it is that BY THIS GRACE we should be "accepted in the Beloved." Thus the generic love in predestination, in 3) would lead to the entrance in an entrancing manner, to the Beloved. IN LOVE predestining, so that grace may be praised, He acts to make us accepted IN THE BELOVED, becomes the sense.

Thus the propelling love (of predestination) becomes the accepting love (of adoption in Christ), and the predestining dynamic becomes the acceptance dynamic. What moves becomes what accepts. He loves in predestination so that He accepts in destination: where ? IN the Beloved.

To tear apart so many considerations for a weak and strangely secondarily placed phrasing as in 1) above, is not really in the end, a translation but a divestment. Again, it is not that slender evidence attests translation 3), but that it is perfectly incomparable in force in context and conception, in form and structure, with anything else.

Therefore we translate as constrained:

§"... just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world
that we should be holy and blameless before Him,
in love having predestined us to adoption
as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself,
according to the good pleasure of His will,
to the praise of the glory of His grace,
in which He made us objects of grace in the Beloved.

"In Him we have redemption through His blood..."

Love works in choice, blamelessness works in resultant in the adopted: the agent is Christ, the glory is in grace, its compass is objects of grace who are in this same Christ, not only agent but express image of God, who to this end poured out His blood, that its flood should enable the grace to abound, the adoption to astound and express that love so profound. It is in GOD, that we are based, in GOD that we find the action of predestining, in GOD that the grace is to be praised, and it is in GOD that the love is impelling to the Son of God who acts on it, so allowing our reception in truth as His own.

Any other construction would merely constitute a divorce not only in form, in situation, in force, in dynamic and in cohesion, but of the primacy of what is primary from the One who is primary. It is unthinkable, egregious and inconstant, unable to stand in the context.

When, moreover, we see the continuation into the redemption by His blood (Ephesians 1:7), we find once again the testimony of the love impelling, in predestination, with the love accepting, in adoption, and the love dispelling, as in the blood. It is bound as by vast magnetic forces of conceptual cohesion. We look further, "BLESSED be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed us with every spiritual blessings in the heavenlies in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him, in love having predestined us to adoption ..."

Thence we see even further the sequence. How blessed is the God who has seated us in things, in places spiritual, indeed in the realm of the heavenlies, and done it is Christ. This is entirely like the way He chose us in the first place to be holy and blameless, in love having even predestined ... It is all about the blessing imparted, the love exhibited, the grace found, the founding being profound, and the amazing thing, as in Ephesians 3, being the outthrust of a love uncontainable, expressing itself like sunshine in multiplied ways in the flora of the earth, so here in the flourishing of the soul.

48) Ephesians 3:21

§ "To Him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus to all phases of history here and hereafter. Amen"

kAnother translation of particular interest in its field, is this in Ephesians. Neither the AV nor the NKJV are impressive here. The phrase of our interest, "throughout all ages, world without end" is NOT what it says, but it is what the AV has. It is an attempt which is more fluent in feeling than accurate in depiction in this case. It can readily given an impression that not merely can cater to this-world worldliness, holding on to it as to an eternal regime, which it assuredly is not (Isaiah 51:6, II Peter 3:10-13), but it does quietly introduce a word which is not there.

§'All phases of history here and hereafter'

is the meaning and anything, for the sake of common speech, putting it more concretely in terms of the world, changes the text and makes a person without he original vulnerable to misunderstanding.

It is a poor effort as translation, this time, on the part BOTH of the AV and NKJV: it is not so much false as inept. While a person reading II Peter 3 is in little danger, not all read it at once, and this is thus a weakness in translation. A query to a pastor, arising from this, could solve it, of course, or the educated reader might divine the point. But some might not and this translation leaves much to be desired accordingly.

Even the possibility of scholarly extensions of meaning of the term for "age", in no way reduces the direct meaning, its flavour and phrasing; and this rendering exposes those not versed in Greek to a real danger of mistaking the point. THAT is not the work of a good translation.

Idolatry of the AV or KJV is to be avoided : just as they do almost always supply sound DOCTRINE (and an exception in each case has been noted, and another in an area of fine precision is about to be in 14) below. Yet they are not to be made shibboleths. The word of God needs no shibboleths, just as theology needs no name+isms; and it is to be taken as it is. Testing all things and holding fast by faith, that is our aim. It is not aided by substituting subordinates for it, or subordinating it to any kind of convenience, traditional or other. Taking accurately what God gives, we shall not be disappointed. God has indeed kept His word in exactly the sense He specified; and it is available fully for testing, for taking, for doctrine and for truth.

HERE THEN IS A FURTHER VERIFICATION OF ITS TRUTH, THAT IT IS TRUE IN THIS PREDICTION ALSO.

49) II Thessalonians 2:1-2

§ Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ
and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,
be not quickly shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter,
as if from us, as though the day of Christ were at hand."

This case appears for example, in A Spiritual Potpourri Ch. 18, *1.. Below is taken from On Translations of the Bible, 12.

An Eschatological Excursion

There are different translations here, and two major dictionaries present different read-outs. One would have it, like the NKJV, the day "had come", while the other with supporting material, would have it that the day is referred to as 'impending', 'threatening' for the particular tense of this verb here used - the sense of the rendering made by the AV.

According to this famous dictionary, the sense for this tense is said to be "prop. as it were, to stand in sight, stand near'. That is the 'proper' or literal meaning in view. Perhaps it is simply a question of something right up with you, caught up with you, come upon you, and in that sense, present; and Thayer's New Testament Greek dictionary is stressing the sense in which the concept of present is in view - pressing itself upon you, hence impending or even threatening, a meaning found in Liddell and Scott as one major case also, for enisthmi. As has been noted, it scarcely likely Paul would be thinking some would take it the day was fully realised, but rather looming in intensity.

In either case, the message is that they must not be preoccupied with the day of the Lord as if it were thrusting itself upon them; standing in or over them; upon them: there is MUCH TO COME FIRST!

That the main relevant part; nevertheless, let us simply summarily note the aspects of the case for "at hand", the AV translation.

1) The word in the preceding context is "quickly" not "soon" as the AV renders. It is

§"be not quickly shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ were at hand."

That is the precise shade of the adverb. Keep this in mind.

2) What they are to avoid happening to them quickly, then, is that they should be troubled in mind. A state of anxiety and suspension, uncertainty is to be avoided, one that could take them quickly.

Let us place these two points together.

Are they really to be conceived of as genuinely thinking that the day of the Lord has come, the DAY OF THE LORD? Are they anxiously to ponder whether that fateful hour is NOW HERE, the one so clearly set out in the Gospel, in the teaching of the apostles, as one in which CHRIST returns for His own, and then COMES IN JUDGMENTAL MODE, killing the beast and arresting his armies with destruction (Matthew 24, Revelation 19).

Is this to be conceived of, in anxious mode, in sudden spurts of thought, as being PRESENT! Is there some doubt about its presence or absence ? Did an atomic bomb land and we did not notice; are we to have anxious thoughts whether we are ransacked... The setting is fearful apprehension, and analysis of what after all, needed little analysis, leads not to their having a current sense of all being overpowering in condign, actualised and personal arrest in the arraigning advent of the Word of God, fatal in judgment on the reeling earth! (cf. Matthew 24:26-31, Revelation 19). It is anxiety of uncertainty, not experience of certainty.

3) If it were a question of the day of the Lord actually being PRESENT, then the Christians would be ABSENT, in the first instance, as taught by the Lord in Matthew (noted above). Are the apostles then gone, taken with Christ, who would take one from two in a bed, leaving the non-elect ? Is that a question of some difficulty to the church to which Paul was speaking, in Thessalonica ? Was it too hard to find out if they had been evacuated from earth ? Has Paul gone ? Is he not writing to
them ?

Is this, then, Alice in Wonderland or fact that is being considered ? If not a dream, then "at hand" is the concept, not "present". What is troubling them in perplexity and with sudden bouts of imaginative dread is this: IS IT ABOUT TO HAPPEN! Only this can stand with security in such a setting.

4) Further, if they had such considerable confusion on the nature of the day of the Lord as such an hypothesis on their part would imply, then the teaching of the apostle might be expected to MAKE THEM SOUND ON SO BASIC A POINT, not to be talking, relevantly but without essential correction of their misconception as such, of the PRECEDING STEPS.

On the other hand, if the topic is the considerable danger of an impending and threatening (meanings found in the dictionaries) DAY of the Lord coming (that is the word following the point in the context), then the listing of all that has to happen first is most relevant, is a direct removal of the misconception, is good teaching, relevant and apt teaching, leaving nothing out of place. Such sound teaching is to be expected from a master-builder of the church (I Cor. 3) , when meeting widespread confusion and misconception on such a topic as the Day of the Lord being imminent, or being present. It in fact covers the former beautifully, and the latter very little in its fundamentals.

5) Thus Paul goes on to say that this day will not "COME", unless... this and that happen. The immediate term used in the negation of the confusion, is NOT COME. Now if it were necessary to distance the day from COMING, then WILL NOT COME UNTIL would be the expected wording, just as it is found. To be sure, if they thought it actually present, then it would also be relevant to distance it, but the more obvious and immediate rebuttal wording expected would rather be: The day of the Lord will not be PRESENT until... or WHEN it is present, you will know!

The point is that all things, contextual, logical, scriptural in teaching point in only one direction, whether because of absurdity, normalcy or mode of handling teaching be the considerations.

Further, it should be noted, talking of the general scriptural context, moreover, that in Matthew 25:19, the parable told by the Lord envisages a "LONG TIME" passing following His, the Messiah's departure from the earth, BEFORE HIS RETURN. In the same line, the one leaving his servants, goes on a journey to a FAR COUNTRY, certainly implying in those days, what ? a long time. In fact, kingdoms had to fall into a very riot of international war, morals had to decline precipitously and characterisably, fear had to rise to an acute dimension nationally and internationally, famines had to grow widespread, horrible sights had to abound, a plethora of false prophets and christs had to sweep into the kill, the vultures circling. All this is seen in Matthew 24 and Luke 21.

Moreover, Jerusalem (Matthew 24:2, Luke 19) had to be destroyed and rebuilt (Matthew 24:15, Luke 21:24) so that the dominion of the Gentiles over it would cease, and hence the Jews had to return to the Israel from which they would be ousted. It would be indeed a LONG TIME, before Christ would return, and such that anxious imaginings and thoughts that "My Lord delays His coming" might be expected to arise (as in the parable exposing this attitude, in Matthew 24:48).

A mere form of godliness without its power (II Timothy 3) predicted for the "last days" of the era could also then be wholly expected just as surely it had to come into the pseudo-Christian body which would be then left, surging amongst the church (II Peter 2) which would be invaded with false teachers, not to its destruction, but in a morass of evil such that "the love of many will wax cold" as Christ stated (Matthew 24:12) of this enveloping trial that would grow in profundity at its maturity. That enveloping horror was to come, false teachers to proliferate, not true apostles prevail in dynamic and personal presence.

All that ? A long time. That the days might suggest to some that these events were in train is entirely understandable, but somewhat superficial for the time in view of what had to happen. That this great day with such a surround and preliminary, with such historical foothills leading up to its mount, should be thought actually present however, labours not merely in the area of the ridiculous, as noted earlier, but it fits as little in the apostle's context as in the Scriptural setting. It would be talking of Winter in Spring.

For all that, choose as you will, and take no account of the reasoning: it is still true that II Thessalonians is teaching that there is a considerable scope for time as the mystery of lawlessness reaches it height, and that it would be sheer foolishness to act as if there were impending a vast alteration in the order of things such that one might cease one's normal, godly action. That is the entire thrust of the passage. It is NOT YET. Much HAS TO HAPPEN first, so KEEP ON GOING AS NORMAL.

Finally, let us dwell on the fact that Peter in II Peter 3:9 makes it clear that there is a qualitative as well as a quantitative side the matter of when the Lord actually comes. It is a special characteristic of God that He is compassionate, not willing that any should perish, and that the word should go as a testimony bringing the Gospel to all the earth (Matthew 24:14). It is only then that we hear from Him, these words: "Then shall the end come!" There is arrest until this geographical distribution of the Gospel is accomplished.

Peter gives light on why. It is to move pervasively, invasively throughout the farthest reaches of this terrestrial globe before any thought of coming, the coming of the day of the Lord, is to be entertained. So far from dwelling loomingly off the coast, it is not yet in the meteorological picture at all. It is just that IT WILL BE, in its time. Such was the case when Peter, when Paul, wrote. In the last days, therefore, is something future indeed as in II Timothy, and its characteristics have to be spelled out, since it is a novel thing to find, in its time and occasion, when history reveals that side of its face.

First, as stated, then, it is for a testimony; for as the Bible states through the apostle Paul, God has not left Himself without a testimony, He is not mute; as Isaiah 45:18-20 declares from the Lord, He, the Creator of all has not spoken in a secret place ... "I declare things that are right!" Revelation is apt, adequate and public, in abundant provision, and when things happen, has not the Lord spoken clearly in the basic structure, and is He not thus verified in His power of control, wisdom and power! That is the point here.

Secondly, the compassion acts as a constraint, a restraint on terminating things, the longsuffering holds back the finale until it must wait no longer. That is what II Peter 3:9 makes so very clear. In the context of HOW LONG, the apostle Peter makes an indication that for the Lord, 1000 years is as a day. THAT is the immediate context (I Peter 3:8). A delay of 1000 years is not at all to be gasped at, therefore, should it arise. There is, then, MUCH TO BE DONE and for a LONG TIME, before the Lord comes.

That, of course, was THEN. NOW, nearly all is done already. It STILL does not mean that second guessing the exact moment (and it could still be decades), one abandons godly living in some heart-stricken form of arresting excitement; one continues rather to abound in the work of the Lord in all wisdom as instructed (Matthew 24:45ff., I Corinthians 15:50-58). There is however one beautiful addition which is for the present, and this not by some present revelation, for there is none to the church past Revelation, only clarification and understanding in terms of the principles and precepts given (which in turn means real wisdom and living communion with the living Lord, with provision for guidance just as He sees fit, as shown in A Question of Gifts, pp. 95ff (*16)., 104ff.).

No it is no new doctrine; it is the old doctrine APPLIED. And this ? WHEN you see these things come to pass, Christ said, that is the plethora and the fabric of coincident events noted, THEN LIFT UP YOUR HEARTS. Why ? Because of this: THEN you know that your redemption (of your bodies, Romans 8:23, cf. Hebrews 9:12-15, 10:10-14, I Peter 1:17-19) is DRAWING NEAR!

Notice, even THEN, it is only DRAWING NEAR, yes, impending, at hand! You lift up your hearts, then, but not your heads. In patience therefore as Christ put it, possess your souls! Vigorous and vital should our work be until the curtain falls, however delightedly we hear the moving of the strings in their folds.

1) The word in the preceding context is "quickly" not "soon" as the AV renders. That is the precise shade. Keep this in mind. Thayer in his Greek English dictionary not only stresses quickly for the adverb, but indicates a clear nuance of HASTE in the word.

2) What they are to avoid happening to them quickly, then, is that they should be troubled in mind. A state of anxiety and suspension, uncertainty is to be avoided, one that could take them quickly. Let us place these two points together.

Are they really to be conceived of as genuinely thinking that the day of the Lord has come, the DAY OF THE LORD, clearly set out in the Gospel, in the teaching of the apostles, as one in which CHRIST returns for His own, and then COMES IN JUDGMENTAL MODE, killing the beast and arresting his armies with destruction Matthew 24, Revelation 19). Is this to be conceived of, in anxious mode, in sudden spurts of thought, as being PRESENT! Is there some doubt about its presence or absence ? Did an atomic bomb land and we did not notice; are we to have anxious thoughts whether we are ransacked... The setting is fearful apprehension, but analysis of what after all, needed little analysis, being overpowering (cf. Matthew 24:26-31, Revelation 19).

On the hand, if the topic is the considerable danger of an impending and threatening (meanings found in the dictionaries) DAY of the Lord coming (that is the word following the point in the context), then the listing of all that has to happen first is most relevant, is a direct removal of the misconception, is good teaching, relevant and apt teaching, leaving nothing out of place. Such sound teaching is to be expected from a master-builder of the church (I Cor. 3) , when meeting widespread confusion and misconception on such a topic as the Day of the Lord being imminent, or being present. It in fact covers the former beautifully, and the latter very little in its fundamentals.

The point is that all things, contextual, logical, scriptural in teaching point in only one direction, whether because of absurdity, normalcy or mode of handling teaching be the considerations.

Further, it should be noted, talking of the general scriptural context, moreover, that in Matthew 25:19, the parable told by the Lord envisages a "LONG TIME" passing following His, the Messiah's departure from the earth, BEFORE HIS RETURN. In the same line, the one leaving his servants, goes on a journey to a FAR COUNTRY, certainly implying in those days, what ? a long time. In fact, kingdoms had to fall into a very riot of international war, morals had to decline precipitously and characterisably, fear had to rise to an acute dimension nationally and internationally, famines had to grow widespread, horrible sights had to abound, a plethora of false prophets and christs had to sweep into the kill, the vultures circling. All this is seen in Matthew 24 and Luke 21. Moreover, Jerusalem (Matthew 24:2, Luke 19) had to be destroyed and rebuilt (Matthew 24:15, Luke 21:24) so that the dominion of the Gentiles over it would cease, and hence the Jews had to return to the Israel from which they would be ousted.

It would be indeed a LONG TIME, before Christ would return, and such that anxious imaginings and thoughts that "My Lord delays His coming" might be expected to arise (as in the parable in Matthew 25).

A form of godliness without its power (II Timothy 3) predicted for the "last days" of the era could also then be wholly expected just as surely it had to come into the pseudo-Christian body which would be then left, surging amongst the church (II Peter 2) which would be invaded with false teachers, not to its destruction, but in a morass of evil such that "the love of many will wax cold" as Christ stated.

Finally, note that Peter in II Peter 3:9 makes it clear that there is a qualitative as well as a quantitative side the matter of when the Lord actually comes. It is a special characteristic of God that He is compassionate, not willing that any should perish, and that the word should go as a testimony bringing the Gospel to all the earth (Matthew 24:14). It is only then that we hear from Him, these words: "Then shall the end come!" There is arrest until this geographical distribution of the Gospel is accomplished. Peter gives light on why.

First, as stated, it is for a testimony; for as the Bible states through the apostle Paul, God has not left Himself without a testimony, He is not mute; as Isaiah 45:18-10 declares from the Lord, He, the Creator of all has not spoken in a secret place ... I declare things that are right!"

50) II Timothy 3:16

§ "ALL SCRIPTURE, IS GOD-BREATHED and PROFITABLE for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS."

He is not telling us that if you ever manage to identify the scriptures, you may be sure that these quiddities are inspired. He is instead asserting of a known object, in a rational manner, that as to these they may be qualified as follows: they are God-breathed, without exception. Profitability lies in them all, accordingly, to know what is what (doctrine), for reproof (to quell rot), for correction (to bring things to righteousness as a standard, to truth), for instruction in righteousness (to engender understanding about right and wrong, and the song of righteousness (Psalm 551:14, 145:7, sung by wisdom - cf. Proverbs 8, esp. 8:8).

Nor is He adding "which" after "all scripture."

Now we find an altogether more delightful message. It comes this time from II Timothy 3:16. It is amazing how many significant 3:16 verses there are in the Bible, and here in Timothy is an excellent illustration.

In I Timothy 3:16, as we saw in the last chapter, there is one of the most beautiful, comprehensive and succinct references to the glory of God in the Gospel that one could wish to see; and here in II Timothy 3:16 there is the exposure of the status of the word of God in terms simple, express, explicit and sure, in summary and impactive form and formula. It is of no particular significance that his amazing numerical feature exists; the verses as such are not divisions in the original; but it does help the memory. Let us pursue, then, II Tim 3:16^*3.

ALL SCRIPTURE, roars this tawny lion, IS GOD-BREATHED and PROFITABLE for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Now obviously the apostle is not telling us of this absolute standard in order that we should not know what it is. He is NOT saying that all scripture, in the case where it is God-breathed (undefined therefore) is so profitable. That would be rather like saying that all petrol is good for cars, provided that its hydro-carbon content is *^% , where these terms are not defined. It would be an appallingly useless, undefined, inexpressive jumble of sound, of no value, useless communication, a joke.

The character of inspiration has not been left unknown by Paul in I Corinthians 2:9-13, where first, the revelation in substance is conferred on the apostle, and then the words which provide the verbal assimilation of the revelation, these two are provided. On this topic, see SMR Appendix D. Again in Psalm 119, again and again we find that ALL His testimonies are true, that they last for ever, are enshrined in heaven and such things, as shown in the above reference.

Again, the Greek simply states ALL SCRIPTURE GOD-INSPIRED AND PROFITABLE FOR TEACHING, then listing other features of this focus. The omission of the copula (is) is not unusual. There is no 'which' in the text, no designation of any division, let alone any second verb, which would again have to be added to make any sense of it at all – which is … is. There is no such clause.

If such a gate-crashing were to be followed, this would be adding not only three words but even a clause gratuitously, constituting a form of verbal aggression, with the erratic invasion of a thought from the heart of man to the mouth of God, so that to implant this in the text is merely adding to scripture (against Proverbs 30:6): thus making it trebly ludicrous as an attempt to ignore the fact that man is "live by every word which proceeds out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4). This is shown in Christ's dialogue with the devil, by its being absolutely final once cited, in the classic argumentation and confrontation. In the same way, in Acts 4:25, a given scripture is at once said to have come from God, in this way, "who by the mouth of Your servant David, has said..." What then ?

¨ It is solemn farce to act the ventriloquist when God is speaking, spluttering in one’s own thoughts in His face, even acting as if to force one’s words between His lips.

Such is the audacity of disbelief, and the illustration of the need for the warning of the first lion, in I Timothy 6. What is written is of another category than culture, than social nuances and desiderata of the flesh. What then is to be found in II Timothy 3:16 with all its allied topical utterances from the Lord in the Bible ? What does it teach about the biblical scripture ? Let us follow the text.

What was written is regarded as an absolute source and recourse, a citable matter of utter authority, without attenuation or mitigation, not a vexed question or a vague shadow in part or in whole. Would not the devil have said, But God has said ... and then put in some thoughts of his own, attributing them to God. Impossible since the word of God was WRITTEN already, so that Christ simply went on to make final demolition of every temptation with the word, "It is written." Or He might say, "It is written again...", thus signifying that SOME, indeed ANY word was final, with no countervailing element possible.

That written, declares Paul in I Tim 6, is profitable for instruction and in this case, for reproof. Any attempt therefore to subvert this clear revelation meets multiple contradiction at once, from the word of God; and further, it would be ludicrous to imagine that the apostle were saying this, All scripture which (not there, but added by the imagination) is inspired by God is A, B, C and so on. That would require one to add three things: the 'which', the first 'is' and the second 'is', a real party of intrusion. In fact, there is simply the quite common omission of the first 'is' in the rather proverbial fashion applicable. Adding to someone else's words fails to render them; it is merely a form of intrusive plagiarism: and we are here concerned with what is being said by the writer, not the reader!

ALL THE GOD-BREATHED SCRIPTURES, as elsewhere defined and here APPLIED, are then of this character. One would expect this since if GOD breathes them, WE should find them PROFITABLE when we want to teach the new Christian or the old, what HE WANTS, HOLDS and DETERMINES. Naturally such a source would provide such a result in terms of being profitable for righteousness and godliness, for who is more godly than God is Himself, or where is RIGHTEOUSNESS but in Him as its moral source and uttermost base!

Further, all scripture is profitable for CORRECTION. How could you correct if the source for correction were incorrect! or how correct if it were not even known, or how use a basis which was unbased, unclear or uncertain! Not so with Christ: one blast of the word of God written and even Satan was powerless. Again, all scripture is profitable for reproof; but how could you reprove if the basis of reproof were reprovable! Hence this lion is roaring: take it all, use it all, it is the basis, the blight for error, the standard for correction, the reservoir for instruction, the module for doctrine.

What it says is correct, clear, basic, assured, God-breathed and ipso facto God ordained, endorsed and provided. Just as departure from the word of God is most horrendous, that lion as we earlier saw roaring with a splendid organ-toned power, so the abiding in this word is wonderful, all of it, not some, all of the Bible in both testaments, not some, all that God has said, every word, not some of His words, whether one likes it or not, whether it hits favourite theories or not, whether it smacks one's hand when one ponders a possible course of action or not: IT IS PROFITABLE to correct, instruct, to show what is right, what is godly, what is rebukable.

THIS is what one would expect when the Maker of Man the Communicator, speaks to man the thinker, the one who engages in abstract thought, who makes rules, who has power to elect perspectives.

¨ Its tenor and severity is verification in KIND of the expectations from such a source. It is not a suggestion, any more than our DNA has suggestions.

¨ It is not a cultural offshoot, any more than 2+2=4 is a cultural offshoot, being rather a fundamental reflection in numbers of the divinely ordered creation.

¨ It is not variable, like the thoughts of some genius, often elevated, but sometimes appallingly poor (as when Einstein reputedly made a fundamental mistake on one occasion, yes and a simple one, where perhaps his preference was at stake cf. SMR p. 422D).

¨ It is clearly demarcated as contradistinct in authority and reliability from the words of mankind (cf. Jeremiah 23:28-29); divorced from error in its promulgations, with a refined care (cf. Christ's words on this in Matthew 5:17-20).

Further, and most wonderfully, it is expressly testable, and one is exhorted to consider this in RESULTS, as a scientist might ask of students, when they turn from his lecture to the laboratory! This is seen repeatedly in Isaiah in Chs. 41, 43, 48, and is altogether characteristic of the approach of deity in His word, to the witless wanderings, the thoughtful self-elevations and the capricious foolishnesses of man, who wants to assert himself and in so doing, is about as wise as a moth, asserting itself in the mouth of a lion.

The LION HAS ROARED, as Amos puts it, who will not fear! (Amos 3:8). "Surely," he was saying, "Surely the Lord GOD does nothing, unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets."

How He has done this as in Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 42, 49-55, as in Psalm 2, 16, 22, 102, as in Jeremiah 25, as in Micah 3, 5, as in Zechariah 11-13, as in Zephaniah, in Hosea, in Amos and all the prophets! Alas for Israel, but her end approaches which is full of good things as well as exposure of the ungodly (Romans 11 cf. The Biblical Workman Ch. 1, *3, and Ch. 3 *1, SMR Appendix A). How does Micah 7 sketch that end, with Deuteronomy 32 and Romans 11! Already its preliminary events have stretched themselves luxuriously like a cat in the sun, in the lifetime of this author, in their amazing intricacy and prophesied detail (cf. SMR Chs. 8 - 9).

It is wise to hear the lions in their roaring, both lion I and lion 2, and to realise that this is not brute force, but beautiful sovereignty, that of the God who IS love, and whose protestations are GIVEN IN LOVE, that man might live more abundantly, not in the dives of political careering and career-making, philosophical vacuities, irrational premises and hideous ineffectual promises form the premises of mere arbitrary flesh.

Alas for the world, for more and more it moves into this sphere, where the roaring of the lion being ignored, the raw mess of its headstrong precipitancies becomes a stench, rather than mere malodour.

That, however, that too, you would expect it: it is what the world does with itself, ignoring the word of God; and the results are predictable as now they are predicable! This, it is verification as always, however sad, however grievous and however needless. How wise to listen to the roaring of these TWO LIONS!

See for II Timothy 3:16, also Pall of Smoke and Diamond of Joy Ch. 8.

51) Titus 1:1-3

§“Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ,
according to the faith of God’s chosen people,
and the sure knowledge of the truth which is in accord with godliness: in hope of eternal life.
God, who is alien to all lying, promised this before time began;
and so, in its own appointed times,
He has openly shown what He has in mind (or, manifested His word),
expressing it through preaching,
entrusted with which am I (or , with which I stand entrusted),
according to the commandment of God our Saviour:

"TO TITUS, my own son in terms of the common faith …"

Both the AV and the NKJ provide the sort of translation which includes the word "which" as object of "promised", and then proceed to "in due course manifested" with the object "His word" in such a style that in English idiom, you are left with

the scenario of "which" as apparent object of both "promised" and "manifested":

This first appears in the sense, if we follow these two versions: which God promised and has in due course manifested.

Then, one is faced with the perfectly astonishing phenomenon of translation, that the word "His word" comes as a SECOND object of manifested in the preceding WHICH God promised and has in due course manifested. In short, it appears to read: WHICH God manifested but which God has in due course manifested His word...

There is no indirect object; there is no additive, as if to state: which together with His word God manifested. As presented in these renderings, it is just the rather cacophonic format: WHICH God promised, but manifested His word.

Now you really need to clarify this. Is it which God promised, and has in due course manifested AS His word, as one translator has it rendered. Yet it does not SAY "as". It says which God promised, and has in due course manifested His word ... except that in the Greek, the verbal form CONTAINS the personal pronoun so that you have the option of spelling out that pronoun in English, if you want to do so. Thus, avoiding this idiomatic catastrophe, you have: Which God promised, and He has in due course manifested His word. This is clear and the precise original. In this context, the fact as in the lexicon, that logos can bear the meaning, 'what is declared, a thought,' and this is here the point, the disclosure, makes this a lucid presentation in English. Our 'word' is not so broad in essential meaning, as is this Greek word. Again, the total content of the Greek runs more harmoniously in English by replacing manifesting His word, with showing His word, expressing it. This is not dynamic equivalence but grammatical and semantic translation, or rendering. If there were foot notes, it could be handled that way. Without them, this seems valid to the portent of what is written.

In passing we refer to Romans 16:25-26, given attention below, but far more in Possess Your Possessions Vol. 12, Ch. 7.

This has this word from the Lord:

	"Now
	to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel
	and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery
	kept secret since the world began
	but now made manifest,
	moreover through prophetic Scriptures
	according to the commandment of the everlasting God:
	for obedience to the faith to all nations made known:
	to God, alone wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen."

Moreover, with its distinctive felicity and internal harmony, its precision without obtrusion, the scripture states NOT that it is "in its own appointed time" that it is so made known, but "in its own appointed times", plural, so that in its time here in Isaiah, there in David, here in Moses, here in earlier intimations it is made known, and preached to mankind. Yes Isaiah, the evangelical prophet, and David too, these were preachers in the sense of open proclaimers of the Gospel, though its payment for efficacy was yet to come, and its delightful and vivid focus, Christ Himself the Redeemer, was seen at first in vision, before in victory, calamitous to the devil, triumphant for the saints, eviscerative for sin, and with deliverance for those awaiting penalty.

Thus Paul is not saying ONLY TO HIM, did it come, not for example to Peter or to Isaiah; but it is COMMITTED to him, and he plans to be FAITHFUL with his own commission, yes and in Galatians 1, shows apostolic authority against all diversifiers who at any time, be they angels, or even himself should he deviate, and announces a curse on such a blight to the only hope and way to man! .

What do we then find ? The "appointed times" , special select times by divine judgment, these embrace all scripture that manifests the Gospel, but their apostolic mandate portrays the pinnacle, yes and if you will follow the figure, makes its topography definitive, its height (if it could have a height which is infinite in glory) specific and its location determinate, its speech express and guaranteed against all falsification and fraud.

Small wonder then that Paul instructs Titus that a heretic, one contrary to the apostolic teaching, when once and twice admonished, is to be rejected. What colossal pain and loss would the churches of the 20th century have avoided, had they followed this directive! and even now, what solace for their companionship, peace for their hearts and strength for their performance if they returned to such standards. Some have them; many fail and falter, not being faithful in this.

Using the fact that the term 'word' in the Greek, can mean what you mean, that is, your thrust as well as 'word', it seems best to convey the sense carefully, to use the translation suggested in red below, in this, that it leaves no way anyone can either wonder what it means, on the one hand, or fail to see the sense. The "manifested" gives the sense of putting the thing in His mind into our purvey, taking it from its abiding place and presenting it expressly, and the term "word" here conveys the sense of giving this very thing in verbal format, in expression as logos can signify.

What then ? To what He had lent promise, He now gave explicit expression in manifest form in the Gospel. That is what is being said. Thus with due care to preserve this precise sense, it could be rendered in this way.

§“Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s chosen people, and the sure knowledge of the truth which is in accord with godliness: in hope of eternal life. God, who is alien to all lying, promised this before time began; and so, in its own appointed times, He has openly shown what He has in mind, expressing it through preaching, entrusted with which am I (or , with which I stand entrusted), according to the commandment of God our Saviour:

"TO TITUS, my own son in terms of the common faith …"

In this presentation, the excellent suggestion of Weymouth, entrusted "am I" is a clever rendering of the sudden introduction of the "I" in the epistle. However, for those who find it slightly strained in our idiom, certainly the sense is well conveyed by "with which I stand entrusted". It has both the force and the dignity of the original. To capture the precise sense without straining our language (which really is not a translation) or allowing ITS idiom to force some slightly different sense into the words given for translation: these are dual aims which one has sought to fulfil in this rendering.

One last point is worthy of mention. It could be said that it would be more literal to render it, "which has been entrusted, I" and so it would be; it is just that it would not be a translation into ENGLISH! Again, one has rendered a "which" relative pronoun as a new sentence, where it appears as "this"; but this allows one to seek to give the precise sense of the beautifully apt and CONCISE Greek term, 'non-lying', with some care as to its sense, without prolonging the sentence beyond what Paul wrote, and so keeping the sense of his style.

As to "who is alien to all lying", this sums up the Greek term used with care neither to make it appear that it is precisely "who cannot lie", which it is not, though it is exceedingly close to it, nor simply that He DOES not lie, for it is much more than this. The character, nature, way of the One concerned is wholly directionally divergent from lying, His way diverse from it, other and contrary to it. This being so, the phrasing seems to convey it.

52) Titus 2:12

§"looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing
of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,
who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us
from every lawless deed and purify for Himself
His own special people, zealous of good works."

Titus 2:13ff. has already been a focus for some little attention in Stepping Out for Christ 10. Let us use and extend this for our present purpose.

So great is the infinite affinity of God the Father and His word, that we even read in Titus 2:13-14 of this great expression: We are, says Paul and oh so rightly!

"looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous of good works."

The Greek has, word by word, the great God and Saviour of us. It is not the great God and the Saviour: it is one identity, with only one introductory 'the'.

This is obvious enough when you realise that in Titus 2:10 we find written, "God our Saviour", which in turn is not surprising, since Isaiah 43:10 tells us that besides GOD there IS NO SAVIOUR. Whatever is the saviour in this highest, most eminent, final way is God; and of course this is precisely what Jesus Christ was called from the first (Luke 2:11, 2:30,38). Redeemer, Saviour from sin, the Christ is of necessity God, who acknowledges no other Saviour. Hence that it is God, even the great God and our Saviour who is to appear, is merely a reflection of all these things. It is He who is in the "midst of the throne" (Rev. 5:6), the First and the Last (Rev. 2:8, 1:17); just as it is the Almighty who is Alpha and Omega (1:8). It is HIS WORD which acts, and delivers the salvation in His own name, which naturally is above every name (Philippians 2:9-11), AND does so, with the result that all whether in heaven or on earth should bow to Him, the Christ, confessing Him as Lord to the glory of God the Father.

He is LORD to the glory of the Father, not in contest; for He is raised, who submitted, and glorified, who abased Himself to serve as Saviour indeed, and so it is to the glory of His Father than this, His manifestation in flesh, should as a Person, be Lord; for it was for this reason that He "died, rose and lived again," as in Romans 14:9.

This is the specific data on His return, result, reality.

Now that is as it must be. What is true is real, and reality will show what it is. Lies, and liars are but the ephemeral production of that glorious invention, freedom, when it is abused. The former perish and the latter have their own more instructive mode of divorce from the platform of the present! Thus, when Peter admonishes the rulers, priests and elders, inflamed in their infamy, he spoke what is, and what is to be shown with more than logic, as it now is: with Lordship. For as he declaimed it, so it will be:

"This is 'the stone which was rejected by you builders,
which has become the chief cornerstone.' Nor is there salvation
in any other name; for there is no other name under heaven
given among men by which we must be saved" - Acts 4:11-12.

There is no more important fact in the universe to which ANY ONE in our race may apply the mind, address the heart, than this!

Look at again in Titus 2:13ff., therefore. For what are we waiting, among all this political flotsam and jetsam, this abominable and appalling generation of death, and degeneration of the race in war of mind and soul and spirit and flesh, notion and nation ! It is the due end. And that: "the glorious appearing of the great God, even our Saviour, Jesus Christ who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all lawlessness".

And as to this LOOKING, ANTICIPATING, EXPECTATION of which Paul here speaks ? It is one which results from one fact, this - "the grace of God which brings salvation has appeared to all men" (2:11). So much has it appeared that the dating system of the world has been altered to acknowledge it. It is not a private party. Millions of books have doubtless been written on it, of broadcast made about it, and some of the most inventive of scientists have been entirely assured of it.

Here the NKJV is most clear. The AV is ambiguous, where this is not needed: "Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ".

53) Hebrews 11:1

§ Faith is the foundational assurance of things hoped for,
the attestation and conviction of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:1 is perhaps one of the most fascinating of translation confrontations. Its meaning is clear, but the way to express it and to ensure one grasps all of it is challenging.

Considering the notable term upostasis (A) often rendered assurance, but having a terminological relationship to underlying reality, substance and foundation, on the one hand, and the next basic term, elegcos (B) often rendered conviction, but able to mean proof, or evidence containing or constituting it: then taking the totality in one sweep, and next returning to ponder the parts, one comes to such a presentation or translation as this.

Faith is the foundational assurance of things hoped for,
the concurrent evidencing and evidence-based conviction of things not seen.

Since this is inelegant, whereas the Greek is not, another formulation is needed.

Faith is the foundational assurance of things hoped for, the attestation and conviction of things not seen. It is true that as an initial translation it may seem odd to add concurrent' but then, this could be put in italics as is the custom in such matters, in the AV. This is here done. The flavour of upostasis (A) is thus gained on the one hand, and the interplay between this substance, or substantial aspect and what follows (B), the concept of a piece of evidence, a proof, of what shows a thing to be true, with its further translatability in conviction, is thus aided. Now when the second term COULD mean conviction, and MIGHT mean proof, may be evidence-based conviction OR is perhaps demonstration, then we touch on both the inward or the outward, on what produces the conviction and the conviction produced.

Thayer puts this aspect rather well in his Greek Dictionary, concerning the word some translate 'evidence', elegcos: "that by which invisible things are proved (and we are convinced of their reality)." This then appears in the translation chosen.

This being so, it may seem a little harsh simply to select. In terms of the interplay of concepts between A and B, both having reaches in the objective or outward, and scope for the inward. Accordingly, it seems best to seek to bring out more than one might otherwise feel to do, so that both aspects appear in the translation.

In other words, there is a mutuality of additiveness to which one would fain do justice. Hence both are brought in. Indeed, friwt there is the concept of a foundation, a base and a conviction; there is next the concept of an evidencing and of evidence. Those are the two chief terms re faith. Each has a depth to it.

Hence one seeks to express each of the dualities of thought, for to suppress it appears to be insensitive. Hence both aspects proceed:. 1) foundational assurance, and 2) attestation and conviction. This fits the context in this, that it is full of cases where the profound assurance, going to the foundation of things, is present, and the operational power of what these witnesses so utterly and devoutly believe, is so no less.

Put a little differently, there is the foundational conviction (1), and there is the power to convict (2) of that in which they believe. Thus "by faith the walls of Jericho fell down" (11:30), and in this without doubt there is an indication here of (2), this power to convict, to convince coming from the actual reality of the thing believed. On the other hand, we find that "others were tortured, not accepting deliverance" (11:35), and this too is by faith. Indeed, in the same verse, we find that by faith, some received their dead restored to life.

There is what could all but be called an inextricable interweaving of the two aspects:

	the prominent power to attest itself, and the dominant reality of what has this power on the one hand,
	and the conviction which moves effortlessly in the midst of such power, on the other.

It is like walking in the midst of some marvellous garden, flowing with architectural intimacies, grand domains, glorious vistas and profound sweeps, and being continually, on the one hand, filled with a desire and delight in the REALITY which thrusts itself into one's consciousness and objectively envelops one with its wonder, while on the other, finding evoked an inspiration and a conviction of how splendid it all is.

Without any doubt, the thrust of Hebrews 11:1 is on REALITY and SUBSTANTIALITY, and there is interchange between this and the CONVICTION and ASSURANCE which this infuses. Faith occurs when this is so.

While we are here, let us apply these things somewhat, in formulating them.

Faith is the absolute assurance of things hoped for - it is not a finger on a pulse, but a grasping with both hands.

Faith is affirming testimony of things not seen - the confirmatory cry in response, the conviction which draws on evidence, prompted by reality, stirred by actuality, like a fish, waving its tail and meeting water with it! It is what is found when both hands meet the hand of God.

Here there are two aspects. Firstly, there is a fundamental reality so great that its appreciation brings strong assurance. Secondly, there is an evidential thrust so enormous that it brings a conviction from its very plainness. Things unseen are inescapable, inveterate, basic and original. They include all your purposes, motives and aspirations, all your heart's store of plan and intention, but more importantly, those of the Creator of this universe, and the Maker of the heart and spirit of man. Spoken into a book, the book of the Lord (Isaiah 8:20), manifested in a person, the Lord Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-3), applied by prophets with just one message over the millennia (Heb. 1:1), it stands under the power of the living God. This is the character of the conspectus in view in the Bible, and express in Hebrews 11.

You see that the source of the visible is the invisible, the source of the programmed is the unprogrammed, the beginning and the end for man lies in the free origin of his sinful spirit - the Maker of liberty whose product, man, has twisted and torn it, until only a new making can redeem it (John 3). Of Him we read in Hebrews 1:1-3: who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His Person, when He had by Himself purged sin, sat down on the right hand of Majesty on High. Where He lived, He returned (cf. John 6:62, 5:19-23, 8:58, 17:1-3, Micah 5:1ff.).

Hence in Hebrews 11 the text proceeds from the invisible source of visible and limited nature, to the invisible stimulus of the spiritual beings, men, who by faith grasp the One who grasping them in reciprocity, uses them, moving as "seeing Him who is invisible" and waiting "for a city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God", who built and made this temporary vessel called the universe, which is just as made, to be sent packing when test concluded, faith consummated, salvation manifest, the whole exercise in the temporal with the spiritual, ends in the eternal field from which it came.

54) James 2:18-23

§ "But someone may well say, 'You have faith, and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.'

"You believe that God is one. You do well; the devils also believe and shudder. But are you willing to recognise, O foolish man, that faith without works is useless ?"

Notice the placement of the inverted commas, unlike NKJV and AV but like NASB.

Hear the sermon on this topic in some detail, on our Web Page at

webwitness.org.au/2005.10.23.mp3

55) James 4:5-8

§ "Or do you think that it is to no purpose that the scripture speaks ?

Does the Spirit which dwells within us yearn jealously

But it is more grace that He gives

As it is written, God resists the proud,

But gives grace to the lowly."

As it is written (James 4:5-6),

"Or do you think that it is to no purpose that the scripture speaks ? {cf. Hebrews 9:5}

Does the Spirit which dwells within us yearn jealously!

But it is more grace that He gives

{this enables us in English to bring out the force of the "more"
which in Greek comes first, before the verb, to be followed by 'grace'},

As it is written, God resists the proud,

But gives grace to the lowly."

The same thrust is to be found in I Peter 5:5, which proceeds to exhort us to cast ALL our care on Him, since He cares for us.

The Berkeley Version here briefly notes, re yearns jealously over us, their rendering, that God wants all of a person, our undivided loyalty.

The use of imagery concerning zeal and spiritual depth and love is often found in the Bible, as in a bad sense, in its misuse, in Ezekiel 16, and again of course in Hosea, while in a good sense in Ephesians 5. Misconceptions based upon a failure to realise the use of imagery have no excuse, but the actuality has a certain glory of purity.

As in Hebrews 9:5, the verbal use can be general. It may be, and seems clearly here, to be referring to the whole message of the Bible, in this, that it would contravene and controvert this if such a proposition as would transparently deny James' view of love of this world, were to be put. In other words, the entire force of Holy Writ comes down on any idea of loving this world, or thinking that its love is in the least degree acceptable to the God of creation, whose Christ declared this, that the prince of this world HAS NOTHING IN ME! (John 14:30).

THIS is the world of the universal flood, a grievous thing; of Sodom and Gomorrah, and of Hezekiah, who for all his remarkable and admirable godliness, made a huge mistake in allowing the ambassadors of godless Babylon to come on behalf of their king, to have fellowship (ostensibly) with the sick, but now recovered king of Israel. That fault had enormous consequences, and indeed, when pearls are cast before swine, or in this case, temple values worth trillions are exposed to hearts animated by greed, is it wise ? Is it wise!

No, it would be contrary to what the message of the Bible is, were this not to be so: LOVE NOT THE WORLD, for friendship with the world is enmity with God. That is the first point.

The next sentence, if as it appears, you take it as a question, has an almost stunning piece of brevity and pith. It then becomes a rhetorical question.

Thus it asks whether you realise the intensity of the yearning zest of the Spirit of God in the Christian, in a figure resembling that of a devoted husband for his wife! What he may have at the interpersonal level, God has at the level of Creator and Saviour, so that compromise or desire for the world is as outré as rain in an oven.

Do you imagine that when you, wrongly, love this world, that the Lord is indifferent, is not keen to divorce you from such forsaken alliances! There is a divine desire for our purity, as for a wife, but it is not jealousy in another sense, that of feeling a competitive edge to the blandishments of this world, accruing in the mind of a believer, rather than a zeal for the well-being and hence avoidance of delusion on the part of a Christian, that is a different thing. We must not mistake the imagery for the reality. It is a comparison of two different things in order to take out in common, the point at issue, so that the vivid reality of it may be FELT!

In other words, might we put it that the Spirit that dwells in us yearns with jealousy ? We might, in a figure; but it is actually a case of more grace being given to the lowly. He does indeed yearn, seek industriously and with a deep longing for the soul, but let us not be too fascinated with the figure of speech, in this comparison with the righteous zeal of a husband, which might be in part a matter of flesh. It is the purest of motions the Lord has for us, a matter of conferring grace to avoid the evil, relish the good, conform to what is the reality of the nature given to us, that it live in the midst of spiritual understanding, becoming more like the Christ, and less subservient not only to indolence, indifference or misplaced passion, but to its wrong repository. This world has no site for spirituality, and its love is perilous; for it is stricken with sin and mastered in folly. Avoid toying with untruth, and keep to the zest for God which is apt for such a pilgrimage in such a world as this one has become.

Thus, the context proceeds smoothly to indicate, it is NOT indifference but zeal, not in slackness but intensity, not formalistic overisght merely, but direct and personal involvement that the Lord has in drastically seeking the good of His people, freed from futile pre-occupations. :

What then does He do to these objectives ? WHEN the heart is ready, when the mind is lowly, then the solution is clear: It is MORE grace that He gives to the lowly. The image of Christ, the work of the Spirit, the attention of the Lord to the needs of the tempted soul is personal, particular and potent.

It is not a question of more envy on the part of the Lord, if one were to love this world, or if more precisely, such a topic were to come to be in question; it is rather a question of GIVING MORE GRACE to the lowly, to the poor in spirit, to the consistent Christian. And why is it given ? It is in order that such things should NOT occupy the mind, or steal the soul.

No, the scripture does not speak in vain, and the Spirit, the sense seems to be, does not yearn in vain. That, once more, is another reason why friendship with this world, its bitter envy, and sensuality (James 3:14-15), involvement carnally in its forsaken ways is far from the wisdom which comes from above. Indeed, the Greek verb used with the term rendered crassly 'envy', relates to the noun qmnos, which gives the sense of ardour, excitement, passion bursting forth. It goes well with simple envy, and with it, suggests strongly what the Lord neither does nor induces, only the crest of the zest for the welfare of His people. The negation is clear. It is the ZEAL and the DESIRE in this case for good, that bears the resemblance to jealousy; not the littleness of it in type! This evokes the vastness of His desire, not its format!

With His SPIRIT at work, there is thus a double evacuation from the world in these respects, fortifying James' remarks concerning it in James 4:5, something in total accord with his earlier remarks in James 3:14-15. The Lord is CONTRARY to the allurement of this world and COMPETITIVE for the soul of man with its ambitions to seduce his spirit, while CONSTRAINING in His spiritual oversight and involvement. It is short of force, but most forceful: it is so in a spiritual fervour, not a violent and merely repugnant compulsion. It is a yearning and it is associated with a gift: that of MORE GRACE, selectively available to the lowly.

In passing, let us note one other thought, some have had on this verse.

The concept that the reference is to our own spirit as the one which 'dwells in us' does not agree with the context in word or development. Would it be our spirits which yearn in vain in the face of worldliness, or rather is it they which are the site or even source of the error! Moreover it is THE Spirit, ONE, who dwells in us, who are many! It is God who is One, we who are many, and THE Spirit dwells in US, who believe.

If it were a matter of our own tempted spirits, Indeed, it would not be 'more grace' to the lowly, for the arrogance of desire in the human spirit is in need of grace, foundationally, as fever of water. Further, the very emphasis in the Greek, MORE, He gives, GRACE, in that word order, stresses that it is an INCREMENT that is in view. It is God who gives the foundation and God who gives the increment. The operation is divine; the need is human. Assailed by many a temptation, the Christian is given grace; and to the one who is lowly, there is more. Indeed, anyone who is lowly is ready for the Lord and receives grace, since humility finds reality and reality is that the Lord IS gracious, and the enlightened soul receives Him in humility.

That fits to perfection with the Spirit of God, dwelling in man, being quite contrary to such things as this world's lusts, and follows as Summer from Spring.

Thus, when this Spirit of God is in view, then the 'more grace' becomes the antidote, arising from a consistent reference to the nature of the Spirit of God, followed by the nature of the grace given. The MORE, in its word order, then has complete intelligibility and relevance. It sings the song that has begun, with total harmony.

Both the word and the Spirit are decisive against friendship with this world, flirtations with its fancies. It is not a context; it is a command; it is not an option; it is an exclusion; it is not an object of dispute, for the world is an object of disrepute. Hence, do not imagine that the word or the Spirit of God is amenable to it, to its agreeable fancies or ways. This world and its ways, its characterisable nature: it is an exclusion zone, like one marked for high radiation. Don't tumble into it, rumble with it, search out its wiles or be duped by its deadness.

Such are aspects of the message of James. For the Christian: Have no friendship with this world! It is at war with your God. The Lord has it up for judgment, not social agreeableness.

CHAPTER 8

II PETER TO REVELATION

II Peter - Revelation

56) II Peter 1:19-21

§ "Knowing this first: that no prophecy of scripture
is sourced simply in itself;
for prophecy was never introduced by the will of man,
but by the Holy Spirit: being borne along,
did holy men of God speak."

Below is an excerpt from On Translations of the Bible, Vol. 12.

On this topic, again central in terms of the divine self-sufficiency and competence, sovereignty and faithfulness, initiative and control past all the sins and defects of man, displayed by the Lord in His revelation, we first shall regard what was written earlier. We have met these verses of II Peter 1, before. Let us first remind ourselves of this work, and then we shall add perspective.

Our first port of call is Things Old and New Ch. 6, from which the following excerpt is taken.

But let us pursue the visionary picture in Ezekiel 47. The waters come from the altar and are of such huge amount, like a flood, yet a beneficial and beneficent flood, that they swell and mount. At first the prophet finds himself covered to the ankles, then higher and higher, till he must swim. Then he is borne very much as the prophets of old were borne (II Peter 1:21) when the wrote the scriptures, which are not of any private explanation, BECAUSE this is the case.

That is, Peter here states that SINCE the scriptures were given by an operation of the Holy Spirit of a driving character, so that He was bearing the prophets along (the word used of the storm tossing the ship before it, when Paul was in the Mediterranean), THEREFORE these same scriptures are of no private explanation. How COULD they be, if GOD provided them with power and impulsion of this heavenly and majestic kind! They are, as stated from GOD, the men moved by His Holy Spirit, so that any other explanation of their existence is blind, unempirical folly!

Paul amplifies even this in I Corinthians 2:9-13. When God wants to speak, He secures His desire and declares to man what His thoughts are (Amos 4).

Any theory which sites them in the individual lives of the writers is asinine, astray, impervious to reality, simply wrong.

The scriptures, then, are not EXPLICABLE in terms of the individuals concerned, BECAUSE GOD is their source! That is the teaching in Peter. Here in Ezekiel 47 is its dynamic counterpart in the vision of the prophet, himself immersed increasingly by stages in the impulsion of the waters, till he must swim, being borne along.

This strong, bearing or impelling quality of the Holy Spirit is felt by Ezekiel as indicated in his vision, as a flood. Yet it is not a violent one, nor a resistible one either, and while it forces him to swim, it also surges on to the places which it refreshes (like the flushing we have in our tiny little Torrens 'River' in Adelaide, when large volumes of water are released from the reservoir to cleanse it); and in this visionary stream are the fishes. Fisherman fish for them! That is of course a primary source of Christ's word: "Follow Me, and I shall make you fishers of men!" (Matthew 4:19). Thus the Lord is at work in the world with His Spirit with the content of that Cross reality which bears the Gospel. Marshy places (Ezekiel 47:11 - like sects which distort the word of God, Titus 3:10) are left.

Our next exhibit comes from SMR pp. 1167ff..

There follows, for our thought, the passage from II Peter - 1:19-21. Here stress is laid on the irresistible dynamic of the deliverance of divine news and views to the devoted, dedicated, delighted servants of God in times past. Indeed, the Greek verb here used in verse 21, for 'moved' in the translation, is selected to refer to the stormy wind which 'drove' Paul's ship before it, on his way to Rome, described elsewhere in scripture (Acts 27:17).

It was not a matter of man, with his will, as we learn indeed in 1 Peter 1:10-12. lt was NOT EVEN to themselves that they 'ministered', as it is written. It was not a matter of man interpreting at all. THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED (the tense is PAST). The coming sufferings of Christ and His subsequent glory, says 1 Peter 1, were not (as the prophets then knew) being depicted in their revelation for their own use. They were provided for the use of others yet to come. No, the matter was unique and challenging, which reached the scripture writers from the Spirit of Christ, says Peter; and it was by no means a matter of THEIR thoughts, but of divine activity donating these scriptures for times yet to come. Thus, II Peter 1:20-21 declares (Weymouth):

Above all, you must understand that no scripture came about by virtue of its own release. For prophecy never came from the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit...

The word sometimes metaphorically used to mean 'interpretation', as Thayer points out in his Greek dictionary, is in fact to 'loose'. Scripture is meant and sent, not deposited from the work of one's own will. It is not 'idios', one's own (our word for 'idiot' comes from this); and there is a STATED REASON for this fact. It is not one's own unloosing, uncovering, one's own ideas at all.

This is BECAUSE the men who were HOLY and indeed OF GOD spoke in a different climate altogether. Being of God and being DRIVEN (Greek word used of storms on ships), they were under the power of the Holy Spirit. There is nothing about other people's interpretation of scripture; there is nothing at all about what one does with it. It is a cause and a consequence of the clearest character. They did NOT loose their own thoughts BECAUSE in this type of case, they were DRIVEN by someone else; and HE ? He had a special relation to them as men of GOD: HE in fact was, as the Bible here states, the HOLY SPIRIT.

Driven by the Holy Spirit (II Peter 1), these men spoke in times past. This we are told. THAT is why it is not a matter of what ANYONE MADE OF IT, or might make of it; that is WHOLLY beside the point. THIS, these words directly attest. GOD gave this to them, so that one's own ideas and constructions (literally, in the text), one's own developments and thoughts, simply are out of the question. It was NOT a faint suggestion: they were DRIVEN, MOVED by the Spirit. THIS, and nothing else or contrary, is precisely what is written.

God in His transcendence invested dependent man with news and views, and those views, being God's, were truth. God the Maker gave man in His image both declaration and information by the Holy Spirit. It was the SAME HOLY SPIRIT who brooded, as we read in Genesis 1:2, who 'hovered', who moved over the waters in that vast display of divine creative energy, at the birth of our material system. It was this same Spirit who brought from the heart and mind of God another spectacular creation.

THIS TIME some men were witnesses! What was THIS ? It was the word of God to man (cf. Amos 4:13, 12:1). God made the STAGE and He made the SCRIPT. The script is scripture. (There is ALSO - see Chapter 2 supra - an extraordinarily biological script written in programmed format into our very HUMAN PROTOPLASM.) We could go further. Peter does so. As man despoiled the CREATED WORLD, so men seek to despoil the WRITTEN WORD of God (cf. II Peter 2:1), which itself is like a world - of its own ? of GOD'S own! His speech world, His direct speech world (for even cells, we recall, are an INDIRECT speech world, crammed with thought, expressed in one language, in consistent code).

Wilfully, many seduce themselves, permit themselves to be seduced from the certainties of God's word, and from God's creation by His word, ignoring the desecration of the world in past judgment (cf. II Peter 3:3-6). In fact, they went so far as to slay the 'lamb' of God, that signally strong Saviour who worked with His Father (Proverbs 8, John 1) in making the world: they desecrated that explicit personal expression of God, whom even to know is a matter of "joy inexpressible and full of glory" (1 Peter 1:8). This they did in an act foreordained by the divine thought and word (I Peter 1:19-21, 2:7-8, Acts 2:23-32).

It is ALSO, however, ordained, and was so from the first, that this desecrated divinity, this God-as-Man, the living word who CAME TO the world, will judge men, not vice versa (John 5:27, Matthew 7:21-22, Acts 13:36-41, 17:31). THIS He will do in due concord WITH THE WORDS THAT HE, THIS SAME CHRIST SPOKE (John 12:48-50). It is THIS Christ, who bothered to come and be sacrificed, and NOT another. NOW

God... commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all, by raising Him from the dead (Acts 17:30-31).

Thus in II Peter 1:20, the verb used about private explanation has the following force: literally loose, or explain, release, uncover, solve. The noun is thus explanation, release, uncovering, solution, and it can be extended to the concept of interpretation, since this may be used to uncover what is already there.

However the last concept is alien to this context. What is the topic ? FInding what something MEANS, or seeing its security and reliability ? It is clearly the latter, in context, for this is the whole thrust, while the other is not found, relevant or pursued.

Since the theme is God's competence and action, driving and impelling, leaving all thought of man behind, the LAST thing that would be involved is any interpretation by some man, by some human being, since the WORD given is the OBJECT of thought. What we are being told in II Peter 1:21 is this: that as far as the prophetic word of God is concerned, its implantation defies explanation, its deposit is beyond account, except by divine power beyond all that man can do. Man is ruled out; God is ruled in. The word is His. Therefore it is faithful and reliable and to be regarded as stable, securing life in the midst of evils. That is the context.

J.B. Phillips puts it rather well, since the verb is 'become' or arise, not strictly 'is'. He renders this, that no prophecy: "arose from an individual's interpretation of truth." THAT is what is excluded in this appeal to us to rely on these words of the Lord. Actually, it does not so arise (it is really present tense of ginomai - Peter and perhaps Paul were then still writing scripture, and John, in that era), in accord with some individual's interpretation, by someone's philosophy, understanding, because it was never brought by man's will. How it does arise is equally taught by Paul, in contemporary sense as a penman for God, himself, in I Cor: 2:9ff..

In fact, better is found from Thayer, who in treating this very verse in his classical dictionary, notes that ginomai with the Genitive case, as here, means "to become i.e. be changed into something, come to be, issue in, something", and he proceeds concerning this verse in Peter, "no one can explain scripture by his own mental power (it is not a matter of subjective interpretation)". However, while these renderings preserve something of the antithesis made by Peter, they do waft into a theme not present. The actual theme is reliability and the exclusion is the will of man. The grammar is centring on something 'coming to be' as Thayer has it.

What however is the topic ? Scripture, its fact, its presence as sure, sufficient and proficient. What is coming to be, then, in the simplest and most unobtrusive sense ? Scripture. That and that alone is the topic here.

Thus we have this: the prophetic scriptures did not come (or generically, do not come as at the time of Paul, whose writings also included this kind) into being through any individual man as explanation. THIS is not their way, source or origin. It is not through its own intrinsic mental source, that it arises. Not so at all! It is indeed the antithesis. It is not accountable, explicable, resolvable in terms of some normal individual source, the native basics of a mere man. It is not self-explanatory a a literary item.

HOW then DID they come to be ? Not through the work of an individual. Not indeed (v. 21) by the will of man at all. Even the will did not contribute. It was by the power of God. WHAT was by the power of God ? Interpretation of something ?

Of course not. THE ARRIVAL OF SCRIPTURE was by the will of God. THIS is the meaning sustained in the context, through the varied treatments. How such things came is NOT IN THEIR OWN TERMS. Indeed, this, the arrival and production of scripture is not explained by individual perception or enlightenment, power or thought; it not explained as sourced in the will of man: it IS explained by the power and impelling provisions of God in action. It is not explained as to interpretation, but as to existence, origin, presentation, coming to be, arising, becoming as the text has it. One cannot well intrude some other additional material. This is the defined topic, and the defined result, with the negations and affirmations accordingly.

The Berkeley version is good in presenting the clear sense that follows:

"Because no prophecy ever resulted from human design;
instead, holy men from God spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

WHY is it reliable ?
Because it is tested and verified.

HOW is it reliable ?

Because of its source.

HOW did it come and how is this spiritual phenomenon explained, so that we may indeed rest assured in its utter and absolute authority and calibre ?

NOT by man,
NOT by individual insight,
NOT in any such way,
since it did NOT come by the will of man,
but DID COME by the power of God.

NOT by the thought of man, then (v. 20), us it explained, and NOT by the will of man (v. 21), and not the first BECAUSE not the second, but for entire explanation of its derivation, regard but one thing: IT IS BY THE POWER of God, His impelling, His thrust and His MUST! That, it is not an 'interpretation' but a creation. THAT is the ONLY explanation of the word of God. NOTHING else can stand in the arena with it, to account for it.

Interestingly, there is the same whole hearted negation as with Elisha's word for Ben Hadad (II Kings 8:10 - . "You will certainly not live, for the Lord has shown me that he will die."). Both Elisha and Peter in these crucial places have the NOT prominent at the first of the relevant declaration, emphatic denial. Here in II Peter 1:20, the parallel power has this concerning prophecy: No, it does not come at all like that. It is the entire antithesis of such a concept. It has nothing to do with any matter of some individual man in his musing. In fact, Holy men spoke as DRIVEN ... It came from God, and this is how, not from some philosopher's musings.

Thus the negation is followed by the affirmation, the prohibition (on erroneous thought about prophecy) is succeeded by the explanation of such a rejection. This is good NOW and that is why: THEN it came in that way. That is WHY it is good now.

Nothing could be clearer when you ponder it just a little!

That is the thrust of the passage: Was it some individual's unloosing, release, explanation of things, uncovering, solution, was this was the origin, source, basis, nature of this powerful, protective, wholly divinely sanctioned word of God ? not at al! Such could scarcely be further from the truth. WHY ? It is BECAUSE Holy Men of Old spoke as DRIVEN ALONG by the Holy Spirit that this other hypothesis, the humanistic one, is not applicable. That is why: it was not wrought (in the times past cf. Hebrews 1:1), by man at all. He was merely an exponent of what was deposited, yes driven in to him by divine power.

Prophecy - so sure and reliable, so much to be exploited, as Peter indicates, in order to strengthen ? What is to be said of this amazing phenomenon, this spiritually therapeutic marvel, this resource extraordinary! What ? Why this: Its explanation is not to be sought in the riddles of man's solution at all, but in the deposition of God by the Holy Spirit.

HOW COULD you explain such a thing as the prophecies which Peter has been at pains to exalt before us in the preceding verses ? Would it be by saying that man is the explanation! Rubbish! God is the explanation, and HOW He conveyed these vital words is as Peter then shows, the explanation. It was by the dynamic direction of the Holy Spirit. THAT is how they spoke it. What anyone makes of it is not an issue in the entire chapter. It is what God did to bring it to us, past all flesh. GOD DID IT ONCE, man can benefit now. This is the indubitable teaching.

Thus the translation could be put like this:

· §"Knowing this first: that no prophecy of scripture
is sourced simply in itself;
for prophecy was never introduced by the will of man,
but by the Holy Spirit, being borne along,
did holy men of God speak."

The sense is that no personal attribute of any man led to the scriptures,
for the will of man had nothing to do with it.

It was in fact, being borne along by the Holy Spirit,
that holy men of God spoke."

The topic is not human authority to interpret,
but divine power to present in the first place,
consistently maintained throughout the passage,
the context and words of which permit nothing else.

This gives due attention also to the word order, expressive of emphasis, to the passive where used, and seeks to remove any addition from the actual flavour of the text, in its logical setting.

Or you could put it: Knowing this first: that no prophecy of scripture is accountable in its own terms ... and then on as before. This gives due attention to the usage of the verb ginomai in this genitive phrase context, to the logic, the focus, the topic and the result in view. It is not some interpretation which is to be accounted for, the idea being conspicuously absent; it is the RELIABILITY and DEPENDABLILITY, it is the ADEQUACY of the prophecy which is in view. Pay attention to this great light source.

Do so, the word of God indicates, KNOWING THIS...

In other words, the principle to follow embraces the fact just stated, confirms it, gives ground for it.

What then is it which gives ground to the reliability, the light source quality of the prophecy which (unlike something else, be it men or institutions) is to be heeded ? It is this thing which we KNOW.

What then is this thing which we know ? It is this: that no prophecy is accountable in its own terms. Why is that the case ? The gar or for to follow then unveils this mystery or reality, also. This in turn is for a most potent reason. The ground of rejection of any assault on the prophetic word, any doubt about it in elevating it to the position of a light source, in a dark place, this world - it is not something else, there is no noticeable attention at THIS point to something else; for it is this. And that is it which we find in the text here. It is that those humanly responsible for it, the writers themselves of these prophecies of scripture, did not exercise their own wills to achieve it. It is not an individual human sponsorship matter at all. They were not philosophers. Theirs was not the internal inspiration, the authorship brilliance.

Not in the least degree is this so. That is why not in the least degree should you doubt the wisdom of following the LIGHT OF THE WORD OF GOD. It is not that the reason you should trust a man to interpret scripture is that God-driven inspiration drove the writers, for that has nothing whatever to do with it. The thing that happened of old was a Spirit driven inspiration giving a revelation from God Himself, and it is that which explains why it is asserted that the matter does not at all belong in the realm of the thought of man, being the very thought of God. To try to wrest for man the office of interpreter from the statement and explanation that it was God who gave it direct, so that it is indeed His word is its own condemnation.

Indeed, to take the matter to completion and conclusion, not only negatively but POSITIVELY, the word of God continues. The fact is this: that they DID speak as they were CARRIED ALONG by the Holy Spirit. It is in this way that the prophecies of scripture were BROUGHT IN. Both terms are passive in the original, emphasising the divine initiative, power, precision, and HENCE RELIABILITY of this word DISTINCTIVELY from ANY announcement, be it new or matter of interpretation for that matter, of mere men.

Mere men were NOT the source, because GOD was and their participation was NOT IN THE LEAST a contributing factor in the outcome, namely the revelatory product, which is precisely in content, what GOD wanted. Anything further from some future 'interpretation' being handed to someone not having the advantage of being GOD is hard even to imagine! It would foul, indeed contradict the sequence, defy the topic and defile the exhortation.

Thus the translation of the NKJV and AV, if it were not for some measure of ambiguity, would be not only wrong, but appalling! As it is, it is entirely inadequate. Weymouth however has done an excellent job. All of this is only one more reason why the dictatorship of pope or AV is so wrong. God did not ordain man to mix his puny thoughts in this way with His own, and direct the brotherhood (and you are ALL brethren, with only ONE master Christ EXPLICITLY declared - Matthew 23:8-10), and you have but ONE FATHER, who is identified as GOD. We are not polytheists, one Father and one God, and this is that!

The highest wisdom of man and the greatest powers of some individual's or individual work of translation from some or one, it is not this which is the light. It is the word of God which is that light, and in translation there is no divine commission to any one party on record, be it slow in coming in the 17th century, before or after, which is defined and detailed in the Bible to be the one to heed. What presumption to make a mere man, be it pope or translator, or group, the criterion of the word of God! What follies follow, obscuring by the refusal to use ALL the gifts God has provided, in church or translation, the wonders of the light in the very presumption of trying to limit to him or nowadays we had better add it, to her! to these or to those.

Cease from man whose breath is in his nostrils,
for in what is he to be esteemed ?

(as the NASA has it, for Isaiah 2;22). It is only when we are unimportant that the result has good hope to be important. It is only when GOD HIMSELF, that eternal Spirit, is in control, sole recipient of majesty and focus of praise, that magnificent trinity of love and peace, truth and power, majesty and dominion, creation and consummation for all things, revealed in His word, made manifest in His Son: it is only then that the conditions of spiritual prosperity are present.

We may rejoice in what He does through us, but do so IN HIM, not in our own works, of whatever magnitude they may appear. The more they are praised, the more the danger that their very human limitations or tendencies to error will become the objects of idolatry, the confines of comprehension. Rejoice in diversity, insist on integrity in the translation of the word, and rest in NONE BUT GOD. His word is very clear.

It is necessary never to enthrone any man or group in the place of God. ALL assemblies even, as the Westminster Confession so rightly says, are subject to error. Trust never in them. Be thankful for them, but rely on God by Christ, and according to His word as your CRITERION, not man, not men, not their ways. The church is good and a fine provision; but its very health comes in NOT TRUSTING in itself, its own works or ways.

Does this mean you never know where you are ? Of course not. The word of God is intrinsically clear (Proverbs 8:8ff.), and it is arrogance which tends to polarise and impose upon it.

It is by such trust in GOD HIMSELF, that the healing, the health comes. It is when the church is humble that it is more nearly holy, and being holy, casts itself in faith on the Lord Himself, not the engineers or engineering of man. It is to rejoice with trembling, not to assert with arrogance that is the task prescribed (Psalm 2)! It is then that the follies of pseudo-sanctified extremes, and the narrowness of preferred traditions, so hated by the Lord because of their intrusion of MAN's things into those of GOD (Mark 7:7ff.), arise, then when man is put level wt. God, and his works are added as if they could direct even the word of God!

ALWAYS that word of prophecy is as far above the thoughts of man as the heavens above the earth! If you try to bring in man's marvellous nostrums, soon it is like an asteroid impacting on the earth, all of heaven that is responsive to human arrogance; and indeed, it is just this which IS predicted in that prophetic word to which we do well to take heed (see Revelation 8:8-11). As to the word of God, as the Westminster Confession again so scripturally affirms, never take anything as from it but what can be PROVED, without addition, FROM IT.

THE FORCE OF IT ALL, THE PERSPECTIVE AND THE PEACE

Now, since so much evil has come from misuse of this word of the Lord, in II Peter 1:20ff., let us now see it in its contextual sweep and realise to the fullest extent, its teaching.

Of what, then, does the apostle Peter speak earlier in II Peter 1? It is of this: that Christ declared and PERSONALLY expressed God in Majesty, was aurally attested and that this confirms prophetic predictions concerning Him; while the PROPOSITIONAL expression, the written format of the word of God this is a further valuable attestation, one indeed which was in no small measure fulfilled in Christ's own life. As to these writings, says the apostle - "so we have the prophetic word confirmed" - they continue to confirm, and will do so until the Light of the Lord sallies fresh to the hearts of the regenerate in heaven. THAT is their target, their fulfilment, not something else or less: heavenly light IN HEAVEN.

Thus they are an exceedingly valuable resource now that Christ has returned whither He came (and we await the actions of His return at the time appointed - II Peter 3:10).

Very well: "Knowing this ... " (II Peter 1:20), is the very next phrase in the sequence. What it says is therefore confirmatory of what precedes, a basis for the understanding for the above.

In fact, as a prelude Peter at once declares, in explaining his exclusion of man as a basis, that it was not brought by the will of man at any time. This, it is what is written. It guides our thought, directs our understanding. No, man is NOT the explanation, because (past) it did not come by man's will. The PRESENT is dealt with in ONE WAY ONLY. It is in verse 20, and it deals with a contemporary feature, how scripture comes to be (literally, 'becomes', comes into being). It is NOT, this becoming, this coming to be, to be considered, explained, in terms of any individual (i.e. writer) as source. THAT is not the solution of the 'problem', the resolution of the issue (as the term, centring on solve, loose, uncover, has in its thrust). That is not how the matter is to be interpreted. Far from it!

This is not the explanation of the matter at all. Nothing else in thought is present in the text. The whole character of scripture, how it comes to be, is to be considered in the light of established routine. It is NOT a writer's brilliant idea; because it did not come that way at all. We find this appeal to known fact in dealing with present circumstance. What it IS depends on HOW it did NOT come, on the one hand, and how it DID come on the other. came. It is not, as a category, a class of things, anything to do with a mere individual, what he willed, wanted, to what he aspired. Why may this be stated ? It is because as to its origin, the scripture, the word of God IS a Spirit-driven deposit that. Men, in short, were not the movers in this field; on the contrary, they were MOVED. It was not by some mere emotion or desire that they were moved; it was by the Spirit of God. It was not an influence from the Spirit of God which brought out the words of the prophets; it was an impelling and a constraining, indeed a driving force from God that did this.

It is NOT saying that since man did not by his will produce the prophecies, therefore man must interpret them. That is not only a truancy from the truth, but a flat contradiction. It makes supreme what this part of the Bible is rigorously detaching from all consideration in the theme, statement and affirmations being made.

It came instead by God's energetic deposition. This past act, and past exclusion jointly give to the prophetic word its assured status, and issue in the character of scripture as given at any time; and that, it is far from being, and simply is not the subjection to the opinion of a man. Acts accomplished and described, these are its ground; actions axed and proscribed, these are the guarantee its purity. HENCE (v. 18) it is a light in a dark place - NOT something else. As SO produced, it has SUCH an authority, as light, makes such a declaration, of itself, for it is ITSELF which has the origin to grant the light with security. As it fulfils itself, so it confirms itself, all an inherent process dependent on its source, which gives its stature, and makes light for man.

A licence to direct man as to their understanding is not given by the fact that in past times man's will was excluded! The value indeed is wholly opposite, an intrinsically sure guarantee, first confirmed by a specific exclusion, then by divine action in times past. THAT is how the thing works, is founded, is explained, comes to the pinnacle of reliability and dominion of certainty which is its inherent right.

It is GOD's word. You cannot explain it by, in or with, through or in terms of ... man! Further, what has GOD's AUTHORITY has it because GOD DID IT. It is not an inference. It is a divine specialised function, to present in dynamic directiveness and assured quality, what is His very word, impelling with purpose, dealing with authority, providing with thrust that nothing can or does resist.

What then are we 'knowing' ? What is the 'this' ? It is that this whole 'burden' of the word of the Lord, of prophecy as exampled in its light and reliability as shown just before, did not come from man's will, is not so explicable, but was driven into the mind of the prophets by the thrusting power of the Holy Spirit. It is this that we are knowing... We could not be knowing this if we were talking about mere interpretation. THAT may be perfect, but if the original is not perfect, it is in vain! The ground of the knowing is the fact that the will of man did not produce scripture. This is written. Something else is NOT! THIS it is which is identified as the light, not a help to a light, but as constituting it.

No mere mortal surmise was this: it is therefore trustworthy always a a light in a dark place, this prophecy. It is not a matter of uncovering some one man's thoughts, his or her 'explaining' of divine mysteries, as if it were by any individual's concept of truth, by stabs in the dark, or purely personal 'inspiration'. It is as far removed from such littlenesses as is heaven from the earth.

Not at all, and far from such a thing is the actual case! What then is the case ? It is this: that God Himself, the thought proceeds in parallel in I Peter, by His own Spirit made His own excursion and incursion into the heart of man by His Spirit, dynamic and undeterred.

This, it was the DIVINE INITIATIVE, WROUGHT IN THE PAST TO SECURE THE STABILITY OF THE PRESENT. In I Peter 1:10-12, we find indeed quite directly that those who wrote realised that they were MINISTERING TO US. This is the basis; this is the ministry. They wrote it; it was for us.

Hence you may with complete safety rest on such a revelation. It is NOT subject to human intervention and sin at all. It was so given ONCE, so that it is faithful NOW. Present actions are EXCLUDED in the ground of the security, which begins "FOR"!

Interpretation by human agencies is then, not merely wholly contrary to the context, it would make of it ludicrous collisions in time and topic.

What follows ? Is it this ? Be comforted by the word of God, whatever its purity, since somehow it will be interpreted aright! What good, however, does that do, if the thing itself be not first secure ? It is irrelevant, with no iota of contact with the context, so to interpolate, an example of eisegesis: non pareil, unexampled, perfect as a cancer in kind, like one that blocks the whole bowel, on X-ray when it is discovered. Further, the topic is not only the authenticity and reliability of scripture, but this in CONTRAST with all the works and inspirations of men, which, in comparison with what IS scripture, are just individualistic caprice or superficial soundings. THAT is the contrast in view.

To interpret contrary to context, indeed in contradiction of contrast made, and in terms ancient for things present, is a trilogy of perversion of the word of God.

Contrasted in fact is the word of God, the advent of it, with the content of man, in his sin.

What then ? Why is this prophetic word not of a purely private loosing, explanation, and why is it not so to be esteemed ? Is it because God (past tense) Himself drove it home; or is it so because it is to be interpreted (contra to I John 2:27) by experts and because human tools, not mentioned or in view at all, will perform an explicatory act, so mixing their authority with that tried and tested one of God, by His very own word, expressly so termed, and their understanding with the deposition of men, who wrote as they were driven by the Holy Ghost! If it were to be something of men, or man, then, why contrast with God Himself, in His unique activity, that specifically related in terms of what is past and intimately known by His people ?

Here is the uttermost in stability and authority as a deposition of assured status because of what it has done. We now see that not only is this denial to man's will altogether a source of the scripture being outside mere human explanation, what did NOT happen ; it is also because of the way it HAS come.

Indeed, if it is a matter of what man in his religious propensions can do now, why give the basis in the past ? such is mere presumption within the context, importing without licence; and if it is of man, why speak of what God in ways specifically described, has made His own mandatory and tested transmission medium (cf. Hebrews 1:1)! It is that unique thing, the very word of God written which is defined as the base in view. It is nothing less, nothing else; it is incomparable in kind, in authority and in origination on this earth, all three. Human inspiration ? religious exaltation (forbidden in Matthew 23:8-10 anyway - ONE Master, YOU ALL brothers) ? Forget it. This is not to be given any such superficial explanation. IT has come direct from God, bears His name, is His word.

Are we to ignore what He does say is the reason for the words of II Peter 1:20, and to provide what He does not! Certainly, and by all means, if only we revert to Genesis 3:4, and are hearing the serpent: HAS GOD SAID! He wants his own word to be interpolated, introduced, while Eve is seduced. It is here just the same sort of event which arises.

No, nothing like that! as Elisha said to Ben-Hadad. The prophecy is what it is; and it is this by virtue of its origin, not from what man can do to it! Its sourcing in celestial mind, will and power has no bearing on man's contortions or proportions, but with its calibre, quality and truth AS scripture. The reason WHY it is so, a reliable revelation, is that God by sovereign majesty and power, shown categorically in Christ in the flesh, in words secured this deposit of His meaning, His message, His thought and His will.

Both Christ and the scripture have come. The one is to be believed; the other received; and in reception, one is to be assured that it is a constant fount of inspiration, revelation, fixed, needing no change, authorised, verified, vindicated, indicated. Because of this status, woe to those who add their own words, to these (Proverbs 30:6).

II PETER, CHAPTER 2

In Ch. 2 immediately following, we find that despite this, evil men and false teachers will arise in the latter days, as the Age progresses towards its end, people who will bring in wicked and corrupting false teaching. That is a measure of HOW corrupt they are, that they so act in the light of what GOD HAS DONE, and done superbly. HE came as man; HE gave as God the words that went with it. HE confirmed the words in and through the man, and continues to do so.

Is man to do something more now ? Is this double and mutual assurance of the word of God and the Word of God, to be bypassed, added to, supplanted ?

There is no excuse for these things. They are obstreperous, intrusive, admirable only in one thing, the pure, unbounded character of the presumption (and Jude with Peter, stresses with very thing).

In our text in II Peter 1, however, NOTHING is said about human authority. It is God's word on the one side, and man's sleight of mind on the other. What then of these predicted false teachers? Their trouble is not understanding per se: it is motivation. They are interested in money.

Powers of interpretation are not the issue: indeed, it is precisely here that we receive in II Peter 2, immediately following, the WARNING. Willingness to obey, this is!

Would a managing director say, Now you can rely on my words and follow them safely because they will be interpreted aright. How useless! The question is this, whether they ARE right, and what is the sort of power and truth they contain. It is far too late if you are talking about interpreting something; it is the message itself which is the authority and the ground of reliance. If you are subjected to such insertive and assertive private parties pushing their own barrows, or any imagined barrow, then you are in the hands of men. THEIR antics Peter then describes in this Ch. 2 in some detail.

If however you rely on what God by the impelling power of His Holy Spirit HAS done, then you are safe. It is, we notice clearly, not what God is GOING to do, which is the ground of our assurance here, but what HE HAS ALREADY DONE. The thing is past, apostolically certified and defined. The first feature and focus is Christ Himself in II Peter 1, at this point. The second is the prophecy. Its efficacy is mentioned. Then more. And that ? It is the certified action of God, to send His own word, His prophetic word, which is to be explained not in someone's private thoughts about truth, but in HIS declaration AS the truth, and carrying this, His word to man; and as to that, it is by a safe conduct no less than the power of God Himself!

The prophecies then are not reliable because they can be interpreted; they are worth interpreting because they are reliable. Yet interpretation is not even aroused as an issue. It is the action of God in the past which is provided. This is what is written. As to these words: They are reliable because God, personally and in the past, secured their purity past all human intervention of any kind. Hence those who depart from them, as in II Peter 2, can be discerned and dismissed. Their object as there defined, is gain!

SOME SUMMERY SUMMARY
re II Peter 1:20-21
(it is December here in Australia)!

But let us summarise some of our findings. What does it all mean ? It is this: the concept that II Peter 1:20-21 means that private people, that is individuals of any kind, people not specified by Peter in his giving of grounds for faith in the word of God, are by no means in the equation of stability or the concept of constancy, yes the favours of faithfulness or the grounds of assurance.

No man can come into this realm. If however you should extraneously, presumptuously and intrusively seek to put some such idea into the context, there are a number of areas violated.

Let us list a few.

It is

1) the wrong time
2) the wrong theme
3) the wrong topic
4) the wrong task.

It is likewise

5) a perversion of the exhortation
6) a bypass of the warning
7) a logical non sequitur,

as well as

8) a fallacy imported into the word of God
9) a fecklessness of deviation and
10) a parade in the face of parallels

and

11) a contradiction of other scriptures,
12) a collision with prohibitions and
13) a derogation of scripture as such, in its own standing and weight.

Let us look at these.

WRONG TIME: What the apostle Peter is warranting is the PAST performances of holy men of God. This, and not something else in terms of authority or assurance, is what is written. Implying a present power or basis is arresting the authority and placing where it is simply not put.

WRONG THEME: The theme in II Peter 1 as it approaches its terminus, is the certainties of God, in Christ on earth, as attested by God, as attested by prophecy; and of prophecy, as attesting Christ who performed as predicted, in attesting likewise what is to come, this being now an even more verified tool, instrument of faith and guaranteed force in Christian life. BOTH Christ of divine honour and glory, God incarnate (Hebrews 1, John 8:58), and the word of God written, AS provided in the supernatural way noted in II Peter 1:20, are inveterately virtuous, tested, tried and true, sure and steadfast. One IS God in flesh; the other is the WORD of God in writing.

One reason for this is that it is all a verified work of God, done in the past, sure for the future.

WRONG TOPIC: The topic at the point of the text in vv. 20-21 is HOW scripture came to be, and WHAT is its quality. It is nothing whatsoever to do with untested human authority, or indeed man in his coming workings at all.

WRONG TASK: Hence there is, in any concept of a future ecclesiastical domineering or direction, as if this were in view, a failure to realise what IS written, the steadfast reliability of the word of God as already given, its certainties for all future occasions, and a negation with dire emphasis of any outthrust away from this, to invent machineries or approaches wholly dissonant. Such things are not even tangential - for in them, there is no point of contact with the emphasis on things past, things sure, things tried, things verified, the fulfilled power of God in providing a sure guide, no, not even an iota.

PERVERSION OF THE EXHORTATION:

Hence there is not far off, and soon looming into sight, a perversion of the exhortation to STAND by the PROPHETIC word ALREADY given, one made even more sure and confirmed. In that specious substitute for the word of God, the concept is that one should stand by what is NOT already given, NOT tested and verified and NOT mentioned by Peter at all. This perverts faith, corrupts the passion for purity and makes by devious means zealots instead of devoted people, trusting in God alone.

BYPASS OF THE WARNING:

Likewise, instead of leading naturally into the warning about what people will do, corrupting the faith with damnable heresies, things worthy of condemnation through false motivation, arising even from within the church, it would open up the vulnerable to this very vice by assuming that directors can come in and thrust their own authority into the midst of the word of God, precisely as II Peter 2 predicts will happen. It indeed has happened, fulfilling the prophecy of II Peter 2, Acts 20, II Timothy 3, I Timothy 4, all parallel, and that with a rich fertility, impassioned weeds of poison flourishing in the soil that has departed from the faith

(cf. SMR pp. 699ff., 743ff., 750Bff., Stepping Out for Christ Chs. 1, 5, Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming ... Ch. 3,
News, Facts and Forecasts 122, 123,
Benevolent Brightness or Brothy Bane 82, 87,
Repent or Perish Ch. 5, Things Old and New Epilogue, Ch. 2, Appendix, With Heart and Soul, Mind and Strength Ch. 11,
It Bubbles, It Howls, He Calls Ch. 11).

Thus instead of seeing the incoming of deceivers, putting their own authority into action as they corrupt the church through false motivation, gain, themselves corrupt, and being justly warned, this fiddling with the word of God has a perilous outcome. Indeed, this interpolation of extraneous material, emphasis and thought into what is actually written opens up the church to precisely what Peter warns it AGAINST! Indeed, in II Peter 2, this warning is long and sustained, devastating in its condemnation and massive in its implications. Jude acclaims the same.

It is parallel to that of Paul in Acts 20:20 about wolves coming IN, not sparing the flock, yes concerning those of this ilk, who "from among your own selves will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves." This drawing after themselves is precisely what ROMANISM has done, sects have done, false prophets like Muhammad have done (cf. More Marvels ... Ch. 4). In such cases, MAN, as excluded in II Peter 1:20-21, is now the focus. NOT what the word SAYS, but what man says, what someone NOT a writer of the prophetic scriptures, the word of God says: this becomes the test, the criterion.

NOTHING, however, could be further from Matthew 23:8-10, which REQUIRES

a) that none be called (spiritual) father - i.e. director, guru, interpreter, dealing with his little children and
b) that none be master, that is, giving with authority requirements for the faith. Why ? It is statedly because ONE ONLY is Master, and that is a person who

i) is sinless
ii) is increate
iii) in Himself the Saviour!

NO ONE ELSE is this (Acts 4:10-11).

LOGICAL NON SEQUITUR:

It really is a massive (literal) impertinence, to thrust a concept of human interpretation of scripture as the thrust of this passage, for more than all the above reasons. It is so for quite another. Simply: it DOES NOT FOLLOW that because

a) men did not 'achieve' scripture from any will of their own and

b) in fact God by an impelling vigour and direction secured it by His own inalienable and always adequate power,

therefore no one but important people, special people, can interpret it.

That, then, is to put into the mouth of God a fallacy: some gift! In fact, and as a point of empirical reality, the stress is quite the opposite. You do not NEED, indeed you MUST NOT HAVE, anything to interfere with this tested scripture, for if you do, then where are you placed under the guarantees given ? Not only would you then be NOT COVERED (as with any insurance policy, when you go outside the prescribed conditions - NO cover is given for any affirmative action whatever relative to the handling of scripture here) , but you would be UNCOVERED DESPITE A GRAVE WARNING of the dangers of precise the area of your vulnerability! This would be gross, outrageous and reckless to the uttermost point, contrary and contrary, using both pronunciations and meanings of the term!

But what a travesty, to seek so hard to bring in a mischief, or to ignore the point, for whatever reason (including cultural conformity and so forth), that you make God by your mere importation of philosophy into the scripture, to be author of confusion! What a confusion it is which is not merely confused but wishes to put into His word, a logical fallacy! FOR, says II Peter 1:21, "prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit".

WHAT then is the case BECAUSE holy men so spoke, BECAUSE the word of God did not come from the will of man at all ? Is it that THEREFORE only special authority may interpret the word of God ? Is it the case that since God is authentic, and this word is tested, tried, true and deposited exclusively by divine action, in its outcome infallible therefore, that MEN MUST authorise its understanding ?

Does it follow ? It is the OPPOSITE of what follows. The result in fact: be careful not to pollute it, as II Peter 2 AT ONCE goes on to direct. This IS the authority: do NOT do such a thing. It is not at all, DO IT! Nor would it follow. If God did it like that, it is not implied in the least degree that we must therefore treat this word to a new authority, so that we can try to catch up with what God was 'trying to say'. Not only it is incongruous, but there is also no way in the world that such a thing would FOLLOW from the exemption of the will of man from the creation of the written word of God. Further, since any such authority would be extraneous to anything Peter here or elsewhere says, this is an INVASION by ILLICIT authority of what is NOT provided for.

FALLACY IMPORTED INTO THE WORD OF GOD:

As a result, such a misinterpretation of this text becomes an actual fallacy imported into the word of God. All this comes before we even look at what it is actually saying. It is merely propounding the negative, what it cannot be deemed to say, both because of contradiction of logic, denial of reason and uninhibited abuse of context. It is, in other words, more than a non sequitur. It is an import as well of extraneous material, offensive and contrary. It is moreover a

FECKLESSNESS OF DEVIATION:

It is no mere wavering of thought, lack of concentration which is involved in this error. It is very dreadful. It abandons restraint and wisdom, looking to what is not merely missing, but what is deplored in the context, when it is present, as it is predicted to be. Moreover it is a

PARADE IN THE FACE OF PARALLELS:

Not merely does it collide with the surrounding parallel with Christ, the living and the written word being the topic, in their whole and integral reliability, both in being tested and sure (indeed made more sure, confirmed in the case of the prophetic scripture), as found in II Peter 1, and the negative parallel of warning in II Peter 2 into which Peter at once proceeds, but it smashes headlong into I John 2:27, where we are advised that you do not NEED any man to instruct, since the anointing suffices.

This does not remove the advantages, the expediency if you will, of help in humble ministration, or genuine presentation with assurance of what is manifestly the word of God beyond all human authority, as in Romans 12 where different gifts minister from one to the other. It does however removes any concept of a MASTER, of a NECESSITY, of an actual intrinsic AUTHORITY, which can in any way come into the scene outside the scriptures of God.

Let us hear John's inspired word, itself part of the scripture:

"But the anointing that you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you: but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him" - I John 2:27.

In other words,

AS the anointing TEACHES concerning all things,
AND is true and is not a lie,
AND just as it HAS taught you,

SO you will abide in Him.

What do you not NEED ? That anyone to teach you. Is a pope covered by 'anyone' ? Of course, he is a man. Is a church council covered ? Of course, each participant is a man. The thing is one body, one authority. What then can a church council do ? ONLY provide by sound and assured reason what cannot be controverted. From John as from Matthew, as likewise we learn that they can have NO authority in themselves. The Westminster Confession is utterly sound here, forbidding an implicit faith in anything of men, and requiring that ONLY the DEMONSTRABLE certainties of what follows from the word of God may be doctrine.

It is even SIN to go further, NOT SANCTITY.

These scriptures utterly exterminate and annihilate the whole authoritarian conception of the church. Its power is only to carry out what is written. Certainly, it can form arrangements expedient, but its power over the faith is zero. The word of God has power over it, and if it in anything goes beyond, it runs headlongs into all these scriptures.

Pompous prelates like honeyed harridans, prostitute the power of God readily enough, when they intrude into divine things apostolically made, and made in the past (Ephesians 2:19-21), the foundation "having been built", the Master the increate Christ, the number of masters ONE, and that one, Christ; and the word one, the word of God. There is the gulf of infinity between God and man, and the forgetfulness of this simple fact is the bane of nations, and of many false churches, lords over the heritage of the Lord, having dominion over faith, false Masters, not Christ, not so identifiable any more than is the heaven with the earth.

Even elders are NOT lords over your faith: indeed and rather are they helpers of your joy (I Peter 5). SO says this same apostle. What therefore we have, and have multiply is a

CONTRADICTION OF OTHER SCRIPTURES in any such pollution of this text. It is not merely other than these, adding to them: it actually precisely and directly CONTRADICTS them. Further it produces a

COLLISION with PROHIBITIONS, for there is not only thought in this matter, its denial, its contradiction, but there is also an actual collision about practice. YOU must not and CANNOT do the things which some would bring into this text in II Peter 1, as if the word of God were a mere sink for human thought, precisely as is being DENIED RIGHT HERE, by Peter in II Peter 1:20a. The erected authority in this text, it is scripture (in II Peter 1 in context, after reference to Christ who in times past was so authenticated).

You must realise that its arrival had nothing to do with the WILL of men, and that is WHY it is to be viewed as surpassing all human explanation (II Peter 1:20). You DO NOT NEED such teachers, and you MUST NOT HAVE them (I John 2:27, Matthew 23:8-10). What obtrudes, intrudes. What suffuses, confuses. Men may minister; God alone commands.

Thus, moving in this illicit way in constructing a contrary sense for the text, you actually collide with the word of God about what you MUST NOT DO! Indeed, Paul in II Corinthians 11 shows what folly is wrought when high-minded and mighty individuals start throwing their puny weight around, like wet putty (II Cor. 11:19-20). You suffer it, he says, if some foolish intruder pushes you around and so on! It is however the SAME Jesus, the SAME Gospel, the SAME Christ. NOTHING must alter this at all (Galatians 1), and what chiding comes from the apostle when there is any movement from that sacred and secure, safe and spiritual foundation of all doctrine, the word of God. WHO ELSE knows! WHO ELSE can understand ? Whose word IS IT!

BUT any such intrusion as this is simply another gospel, another spirit, and another Christ. It is alien to the authority in God only, in the word of God only, which is the indubitable and explicit focus of Peter in I Peter 1-2 in general, and in 1:20-21 in particular. Indeed, here, in such a fallacy imposed on this word of God, you have a

DEROGATION OF SCRIPTURE AS SUCH, IN ITS OWN STANDING AND WEIGHT.

Instead of following what is actually in this text, and noting that the validity and reliability, the teaching power and pure certainty of the prophetic scriptures comes from two facts, that the will of man had NOTHING to do with their production, and that the power of God had everything to do with their inditement, provision and presence, there is a perversely contrary procedure. What then is this ? It is nothing less than an entangling of the very thing hated, human will and authority, in the sacred places noted, required to be without addition, and provided with warning about additions.

What is not demonstrable from scripture is assuredly an addition, as any judge would know, who examines what the actual data of a crime are, and what the lawyers think they can make of it. The two are distinct and contra-distinct.

Hence, in making this subversion of theme and topic, logic and parallels, such a perverse misinterpretation of this passage, there is a pushing of powers outside those noted and authorised here, into the arena so specially select, preserved and being of certified purity, safe. This both waters down the word of God and works in another authority, not merely forbidden, but extraneous. It is a simple addition to the word of God, per favour of irrational extension, illicit logic and extensive breach of context and this both immediate, broader in these first chapters and extending throughout the entire epistle, fraught with warning on this very thing.

But let us now look at the actual movement of this passage in Peter. It is not saying that the complete absence of man's will from the production of scripture is a reason why its interpretation should be carried out ONLY by important people, or with deference to their thought, whatever their claims; but that the complete absence of man's will from the production of scripture is a reason why it may be affirmed as having no human explanation, no source in the heart of an individual man, of whatever kind, calibre or character. That is what verses 20-21 are declaring, logically, contextually and in the entire context of the Bible.

What is given is this, and no idios, single or singular action by any man, no humanity, no flesh, has any part at all in it. Man in all his littleness, regardless of his situation, presumption or accolades, is here OUT altogether. The word given by God is outside this domain. Its power rests only on God; its criterion is found in the past; and what is His word has a bearing and autonomy accorded to nothing else.

This, in fact, is what is written. Man can't solve or explain scripture by any of his own thoughts since what ? Since scripture did not even depend on his will at all. HOW COULD you imagine in some humanistic, some naturalistic, some psychic notation of man, that scripture has an explanation! It would be ridiculous. Why ? Simply because it had NOTHING TO DO with the will of man at all. His resources were not the criterion of the advent, his imagination did not create the substance, his powers were not the issue. It was without his very WILL, by which he could summon.

Not only so. It was on the other hand, BY the WILL and POWER of God that the actual impetus, the whole substance, the entire gamut arrived. This is PRECISELY of course what Paul is saying in I Corinthians 2:9-13.

There we find that the THINGS themselves, the substance involved in the scriptures, as Paul declares, came from God AND the words with which to express it were likewise from His provision. This is not necessarily the same as 'dictation' in some narrow sense. It IS however the same as an entire provision by whatever divinely directed means the Lord should choose, of the RESULT.

In the end, it is God and not man who supervised and succeeded in securing the input of substance and the output in words to His entire control with the intended consummation: expression in exactitude of His heart and mind toward man, and of what concerns him, with power. The result has NOTHING of the will of men, and ONLY the output of the power of God, unimpeded, acting as needed to secure the issue of His own will in His own name of His own word. HE has spoken! (cf. the almost endless array of sentences like these - Thus says the Lord, and the Lord has spoken or the mouth of the Lord has spoken and cf. Acts 4:25, where once again, it is Peter who is speaking).

This, then, in II Peter 1:20 is the result of the divulgement of II Peter 1:21. This DOES follow with NECESSITY, with ENTAILMENT, without non sequitur, but with robustly apt logic: that SINCE man's will was not involved in the production of scripture, was indeed a wholly alien matter, and SINCE secondly, on the affirmative side, the POWER and PROVISION of God was involved, and that with impelling and imperial thrust, therefore what we have in the production of the prophetic word of God is not a matter of explanation in human terms at all. That is the word of II Peter 1:20. Nothing else fits the sequence, the situation or the scenario, the logic and the validity.

On the other hand, this is wholly and emphatically, richly and dramatically the exact message of other scriptures; and again, any endeavour to attribute invalid logic to God by intruding a theme not found here, out of the development and contrary to it, is merely a measure of the desperation to deceive, or the inuring of custom and tradition, which does indeed make null the word of God, as Christ warned (Mark 7:7-13). This intrusion, inversion, perversion, addition to what is written, this whole genre is certainly to "reject the commandment of God that you may keep your tradition" and a matter of "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition", as Christ there declares.

Indeed, that is the end of the whole concept of tradition without more ado. The traditions of men are merely the provision either 1) of extraneous presumption, putting the will of man into the word of God, or beside it or 2) the clear and logically demonstrable presentation of what is actually written. If the latter, it is however, not tradition but exposition. Exposition that is nothing else, nor does it add anything. THAT is precisely what man is permitted, no encouraged and directed to do with the word of God: ADD NOTHING (Proverbs 30:6).

PERSPECTIVE

The perspective is as always, the clout of truth, the invasion of reality, the transmission of the mind of God through the word, spoken and incarnate. In no case is there room for change; in each case, it is self-declarative. The room for man is zero (I John 2:27). Man may help; but he has no capacity to adorn the word of God with opinions. It was precisely the removal of such a possibility in the past, which is the ground for the confidence for the future. That is what is written. How rightly the Westminster Confession insists that ONLY what is written and what is necessarily implied is to be taken. NOTHING of dubiety, nothing of intrusion, incursion is permitted.

That is how the situation stands. God will not stand for those who stand in the way of the light, making themselves arbiters and authorities. ONE is the Master (Matthew 23:8-10), and ONLY one. Who is that One ? Why He is the very one whom Peter speaks of, before these verses, Jesus Christ,

"For He received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to Him from the excellent glory, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with Him in the holy mount. And so we have the prophetic word confirmed ..."

THAT is the conjunction of terms, of realities made by Peter. In each case the divine is made manifest, heard and is to be done. That is ALL there is to it. What then ? in the first case, Peter shows the divine transmission of the Son (to whom none may add so much as one iota), and in the other that of the written word (add not to His words, says Proverbs 30:6 lest you be found a liar!).

With GOD ONLY as your trust (Jeremiah 17), and His expression of His eternal word (Micah 5:1-3), in flesh as your Saviour (I Peter 1:18-19), and in the writing of your assured guide, the one specified by the apostle Peter: you are surrounded with certainties. Small wonder then Peter tells us that we are KEPT by the POWER of God (I Peter 1:1-5) to an inheritance that does not fade away! The word is sure, definitive, declarative, investing truth in the format for man, which gives utter assurance.

If you put anything else anywhere near it, no wonder you have trouble with Christian assurance.
A chain is only as sure as its weakest link. When the chain is commanded by God, there is NO room for doubt. No link is weak.

THEN you can go forth in the power and faith of God, and become partakers of the divine nature (II Peter 1:4), a cleansed creation, a victorious phalanx (I John 5:4), founded on the rock, on the work and person (Psalm 62), on the words of Christ (Matthew 7:24-29). Nothing, but nothing can touch you there. (Cf. SMR pp. 98-99).

Small wonder then that Christ declared, THEY SHALL NOT PERISH (John 10:9,27-28). When you are dealing with God, rather being dealt with BY Him, the options for failure in life are zero. His word is your guarantee, His work is your cover, His Spirit is your supply, His guardianship is your solace. And there ?

There is the peace which surpasses all understanding (Philippians 4:6-7), and in whom is it found ? In him, in her in whom God has "begun a good work" ^*4A, and having begun THAT work, will "perform it until the day of Jesus Christ" (Philippians 1:6). Thus it is that you look for Him in whom is your trust, according to HIS ONLY word, the one which bears His name, so that "He shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself". There is no dubiety. God has spoken^*5A.

THAT, it is the way it has to be. It is also the way it is. Any other way faces the NO WAY, GO BACK highway sign. Such a way is not on the highway of holiness on which a person, though a fool shall not go astray (Isaiah 35). The way of God, however, is PRECISELY THAT! It IS the way of faith, which accepts what is offered, and counts it done.

NOTES

*1A
I John 4:7-8 cf. SMR pp. 386ff., Spiritual Refreshings for the DIgital Millenium Ch. 9-12.

*2A
See: SMR pp. 580ff. excerpted below, 25ff., Repent or Perish Ch. 2, Barbs, Arrows and Balms 6-7, Spiritual Refreshings for the Biblical Millenium Ch. 16, Repent or Perish Ch. 2, Acme, Alpha and Omega Ch. 11), and Index, GOD His Freedom, His Integrity, Truth Inviolable.

*3A
Cf. Biblical Blessings Ch. 9, Appendix IV, Repent or Perish Ch. 2.

*4A
A GOOD work, as here stated, does remain. It is the trees which "My heavenly Father" has NOT planted which will be "uprooted"! (Matthew 15:13, Isaiah 61:3). On the brows of His people there is everlasting joy (Isaiah 51:11). These are those whom He has redeemed, with eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12). These, if it were possible might be seduced as in II Peter, by 'interpreters' of the word of God who do not bother to KEEP to it. However, it is NOT POSSIBLE (Matthew 24:15). These are "the elect", chosen in Him before all time (Ephesians 1:4), purchased and kept (Romans 5:9-11), and indeed serviced (Hebrews 12:4-13). See Red Alert ... Ch. 7, The Biblical Workman Ch. 2,

*5A
For a biblical doctrine on its own status, see SMR Appendix D. For the relationship of this to its proven character, see SMR Ch. 1.

57) I John 5:7-8.

It appears Erasmus inserted these in response to some kind of challenge or contest. They have no ground for inclusion in the Bible.

Indeed, the NKJV in its rejection entirely of these verses from the testimony of the Bible is the one attested quite clearly by the manuscripts. I John 5: 7-8. To be sure, all but incredibly, it does print the unattested words that are here found in the AV, but at least it clearly shows how the texts are far from supporting this, in its note at the foot of the page. In fact, it notes "only four or five very late manuscripts contain these words." There are hundreds of manuscripts, some very early. On this topic, see Ch. 1 of On Biblical Translations, near its outset.

58) Revelation 13:12-15

Let us take on the other hand the sheer marvel that is the Bible, and consider yet one more illustration of its precision and wit. Thus in Revelation 13, there is a question. IS the bestial political-financial apparatus, the last of its kind, the empire-making, world-dominating example par excellence, to actually PLACE on the forehead of ALL (not killed) the mark of this, 'the beast' ? If you read some translations, you might think this, but in use in this chapter for 'making' things happen, are two Greek constructions, in some ways alternatives, but here the differentiation is significant; they are not the same and their point is reflected in the context, in the way they diverge. It is in fact remarkable that in so short a passage, in fact over the space of 4 verses, these constructions are used at different points.

Thus there is in Greek a distinction which should be translated into differentiation in the English. In Rev. 13:14 there is the verb to do, make or cause, with the infinitive: the evil entity causes them to make an image. That is to be done, will be done, is done. He caused it to be, and it is.

Very well, it is simple cause with adequate power, and effect with certain accomplishment: cause and effect, that is in view. This image is certainly going to be constructed.

However a different construction is used in the Greek in Revelation 13:12, for there he causes, as before, but causes that they might. It is a different construction, the conjunction of purpose and the subjunctive, not a simple infinitive as above. English to some extent provides the same option. Thus one might say, I caused them to do this. This is clear. You did it. They did it, and the reason was that you made them do it. However, you might instead say, in a different situation, I decreed, ordered, appointed that this should be done. If you are omnipotent, as you are not, it is clear that it will happen. If you are not, and no mere man is, then it is clear that this is your intention, or even decree, appointment, requirement; yet what happens depends, it all depends on your power and that of those for whom your purpose (the conjunction in Greek is one of purpose). Whether or not they try to resist or circumvent your decision, decree or determination, your purpose is one thing, and that is another. How successful it might be, that is a third component of the situation. Thus Rev. 13:13 could read: " ... and ordains that the earth and those who dwell in it should worship the first beast ..." or something similar to grasp the quality of the matter carefully.

Thus in the cases of Revelation 13:12 and 13:15, this is an edict, not a mere effectual power to get it done. He makes it to be that this should happen, he makes an edict, declares, requires and so on, is the sense of it. He will not of course get it, for we KNOW that there are many who will refuse, for AS MANY as caught are to be killed, if they decline; as in Rev. 13:15. In this verse, this also, it is a not case of simple cause and effect; but with that same subjunctive, the meaning provides the sense of edict, declaration and determination, that it might be done.

It is neither more nor less than Hitler's approach to the Jew: the Jew was to be slaughtered; and yet not all were slaughtered, for some escaped detection, with foreign aid, with Swedish cleverness, with Dutch resistance and so on, and were never able to be confronted, because not found, so that the result of investigation was irrelevant. That never occurred, because they were not caught. They escaped the net, ordained! The application of the edict, quite simply, was in those cases thwarted.

Now you may wonder what is the point of this distinction, that would interest us. First, then, it is the point in that the AUTHOR decided to write it that way, making the difference between the grammatical construction in Rev. 13:14 and 13:12 and 13:15. It is always important if you want to understand the mind of someone expressing himself, to know what he says, is it not ? Such variation in so small a compass cannot be overlooked; it is not a question of stylistic conformity, but non-conformity, and the cases in question precisely reflect this fact.

Thus the IMAGE is CAUSED TO BE, but the death sentence and the homage is DECREED that it might be. There is the essential difference, one pointed out in Thayer's Greek dictionary concerning the use of the word here translated 'cause', its various translations into English, and the effect of various grammatical constructions; and it includes this one of purpose which we have noted, allowing such translations as 'appoint, ordain'. Such is seen also in Mark 3:14, where Christ ordains disciples that they might proceed in a certain way. That is the same construction as the one we have noted in Revelation 13:12 and 13:15.

When a mere man appoints or ordains, however, not the Son of God but the child of Satan, it is one thing to ordain and another to force it to happen. THAT, as we have seen, it depends on the power, and the escape routes available. Death is the barrier which some pass; escape is the other possibility as in all dictatorships.

Hence, it is by no means sure that there are but two classes of persons at that time, and in this respect: those who DIE and those who BOW. MANY may escape, no doubt a small percentage, but with many billions of men around, even 0.1%, say of 8 billion, would be 8 million, and one tenth of one per cent is a VERY small percentage!

Hence when the Lord returns, as you see happen in Revelation 19, after the destruction of 'Babylon'^*3A, that great satanic, unspiritual sop to this world and bastion for the betrayal of the saints (in Revelation 17-18 there is recorded the sudden calamitous devastation of what had for so long endured, with its hideous incorporation of the evil birds, as they are called, of the earth), certain things now follow.

There will be many with the Lord's Christ (Luke 2:26), the Lord Jesus Christ when He comes, including who lost their lives to the work of the bestial political power, and religious power, with its IMAGE; for these are part of the "all His saints" which are so directed as we see in II Thessalonians 3:13, at His coming. There will therefore also be many who have died throughout all ages in Christ (I Thessalonians 4 shows their abstraction from this earth), and there will be ALL whom He has taken to Himself, according as it has been predestined, a fact the Westminster Confession rightly exposes when dealing with those who die young, or similarly by extension, are intellectually 'challenged' and the like.

That is the first and blessed resurrection, that which is part of the coming of the Lord for His 'elect' as in Matthew 24. It is (cf. Bible Translations 4, number 32) those beheaded AND those who have not worshipped the image of the beast, this the culmination of many prototypes over the Ages! (Revelation 20:4).

When is it to occur, in terms of sequence ? Christ in Matthew 24:15, in a setting of the 'end of the Age' and moving on till a 'then' which is the greatest tribulation to that time, and the point that unless He returned then, no flesh could be spared, shows that there is a pointer which shows a veritable climax of evil and horror is at hand. What is the pointer here in view ? It is this: that when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, STANDING IN THE TEMPLE, then flee from the environment.

This of course is what was given a preview in Antiochus Ephiphanes, as in Daniel 8's prediction; but it has its counterpart in the little horn of Daniel 7:8 (the same phrase is seen in Daniel 8:9), whose evil work was fulfilled in his placement of what is not God in the temple of God, an element for worship (cf. Biblical Blessings Chs. 1 and 2).

This figure is given more data in II Thessalonians 2, where it given the name 'man of sin', who is seen there parading himself, showing himself that he is god, in the temple. Now in that passage, it is made clear that his DOING THAT, that is, making of himself a god, apotheosis by desire if you like, occurs after what RESTRAINS is removed out of the way. The accelerator rushes the vehicle of evil in the domain of history, to its climacteric horror, when the brakes, what restrains, are removed! And what is it that DOES restrain except the power of God, but since that cannot be removed, what is meant ?

What is removed goes with the saints from the scene, at their call out of it, to Christ, at their summons from this terrestrial scene, to the wedding of the Lamb (Revelation 19:8). How can it be declared ? It is of course the power of the Spirit of God that dwells in the lives of His saints, salt in the earth, refusing to bow to the idolatries of man's fallen lusts, their testimony of valiant witness and freely poured out blood, a hindrance that shouts and echoes in the minds of the masters of tyranny.

It is this that is removed. It is this that until then, restrains! Now all restraint gone, the malignant apotheosis proceeds to its delight, and its swiftly following doom!

How is this removed ? It is removed with the saints whose bodies, in whom the Spirit dwells for such work, are removed at the call of Christ, whose summons comes with the words, "Come up here"!^*3Bas in Revelation 11, whose power resounds with the trumpet, when the dead are raised incorruptible, and this mortal puts on immortality (I Corinthians 15).

What is the name for that ? It is commonly called 'the Rapture' (in terms of Matthew 24:27ff,(, or the 'first resurrection' (Revelation 20), and means simply what Christ prescribed when He calls His elect from the four winds, and gathers them from the world (as also seen in I Thess. 4). It is indeed a rapturous thing, in both senses of the term, for the rejoicing of deliverance follows an immersion in the smog of spiritual corruption, growing constantly deeper, like that from the burning, physically, of rubber tyres. Just as that became appalling, so does the summons to the Creator's reception evoke delight!

When does this occur in terms of the dynamics of the evil powers gathering in their storm ?

From Matthew 24 we learn that when the man of sin STANDS in the temple, the end is at hand. When he SHOWS himself^*4, or decrees, as very likely would be the parallel performance, assigning a role of deity for himself, perhaps as the ultimate representative of man in his self-idolatrising way: then the people of God are already REMOVED, but only for a time.

The absence of their 'braking effect' led to the stunning speed of the spiritual insanity of the 'man of sin' (II Thessalonians 2:4ff). After their 'wedding' in heaven (Rev. 19:8), fitted with linen white, that is washed in the blood of the Lamb (Revelation 7:13-14, 19:8-14) , they come with Christ as He desolates the wickedness of the false prophet, the beast and in dazzling truth, destroys the false glory of the man of sin (as in II Thessalonians 1).

These then are some of the features of the sequence, let us return to the matrix of events itself when the Lord and His saints return to this earth. Let us consider the earth when Christ, having withdrawn His elect from the ultimate turmoil, comes with them, in that season when the apostles are to have their thrones (Matthew 19:28), and the earth is to be filled with the knowledge of the glory of God as the waters cover the sea (Isaiah 2, Habakkuk 2:14).

59) Revelation 19:8

§ And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and brighnt, for the fine linen is the righteousnesses of the saints.

The chief NKJV failure is in Revelation 19:8. Why this is so and what to do about it, and the whole situation in the Biblical context, broad and narrow, is covered in Chapter 1 of this volume (pp. 13-44 supra, on pp. 33ff.) . Suffice here to say that the KJV "righteousnesses" is better by far, than the NKJV. It is plain dealing like this which is one ground of attraction for the AV.

60) Revelation 20:4

§ "I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded
because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God,
and those who had not worshipped the beast or his image,
and had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand;
and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years."

Revelation 20:4 is an interesting case. BOTH the NKJV AND the AV do an inadequate work in translation here; though in this case, the NASV, The American Revised Version and the English Revised Versions do well. The NIV is all but unbelievable in its change of the text in this case, being even less accurate to the original than the AV and the NKJV. This therefore represents a case where NEITHER the AV nor the NKJV have an accurate readout; but two famous revisions do have it right; and this is most exceptional indeed. If it were not important, one could ignore it, but it has repercussions which make it worth while attending to it.

The case is this. The NASV rightly puts:

"I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded
because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God,
and those who had not worshipped the beast or his image,
and had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand;
and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years."

However, the AV has "that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped"; while the NKJV has this: "who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshipped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands." In the English 'translation', this allows for a double condition for those present: that is, they BOTH had been beheaded and had not worshipped... They are a selection of the saints.

The Greek, however, has a participial phrase for the first set, "souls of those who had been beheaded" and then in the second reference, that is to the group "who had not worshipped", instead of a parallel participial phrase, it uses a finite verb and notes "and those who had not worshipped". It is not only a grammatical change, one which designates this group clearly and pointedly; it is a clear and simple assertion. These people were present.

Indeed, the verb for "saw" has three objects:

1) the thrones, near to it;
2) the souls as quoted above; and
3) those who did not do homage.

These are what he saw, ending in the "and" for the last one. The "souls" are further defined in terms of a genitive participial phrase "of the having been beheaded people". The third category is further detailed by a further clause, with a finite verb, indicating what they had not done. The selected grammatical architecture preserves clarity.

The term used relative to "had not worshipped", oitines, thus is "all those who". The plural of ostis, it represents a bald recital of a group in question, exhaustively. ALL THOSE WHO HAD NOT WORSHIPPED have something predicated of them. They were present entirely, as a group, at this time. That is? In other words, this is the first resurrection, that of those beheaded, just as also of those not worshipping the beast. They are ALL there. The bridesmaids who were asleep, certainly, are not there (Matthew 25); but those who were awake with hearts burning, they were ALL there. To the wedding they have gone (Revelation 19:8), to be clothed with the robes sparkling white with the washing of the blood of the Lamb (as defined in Revelation 1:5, 7:14), and their righteousnesses (as stated - see End-Note *2 in Section 1, pp. 161ff.) are both a donation and enveloping (cf. Appendix 4, The Biblical Workman).

Berkeley puts this well re Matthew 22, where the parable of the wedding guest WITHOUT his proper clothes is told, and he is REMOVED to a dire fate. He indicates that the rejected guest had failed to use the grace provided, and had depended on his own presentability! Quite contrary is the covering and glory of the saints as declared in Isaiah 61:10, I will rejoice - nay!

"I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for He has clothed me with the garments of salvation, He has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels."

The imputed righteousness and all its glories, as perfected in and by Christ, untouched by the hand of man, cleaned with the holiness of eternity, covers the bride. It is a righteousness wanted, washed and worn, without trace of unacceptability because with no trace of human production. The savour of Christ, the satisfaction of Christ, His thrust and working in us both to will and to do: it is all there in its grand beauty, with no derivative of the flesh at all.

With Christ come ALL the saints (Zechariah 14:5) while He comes to be admired in all those who believe (II Thessalonians 1:10), with Him as His own bride.

These then are they, who are noted in Revelation 20:4: there is no limitation. The categories are comprehensive. The entire course of the beast is before us; those dying in Rome’s first manifestation like those in later days. Now let us examine the category of those who had NOT done this homage to the beast, more thoroughly.

Who then has not so worshipped ? The beast as we see in Daniel, has multiple representatives, indeed beasts of a type are so homogeneous spiritually, that they are composed into one body in the symbolism of Daniel 2, while put in separate carnal convulsions and convolutions, in the beast parade of Daniel 7. The last beast, the fourth of Daniel 7 is as noted in SMR, the partly strong and partly broken Roman body that stretched from imperial Rome to Holy Roman Empire to later assortments, and it has its supportive dragon with lamb's clothing, and its 'female' adornment (Revelation 17:6). But where is the beginning of the thing ?

Moving back in Daniel's imagery, we find in Daniel 7, that the pictogram given him was an historical device to relay and relate to a series of imperial world dominions, and as also shown in SMR, and explicit in Daniel, these are shown from Babylon on. We move then back to Babylon, the head of gold in Daniel 2.

Babylon however did not spring from nowhere. In its denunciation at great length and with that same magnificent sweep of historical power which we find from the lips of the Lord in the Bible, we find partly in Jeremiah 50-51 and partly in Isaiah 13, its own place in the scheme of things. Its lofty self-assurance, its failure to have any compunction in being used as a broom of the Lord to sweep out the dirt of Jerusalem and Judah, is linked to its partial namesake Babel, where this same disregard of divine things was no less apparent. Thus we read in Jeremiah 51:53-54:

"Though Babylon were to ascend up to heaven,
And though she were to fortify the height of her strength,
Yet from Me plunderers would come to her," says the Lord.
The sound of a cry comes from Babylon,
And great destruction from the land of the Chaldeans,
Because the Lord is plundering Babylon
And silencing her loud voice..."

Just as Babel was indeed to "ascend up to heaven" in its heedless and reckless haste to divine honours or power or survey or situation (Genesis 11), and the Lord engineered its destruction because of its vapid and rapid grasping for a greatness which did not and could not so belong to it, so its namesake covered many religions, basked in grandeur and did not bother about the transgression of revelation involved in its empire-building spiritual enterprises, as rash and brash as the current internationalising of religion which goes on apace in the UN, in the "international community" and in the hearts of many who, though they may inhabit churches, make so fast and loose with the Bible that they seem but a convenient way-station for building into the heavens themselves, from which pathetically some look in the mere created universe, for celestial messages!

The spirit of Babel and of Babylon is alive and as sick as ever, but strong in its throes for the time as predicted; and many have been those who have worshipped there throughout all history from the first; but those who have NOT so worshipped and have not taken such a mark, the whole company of the elect throughout history, "all the saints" (I Thessalonians 3:13, cf. Zechariah 14:5, Deuteronomy 33:2-3^*2), they will be there, fresh from the marriage feast of the Lamb (Revelation 19), where as "his wife" (19:8) they have been regaled by His regality. The cloud of witnesses (Hebrews 12:1), which sums up the vast review of history in Hebrews 11, where the FAITH has been seen with arms and legs, at work, will indeed witness. (Cf. SMR p. 1031C, and SMR Index, 'Babylon the Great'.)

But let us ask this further question. What of those who at ANY time worshipped the beast? Would that be fatal, unrepentable? Whether or not a worship of the beast is deemed to be (and therefore is) fatal, that is to say, an element in the unforgivable sin, or whether the concept is the normal one that sins repented of are dismissed (and that this could be repented of) is not stated.

However in the absence of anything to the point here, it would seem invasive to assume there is a special case here when it is not mentioned. Presumably therefore, it is as in Ezekiel 18:21. If someone heeds the warning of the watchmen, though he were appointed to very death, if he repents and turns, he is forgiven, and this sin will not be remembered. As both Old and New Testaments put it, "I will remember their sins no more", or as Micah says, "You will cast their sins into the depths of the sea".

In fact, of course, this is a universal statement for this world, it is a principle plenipotentiary. However, WOULD any such person repent? We do not know. There is no assurance that this is an exceptional, once-gone-never-repent case.

What is quite certain is this: those not so engaged are present. This is quite simply the assemblage of the church of Jesus Christ present in the millenium. It is not some special paratroop corps only. The book of Revelation is not a development of difference here, but provides expression in most salient and solemn terms sufficient to arouse the due circumspection of dabblers in the depths of the follies of this earth as its rigor mortis sets in, at the last days, now coming upon us like a mist from the sea.

On Rev. 20:4 see also Sparkling Life in Jesus Christ Ch. 10,*2, which deals further with the topic.

61) Revelation 22:14

§ "Blessed are those who keep His commandments,
that they may have authority for the tree of life,
and enter through the gates into the city"

Of great interest in the text for Revelation 22:14. It is the fact that the two major offerings that have been transmitted are so vastly different that we have here a crux for contemplation. We show the rendering here, give the reasons at length. In effect, the above in one sense incorporates the other, once it is understood in total biblical context.

One rendering, appearing in the NKJV and the AV (1),
unlike the case in the NIV,
English Revised Version, Berkeley, the American Standard Version of 1901
and the New American Standard Version (2), is this:

§"Blessed are those who keep His commandments,
that they may have right to the tree of life,
and enter through the gates into the city" (1).

The case for those mentioned second above (2) results in the rendering:

"Blessed are those who wash their robes,
that they may have right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city."

The word for 'right' signifies AUTHORITY! It is an absolute mandate.
THAT is found ONLY in Christ as in Romans 3:23ff., Ephesians 2:1ff., Titus 3:5ff., Romans 5, John 10, 6:51ff., I Thess. 5:9-10. It is at HIS APPOINTMENT and not at our provision. He ONLY is Saviour (Ephesians 1:1-12), and any endeavour to synthesise this with the poor and imperfect efforts of the flesh is not so much an error as a different religion (Isaiah 53-55, Psalm 51, Romans 5:9-11, 10).

PRELIMINARIES

It is interesting that the famed Dean Alford in his very conscientious textual apparatus for the New Testament, also chooses (2). He notes of this that Athanasius (the famed controversialist for the trinity, against Arianism in the 4th century), along with Vulgate and Ethiopian, with such mss. as A and a are here ranged against others supporting the reading he does not choose. These include such items such as the mss. B, the Coptic, Syriac, Tertullian, Cyprian.

Also we find that (2) also has a wide selection of Italian versions, varied of the early Church 'fathers', and various notable mss.. That discriminating translator, Weymouth, also has (2), rendering "who wash their robes clean", while the notable Amplified New Testament has "those who cleanse their garments" and J.B. Phillips has "who wash their robes." The Vulgate adds "in the blood of the lamb." The following additional early church notables are also cited as supporting (2): Athanasius (373 AD), Fulgentius (533 AD), Apringius (551 AD), Primasius (552 AD), a 6th century Ambrose and Haymo (841 AD).

This official UBS text also puts in (2) as the resolution, not (1), but indicates that Coptic testimony is from different sources, on both sides, whilst more than one Syriac, including the Harkleian is for (1), and with this the record of the famed 046.

This array is interesting, but not surprising when further criteria are regarded.

The considerations are mixed; but especially strongly in favour of (2) is the very MIXED and highly DIVERSIFIED sources of testimonies from many ages. It is to be confessed however that in this case, varied indeed is the alternative textual testimony as we see above, and not few are the 'fathers' who attest it.

To this must now be allied a further pair of considerations. The metaphor, spiritual pageant or in fact doctrinal declaration inscribed in the clause "wash their robes" which appears in essence both in Rev. 7 and Rev. 1, is strongly at peace with the normal phrasing and teaching therefore of the apostle. It is not only what he teaches; it is actually what HE SAYS!

It is more even than this. The alternative in (1) is not so much at variance with his doctrine: prima facie, it might even appear to be in stark and elaborate confutation of it. The redemption of the Lamb (5:9), the glory of Him whose blood allows washing, the clean and fine linen of the saints which knows no degree when they appear in HIS own presence (Rev. 19): all these are matters of the utmost simplicity.

HE washed us from our sins in His own blood as Rev. 1:5 expressly tells us and it is HE who has MADE us priests and kings. THIS FOLLOWS FROM THE WASHING, AND IS NOT ATTAINED, BUT DONATED (Rev. 1:5-6). The water of life, accordingly, in Rev. 22:17, up to the very end, is not sold but given as was the case from the first (Isaiah 55), where there is even EXPOSTULATION on the spending of wages for nought, when the free gift was available without money and without price. Eternal life is a gift (Romans 6:23). It is the blood which makes white; not the sweat. That is what this Book says!

To make war on this direct teaching, and make OBEDIENCE the ground for reaching heaven as a RIGHT is at war with John, with Revelation and with Paul, with Christ and with the prophets. It is not merely the folly of such a concept; it is the species of aggravation: it is by this as a RIGHT! Such is the plea of those in Matthew 7:21ff., and Romans 10 who go about to maintain and secure their own righteousness. This is a gift as we see in Romans 5:17. You receive abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness.

This is the total emphasis of John and Paul alike. Isaiah pours coals on the vagrant concept: "All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6). Indeed, he declares, "All OUR righteousnesses are as filthy rages"! What then of himself ? He himself was cleansed by direct divine action (Isaiah 6), and it is He who writes, "with His stripes we are healed". It is not our aches but His stripes which give us authority to enter in (cf. John 1:12, 5:24, 10:9,27-28). While the ministers or servants of God burn like a flame of fire as the Psalmist tells us, it is not this which makes them so: it is because they are His servants that they so burn (cf. Matthew 7:18). They are made so, with the gift of righteousness, with the regeneration as new equipment (hardware if you will) and the Spirit of the living God upon them to drive and refine, while the blood covers (Romans 3:25).

Moreover Christ in Matthew 20:28, we find, gave Himself as providing the epitome of service, and the nature of the service was this: to RANSOM. Now a slave does not gain ground for his new, and free premises as a RIGHT from obedience! Someone washed in the very blood of another does not have right of redemption and reception in it, by his own OBEDIENCE!

It is thus clear that the text "wash their robes" is in agreement with the Johannine, Pauline and Isaianic; it is of the core and thrust of Revelation likewise in terms of access to Christ and authority to be His with all the spiritual graces and gifts involved in that simple fact (cf. I Cor. 3:21-23, Romans 8:32 in context 8:29-39). Its alternative in this function of authority to enter the kingdom "keeping the commandments" , as supplied, prima facie seems the precise contrary, like a student making a caricature of his teacher in a fit of outrageous humour.

These considerations, in the light of the enormous cleavage in meaning of the two texts (1) and (2) would appear to make the choice easy. What then might be thought ? Someone at some point corrupted the text. It is blatant and extreme, derelict of all consonance with the Bible, the apostle or the book of Revelation. It was a vast intrusion; but the alternative is strongly attested in church 'fathers', early versions, translations and decisively in the clash or consonance consideration.

It is war, like D-day, or it is peace. It is contradiction or it is normalcy. It is the teaching of the apostle or it is a riot!

However, the reading of the Majority Text, as presented for example in the Second Edition of "The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text", from Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad (1985) is NOT to this effect. It provides (1) and not (2), commandments and not robes.

It is a clear, categorical index to "keep His commandments". Hence the AV and the NKJV, not unusually as one, both in the interstices of the majority text in the Greek, likewise here both follow this finding. For them, it is (1).

Accordingly, one must consider afresh what may be the implication, a little more deeply.

One can see the stress that might have been felt by some, but must now look at some other elements in the word of God to enlighten us on this point. Has the contrast between these two matters been adequately presented above ? That is the question. Have two possible understandings been merged, and has the actual intent of the text been lost, so making it appear unacceptable when an alternative reading is at least available.

Has not the GROUND of salvation been conflated with the AUTHORITY FOR ENTRY ? No indication is given that this entry is what saves. Salvation precedes it and entry pass if you will, is the inalienable privilege of those who, being His, love His word.

Thus in Isaiah 26:2-3 we find this: "Open the gates, that the righteous nation that keeps the truth may enter in. You will keep him in peace, peace, whose mind is stayed on You, because He trusts in You." This provides gates. This has entry! This is parallel to Revelation 22:14. Indeed "the righteous nation which keeps the truth" is highly parallel to the keeping of commandments characterisation in Revelation!

Here in context the question is one of a refuge and emplacement, following the destruction of the wicked featured, in Isaiah 25; and the provisions are for the righteous, the people of God made righteous by HIM (Isaiah 25:7-8, 53:10-11, Jeremiah 23:6, Zechariah 3:9, Isaiah 28:16, Zechariah 3:4, Isaiah 61:10, Romans 5:17), those already His. It is not how you BECOME a child of God, but what BECOMES OF YOU when you are that is before us here! It is not evangelisation but placement which is in view. That then fits our present situation in Revelation 22:14, and in its negative side, 22:15, which is the precise opposing parallel, speaking of those immersed and immured in their sins, sovereign over them, defined in defiance, dead in trespasses, OUTSIDE.

To provide a REFUGE and emplacement for the people already those of God, and to give a ground for such transmutation, indeed conversion and salvation: these are two things wholly different. Here in Isaiah the entry into the city is in view, in terms of who is who: some are in fact sheep by this time, and some remain goats. So is the situation as in Matthew 25:31-46, of this kind, where all nations are seen gathered before Christ Jesus; and according to their already established nature, bred in Christ or outside Him, so is the RESULT.

That is precisely as in Revelation 22:14 in its context with 22:15, sheep and goats.

The REASON for the pardon and the change, it is the blood of Christ, never the keeping of commandments. However, are we TOLD that it is the basis of the redemption or the nature of the regeneration which makes each what and who he or she is ? or rather that we have an evidence or attestation for it ? Is this before us in Rev. 22, the way the righteous enter or the way they are redeemed ?

Certainly not the latter, any more than being a sheep in Matthew 25, is the GROUND for salvation, rather than its quite obvious expression. You are born again, a sheep, if you will, then with a ticket of truth in Christ, a gladsome bell about your neck, placed there in the fulness of His favour, you enter.

Consider a football match. Tickets are first bought, only then presented. The ticket is by no means the ground for your being able to enter, but its testimony. Well-planted orange trees of sound genetic structure ('born again' is the parallel, God IMPARTING this Himself at conversion as in Titus 3:3-7) provide the basis, and having eternal life is the CONSEQUENCE. Thus in the case of oranges, the nature of the fruit it is which attests what they are, but this does NOT provide for their acquisition of this new nature or before that, their initial planting! These fruits are mere results.

It is not, then, the case that evidence of fruit that is the ground of entry of the tree into the orange orchard; it is the consequence. Trees seen are tagged in terms of what they show themselves to be. HOW they became what they are, is the horticultural equivalent of regeneration, the planting of the Lord from His own stock.

When the trees are considered, it is not hard to see which have oranges, when you know what oranges LOOK like! (cf. Luke 6:46). To an orange tree, you do not continually cry in vain, BE an orange, look like an orange, possess juice! However poor an orange may be, and however few may be the fruit on some, orange trees HAVE this fruit BY NATURE. Never and in no way in any part of the Book of the Lord is there attested a type of tree that plants itself in this field, whether in Isaiah 61:3 where they are the PLANTING OF THE LORD, or in Romans 6, where we are planted with Him. It is not the oranges which plant the trees, but the planting of what are FIRST made into orange trees, which produces oranges. THAT change into the tree type, it is the work of God as in John 3, and no one else, for these are "born of the Spirit" who blows where He will.

Here likewise, it is not the keeping of commandments which is the ground of salvation, as John continually attests in Revelation as in 1:5, 6:11, 7:14-15 and so on, but the atonement of Christ. Notice in particular that in 7:14-15, NOT ONLY are those found in the blessed and eternal presence of the Lamb the ones who "have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb", for that is only half the story. The rest ? It is FOR THIS REASON, that they are before the throne of God in such a blessed condition. The washing was the ground of their condition, position and eternal life.

Thus, in verse 15, we read: "THEREFORE are they before the throne of God, and swerve Him day and night ... they shall hunger no more ..." It is in such sites as I John 3:9, normative living in sanctity, that we see the results; and in I John 1:7ff., that we see another, the absence of delusion that being in Christ is the same as being anything in danger of being confused with sinlessness.

Sin's sovereignty is one thing; its presence is another. Pandemonium is one thing; imperfection is another. For all that, rebellion as you see in Jonah's case is far from normative, and is sure to be challenged and chastened as in Hebrews 12.

The ground of being a child of God ? It is provision of blood (Romans 3:28, Galatians 6:14). The consequence ? you practice righteousness (I John 5:4, 3:10). The entry in Rev. 22:14 ? for those so endued.

Let us look at the latter:

"In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil:
whosoever does not practise righteousness is not of God,
neither he who does not love his brother."

Here, then, in conformity with this biblical teaching in general and that in the writings through John in particular, we find the sure result. Revelation 22:14 ? it is not the ground for BEING of this character that is stated, but the attestation of that nature. It is not the securing of salvation but its expression in recognisable results which is in view. These attest, but before this, the change is wrought when God invests the sinner to secure for him or her, the salvation which is free and functional.

This is in this overall context no more than saying that recognisable reality is required. Farcical fabrications are neither those of the redeemed, nor functional for fruit. Orange trees have oranges, not lemons; sheep have wool, not hair. Christians are producers of good fruit, not fraudulent substitutes. They are not all loaded, but none is an alien who produces a life of a divergent kind. If they sin, they repent; if they err, they are corrected, if they err greatly, they are disciplined as indeed was David, and if they are TOLD to confess, they do. In all this, they are as friends of God, children of the Almighty, brothers of Christ, acting in His kingdom by faith through grace, and installed not in solemn farce but transforming fact.

Goats have little beards; sheep do not. Goats are good at acting the goat; sheep do not naturally take to such antics. Their ways attest them; but as to the creatures themselves, God MAKES them. THAT is what makes them what they are, doing what they do. So here: God takes the sinner and makes the saint, the latter still far from perfect, but by NATURE aware of Him, awake to Him, girded by Him, educated in spirit by Him, surrounded with strength of spirit and wisdom of heart, by Him, led by Him (Romans 8:16). Indeed this last is a perfectly general proposition asserted of those who belong to Christ.

Let us stress that Revelation 22:15, the very next verse, on this perspective, fits to perfection, noting as if in due antithesis of the former statement in verse 14, that "outside are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murders, and idolaters; and whosoever loves and makes a lie."

Here the very profuseness of the itemisation of those outside, fits as a match in the negative, to those who do enter. That opposite category who have no place, it is enumerated as we see above, with zeal! Beyond this, is the "for" at the head of v. 15. BLESSED are those who are His, who in short have in character and in essence departed from iniquity as in II Timothy 2:19, and who enter; BECAUSE OUTSIDE are those whose hearts are torn in iniquity, not born into the truth. That is a compelling consideration.

Indeed, it is this very point which makes the comparison with Matthew 7:20-21 apt. There someone is wanting ENTRY and is DENIED it on the ground that such a person has not done the WILL OF GOD. Good trees have good fruit, said Christ in Matthew 7, Sermon on the Mount. What however, someone may ask, can this have to do with the issue: Does the keeping of the commandments allow ENTRY ?

To this the answer is already established: it is not the GROUND of salvation that is in view, but it is the occasion of entry which must be understood. Not here is the buying of the soul in redemption, but the badge that betokens that it is fitting for these ones, already redeemed, to enter. Sheep wool shows sheep, unlike the more wiry and sparse hair of goats. We are not here concerned with HOW they got to be what they are, but how they show it.

Certainly, I John 5:2 declares this: "By this we know that we love that children of God, that we love God and keep His commandments". Nor is this given as a substitute for such love, as if loving God and keeping His commandments were some kind of celestial substitute for life one earth; but it comes as the way of expression of what is divinely desired. Indeed, says John 5:3, "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments, and His commandments are not burdensome." There is nothing hypothetical here.

CORRELATIONS IN JOHN

It appears timely now to pursue FURTHER the concept of correlations with this teaching in John.

Thus in I John 3:21-23 and 5:1-5 we have this:

"Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment."

"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?"

The emphasis is added here to depict the point in view more readily. The commandments in question are

	a) not burdensome.
	b) in essence to believe in the name of Christ and love one another c) and as believing, it is summable as "believe that Jesus is the Christ," this being sufficient

   to ensure the regeneration, new birth, categorical change of status,
   as one of God's children, and of life,
   as renewed according to the image of Him
   who created us (Colossians 3:10).

To this is allied (I John 3), both assurance available
of such placement by grace, and the certainty of the blessed state to come.

In other words, believing in fact, and not in mere form, is an action-creating process, or better, an action correlative one (cf. SMR pp. 520 - 532, Deliverance from Disorientation Ch. 5), and the results are multiple, but the condition is one. In this sense, it is the exact correlative of washing your robes in the blood of Lamb, which you cannot do without faith in Him, and which as in Titus 3:3ff., results in being cleansed, regenerated and His. One textual version points it out directly, the other indirectly, but both bring up the point that the GOSPEL IS COMMANDED, CLEANSING and INDISPENSABLE.

Accordingly, the ultimate is to believe that Jesus is the Christ (not ponder, 'accept' or postulate! - faith is the sort you ACT on, and not the sort you use as a children's game of 'Let's pretend!'). From this comes victory over the world. This is obtained by those who believe that "Jesus is the Son of God", which is thus entirely parallel as an expression to "Jesus is the Christ".

Victory over this world is inseparably annexed to believing, just as believing is unable to be evacuated of results, those which accompany faith. The fact that some become so keen to wrap it all up, that they institute a Romanesque works additive, does nothing to alter the essential fact that this is CONTRARY to keeping His commandments (cf. Romans 3:23ff., Ephesians 2:1ff.), and an affront to His word, covenant and Lordship.

This DONATED victory (you can have a donation which is extremely hard in its energising and work within you, from God who works in you both to will and to do - as in Philippians 2) ensures that, with whatever David-style failure here or there, or Peter-like weakness at this point or that (they were honest, pardoned and cleansed) you do not indulge in the CONTRA-COMMANDMENT illusion of perfection (cf. Psalm 139:23-24). In fact, this is so important that we shall cite it:

"Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me,
and know my thoughts:
And see if there be any wicked way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting."

As I John tells us, if you think that, you merely deceive yourself! Deception, so far from being the keeping of a commandment, is its BREACH! In other word, the gracious, salvation by grace through faith New Covenant is a COMMAND, and it cannot be broken. You are not free to invent your own means of pardon or imaginary results. They are characterisable, but anything approaching perfection is not one of the characteristics, any more than is wanton, wilful, disregard of His word. A child may err; but when the adoption is a PERSONAL thing, and not a generation matter in history among mankind, then there is a SORT of tree, fruit, child, result; and it has these two features, assimilability to the ways of God, and continual need of washing and pardon for the errors which occur, but need never accrue.

Thus this FREE Gospel of grace (Ephesians 2:1-10, Romans 5:15) is one BY COMMAND, and in receiving HIM as commanded you acknowledge this. It is impossible for the devious creator of new christs, new gospels, new commandments and various oddities, since this is to defy the lordship of Christ who remonstrated as in Luke 6:46, WHY do you call Me Lord, Lord and NOT do the things that I say!

This "believe that... " is neither a matter of form nor one of burden. It is NOT grievous, burdensome. It is FAITH in HIM! It is not a matter of burdens placed on faith or additions to faith, which is characterisable as to its outcome, by God who tells us in Paul to judge nothing before the time (I Corinthians 4:1-4), and at the same time, when simple false doctrine is in view, false prophet material, adjoins us that we SHOULD know. What is indisputable relative to the word of God is not judging but application of that word; and in this, one must avoid presumption, which is as common as sand on this globe, and to be avoided as is that material in the eyes.

Thus, and in total accord in the writings accorded by the Lord to John, a regenerated heart is wrought by faith, so that believers in Him emphatically have eternal life (I John 5:11-12), and that is all there is to it, so long as you do not define faith anti-biblically as works, or symbol, or anything other than an active and assured trust in Him and in His integrity, and reliance on Him to do what He says and to be what He declares. In this faith, biblically defined, OF COURSE you act on it; and of course you are not perfect either, since it may be sullied or spoiled to some degree by fear or routine or other things, without - like your car which may get a bumper push somewhere - ceasing to be faith. In the end, you either do or do not trust Him, His word and His assurance. If you do, how do you trust someone else with something else! God is ONE!

So far then we have been considering the COVENANTAL approach to salvation, which inheres like a jewel in a casket, with the FAITH approach, since the faith is specified on the one hand for salvation, and the covenant specifies WHO HE IS in whom we are to believe, and what He has done. It is not some other Jesus (II Corinthians 11) or spirit or Gospel. It is this one, the COMMANDED one; it is this one, the FAITH operative one. It is this, the washing one; it is this, the directing to wash one. It is one.

Thus to doubt this eternal life through faith in Him is to doubt His assurances as in I John 5:11-12, 1:12, 5:24, John 10:9,27-28, Romans 5:1-11, and it comes back in the end to elemental acceptance of Him ass faithful who so assures. This is in no way to conclude that a sickness in this area is an absence of life; but it is to show that the normal life of faith is thus, and such is its inheritance.

Thus, in accord with all of this, John 1:12 tells us of the authority to become children of God, and it declares this to those who receive Him, the One just defined and declared, the Eternal God (there is one, not more cf. Psalm 82, 89:7), and as to the One there is, NONE IS LIKE HIM in character and power, none is comparable. To doubt this authority, or to defy His self-definition is the axe that removes all coming together. John 1:12 declares to the contrary, that there is not mere opening but AUTHORITY to become children of God where such faith in Him is to be found.

Accordingly those who so believe have AUTHORITY, in terms of Revelation 22:14, to enter the gate. They have kept the one all-sufficient command which leads to Him, to washing, to pardon, to adoption, to redemption, to assurance, to BELIEVE that He is the Christ, that He is the Son of God, and to believe IN HIM.

There is ONE channel for saving faith, and it is to HIM! There is ONE such Saviour and it is HE who came and is as declared to be, not another. There is one word of God, neither jot nor tittle BY HIS OWN WORD, can escape fulfilment, and this is the Bible as confirmed in the past and authorised in the future at the day of Jesus Christ.

Moreover, as I John 1 tells us, if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. "AND JUST ..." Indeed, Romans 3 tells us the very same thing, that the redemption that is in Christ Jesus is provided that God might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus. In both these two additional scriptures, we find that the JUSTICE being covered, it is by being JUST that He authorises our entry, who believe, into heaven. Payment is made, faith has received it, it is applied by the Holy Spirit, and the result cannot be otherwise BECAUSE He is just, and therein is the authority, the right to enter the gates. Jesus having paid, it is BY RIGHT, by the divine right of the Saviour that the believer enters in.

Man is to live by EVERY WORD which proceeds out of the mouth of God, and this is part of faith, to accept what He has said. It is rebellion against what He desires, not failure, it is removal of His will which makes it a fraud. In the end, many say this and that, but they seek Him and His word, to follow it as it is, and not as people would mangle it, which matters. It is not perfection but faith which is in view, and faith does not make perfect, but for submission to HIM, and not to men! (cf. Galatians 1:6-9). The commandments of the Lord (I Cor. 14:37), and the scriptures of the Lord (II Peter 3:16) are not for fun but for faith.

You cannot ADD to it, nor could you remove it, since it is His. Even a letter is what is given, and not some conflation with your own inspiration. Much more so is this with the word of the Lord, and with the book of the Lord (Isaiah 34:16). Small wonder that this same apostle John is so emphatic that you cannot take away from the WORDS he has given, or add to the THINGS! THIS is the end! Christ came, the word came and the word is closed. Precisely as in Deuteronomy 4 and 12, there is a beginning and an END. THIS Gospel and not some other is to circulate the globe till the end of HISTORY follows the END of the writing of the BOOK of the Lord! (Matthew 24:12).

Thus authority and washing are everywhere to be found: AUTHORITY in telling you in what to believe, and who He is, and washing, because you believe, which changes what you are, so that as His, though far from perfect, you know your way about ... His house! You respond to this in faith, obeying the command to repent and believe by the power and grace of God.

It is personal FAITH (I John 2:27) so that you do not confuse men with God! It is loving faith, so that you seek fellowship with those of like precious faith (Jude). You are able to KNOW that He is able to keep you from falling, for this is part of the COMMANDED word, and that He will not let you be tested too far, for this is another part (I Corinthians 10:13). You are aware that you will never perish since the Good Shepherd (if you are a Christian) is yours (John 10:9,27-28), and this is HIS COMMANDED WORD, that so it shall be. You trust Him.

You believe in Him as God incarnate, ransom of your life, bodily resurrected (Luke 24, I Cor. 15), conferring His eternal life on you (cf. I John 1:1-4, Romans 6:23), God eternal, given of grace and of eternal redemption, salvation, not in some variable entity of your or some other person's or body's creation! Christ is NOT and never WAS created, being God from the first, and in His very own, unique FORM as such (Philippians 2). HE is to be regarded to make His WORD and His GOSPEL clear; and this is precisely what He has done. He may test us with concerns which force us to think, and to understand more deeply, and what good teacher does not do this! It is good, and we grow, as Peter prescribed in II Peter 3:18! yes in grace and in knowledge.

THE TREE OF LIFE

Let us even add to all of this. The AUTHORITY in Revelation 22:14 is this: to have access to the tree of life. This tree is seen in Rev. 22:2, and it is MEANS and METHOD and GROUND for eternal life. As such it is Jesus Christ.

HOW do you have authority to the take PRODUCT of this tree, namely eternal life ("lest he should put out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, live for ever" - Genesis 3:22) ?

It was EXCLUDED to Adam because of his breach of fellowship and failure in the test of innocence; but it is NOW accorded to MANY (Matthew 26:28, Isaiah 53:9ff.), and to ANY who should, so to speak, stretch out his faith and take and eat (John 6:50ff., in the new ransom mode of access by sacrifice), the sin offering of Christ.

The authority is gained by obeying the joint commands, to repent (if not, nothing - Luke 13:1-13), so giving appetite and stomach to TAKE and receive the gift, by faith, and so have Christ as Redeemer, so living for ever. It is found by receiving the COMMAND not to substitute works of your own for His (Matthew 7:21ff., Romans 3:23ff., Ephesians 2:1-10), in whole or in part, of this or that 'part' of you, since it is ALL YOU, and any work of yours is excluded! and by taking the gift of grace THROUGH grace (Romans 5:15), so that neither in its substance nor in its mode of giving is there ANYTHING of merit or superiority or contribution of relevance to distinguish you whatsoever. It is NOT of the will of the flesh, period! (John 1:12 cf. Marvels of Predestination ... Ch. 3).

Thus and not in some autonomous way, you EAT the sin sacrifice by faith, and so have eternal life.

SO you enter the city, since by THEN you are HIS, and are COVERED, and it is a citizenship which of course is conferred by belonging to the King of the City.

	Then, being born again of Christ (as in John 3, by the power of the Spirit, as also in John 16, and through His conviction dynamic),
	you are given a new nature (as WHAT, being born again, is born of GOD),
	so that while still decidedly imperfect (I John 1), the recognition of which is also by COMMAND there,
	you are equally decidedly NOT, as a matter of fact -
	by your new heredity and new connection to "Christ in you, the hope of glory" - Col. 1:27) -
	under the domineering dominance of sin
	but set free (John 8:31-36, Romans 6).

Then, so constrained by the command which makes the altered and UNALTERABLE GOSPEL (Galatians 1:6-9, 3, 5), and not imagining that having started in the power of the Spirit you may continue somehow to wrest something from the 'law' of your own works, as Paul so clearly shows in Galatians 3, 5, you proceed as a son of the house, in the house, abiding in spirit and in principle, and in essential character in the rules of the house which holiness becomes.

If you DO fall into any sin, at any time, then you have now an ADVOCATE, Jesus Christ the righteous as your Barrister (I John 2:1ff.), and you are acquitted; for having heeded His word and believed in Him who sent Him, you HAVE eternal life (if it finished, you would never have had it, for it is one which is resulting in His acting, saying, "He will live forever", even for one of whom it is said, he ate of the body, with no statement of continuity as in John 6:50-51.

Moreover, such a one is such that he "will not die" for he "does not come into condemnation" and "has passed from death to life" (John 5:24). Naturally (John 6:53), the one who receives Him in sacrificial atonement draws always on His provision; but equally, he who once eats of this, will live for ever. Such is faith, and the faith.

Thus the commands about BELIEVING, and receiving by faith, the sacrificial Lamb, and doing so in repentance, so that His is the life within, the thing being not ostensible but actual; and about the absence of one's own works of ANY kind being relevant: these are constrictions on the STRAIT or constrained way in (Matthew 7:15ff.). You HAVE to enter that way, and there is NO AUTHORITY for any other way! and the faith does not alter. Yet if you enter in that way, you have GRAND AUTHORITY, the authority that God did this for you that He might be JUST, and being justified, there is this stark, vicarious but victorious, graciously conferred but entirely operatively perfect right of entry!

So does all scripture sit together, and does its authority say the Gospel in all its liberty, assurance and perfection, stressing now this, not that aspect, now using symbol, now being direct, so that any and all concerned may come, whether this way or that, to the POINT, of which there is but one, of the Gospel. It is thus that coming in HIS OFFER (as in Isaiah 55), to Himself as Saviour and Lord, and without deviation to false gospel or another Jesus or another spirit, or another alliance, or another command or another authority, believing what is offered and Him who offers it, that the tree of life, eternal life its fruit, is granted at last to fallen man.

If anyone sin, then there is a constraint on that too, to confess it and be cleansed from it altogether. If anyone is on the highway of holiness, even if he err, yet he will be led; for it is of this kind, and the new nature is inseparable from the One who gave it, so that as Christ said, the one who enters by Him will be saved and go in and out and find pasture, and SHALL NOT PERISH (John 10:9,27-28), and DOES NOT come into condemnation, having PASSED from death to life.

THE CHARACTER OF THE CASE

Here, then, is John in another book with the same immense and intense emphasis on the free gift of eternal life by faith in Jesus Christ, with no pluses (I John 1:7-2:2, 3:1-3, 4:1418, 5:10, 5:11-12), together with the same combination of considerations.

First is the free way to be saved, and then there is the natural and supernaturally charged expression of it; and this, it is not a handle for man's manipulation (I John 2:27), but a testimony of divine power. JUDGE not! thunders as securely as ever (Matthew 7:1ff.); and fruit appears as a ground to seek in discriminatory watchfulness when false prophets ply their wares. One obviously missing fruit, in such cases, in humble and contrite reception of redemption (cf. Things Old and New Chs. 9, 10, Epilogue and Appendix) from deity in flesh, is marked like the mushroom cloud. One freely confessing the reality of Christ within, only Saviour and living God, freely conferring salvation without works is likewise to all visible sight, in concord with the truth, as Christ conducts the life on the paths of eternity.

It is therefore the word of God which must at all times be applied chastely, neither with intrusive self-righteousness, far less assessive skill (I Corinthians 4:1-5), as if man were the judge, but with watchful alertness. When it comes to secret judgments, the DAY WILL SHOW IT, the actuality, here says Paul. Schismatic freakishness is as far astray as is careless indifference to what is required.

Keep the commandments ? After all, ONE commandment that resonates in Revelation, and indeed in I John and Isaiah 1, is WASH! It is only pure rebellion which will refuse that; and what then happens ? Then one is made clean by imputed righteousness, crowned with imparted righteousness, not as a ground of justification but as an expression of it (Romans 8:10), and lifted into the relish of righteousness, in the company of the Supreme Righteousness, Jesus Christ (Romans 8:9-11). Redolent with His presence, made keen in His joy, there is for His people the token of the perfection that is His, in the portrayal of OBEDIENCE to His LORDSHIP. His commandments are not hard! No, (I John 5:3-4). Wash ? This is not onerous!

The mother's call to her children before breakfast, Wash! is not a ground for distress, but a natural operation in a household that walks in wisdom. It is not ground for virtue that one washes, but attestation of being one of the family. It is a washing family: that is how it is constituted in the case in our view.

Wash ? Indeed, it is He who cleanses! (Hebrews 10:14). How would he whose heart is changed refuse to be washed ? Would wheels not turn ? would water not wash ? would Christ's blood then not cleanse ? Only denial has impact on such an issue, and denial is not the affirmation which we study!

It would here be apt to note that the great Matthew Poole in his Commentary on the Bible, points out that in Revelation 22, the tree that imparts life is obviously Christ, and just as it is introduced in verse 2, so its access in v. 14 provides access to Christ; and that the great Gospel commandment is to believe in Christ, so that in believing, one is obeying; and this is the more obvious in Acts 4:11-12*.

One must add that this excludes another Christ, another Gospel or another Spirit, the Spirit of God evidently, as in Ezekiel 47 and John 7 being seen as a life-imparting stream, in figure. It does however indicate saving faith in Christ Jesus as Lord and Saviour, all additives excluded (Mark 7:7ff.), all alternatives deposited in the pit (II Cor. 11), all changes abhorred (Galatians 1 - the word is scarcely too strong to cover Paul's declarations here).

He who has HIM, has life, says I John 5, and he who lacks Him does not have life: it is exclusive (of unbelief) and inclusive (of belief, and hence on acting on it, and receiving Him as in John 1:12). To those, says the Gospel at this point, He gave AUTHORITY to become the children of God. This authority stays with the believer for ever according to the promise (John 3:16, 6:50-54, 10:9,27-28, 5:24); so that in having obeyed the command to believe in Him, the believer has already all authority to Him for ever, by grace, through that faith by which he first entered the first door, which is the Lord Himself (John 10:9 with 27-28).

Whether it be washing the robes or believing and so in effect encompassing all commands in one, it is one: the one leads to the other and the other to the one.

Thus in John 12:35 you have the command, "While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may be children of light" (bold added); and in 9:5, "As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world," and again in 8:12, "I am the light of the world; he who follows me shall not walk in darkness but shall have the light of life." To believe in Him is to obey that one command which embraces in its grace and mercy all commands, for what lacks He covers, and Christians are accepted in the beloved (Ephesians 1:6), by grace, their deficiencies accounted for in the great accounting (II Cor. 5:19-21), and their efficiencies graciously valued (Matthew 25, as of the sheep).

In Rev. 22:17 the freedom of the drinking which according to the Lord Jesus Christ, in John 4, imparts life forever (and it is aorist, not a process in that verse, as for the parallel in John 6:50ff.), is maintained straight after our text in 22:14, making it even clearer, if possible, that the keeping of the commandments in 22:14, means what I John 5 tells us, believing that Jesus is the Christ. In that setting however, it makes it obvious that this is no mere wafting of a verbal wand, a casual dripping from the devious lip, but biblically defined faith, which means a trust that activates as in James, an assurance that constrains, and anything but feeble formality alone.

Now before we go further, let us pause. Having said these things, it is clear that we must be sober in understanding Revelation 22:14. This is by NO means to imply that ANY form of our own righteousness or works is even RELEVANT to salvation. Far removed is all such cant from the GROUND for that blessed pardon, transmutation and transformation, of depths and of heart, of spirit and of life, of thought and of procedure. As above noted for Revelation, for I John as for Romans 3:23ff., Ephesians 2:1-10, it is always the same. He saves freely (cf. Isaiah 55), and you are then arrested, invested and conducted in the paths.

Your works change you then ? your works make you a Christian ? That too is ludicrous, a ground for boasting, says Paul. Oranges don't make orange trees, but orange trees attest their origins by their oranges! It is calumny of Christ, making havoc of His word, indeed by tradition of thought from philosophy, making the word of God of none effect as Christ put it in Mark 7:7ff..

No, instead here in Revelation 22:14, it is to indicate, along with Matthew 7's stress on the will of God, that there is a token that betokens, a result that indicates, an index that agrees, and it is not on this as ground of salvation in the very least degree, but as an expression of what is that ground, that entry is given.

The fees, again, are first paid for; but it is the cap and blazer which identify at the gate.

It is an inexhaustible account of righteousness (II Cor. 5:17-21), with a fathomless depth of pardon, paid in Christ's sacrificial death, which is the GROUND OF SALVATION, with its crux that cross of Christ in which alone is one to glory; but here, in Revelation 22, it is the testimony of that righteousness which is the indisputable notation of Him who saves and to whose kingdom the Christian comes, which characterises the entrant. The topic of redemption in Revelation 22:14 indeed, is not even MENTIONED! Because of other scriptures, it cannot even be here entertained any more than in Isaiah 22, as shown above.

Abysmally would any fail, if this were ground of salvation; but as expression of the washed heart and Lord-run life, it is incalculably different from what is not. The light of Christ shines in the once stricken but now secured soul, and this, it is unmistakable! (John 8:12). Repent, receive, believe, commit, entrust, rely, for to faith all this is open; and with this obeyed, there is authority. Nothing deters, the way is opened, and in this you now operate, an operator by sublime, divine authority. Having entered the door in submission, you are renewed in commission; in obedience received, since you believed, the base is HIS obedience, and the result is yours, in so receiving the outcome of His singular obedience in achieving the ransom for free, indeed wholly authorised entry, and continued access.

Similarly, from such redeemed and Christ-inhabited souls, we are told that the Spirit of God pours forth like a stream (John 7:37). Who can fail to notice a stream, least of all, the Lord!

Indeed, there is a certain savour in the path and calling of the Christian, which is a testimony of life to the living and of death to the dying, as Paul declares it (II Corinthians 2:14-17).

The STENCH of sin is covered; the GUILT of sin is covered; and consequently the WORK of righteousness is REAL, so that the testimony it gives, like a ticket paid for elsewhere, but honoured on presentation, is indefeasible, just as its ground in Christ Himself, is indefectible.

"For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments;
and His commandments are not burdensome!
For whatever is born of God overcomes the world,
and this is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith"
(I John 5:3-4).

Yet one may say, COULD anything be remotely near enough to attest Christ, even as an index, in such as that chief of sinners, Paul ? Yes, it could, not as a ransom, but as an expression of the realisation and reality of that ransom. The peculiarly individual sap of the vine in the limb attests its place! Such a divine sap is this that not to realise it would be more than congenital blindness, it would be to shut the eyes; and remember, it is God who sees! and through whom is entry for these, His own. Does a mother not know the ways of her own children ? and in this case, rebellion is worse than witchcraft! Change is here not psychological or cultural, political or ideational merely, but personal, spiritual and eternal (I John 3:9). These necessary consequences of such divine action are divinely visible, in terms of construction, as much as were the ruins of Hiroshima in destruction. You need no microscope to see such things.

Why even the lips will be strengthened in godly testimony (Luke 21:15)! Without His Spirit you are no Christian at all (Romans 8:9), and with it, the body is dead because of sin, and you are LED by the Spirit (Romans 8:10,16), being no more characterisable as in the flesh, but in the spirit (Romans 8:9). Indeed, without this transmutation, you CANNOT please God (Romans 8:8). With it, you are rendered ENGRACED in the beloved, or accepted in Christ (Ephesians 1:6).

What then ? Ransom is legal, pardon is profound; and it is not without results. It is time to be clear in this generation that the greatest work in human personality ever made since creation (cf. Colossians 3:10), is not vacuous but virtuous, not evanescent but evangelical, not merely emotional and notional but actual. Realisation is practical in life quality for the children of God. Being born again does not fail to make you a new creation, utterly diverse from its earlier model.

If CHRIST is in you (Colossians 1:27 -'the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles'), there is indeed no automatic perfection or anything remotely like it; but there IS a Spirit, the Holy Spirit, which is in such a person (Romans 8:9), and those that are Christ's HAVE crucified the flesh with its lusts (Galatians 5:24), so that to LIVE is CHRIST! (Philippians 1:21). His shepherding is one function, His first making you SHEEP is another; His Spirit in you is a third and His zeal over you is a fourth (II Corinthians 3:18). Love of His word is a fifth, as He Himself attests (John 14:21-23), and is inseparable from love of Himself. Love, it never fails! Love constrains, remains; it does not entertain but enables; and when it is love of God, in a nature made susceptible by God, then rebellion is not the reality in view. It may come for a moment as a mist in the morning; but departs at noon. Regeneration is not a new front for the store, but a new store for the front.

To suggest that this has no practical bearing on anything is mere contradiction; just as to maintain that it could serve as a ground, rather than a mere index, for admission would be as anti-scriptural a point as anyone could wish. It is therefore, perhaps, in the end here, a matter of rightly dividing the word of God. Authority to enter is a vast and imposing reality inseparable from the presence of the Spirit who enables in the heart of the believer; but it is not the same as the PAYMENT for entry or its GROUND. Even the priests took note of Peter and John that they had been with Jesus. IF you have been with Him, it is as impossible to hide as is the reek of rebellion!

On this, the reader is strongly recommended to see the Sermon No. 43, in The Site.

Hence John's constant stress on washing throughout the book of Revelation may have been a reason why some wanted to change the text here to what, in the Greek, involves very little change, though in the English it is vastly different. It is the Greek, however, which was transcribed and it is here that changes occurred. Needed to move from keeping the 'commandments' to 'clothes' was chiefly the dropping of two letters before the Greek for commandments and adding one letter, to turn it into clothes. There was a net reduction, a net omission. That is readily done in transcription. It is not quite so easy to add what is not there at all. Possibly operative also is motive, and the extreme ease with which this may appear another Gospel, would be testimony to that (cf. 43 above). The other change in the text has no net numerical effect, and is precisely the sort of error, when the cases are inspected, which could well be imagined!

This harmonises well with the Majority Text which has those extra letters at this point; and it is to this that one looks in providential grace, where there is no masterful ground to the contrary. Not little must be the impetus to depart from that objective reality. Again, there is a wide spread on both sides, in this textual doublet: Tertullian versus Athanasius for example. The former, with the Majority Text as it is now, had one advantage, that his time was substantially nearer to that of the originals, since he was born at the end of the second century, far earlier than Athanasius, and is joined in his testimony to what is now the Majority text, by Cyprian, and of course Codex B with neighbouring Syrian as well as Coptic companionship.

It is true that you do not alter the everlasting gospel which none of the writers stresses more constantly than John, and none more than Christ for that matter: because of confusion. That leads only to illusion, as if different aspects of the same truth were beyond contemplation. Indeed, as Paul says, even if HE should preach another gospel, he would be accursed (Galatians 1).

What then ? You do not, emphatically NOT, follow orders in order to be accepted, except in this, that without the Gospel, you CANNOT be accepted, and you are COMMANDED (Acts 4:11-12) to REPENT and to believe in the Saviour (John 8:24). We have seen this in great detail above. Indeed, you DO follow the command, so non-burdensome, to find Christ so that with Him, you for ever will be, with God your Saviour (Isaiah 43:10-11, Acts 4:11-12, Revelation 2:9, 21:22, 22:3); and so you look for His return with real expectation (I John 3:1ff., Hebrews 9:25ff.).

It is not just that the Greek here rendered "in order that" can have, as Thayer's dictionary^*1 points out, the sense of purport rather than purpose; but it is also that the commandment in question is to BELIEVE in Him, to believe that HE is the Christ, the Son of God, and if these are several, yet in essence they are all one. It is to believe in Him as your continual and eternal Saviour, so that it is NEVER you or your performance at all, that is the question, you being blessed for your good works, while those who REFUSE salvation, as in Matthew 25, are cursed for their bad ones. That is the difference between being covered and not covered. Even a somewhat blundering man in a covering that excluded radiation would live, while the most agile without it, might be assigned assuredly to death!

What then, you KEEP the commandment, first of all, to repent before the living God and of what more than this, that you had not trusted His word, His ways, His works of salvation and power to sanctify, for yourself! Moreover, there are not only sins of ignorance to repent of, but of commission and omission and of stature, non-growth in spiritual things, or in perverse substitutes, of your own estimation, while HIS command, character and call were neglected. KEEP that, in the sense of being appalled by it, and turning to the Lord in penitence, being pardoned and commissioned for better things. KEEP the commandment to believe in Him (for if you do not, He indicated, you will die in your sins), believe in Him as in the Father, with whom He does all things as the Father does, and thus to find in Him the eternal God (John 8:58).

Moreover, as I John 2:7, there is a commandment, not new, to love his brother. This is taken as an OUTCOME (John 3:14) of "passing from death to life" as in John 5:24, where we are told that he who hears His word and believes in Him who sent Him, has eternal life, does not pass into judgment, and has passed from a state of death to one of life! With the words through John, there is always this combination: faith brings life, but it is faith in the One who in the beginning both was God and was with God, the eternal I AM, and in Him as He says, who is able to bring sin in subjection (John 8:29-32), BECAUSE one depends on Him who acts for the one who waits for Him (Isaiah 63). The gift is gratis, the results are sure, the skirmishes may be many, but the victory also is a gift (I John 5, Galatians 5).

Again, in believing in Him, we do not have a sharing of His authority (Matthew 23:8-10), about not being called father or master, because ONE is your Master, even Jesus the Christ. This too is a command. The commandments define the issue, but what they supply is access to the actual Christ, so that He cannot be mistaken, and so one finds and enters through the door, having as in Revelation 22, authority of access since HE calls to all, and being lifted up, draws all men to Himself.

Some do not come anyway; they refuse His call. So be it. Grace is evacuated by making, defining, renewing a new god, just as in Deuteronomy 32, or new gods newly coming up on the spiritual screen, based on nothing, sent from nowhere, providing no salvation, giving no authority of access to grace. Thus this aspect of Revelation's teaching is also precious, ruling out all the foolish fevers of what one would call transformationism, emergent or emerging churches, Vineyard type practice of fondling bringing in this and that in the construction of some combination or synthetic god of preference, created by man; but how ludicrous. In the beginning, MAN WAS NOT, and he was NOT with God, and he was NOT the word, any more than he now is. To treat mankind to such sumptuous spirituality not only demeans him (as whenever you refuse the due use of something, and so evacuate from its lustre), but misdirects to what very simply is not the case, and so does not help, just like placebos. They might taste nice, but bitter in the bowels is their resultant!

It is all a gift, when you take it at the command of the Giver, by faith, the whole thing not of yourself, but the provision of God as in Ephesians 2:1-10. The whole thing is HIS work done by HIS grace, and received at HIS call, which coming from foreknowledge in His love in all issuance, all provision, is dowered in devotion; for it is His stated will that all might come, and nothing in HIM prevents it. It is ORDERED in the result, but FOUND in the foreknowledge. It is not the preference of sin, but the one which God finds before time or sin, so that the difference stated in John 3, it is the DIFFERENTIAL preference for darkness in the very face of the saving light of Christ which matters. Nothing is to be set at God's door: has He not done ALL that one might even conceive in personal sacrifice in humility, humiliation and constant holiness, an example, a ransom, a release to peace in pardon!

Thus there is AUTHORITY just as, alike with Revelation 22:14, in John 1:12, where to those who receive Him (as there defined and depicted) are given AUTHORITY to become the children of God. Access to the tree, to eternal life, to being children of God, whichever, all and each, these come freely to faith. There is nothing free about the wages of sin, for these are duly paid (or paid out, where Christ is received as the sin-bearer - Matthew 20:28, Galatians 3); but the GIFT of eternal life is entirely free, where faith receives it in the name of Christ and His work of salvation (Romans 5:17-18): free to us, but not to Him!

WHATEVER the excuse for not believing, it is always the ground of exclusion; and there is no mistake about the foreknowledge of the fact of His act of love and this relative to everyone (John 3:15-16, Colossians 1:19ff.). It is then predestined in logical order, in terms of the originating love, and the foreknowledge of each person (not of works, since the soul is not then in existence and this is denied as relevant at all in Romans 9). Next in logical order is the predestination in security of what is thus known, followed by the call, the justification (Romans 5:1), and the glory which follows as in Romans 8:30ff..

There is no room for new commandments, set-ups, situations, arrivals; it is all categorical. Blessed are those who simply believe in Him so presented, and receive both Him and His word, which depicts who He is, His will and His ways.

John stresses this realism about the truth, along with the glory of the loving and free gift of eternal life. It is take it or leave it; with no controls, no changes and no special pleadings. It is the same in physiological life, when it comes to the crisis point. If you have cancer, and an excision will remove it in time, good. But you can't substitute new drugs, such as aspirin or some concoction of your own. If you do, you freely court death, which in such a case, can be very yielding!

Thus it is not at all your performance which is here in view, but your following the covenantal faith to the Covenanted Conqueror, King and Lord, and so being regenerated being His. Thus, as in John 1:12 do you have right to enter in, and as to working your passage or whole or in part, such a thing is not anywhere in the entire word of God ever asserted. It is ridiculed, rubbished (Romans 10:1ff.). You do it because a good tree cannot do otherwise. It is endemic, irresistible, natural to the new nature which, however blighted at times by the scorching fire of temptation, as with Jonah or David, Peter or Thomas, yet like a citadel under siege, not only stands but sallies forth with spirit, to overcome the enemy by the power of the Spirit, the promise of the word and the transformation wrought and fostered by the Lord, within (cf. II Corinthians 3:18).

Any concept of seeking performance rather than Christ alone as guarantor and guide, ground and entry right is ridiculed, rubbished (Romans 10:1ff., I John 4:9-10,18-19). You act in godly style because in the end, a good tree cannot do otherwise. It is endemic, irresistible, natural to the new nature which, however blighted at times by the scorching fire of temptation, as with Jonah or David, Peter or Thomas, yet like a citadel under siege, not only stands but sallies forth with spirit, to overcome the enemy by the power of the Spirit, the promise of the word and the transformation wrought and fostered by the Lord, within (cf. II Corinthians 3:18).

That indeed now becomes the point: if you do have this characterisable attitude of keeping the commandments, this thrust, this generic mode, not in the imagination of perfection, but with humility and contrition, with the power of the pardon in the blood of Christ continually operative (I John 1:7-9 saying precisely this), then this is visible to the invisible God. You are alien. Aliens lack authority in the land! They need first to be brought near by the blood of Christ, which through faith changes their very ‘genes’ (I John 3:9). New genes are generative of new beings, children of God.

He knows, because He Himself declares that NO ONE can have in the flesh, anything but enmity with God; but YOU are NOT in the flesh, says Paul (Romans 8:5ff.), but in the Spirit; and if anyone does not have the Spirit, that one is none of Christ's! That is the word of the Lord. Indeed, if Christ be in you, the apostle declares from the mind of Christ, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Infinite payment was not made for infinitesimal result.

What a marvel we have then here! Sin brings death, borne by Christ for every believer (II Cor. 5:20-21), and the Spirit freely enters and moves in the covered soul, in the life with Christ, so that the righteousness appointed in legal cover, is also that active in dynamic lift. It is not the DEGREE of lift which is in point, but the dynamic of it, the reality of it, the NEW CREATION aspect and the savour of His own Spirit in the converted soul and life of the Christian. God does not ignore Himself!

Moreover, it is a case of transformation, of entire change, at birth into spiritual life (John 3). Could anyone confuse an egg with a chicken! So it is with the new life, not attributing any sort of perfection to chickens, but rather discernible wings!

	Let us turn from the biological to the botanical: In Christ, those who are planted are kept and bear fruit (Romans 6). But leaving all figure, let us be direct.
	The unalterable, inextinguishable righteousness of Christ, a gift to the pardoned saint (cf. Romans 1:1, 5:15-21,Romans16-17), it is this which resides undimmable, unfading, unflecked and unspotted in purity, the cover for cancelled sin, the condition of reception into fellowship with God; and it is this from the Good Shepherd who laid down His life for the sheep, which alone keeps faith with God, alone up to the infinite standards of His acceptation.
	Here lies their anchor (Hebrews 6:17-20, 9:11-12,10:10,14), the ground for the change of name and entry into life (John 1:12).
	But the life so donated in such liberality and effectuality, this attests itself and is known to God.

The former gives redemption status, regenerated reality; the latter gives recognisability of the born,
as borne by and in Himself.
You cannot really mistake the ways of a kitten with those of a pig.

ONE of the criteria of such a life is the fact that CHRIST is Lord, and is CONFESSED as such (Romans 10:9), not merely mouthed. Another is this, that that name above every name is a very hub and centre of action between God and His ransomed children. It is like a car: not in the garage but on the road, with continual calls to headquarters. These may be of distress, of joy, of sharing, of drawing on the funds of strength for function.

Such a spirit is profoundly obvious to the Father of spirits, and it is but one aspect of the new life in Christ.

It does not posit any more ascription of praise to those so changed, than did the rebellious moment of Jonah; but the prophet remained what he was, a man of God, even offering to be thrown overboard to seek for peace for OTHERS on board, whatever became of him. So Cranmer, excellent archbishop, having in temporary sojourn from spirituality, signed a document of renunciation, of recantation concerning the very truth, muddled in his thought and muddied in his mind, yet in detestation of his sin, BURNT that same right hand FIRST in the fire, where he went after recanting his recantation, having first with conspicuous gallantry, preached again the true Gospel of free grace in the very midst of his foes.

Thus, what literally are the having-been-saved-by-grace-through-faith people (Ephesians 2:8), as the Greek expresses it, come into life with the testimony of Christ undivorceable from their faces of faith. They seek a city which has foundations, and go as seeing Him who is invisible, and He who is invisible descries their beloved form, as the father in the parable saw his returning son; and here how much more does He know those who abide with Him at last, His very own come in finality into the premises to which they have long looked, to share with Him whom long have they known and in whom they have dwelt. Thus in Romans 8:30ff., it is even those whom He FOREKNEW that He predestined; and He who would have ALL (Colossians 1:19ff.), knows those who are His, the redemption costly, the accomplishment glorious.

What Christ bought is their ransom in the Cross; what Christ wrought is the symptom that shows. Oranges grow on good orange trees, and good trees bring forth good fruit. You can tell them by that; and even though men may malign and misunderstand, GOD DOES NOT DO SO. You see that in Matthew 25 relative to the sheep and goats. The sheep are commended for their right actions, the goats condemned for their failures. Since they refused to have them covered, they are discovered, uncovered and loaded with guilt.

	Planting is by grace;
	transformation is by grace (cf. II Corinthians 3:18);
	salvation is by grace through faith;

and fruit is found in the heart to which God looks, that changed heart, which humble and contrite, and trembling at His word (Isaiah 66:2) is loved and cherished by Him. Known from before the foundation of the world (cf. Romans 8:30ff., Ephesians 1:4), paternally guarded, eternally secure. In all things, in the end, these seek to be close to God.

To this man, says Isaiah, will God look; though the way he was bought that he might be God's, and the way in which grace wrought that he might be changed, and the ground for the very entry of the Holy Spirit, that he might have the attestation that he is Christ's (Romans 8:16), and yield his members as instruments of righteousness, with whatever lapses or errors: these are the preliminaries of which such spiritual fruit is the assured attestation. Leave a ditch which you have dug from the unyielding earth, in the open skies, and when it rains, it will assuredly have water.

Far is this from validating that horrible approach that men judge other men's fruits to see if they are yet Christians, fruit inspectors as if to accord spiritual status to the would-be Christian, without presumption! Passing on this information, their findings, would they then allow those assessed to think that at last now they are Christians, now they have faith ? How, if so waiting, would they then have the faith, critical for production of the fruit!

That distortion of righteousness is self-contradictory. It would mean that you do not believe until you are told you are a Christian, that you really are one. Hence in such a twisting of truth, faith is not working in you till then; hence fruit is not forming while it is being looked for, that it might be accredited; hence it is not to be seen, since without faith you cannot even please God, and salvation after all, is BY FAITH.

If then any such method as this were followed, the results would be frustrated and the fruit precluded. It is God who sees the heart, and invalidates spiritual error, not accepting mere performances, such as those of the Pharisees for instance (cf. Matthew 23). It is faith which grasps His life, the vitalisation and the victory, His own. This faith is in no more authentication in reality, than is the birth of a child. A doctor may inscribe the certificate; he cannot deny the birth. If he does, it is not he who is medically fit!

In such an approach of fruit-inspectors among men, therefore, there is horrendous confusion, and this in profusion. It has not been uncommon in the past, nor is it in the present; and it has many close companions in seeking to super-add our puny performances to the infinite quality of Christ and His acceptable work, like putting the babble of infants into the select mathematics of some genius of senior years. Indeed, it is worse still: for that is relative, but this is absolute, the infinity of divinity relative to the finitude of man's imperfections.

Assurance comes from faith and faith from God; it is not the permitted product of human intervention. Works to permit faith ? it is like a marriage certificate to permit love.

The reality is intrinsic, not extrinsic.

All such things are indeed quite different from the belief that the word of God is true when it declares,

He who born of God does not make a practice of sin (I John 3:9).

You may err as King David did with Bathsheba, and repent as he is shown to have done in Psalm 51, that marvellous cup of kindness for the fallen; for though the righteous fall seven times (Proverbs 24:16), yet the Lord sustains him. That is what He does to the one reconstructed, regenerated, pardoned and indwelt by His Spirit. God knows His own, and this aspect is like a portrait, the reception of pardon, the contrition of horror at sin, the relish of the rectitude of Christ, the cleansing by His inveterate love covering with that reservoir of merit in His work which went to the death, yes and through it to the resurrection that would not give death dominion, but rather shattered it. THIS is the righteousness that counts in redemption.

What attests it is the savour of His Spirit in the ransomed life, the outcome of His regeneration in the new heart, crying - Father! the willingness to be led, the wonder of His own indwelling, the close intimacy of fellowship, the touch of the Master.

God recognises His own who being His, endued by Him both in nature and in dynamic, through love and in mercy, are swept in the current of His life, and drawn at length in love where death does not dwell, to join the spirits of just people made perfect, where in the Father's house, through Christ, they are to be found.

	He KNEW them as His own before the world was founded;
	DREW them as His own when their time in history came;
	DELIVERED them through His blood, and then
	AUTHORISES them as His own when the portals of eternity are open;
	for they ARE His own, find in Him their sanction and resource, look TO Him in prayer, walk FROM Him in faith, to finish His work.

Seen through the eyes of love, they look like His sheep, their wool pure through the washing of pardon, their ways understood, their fealty recognised with the eyes of truth as His procurement, the due result of His work for those whom He has endued with inseparable spiritual life.

Called, they know Him and He pays for them; enthralled, they know Him and by His hand He leads them in the right way. At a glance, they are known, and given authority; for were they not already uthorised as in John 1:12, to become the children of God ?

Now that authority extends to their collective Christian uniform of love and truth, and of course, love of His commands who is their Lord. His children are ALWAYS authorised to enter all spiritual gates in the very interstices of His kingdom. As then, so now.

When you distinguish thus different things, all fits into place with massive biblical support. Thus conscious of the elements in view, let us return to the text of Revelation 22:14.

Thus the mere reliance on relative ease of interpretation cannot be allowed, in the last analysis, to suspend the testimony of the carefully considered and construed Majority Text; and this the more when its testimony as here, is unclouded and clear in itself. One would not dare allow a disputed text to change doctrine from clear crowds of textual confirmation, for that would be folly; one could not well depart from this Majority text without peculiar warrant, since one leaves to the providence of God, what is to be taken. Hence in this case, possibly the most thorny textual one, one is forced to see that what is not saying that entry is PAID for by obedience, but granted to those of such a kind, is not excluded at once.

Instead, it needs the closest examination; but when we see such allied texts as Matthew 7:21-23, which are really saying the same thing, and realises the import of Jeremiah 13:27 - that magnificent testimony of divine love, then one it becomes plain that one must leave to its own objective reality, the Majority text, rightly interpreted as it MUST be because of all other scriptures; and follow it.

DOING THE WILL OF GOD is seen in Matthew 7:21ff. to be the inalienable product of the child of God. What may not thus be characterised is from this scripture, seen to be simply not His! Err he/she may; astounding may be the lack of vision at times, the foolishness; but the child of God is bred by God, inhabited by God, known to God, walks with God, and has the irremovable spiritual genes inbred that come only from God. God is his proclivity, God his resource, recourse and desire, as is that of a horse galloping, for water.

HE makes children of His own, not another; and children of His, they are, and not of another. Their final fuel is from Him; their dynamic is His movement, their target His side, their perils His concern, their deliverance His delight. Deliverance is not always from pain, from suffering, or even death; but from lassitude that does not love, from confusion that does not see and from wandering that does not cease. The Good Shepherd goes and fetches what wanders in His fold.

"Woe to you, O Jerusalem! Will you not be made clean ?
When shall it once be ?"

To this writer, this is one of the most poignant of the verses of the Book of the Lord! There you see

	1) a divine yearning, as from a mother.
	2) a fatherly caution, crisp with realistic concern.
	3) an interrogation, as from a surgeon, foreseeing inoperable lung cancer, and speaking to an uncontrolled tobacco addict.
	4) an implicit attestation of long continued abuse.

What then do we find in all of this ?

Is God then blind to who you are ?

and is He who brought you to the birth, not in order that you be not born, but as borne by Him to this place, not to bring you to the light of day as a child of God ?

and if a child of God, do you act as if your old genes were still operational and it is not a regeneration at all (I John 3:9) ?

Indeed, look what thought this has provoked, and what self-examination! God has not asked us to de-craniate but to evaluate and test all things (I Thessalonians 5:21). Here then He has presented textual evidence, and we are not free to exclude it where the division is between the easy option on the one hand, and the objectively and forcibly present Majority Text on the other.

Thus the AV and the NKJV are to be valued in their testimony here, for the family, the Majority text, to which they relate. On the other hand, I John 5:7 in the AV is a blatant error, that as we have seen should never even have been considered. To be sure, this was not a different doctrine, this verse in I John, but untenable because of almost TOTAL lack of textual evidence! Its presence is a warning NEVER to follow ANY version, where the mind of man becomes the criterion, but the LORD whose word is for any, and for all centuries, to be found, itself rested on, not the work of man. In His mercy, doctrine is not here in view, but textual fidelity; but the latter has caused us to relish minutely the glorious consistency of doctrine, and the seemingly effortless readiness with which these things are surveyed. Truth has liberty, and this is what here we find.

In view of this text, let us consider anew the AV and the NKJV in their own authority.

In terms of translation, earlier work, just as in the case of Calvin in theology, is to be greatly valued where it excels, without becoming a shibboleth (cf. Repent or Perish Ch. 1, *1 and Tender Times for Timely Truth Ch. 2, *1), as if its errors, when they occur, were in some way sacred. Does a builder imitate a crack in some master-builder's work ?

If we are wedded to the evidence of all kinds, and to the COMMAND test ALL things in I Thessalonians 5, then the AV like all the rest, is a provision. It is in this case an exceedingly good one. It is not however en bloc a substitute for the commandment to TEST! Test, indeed "all things"! (5:21). Thus the AV in Matthew 11:27 is not only misleading, but positively wrong. The Greek is "wills to reveal Him", not "will reveal Him" as the New King James version rightly shows. This is important.

There is then, liberty to examine, but not licence to wander. Many have rightly sought to follow FIRST and foremost the actual objective textual testimony, and neither vain theories of men contrary to evidence both of history and of statistics, as in the case of Westcott and Hort (q.v. Ch. 1) and their bevy of related "modern" translations, on the one hand, nor capricious textual emendation or the other can stand such test. Here in this present case, we find as so often, the importance of not following tradition. If here, it was a nineteenth century tradition which arose to tower itself on sand, so be it. Every tradition tends, in the flesh, to exalt itself, if not in one way, then in another, if not in the conservative quest not to alter anything, then in the radical desire to sweep away anything! It is only the word of God which has unfathomable fidelity to truth, being truth.

The danger is always present, then, to follow, follow men, not the Lord.

He prohibits this (Mark 7:7ff., Galatians 1:10, I Corinthians 3:5ff), so that any preference for tradition relative to the word of God is abomination. It is likewise presumption and even absurd (cf. Barbs, Arrows and Balms 6 - 7, SMR pp. 99ff., TMR Ch. 5). In the case of the Pharisees, tradition seemed so sacred that it appeared to them sacrilegious to question it, including THEIR OWN AUTHORITARIAN ESTIMATE of Christ! (cf. Matthew 23, Mark 7, Matthew 26:63-67). THEY were the people, and tradition made them gurus immune to the good, lassoed by the evil quest for self-preservation for the Jew, for the nation (John 11:49ff.), and doubtless for themselves or at the very least their "leaven" as Christ put it, telling His disciples to beware of it!

At once we are reminded of Matthew 16:11-12:

	"How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? - but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees."
	"Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

Tradition CAN be helpful; but relative to the word of God, it is intrusive if not invasive and is on no account rationally to be allowed.

The word of God is given attestation, and while a given vehicle cannot alone determine the issue, lest as Tennyson put it, 'one good custom corrupt the world', yet when this is the extant Majority Greek Text, carefully construed and considered, an inescapable warrant itself based on the word of God, must be found for any departure, which in turn reminds us that nothing is in any doubt, only the addiction to carelessness! In this case, no doctrine is in question, as always in matters that need extreme care; but understanding is a heavy requisite as have just seen.

The word of God is in all things exceedingly clear in all doctrine, and because God is God, on a topic of divine speech, the objective testimony must always be put above the subjective, and the clear above the implications which may seem to arise on another. In this way, nothing of His teaching is unsure, and His word stands in its priceless integrity. Meanwhile is fulfilled also this, that it is to the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the honour of kings to find it out (Proverbs 25:2). Teachers will realise that some of the best work comes when the student is left immersed in wonder at some topic, where searching brings content.

NOTES

Thayer, with careful argument, assesses the usage of the relevant word 'ina, in terms of either purpose or result, but with this provision. If it is to fit with the concept of 'result' then it must be in a context allowing for the sense of being in accord with the purpose and approach of the Lord. This being in a context wholly given up to just such an atmosphere, the result concept is suitable. The result of this obedience is the freely opened gate, this by authority of the Lamb. This means that those who find, repent, trust and follow the challenge to receive the Lord, for the commands are not grievous, in reality, have right to the tree, for HE has secured this right! This gives them access to what is the last item leading to certainty, and having obeyed in entering in faith, they now have no further impediment, for HIS right is then their own.

Blessed then are those who keep the commandments, not grievous as in the Gospel they are, since this state of affairs has so blessed a result. As to the commandments not being grievous, as in I John 5:3, we are given a reason why this is so in I John 5:4-5. It is this:

"For whatever is born of God overcomes the world.
And this is the victory that has overcomes the world - our faith.
Who is he who overcomes the world,
but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God."

* NOTE:

To believe in Christ, you accept His Gospel. Hence you must repent (Luke 13:1-3), believe in faith and not mere form (John 6:47, Acts 4:11-12, II Timothy 3:5) and receive Him as your sacrificial Lamb (John 6:50-54), amazingly but actually physically raised from the physical death (John 20:25-29, Romans 10:9ff.) See scriptural references, SMR pp. 520ff.. You are commanded to believe (Acts 16:31).

It must be HE and not another (John 6:40, II Corinthians 11, Matthew 16:13-17, Ephesians 4:4, Matthew 23:8-10) in whom one believes: in Him, not another Jesus, in His biblical Gospel and not another (Galatians 6:14, 1:6-9), receiving not another Spirit but the Spirit of truth sent by Christ from the Father (John 15:26, II Cor. 11:4). It is all decisive and inveterate.

Wrought by God, this Gospel of Christ must be received by man, as commanded (John 1:12, Acts 4:11-12), according to the New Covenant likewise commanded (Matthew 26:28) for the remission of sins. It is by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God that man is to live (Matthew 4:4) as his guide in grace, and not in some other way, with some other authority or some other control (Matthew 23:8-10, I John 2:27). In obeying the command to WASH, one must recognise the authority of the Lord, the Person of the Lord and believe in the power of the Lord. It is a spiritual washing that matters as in Titus 2-3, and how vast are the implications when this, by the power of God and the grace of His Spirit, for the sake of the finished obedient work of Christ, is done.

How delightful, moreover, in the case of Revelation 22:14, that having found what is passed down in the text, and found its salutary character, we yet affirm equally, if not more, the doctrine that is parallel to it, as found in Revelation 7:14, referring to those who have washed their robes in the blood of the lamb of whom it is said this: "Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night." How beautiful logic can be! How delectable are the multi-faceted mercies of God!

Let us rejoice in this: that His covenant of repentance, ransom and redemption through faith in the living Lord, provides uncountermandable authority, because commanded by God (John 10:9,27--28, 5:24, 3:16, 4:14, I John 5:11-12, Luke 24:47) for those without God to become imperishable children of God by His free gift (Romans 5:15-16, I Peter 1:1-5), once drinking of this water, and never thirsting again (John 4:14).

This is to be received, both in authority and as a draught! The whole apparatus of redemption by grace through faith is commanded (Matthew 20:28, Ephesians 2:8-10, Hebrews 9:12, Romans 3:23ff.), and its provisions are unalterable. Nothing can be added, not even making fruit to be root, and imagining that oranges make the tree, and not the tree oranges, which is planted with the spiritual genes of God’s free gift (Isaiah 61:3, Romans 5:15, 6, Matthew 7, I John 3:9). Results attest; faith invests. God's people delight in Him as Lord, who sent grace, finds place and redeems a race of special people, to whose hearts He is motivation, to whose lives He is quest, to whose security He is guarantor.