This is the first in a series of articles written by Wayne Jackson. This appeared in the May, 1976 edition of The Christian Courier. It was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.
The average person who thinks of Jesus Christ probably reflects for the most part only upon the Lord's earthly existence. A complete consideration of the work of the Second Person in the Godhead however, must involve at least five phases. (1) Christ as an eternal being before creation. (2) The theophanic appearances of the Lord in the Old Testament era. (3) The incarnate God, Jesus of Nazareth. (4) The glorified Christ presently reigning as our Mediator and (5) the future subjection of Christ following the judgment. In a series of articles to come, we propose to examine what the Scriptures reveal about these phases of our everlasting Lord; without doubt, such a study can only enhance our love and appreciation for the Prince of Life.
THE ETERNAL WORD - The Person referred to in the New Testament as Christ, the Son of God, was not a mere being of time. Rather, before the universe was formed, He was existing eternally as the Word. (John 1:1, 14) Evidence for this can be established easily.
(1) The Hebrew name for god was Elohim. Found more than 2,000 times in the Old Testament, Elohim is in the plural number. Richard Watson says, "Elohim seems to be the general appellation by which the Triune Godhead is collectively distinguished in Scripture." (Biblical and Theological Dictionary, p. 1024.) Thus in Genesis 1:1 it is God (Elohim-plural) who created (bara-singular) the heavens and the earth. The plural name suggests the multiple personalities of the Godhead, while the singular verb stresses the unity of the divine nature. Additionally, plural pronouns in the Hebrew text indicate the plurality of the Godhead as in Genesis 1:26, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness." Some scholars have sought to explain this on the basis that God was simply accommodating His terminology to human expressions as when kings say "We" to indicate the plenitude of their power. However, as Watson correctly observes, the words of Genesis 1, "were spoken before the creation of any of these mortals whose false notions of greatness and sublimity the Almighty is thus impiously supposed to adopt." Moreover, it is significant that no king of Israel ever referred to himself as "we" or "us." The New Testament plainly reveals that Christ was there in the beginning (John 1:1); that He was existing with God before the world was. (John 17:5) In fact, as already indicated in Genesis 1:1, the New Testament affirms that Christ was an active agent in the creation. (John 1:3; I Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2)
(2) The prophet Isaiah called Jesus the "everlasting Father." (9:6) This does not, as the Oneness Pentecostal sect erroneously assumes, mean that Jesus is the same person as God the Father. The expression "everlasting Father" (literally, "Father of eternity") is a strong affirmation of the eternity of Christ. Albert Barnes points out that it was the usual Hebrew custom to refer to one who possessed a trait as being the father of it. Thus, someone strong was termed "father of strength"; one intelligent was called "father of knowledge", etc. Hence, "Father of eternity" means Eternal One. The scholarly Barnes concluded, "There could not be a more emphatic declaration of strict and proper eternity." (Commentary on Isaiah, p. 193.)
(3) In prophesying the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem of Judea, the prophet Micah is careful to stress that this is not the commencement of the Savior's existence. He declares that His goings forth are, "from of old, from everlasting." (Micah 5:2) Unquestionably this is an affirmation of the Lord's eternal existence. E. B. Pusey wrote, "Here words, denoting eternity and used of the eternity of God, are united together to impress the belief of the Eternity of God, the Son." (The Minor Prophets, II, p. 70.) Of this passage Hengstenberg wrote, "the existence of the Messiah before His birth in time, in Bethlehem, is pointed out in general; and then, in contrast with all time, it is vindicated to eternity. This could not fail to afford a great consolation to Israel. He who hereafter, in a visible manifestation, was to deliver them from their misery, was already in existence; during it, before it and through all eternity." (Christology of the Old Testament, I, pp. 358, 359.)
(4) In the Gospel of John the apostle several times asserts the eternity of the Word by the use of grammatical tenses. For instance he announces, "In the beginning was (en) the Word, and the Word was (en) with God and the Word was (en) God." (1:1) J. H. Bernard correctly points out: "The imperfect en is used in all three clauses of this verse, and is expressive in each case of continuous timeless existence." (I.C.C., John, I, p. 2.) Again, Christ claimed that He "had" (eichon- imperfect tense) glory with the Father before the world was. (John 17:5) The imperfect verb emphasizes Christ's continuous existence prior to the world's creation. Wuest brings out the flavor of the passage by his rendering: "And now glorify Me, Father, beside Yourself, with the glory which I was constantly having with You before the universe existed." (The New Testament - An Expanded Translation. p. 255.) In John 8:58 Jesus announced: "Before Abraham was born (genesthai - aorist tense, indicating beginning of existence), I am (ego eimi - present tense asserting continuous timeless existence)." The Jews very well understood His eternal claim of Deity and hence promptly sought to stone Him! (NOTE: In an attempt to evade the overpowering force of this argument, the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their New World Translation of the Scriptures rendered the expression ego eimi ("I am") totally incorrect as "I have been." A footnote identified it as the "perfect indefinite tense." The utter absurdity of the whole thing is revealed by the fact that there is no such tense as the perfect indefinite! For further investigation of this see Van Buskirk's book, The Scholastic Dishonesty of the Watchtower.)
(5) In the final book of the Bible, Christ exclaims: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last." (Revelation 22:13) Though these expressions may involve several things, it is certain they include an acknowledgment of the eternity of our Lord. In the Old Testament, similar phraseology calls attention to the eternity and omnipresence of Jehovah in contrast to puny heathen gods. (Isaiah 41:4; 43:10; 44:6; 48:12) J. G. Vos shows that Revelation 22:13, compared with 1:8 and 21:6, constitutes a, "strong assertion of the true and eternal Deity of Jesus Christ." He further declares, "The implication includes His eternity, pre-existence and essential Deity. For any created being, however exalted, to claim to be the Alpha and the Omega as these terms are used of Jesus Christ in Scripture, would be blasphemy." (Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, I, p. 111.)
OLD TESTAMENT THEOPHANIES - A theophany may be defined as, "an appearance of God in visible form temporary and not necessarily material. Such an appearance is to be contrasted with the Incarnation, in which there was a permanent union between God and complete manhood (body, soul and spirit)." (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 1344.) A careful study of the Old Testament reveals the following facts: (a) A Person who is clearly identified as "Jehovah" or "God" made numerous appearances to people in both the Patriarchal and Mosaic ages. (b) This Being, though identified as Deity, is also distinguished from God. (c) Many characteristics of this divine Person seem to indicate that He was the pre-incarnate Word who became the God-Man, Jesus of Nazareth. Note:
(1) When Hagar fled from Sarai, she was found in the wilderness by, "the Angel of the Lord." (Genesis 16:7) He informed her, "I will greatly multiply thy seed..." (10) The Angel or Messenger speaking with her was in fact Jehovah and she acknowledged: "You are the God who sees." (13) (2) Three men visited Abraham by the oaks of Mamre; one of these was Jehovah. (Genesis 18:1, 13, 17) Jehovah informed the patriarch of His intention to go down to Sodom and Gomorrah because of their grievous sin. (20, 21) So Jehovah went His way (33) separating Himself from the other men who were angels. (19:1) Presently however, the narrative informs us that, "Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens." (24) Clearly, two Persons called "Lord" or "Jehovah" are involved here. (Cf. Genesis 22:11, 15-16) Some scholars believe that this incident may be included in Christ's declaration to the Jews: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." (John 8:56) The Jews, interpreting this as a claim of being contemporary with Abraham, sarcastically asked, "Have You seem Abraham?" This prompted the Lord's reply that He was existing eternally before Abraham was born! (Cf. Alvah Hovey, Commentary on John, pp. 199-200.) (3) At Peniel Jacob wrestled with a Person who had assumed the form of a man (Genesis 32:24) but who was in fact God. (28, 30) this Person was a messenger of the Lord, and yet, He was called God, Jehovah of Hosts. (Hosea 12:4-5) And note that Jehovah of Hosts is the Redeemer of Jehovah the King of Israel. (Cf. Isaiah 44:6; Revelation 1:17, 22:13) (4) The One who was called God, the great I AM, who spoke with Moses from the burning bush, was also a messenger of God. (Exodus 3:2, 4, 6, 14) (5) In Judges 6, "the Angel of the Lord" appeared to Gideon. Yet He is termed "Lord" multiple times and He received worship. (14, 16, 22-25, 27) These and scores of other passages argue for the existence of a Person operating in Old Testament times who was: (a) distinct from God but acting for Him; (b) of the same nature as God and hence Himself Jehovah God.
Who was this mysterious God, the messenger of God? The older Jewish rabbi's expressed the view that this messenger would be their Messiah (Watson, op, cit., p. 60.) and this is borne out by the Scriptures. (He is called by Messianic names. (Cf. Wonderful- Judges 13:18; Isaiah 9:6, and I AM Exodus 3:14; John 8:58) (b) He is the Redeemer. (Genesis 48:15-16; Isaiah 44:6; 63:9; Luke 1:68) (c) He sustained the Israelites in their wilderness wandering (Exodus 14:19; 13:21) and through inspiration, Paul affirms this was Christ. (I Corinthians 10:4) W. E. Vine comments: "The past tense 'was' implies that the water was provided by the personal presence of Christ; for the Angel of His presence was with the Israelites through all their wilderness journeying. (Isaiah 63:9)" (I Corinthians, pp. 131-132, Cf. Robertson & Plummer, Hodge, Lenski, etc.) (d) He was the "messenger of the covenant", the Lord, who would suddenly come to His temple (Malachi 3:1), the preparatory work for whom John the Baptist accomplished. (Malachi 3:1; Matthew 11:10)
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Matthew 26:29
This short piece appeared in the May, 1976 edition of The Christian Courier. It was written by Wayne Jackson. The paper was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.
Question: Please explain Matthew 26:29. Will the Lord's supper be observed in Heaven?
"But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."
No, the Lord's supper will not be observed in Heaven. Paul shows that by observing the communion supper, we proclaim the Lord's death TILL he comes (I Corinthians 11:26). The inference certainly is that we will not partake of the supper beyond that time. Since the supper is in "remembrance" of Christ (Luke 22:19), it is obvious that we will not observe it after death, for then we will be with Him (Philippians 1:23; II Corinthians 5:8), and thus not need to remember Him. Jesus promised to take part in the communion in a "new" way (Matthew 26:29).
The word "new" is from the Greek term kainos, and it denotes newness of quality. In observing the Lord's supper, we commune (fellowship) with our Savior (I Corinthians 10:16). And it is in a spiritual sense that we commune with Christ in the supper. The promise of Christ to commune with the disciples in a new way was (and is) fulfilled in the church. And only those who have submitted to the conditions of the new birth (John 3:3-5; Mark 16:16) thereby entering the kingdom, are privileged to partake of the Lord's supper with His blessing (Luke 22:29-30).
Question: Please explain Matthew 26:29. Will the Lord's supper be observed in Heaven?
"But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."
No, the Lord's supper will not be observed in Heaven. Paul shows that by observing the communion supper, we proclaim the Lord's death TILL he comes (I Corinthians 11:26). The inference certainly is that we will not partake of the supper beyond that time. Since the supper is in "remembrance" of Christ (Luke 22:19), it is obvious that we will not observe it after death, for then we will be with Him (Philippians 1:23; II Corinthians 5:8), and thus not need to remember Him. Jesus promised to take part in the communion in a "new" way (Matthew 26:29).
The word "new" is from the Greek term kainos, and it denotes newness of quality. In observing the Lord's supper, we commune (fellowship) with our Savior (I Corinthians 10:16). And it is in a spiritual sense that we commune with Christ in the supper. The promise of Christ to commune with the disciples in a new way was (and is) fulfilled in the church. And only those who have submitted to the conditions of the new birth (John 3:3-5; Mark 16:16) thereby entering the kingdom, are privileged to partake of the Lord's supper with His blessing (Luke 22:29-30).
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Nuggets in John 1:1
This article appeared in the March, 1976 edition of The Christian Courier. It was written by Wayne Jackson. The paper was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Jackson. It's a fantastic look at one of my favorite New Testament books.
The Gospel of John is a truly rich depository of truth and nowhere is this more evident than in the first sentence of that marvelous narrative. Moreover, a correct view of John's initial statement refutes several gross errors.
IN THE BEGINNING - Reminiscent of Genesis 1:1, the apostle sweeps the mind back to the very beginning of time. The phrase asserts that time, along with the material universe, had a beginning. This of course, is squarely opposed to the atheistic notion that matter is eternal. Both scripture and scientific law testify that our universe is growing old and wearing out. (Cf. Hebrews 1:10-12) If eternal, it would already have reached a state of deadness. The universe had a beginning; and if a beginning, then a Beginner! All three personalities within the divine Godhead cooperated in that beginning of creation. (Genesis 1:1-2; Psalms 104:30; John 1:3, Colossians 1:16)
WAS THE WORD - The term "Word" here denotes a person as evidenced by the use of the personal pronoun "Him" in the subsequent statements. The Word was He who "became flesh, and dwelt among" men; i.e., Jesus, the Son of God. (John 1:14) That Christ is called the Word is a dramatic emphasis of the fact that God has communicated with man. The philosophy of deism asserts that though there is a super-human force behind the universe, it has no contact with man. Not so! God has spoken through His Son. (Hebrews 1:1-2) God, through the person of the incarnate Word, has instructed both by sentence and sample what He wants us to be.
It is further interesting to note that the apostle says, "In the beginning the Word was..." Significantly, he employs the imperfect tense form of the verb eimi, meaning "to be, exist." The imperfect tense in Greek stresses the concept of continuity in the past, the sense being here, "The Word was always existing." Though the universe had its origin, the divine Word was eternally existing. As a man Jesus, "became (emphasizing point of commencement) flesh (verse 14) but as the pre-incarnate Word, He always was. (Cf. Micah 5:2) This of course, thoroughly refutes the Jehovah's Witness contention that Christ was originally created by Jehovah.
THE WORD WAS WITH GOD - John's use of the Greek preposition pros (with) is very important. The word literally means "toward" or "face to face." And it implies two things here. First, it shows a distinction between the person called God and the person termed the Word. The United Pentecostal sect is renowned for the doctrine that there is but one personality in the Godhead. But it is absurd to speak of someone being "with" Himself! In the second place, the preposition here affirms that the Word is toward, facing, on a plane of equality with God. John thus acknowledges the full Deity of our Lord! This is vividly expressed again in the following phrase.
THE WORD WAS GOD - The Jehovah's Witnesses are notorious for their mistranslation of the phrase in their ridiculous rendition: "the Word was a god." The assertion is made that since "God" in the first part of the passage is preceded by the article (i.e., "the God") but wanting in the latter part of the verse, this suggests that Christ is not Deity in the full sense; He is a little god! This is truly a deceitful and damning mutilation of the sacred Scriptures. The absence of the article before "God" is perfectly understandable. First, if the sentence read, "the Word was with the God and the Word was the God," it would have identified Christ with the Father and would have made perfect nonsense. Secondly, the absence of the article before "God" in 1b serves to show that it is a part of the predicate, "the Word was God." And thirdly, the omission of the article reveals that the character or quality of the noun is here being stressed. A very legitimate translation here would be: "the Word was Deity." The full divine nature of Christ is unquestionably affirmed. If this verse does not teach that Christ shares the nature of Deity equally with the first person of the Godhead, if it asserts He is "a god" with a nature distinct from Jehovah's, then the conclusion of polytheism (multiple gods) is inescapable!
The Watchtower Witnesses are hopelessly inconsistent when they claim that Jesus is "a god" who was created by Jehovah as the first of His creation. The very passage they constantly appeal to as authority for their name, Isaiah 43:10 plainly says, "I (Jehovah) am He; before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me."
John 1:1 is thrilling and lofty in its inspired affirmations and it is devastating in its rebuttal of unbelief and religious error.
The Gospel of John is a truly rich depository of truth and nowhere is this more evident than in the first sentence of that marvelous narrative. Moreover, a correct view of John's initial statement refutes several gross errors.
IN THE BEGINNING - Reminiscent of Genesis 1:1, the apostle sweeps the mind back to the very beginning of time. The phrase asserts that time, along with the material universe, had a beginning. This of course, is squarely opposed to the atheistic notion that matter is eternal. Both scripture and scientific law testify that our universe is growing old and wearing out. (Cf. Hebrews 1:10-12) If eternal, it would already have reached a state of deadness. The universe had a beginning; and if a beginning, then a Beginner! All three personalities within the divine Godhead cooperated in that beginning of creation. (Genesis 1:1-2; Psalms 104:30; John 1:3, Colossians 1:16)
WAS THE WORD - The term "Word" here denotes a person as evidenced by the use of the personal pronoun "Him" in the subsequent statements. The Word was He who "became flesh, and dwelt among" men; i.e., Jesus, the Son of God. (John 1:14) That Christ is called the Word is a dramatic emphasis of the fact that God has communicated with man. The philosophy of deism asserts that though there is a super-human force behind the universe, it has no contact with man. Not so! God has spoken through His Son. (Hebrews 1:1-2) God, through the person of the incarnate Word, has instructed both by sentence and sample what He wants us to be.
It is further interesting to note that the apostle says, "In the beginning the Word was..." Significantly, he employs the imperfect tense form of the verb eimi, meaning "to be, exist." The imperfect tense in Greek stresses the concept of continuity in the past, the sense being here, "The Word was always existing." Though the universe had its origin, the divine Word was eternally existing. As a man Jesus, "became (emphasizing point of commencement) flesh (verse 14) but as the pre-incarnate Word, He always was. (Cf. Micah 5:2) This of course, thoroughly refutes the Jehovah's Witness contention that Christ was originally created by Jehovah.
THE WORD WAS WITH GOD - John's use of the Greek preposition pros (with) is very important. The word literally means "toward" or "face to face." And it implies two things here. First, it shows a distinction between the person called God and the person termed the Word. The United Pentecostal sect is renowned for the doctrine that there is but one personality in the Godhead. But it is absurd to speak of someone being "with" Himself! In the second place, the preposition here affirms that the Word is toward, facing, on a plane of equality with God. John thus acknowledges the full Deity of our Lord! This is vividly expressed again in the following phrase.
THE WORD WAS GOD - The Jehovah's Witnesses are notorious for their mistranslation of the phrase in their ridiculous rendition: "the Word was a god." The assertion is made that since "God" in the first part of the passage is preceded by the article (i.e., "the God") but wanting in the latter part of the verse, this suggests that Christ is not Deity in the full sense; He is a little god! This is truly a deceitful and damning mutilation of the sacred Scriptures. The absence of the article before "God" is perfectly understandable. First, if the sentence read, "the Word was with the God and the Word was the God," it would have identified Christ with the Father and would have made perfect nonsense. Secondly, the absence of the article before "God" in 1b serves to show that it is a part of the predicate, "the Word was God." And thirdly, the omission of the article reveals that the character or quality of the noun is here being stressed. A very legitimate translation here would be: "the Word was Deity." The full divine nature of Christ is unquestionably affirmed. If this verse does not teach that Christ shares the nature of Deity equally with the first person of the Godhead, if it asserts He is "a god" with a nature distinct from Jehovah's, then the conclusion of polytheism (multiple gods) is inescapable!
The Watchtower Witnesses are hopelessly inconsistent when they claim that Jesus is "a god" who was created by Jehovah as the first of His creation. The very passage they constantly appeal to as authority for their name, Isaiah 43:10 plainly says, "I (Jehovah) am He; before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me."
John 1:1 is thrilling and lofty in its inspired affirmations and it is devastating in its rebuttal of unbelief and religious error.
The Withered Soul
This article was written by Wayne Jackson. It appeared in the February, 1976 edition of The Christian Courier, which was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.
On the night preceding His crucifixion, and possibly in route to the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus spoke the allegory of the vine and the branches. Among the many truths emphasized in this narrative is the fact that disciples of the Lord must abide in Him. Abide means to "remain" and this is further underscored by the use of the Greek present tense, suggesting, "he that keeps on abiding in Me." A failure to remain in close union with Christ results in both fruitlessness and ultimate rejection.
In describing the rejection process, Christ says that the fruitless branch is: (a) cast forth, (b) withered, (c) gathered, and (d) cast into the fire and burned. Now, the casting into the fire is a certain allusion to the eternal punishment of Hell (Matthew 25:41, 46); the gathering is doubtless a reference to the coming judgment (Matthew 13:41) and being cast forth portrays the apostate's severance from the Lord (Galatians 5:4) but what does withered connote? To this writer's mind it very aptly suggests that state of spiritual blightness that is no characteristic of those who have fallen from the faith. There is absolutely none so restless, disturbed, dissatisfied and utterly withered as he who has turned his back upon the God with whom he once walked. Perhaps no better example could be found than that of Saul of Old Testament fame. Young, handsome and vigorous, he started well. Eventually however, rebellion invaded his heart and he became discontented, surly, vengeful and ultimately died in disgrace by his own hand. His case was pitiable indeed.
Nor is the New Testament silent concerning the state of which we speak. In a little parable designed to apply primarily to the impending fate of the Jewish nation, Jesus tells of a man who was dispossessed of a demon. For a while the unclean spirit wandered about, finally returning to the man's body. Finding it empty (it had been filled with nothing good) he, along with seven other spirits, entered the body. The Lord commented, "the last state of that man became worse than the first." (Matthew 12:43ff) That the application of this principle to an apostate child of God is appropriate seems to be evident by Peter's apparent use of Jesus' words in a passage on this very theme. "For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning." (II Peter 2:20ff)
In a ministry that spans almost two decades, I have known a number of people who embraced the truth and gladly walked therein for several years. Then, for reasons (really excuses; unjustified) known perhaps only to them and God, they turned their backs upon Jehovah and His holy cause. It may be said unreservedly that nothing but heartache can follow such a disastrous course. Carefully observing many of these backsliders over considerable periods of time, I can honestly say I do not know of a single one of these souls who is now genuinely happy. In some instances they have dredged deeper into sin and become a stench even in the eyes of a wicked world. Others' lives have literally come apart at the seams, resulting in divorce, mental illness, suicide, etc.
How true the words of the prophet, "they have made them crooked paths; whosoever goeth therein does not know peace." (Isaiah 59:8)
On the night preceding His crucifixion, and possibly in route to the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus spoke the allegory of the vine and the branches. Among the many truths emphasized in this narrative is the fact that disciples of the Lord must abide in Him. Abide means to "remain" and this is further underscored by the use of the Greek present tense, suggesting, "he that keeps on abiding in Me." A failure to remain in close union with Christ results in both fruitlessness and ultimate rejection.
In describing the rejection process, Christ says that the fruitless branch is: (a) cast forth, (b) withered, (c) gathered, and (d) cast into the fire and burned. Now, the casting into the fire is a certain allusion to the eternal punishment of Hell (Matthew 25:41, 46); the gathering is doubtless a reference to the coming judgment (Matthew 13:41) and being cast forth portrays the apostate's severance from the Lord (Galatians 5:4) but what does withered connote? To this writer's mind it very aptly suggests that state of spiritual blightness that is no characteristic of those who have fallen from the faith. There is absolutely none so restless, disturbed, dissatisfied and utterly withered as he who has turned his back upon the God with whom he once walked. Perhaps no better example could be found than that of Saul of Old Testament fame. Young, handsome and vigorous, he started well. Eventually however, rebellion invaded his heart and he became discontented, surly, vengeful and ultimately died in disgrace by his own hand. His case was pitiable indeed.
Nor is the New Testament silent concerning the state of which we speak. In a little parable designed to apply primarily to the impending fate of the Jewish nation, Jesus tells of a man who was dispossessed of a demon. For a while the unclean spirit wandered about, finally returning to the man's body. Finding it empty (it had been filled with nothing good) he, along with seven other spirits, entered the body. The Lord commented, "the last state of that man became worse than the first." (Matthew 12:43ff) That the application of this principle to an apostate child of God is appropriate seems to be evident by Peter's apparent use of Jesus' words in a passage on this very theme. "For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning." (II Peter 2:20ff)
In a ministry that spans almost two decades, I have known a number of people who embraced the truth and gladly walked therein for several years. Then, for reasons (really excuses; unjustified) known perhaps only to them and God, they turned their backs upon Jehovah and His holy cause. It may be said unreservedly that nothing but heartache can follow such a disastrous course. Carefully observing many of these backsliders over considerable periods of time, I can honestly say I do not know of a single one of these souls who is now genuinely happy. In some instances they have dredged deeper into sin and become a stench even in the eyes of a wicked world. Others' lives have literally come apart at the seams, resulting in divorce, mental illness, suicide, etc.
How true the words of the prophet, "they have made them crooked paths; whosoever goeth therein does not know peace." (Isaiah 59:8)
Monday, February 4, 2013
Times and Fullness of Gentiles
Wayne Jackson wrote this article which appeared in the December 1975 edition of The Christian Courier. The paper was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.
QUESTION: Please explain the expressions "times of the Gentiles" and "fullness of the Gentiles" in Luke 21:24 and Romans 11:25. Do these verses predict a future restoration of Jerusalem to the Jews and a national conversion of these people?
ANSWER: These passages are favorites of the dispensationalists as they are alleged to contain a promise of Jerusalem's restoration to the Jews in the "millennium" as well as a large scale conversion of Israel, through whom it is claimed, Christ will rule over the world from Jerusalem for one thousand years. It assumes the very thing to be proved and finds no support here or elsewhere in the Bible.
LUKE 21:24 - "And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." Here the Lord foretells the dreadful punishment to be inflicted upon the Jews in connection with the impending destruction of Jerusalem. The Jewish historian Josephus records the fulfillment declaring that during Jerusalem's siege, no less than 1.1 million Jews were brutally slain. (Wars, 6:9:3) Additionally, some 97,000 were taken captive and sold as slaves or used for sport in the Roman theaters. Concerning the fate of the holy city itself, the Savior said, "And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles." The verb in this clause is identified as a periphrastic form of the future, suggesting that, "Jerusalem shall (continue to) be trampled down." (Ernest Burton, Moods and Tenses of New Testament Greek, p.36.) Winer observes that, "the words seem intended to express an enduring state, where the two futures which precede, they shall fall and shall be led captive, denote transient events. (G.B. Winer, Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 438.) The abiding nature of the Jews' dispossession of Jerusalem is thus emphasized. Paul may be reflecting these very sentiments when he says, "wrath is come upon them to the uttermost." (I Thessalonians 2:16)
Pre-millennialists assert however, that this punishment is only temporary, "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled," after which there will be a restoration of Jerusalem to Jewish control. The key word here is "until" (achri). Pre-millennialists assume this conjunction has a temporal significance here, thus indicating a reversal of events after the specified period. But the assumption is unwarranted; achri frequently has a terminal thrust in the New Testament, with no reversal being implied at all. Note some examples.
By observing the Lord's supper, Christians, "proclaim the Lord's death till He come." (I Corinthians 11:26) The fact that Christians will only observe the memorial supper till He returns does not imply that at that time the situation will be completely reversed and we will deny our Master's death! The passage merely sets forth the terminal function of the communion supper. Again, in I Corinthians 15:25 Paul argues that Christ must reign, "till He hath put all His enemies under His feet." There is certainly no implication though that at that time Christ will repudiate His own reign. The verse simply demonstrates that Christ will thereafter not reign as our priestly king, since the terminal point of His redemptive work will have been reached.
Or note Revelation 2:25 where Jesus encourages the saints of Thyatira: "that which ye have, hold fast till I come." Does this mean these Christians would relinquish their blessings after He came? Obviously not. Similarly, when it was foretold that Jerusalem was to be trodden down until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, there is no necessity for assuming an implied restoration of the city. Jesus was, as we will presently note, signifying the terminal point of history. It is as if one would say, "Mr. Smith was sick until he died." There is no implication that his health was restored after death; it means he was sick until the end. Luke 21:24 contains no hint of restoration!
The phrase, "times of the Gentiles" is used to express a balance between an implied "times of the Jews." Henry Alford calls it a, "dispensation of the Gentiles." For fifteen centuries the Hebrews had been God's special people, an era which might be appropriately styled the "times of the Jews." With their rejection of Christ however, the "kingdom" (their reign as Jehovah's chosen) was to be taken from them (Matthew 21:43) and conferred upon a spiritual nation, the church. (I Peter 2:9) As a token of God's punishment, the Jews' prized city would be trodden down until the dispensation of the Gentiles reached its end, which will be the terminal point in history, the end of the world. R.C.H. Lenski is quite correct when he observes that the "times of the Gentiles" embraces that period from, "the destruction of Jerusalem to the time of the Parousia (coming of Christ)." (Commentary on Luke, p. 1021.)
ROMANS 11:25 - Again, the presuppositions of dispensationalism have led some to assert that this context teaches that though Israel has for the most part rejected the Messiah, after "the fullness of the Gentiles be come in" the Jews will be converted virtually in mass and restored to their national prominence. The notion is totally groundless.
In order to correctly understand Romans 11:25ff, the three chapters of Romans 9-11 must be viewed collectively. The thrust of Paul's presentation is to show how the faithfulness of God continues in view of the fact that though great promises were made to Israel, that nation was cast off. How is this seeming discrepancy solved? The apostle thus argues: God's rejection of Israel is not complete. There was still a faithful remnant (9). The Lord's casting off of Israel was not without reason. Thy initially rejected Him (10). And, Jehovah's rejection of the Jews is not total and without reservation. All Israel could be saved by accepting God's Deliverer (11).
A key to understanding Romans 11:25 is doubtless to be found back in verse 12. There Paul, discussing Israel's fall says, "Now if their fall is the riches of the world, and their loss the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fullness?" Here the Jews' "fall" is set in vivid contrast to their "fullness." Their fullness was the opposite of their fall. Hence, an identification of the latter will help in determining the meaning of the former. The FALL of Israel was their rejection of Christ. when they so rebelled, the full purpose of God for them was left unrealized. Correspondingly, their FULLNESS would have been the realization of Jehovah's full purpose in them. In their fall, God's full purpose for Israel was not fulfilled (nevertheless, by that fall the door was opened to the Gentiles working out their "riches"). Yet what a far greater blessing would have resulted had their fullness (acceptance of Christ) been accomplished. Similarly, Paul speaks of the "fullness of the Gentiles" in verse 25. Surely there is a corresponding thought here.
In Romans 11:25, the apostle affirms that, "a hardening in part hath befalled Israel." The "hardening" alludes to their lack of faith in Christ and the "in part" suggests that such unbelief was characteristic of only a portion of Israel (though perhaps a majority). Also, that part of Israel would continue in their hardening. The verb "hath befallen" is the perfect tense, stressing the abiding nature of the hardness, "until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in." Again, "until" is achri and as in Luke 21:24 its thrust is terminal (see again the parallels above) and no softening and subsequent conversion is implied.
Here we meet the phrase, "fullness of the Gentiles." As stressed above, fullness of the Jews implied the fulfillment of God's purpose among them. Accordingly, fullness of the Gentiles denotes the accomplishment of Jehovah's ultimate purpose among the Gentiles (and the word Gentiles simply means "nations") or in other words, till the end of this present dispensation. Thus, B. M. Christensen comments, "This partial hardening will continue throughout the time of the Gentiles, i.e., until Christ returns." (Commentary on Romans, p. 714.)
Since the hardening of Israel was not total but only in part, there is still hope that many of the Jews would be saved. But how is it that Israel can be saved? By turning through the obedience of faith (1:5; 16:26) to that illustrious "Deliverer" that came out of Zion (26). Though some Jews have been in a state of "disobedience" (30), Paul sees the possibility that some will turn from such and if they so do, "they may also now obtain mercy" (31). And this gives us the correct meaning of "so all Israel shall be saved." The word "so" (houtos) is an adverb of manner, meaning "in this way." Hence, it is "in this way" (the way of obeying Christ) that all Israel (who are saved ) shall be saved. There is simply no promise of the national conversion of Israel in the Bible.
The theory that Paul expected a mass conversion of Israel is wanting on several accounts: (a) it stultifies his whole series of arguments on this theme; (b) and, it leaves inexplicable the throbbing anguish for his brethren in the flesh which literally saturates this entire section. For instance, Paul touchingly writes: "For I could wish [potential imperfect - 'I was on the point of wishing'] that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh." (Romans 9:3) WHY, pray tell, if he knew a national conversion of his brethren was an ultimate reality? The pre-millennial concept of these verses is clearly erroneous.
QUESTION: Please explain the expressions "times of the Gentiles" and "fullness of the Gentiles" in Luke 21:24 and Romans 11:25. Do these verses predict a future restoration of Jerusalem to the Jews and a national conversion of these people?
ANSWER: These passages are favorites of the dispensationalists as they are alleged to contain a promise of Jerusalem's restoration to the Jews in the "millennium" as well as a large scale conversion of Israel, through whom it is claimed, Christ will rule over the world from Jerusalem for one thousand years. It assumes the very thing to be proved and finds no support here or elsewhere in the Bible.
LUKE 21:24 - "And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." Here the Lord foretells the dreadful punishment to be inflicted upon the Jews in connection with the impending destruction of Jerusalem. The Jewish historian Josephus records the fulfillment declaring that during Jerusalem's siege, no less than 1.1 million Jews were brutally slain. (Wars, 6:9:3) Additionally, some 97,000 were taken captive and sold as slaves or used for sport in the Roman theaters. Concerning the fate of the holy city itself, the Savior said, "And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles." The verb in this clause is identified as a periphrastic form of the future, suggesting that, "Jerusalem shall (continue to) be trampled down." (Ernest Burton, Moods and Tenses of New Testament Greek, p.36.) Winer observes that, "the words seem intended to express an enduring state, where the two futures which precede, they shall fall and shall be led captive, denote transient events. (G.B. Winer, Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 438.) The abiding nature of the Jews' dispossession of Jerusalem is thus emphasized. Paul may be reflecting these very sentiments when he says, "wrath is come upon them to the uttermost." (I Thessalonians 2:16)
Pre-millennialists assert however, that this punishment is only temporary, "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled," after which there will be a restoration of Jerusalem to Jewish control. The key word here is "until" (achri). Pre-millennialists assume this conjunction has a temporal significance here, thus indicating a reversal of events after the specified period. But the assumption is unwarranted; achri frequently has a terminal thrust in the New Testament, with no reversal being implied at all. Note some examples.
By observing the Lord's supper, Christians, "proclaim the Lord's death till He come." (I Corinthians 11:26) The fact that Christians will only observe the memorial supper till He returns does not imply that at that time the situation will be completely reversed and we will deny our Master's death! The passage merely sets forth the terminal function of the communion supper. Again, in I Corinthians 15:25 Paul argues that Christ must reign, "till He hath put all His enemies under His feet." There is certainly no implication though that at that time Christ will repudiate His own reign. The verse simply demonstrates that Christ will thereafter not reign as our priestly king, since the terminal point of His redemptive work will have been reached.
Or note Revelation 2:25 where Jesus encourages the saints of Thyatira: "that which ye have, hold fast till I come." Does this mean these Christians would relinquish their blessings after He came? Obviously not. Similarly, when it was foretold that Jerusalem was to be trodden down until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, there is no necessity for assuming an implied restoration of the city. Jesus was, as we will presently note, signifying the terminal point of history. It is as if one would say, "Mr. Smith was sick until he died." There is no implication that his health was restored after death; it means he was sick until the end. Luke 21:24 contains no hint of restoration!
The phrase, "times of the Gentiles" is used to express a balance between an implied "times of the Jews." Henry Alford calls it a, "dispensation of the Gentiles." For fifteen centuries the Hebrews had been God's special people, an era which might be appropriately styled the "times of the Jews." With their rejection of Christ however, the "kingdom" (their reign as Jehovah's chosen) was to be taken from them (Matthew 21:43) and conferred upon a spiritual nation, the church. (I Peter 2:9) As a token of God's punishment, the Jews' prized city would be trodden down until the dispensation of the Gentiles reached its end, which will be the terminal point in history, the end of the world. R.C.H. Lenski is quite correct when he observes that the "times of the Gentiles" embraces that period from, "the destruction of Jerusalem to the time of the Parousia (coming of Christ)." (Commentary on Luke, p. 1021.)
ROMANS 11:25 - Again, the presuppositions of dispensationalism have led some to assert that this context teaches that though Israel has for the most part rejected the Messiah, after "the fullness of the Gentiles be come in" the Jews will be converted virtually in mass and restored to their national prominence. The notion is totally groundless.
In order to correctly understand Romans 11:25ff, the three chapters of Romans 9-11 must be viewed collectively. The thrust of Paul's presentation is to show how the faithfulness of God continues in view of the fact that though great promises were made to Israel, that nation was cast off. How is this seeming discrepancy solved? The apostle thus argues: God's rejection of Israel is not complete. There was still a faithful remnant (9). The Lord's casting off of Israel was not without reason. Thy initially rejected Him (10). And, Jehovah's rejection of the Jews is not total and without reservation. All Israel could be saved by accepting God's Deliverer (11).
A key to understanding Romans 11:25 is doubtless to be found back in verse 12. There Paul, discussing Israel's fall says, "Now if their fall is the riches of the world, and their loss the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fullness?" Here the Jews' "fall" is set in vivid contrast to their "fullness." Their fullness was the opposite of their fall. Hence, an identification of the latter will help in determining the meaning of the former. The FALL of Israel was their rejection of Christ. when they so rebelled, the full purpose of God for them was left unrealized. Correspondingly, their FULLNESS would have been the realization of Jehovah's full purpose in them. In their fall, God's full purpose for Israel was not fulfilled (nevertheless, by that fall the door was opened to the Gentiles working out their "riches"). Yet what a far greater blessing would have resulted had their fullness (acceptance of Christ) been accomplished. Similarly, Paul speaks of the "fullness of the Gentiles" in verse 25. Surely there is a corresponding thought here.
In Romans 11:25, the apostle affirms that, "a hardening in part hath befalled Israel." The "hardening" alludes to their lack of faith in Christ and the "in part" suggests that such unbelief was characteristic of only a portion of Israel (though perhaps a majority). Also, that part of Israel would continue in their hardening. The verb "hath befallen" is the perfect tense, stressing the abiding nature of the hardness, "until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in." Again, "until" is achri and as in Luke 21:24 its thrust is terminal (see again the parallels above) and no softening and subsequent conversion is implied.
Here we meet the phrase, "fullness of the Gentiles." As stressed above, fullness of the Jews implied the fulfillment of God's purpose among them. Accordingly, fullness of the Gentiles denotes the accomplishment of Jehovah's ultimate purpose among the Gentiles (and the word Gentiles simply means "nations") or in other words, till the end of this present dispensation. Thus, B. M. Christensen comments, "This partial hardening will continue throughout the time of the Gentiles, i.e., until Christ returns." (Commentary on Romans, p. 714.)
Since the hardening of Israel was not total but only in part, there is still hope that many of the Jews would be saved. But how is it that Israel can be saved? By turning through the obedience of faith (1:5; 16:26) to that illustrious "Deliverer" that came out of Zion (26). Though some Jews have been in a state of "disobedience" (30), Paul sees the possibility that some will turn from such and if they so do, "they may also now obtain mercy" (31). And this gives us the correct meaning of "so all Israel shall be saved." The word "so" (houtos) is an adverb of manner, meaning "in this way." Hence, it is "in this way" (the way of obeying Christ) that all Israel (who are saved ) shall be saved. There is simply no promise of the national conversion of Israel in the Bible.
The theory that Paul expected a mass conversion of Israel is wanting on several accounts: (a) it stultifies his whole series of arguments on this theme; (b) and, it leaves inexplicable the throbbing anguish for his brethren in the flesh which literally saturates this entire section. For instance, Paul touchingly writes: "For I could wish [potential imperfect - 'I was on the point of wishing'] that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh." (Romans 9:3) WHY, pray tell, if he knew a national conversion of his brethren was an ultimate reality? The pre-millennial concept of these verses is clearly erroneous.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)