“I SPEAK TO YOU GENTILES.” Thus he learns that those warnings and threats of chapter 11:21, 22, are “for his learning;” but that they are neither addressed to him, nor are they written concerning him as a member of “the Church of God.” On following up this clue he begins to notice the figure of the Olive tree, and remembers that it is one of three trees to which Israel is compared in the Old Testament, the Fig tree being the symbol of Israel’s national privileges; the Olive tree, of Israel’s religious privileges; and the Vine, of Israel’s spiritual privileges. Here he learns that the natural branches are broken off for a season, and the branches of the wild Olive (as the Gentiles are called) are grafted in, also for a season. Israel is shown to have lost their religious privileges, which have passed over to the Gentiles as such. Israel once had their own land, their own metropolitan city, their own government, their own religious privileges, which are summed up in this context (ch. 9:4, 5), and in chapter 3:1, 2, where the question is asked, “What advantage then hath the Jew?” and the answer is, “Much every way, but chiefly that unto them were committed the Oracles of God.” Up to the rejection (Act_28:25-26) of Peter’s offer (Act_3:19-20) no Gentile could get a blessing except in connection with Israel. In Act_8:1-40 Act_9:1-43; Act_10:1-48 we have three typical examples grouped together, as though to emphasize the fact by giving one from each of the three great branches of the human family: The Ethiopian (from Ham), Saul (from Shem), and Cornelius (from Japhet). In the present dispensation no Jew can come into blessing except in Christ, in connection with Gentiles. But in the New Dispensation of the Acts of the Apostles the Israelite branches were already being “broken off,” and Gentile branches were already being grafted in. These latter had no greater privileges as Gentiles as to standing than Israelites (as Israelites). Hence the words of Rom_11:18-21 applied to all such; for though the doctrinal foundation of the Mystery had been laid in Rom_1:1-32; Rom_2:1-29; Rom_3:1-31; Rom_4:1-25; Rom_5:1-21; Rom_6:1-23; Rom_7:1-25; Rom_8:1-39, the Mystery itself was not revealed until it was committed to writing in the Prison Epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians). The Epistle itself was not written until nearly the end of the Acts, and only a short time before Ephesians. Now we can see the cause of all the confusion. The olive tree is almost universally taken as symbolizing the Church. We know of no commentary where this is not done. The Word of truth is not rightly divided as to its subject-matter; and, though the Apostle says, “I speak to you Gentiles,” yet what he says is interpreted as addressed to the Church of God. Hence, the immutable truth concerning the standing of the Church of God in Christ Jesus is overthrown by what is equally true concerning the Gentile; and all this evil comes from not heeding the Divine precept of 2Ti_2:15. True, it is all written for us, for the Church, “for our learning.” There may be a kind of general application for us as to our use of any privileges which God may have given us as individuals; but, the true interpretation as it concerns the Gentiles, as such, will alone give us the “truth” of this portion of the Word. Oh, what confusion is brought into the Word, and what trouble is brought into our minds by not rightly dividing the subject-matter of this Scripture. We have only to take up almost any commentary on this chapter, and we see at once the struggles that have to be made to bring Rom_11:1-36 into harmony with Rom_8:1-39. It cannot be done; hence it is that the effort is so painfully obvious. Look, for example, at one of the best commentaries on Romans, by one of the best commentators (the present Bishop of Durham, Dr. Handley Moule). He sees the difficulty, and he grapples with it. He dare not ignore the truth of chapter 8, and yet he treats chapter 11 in a way that practically upsets it. His words are:- “Here . . . we have man thrown back on the thought of his responsibility, of the contingency, in a certain sense, of his safety on his fidelity, ‘If you are true to mercy, mercy will be true to you; otherwise you too will be broken off,’ . . . Let him put no pillow of theory between the sharpness of that warning and his soul. Penitent, self-despairing, resting on Christ alone, let him ‘abide by the goodness of God.’” These words would be true if slightly modified and spoken of the Gentile, as such. But they are not true as addressed to “man,” as such; still less as a warning to the individual child of God, who can never be separated from that goodness and love of God by all the powers of earth and hell combined (Rom_8:38-39). We could hardly have a more suitable and powerful example of the importance of attending to the one great requirement of “the Word of Truth;” as to rightly dividing its subject matter. In the matter of letters, or epistles, it is very important in our social life to carefully observe the address written on the envelope. It makes for peace and harmony, and prevents awkward mistakes and misunderstandings. It is a mistake that is sometimes made, and it may be that when we have opened a letter that is not addressed to us we commence to read it; and as we read on we find things said that are exceedingly interesting and most instructive; but we come upon other things which we cannot make out, and we find references to matters which we do not understand, and to circumstances with which we are unacquainted, because we are not the persons directly written to. Then, if we are wise, we turn to the address, and there we discover the mistake we have made, and the cause of all our confusion. It is exactly so with 3. The Epistles to the Dispersion.-No Epistle has been the source of such confusion, and none has received such treatment as that written by James. (a) The Epistle of James is addressed:- To the Twelve Tribes which are scattered abroad. Doubtless they were believers, up to a certain point; but exactly what they believed, or how far they believed we are not told. They evidently, as Jews, believed that Christ was the Messiah, and had a certain amount of light: but the question is, Did they, as sinners, believe in Christ as their Saviour; or know that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth?” It is clear from the surface of the Epistle that they did not have the standing of those who were “called to be saints:” or of members of the spiritual Body of Christ, as set forth in the Epistles addressed to the churches of Ephesus, Philippi, and Colosse. They were “Christians” as distinguished from Jews and Gentiles, but were they members of “the Church of God?” Who are the “ye” in chapter 4? Who are the “rich men” in chapter 5:1? The stand-point of the epistle is wholly Jewish. They were monotheists as appears from chapter 2:19. Their place of worship was the “Synagogue” (ch. 2:2, margin). In chapter 5:12 the prohibition of swearing is according to the Jewish formula; and in verse 14 the anointing with oil is in accordance with Jewish practice at that time. Spiritual and vital Christianity is nowhere seen. Only twice is “Christ” named at all (ch. 1:1; ch. 2:1). The word “Gospel” is not used, and the “Mystery” is unknown. The fundamental doctrines of the Gospel are not even alluded to: such as Incarnation, Atonement, Redemption, Resurrection, or Ascension. The Morality of the Law is there (2:8, 13). The coming of the Lord as the Judge is there (ch. 5:8, 9). Justification by works is there (ch. 2:20-26). All the errors combated refer to Judaism. Religion (threskeia) is there, but it is shown that the works of mercy and charity are better than all the outward forms of religious worship. Fatalism, formalism and hypocrisy, arrogance and oppression, are specially dealt with; but surely these are not the sins which distinguish and characterize the Church of God. All the phenomena are Palestinian or Eastern, as we may gather from the references to the early and latter rain (ch. 5:7); to the fig, oil, and wine (ch. 3:12); to drought (ch. 5:17, 18); to salt and bitter springs (ch. 3:11, 12); and to the hot wind (ch. 1:11). The Epistle is full of references to the Sermon on the Mount, which (as we shall see below) has reference to the past Dispensation, not to the present. We may compare Jam_1:2; Jam_5:10-11 with Mat_5:10-12. 1:4 5:48. 1:5, 17; 5:15 7:7. 11. 1:9; 2:5 5:3. 1:22-25; 2:10, 11 5:19. 1:20 5:22. 1:22; 2:14; 5:7-9 7:21-26. 2:1-3 6:2, 5. 2:8 7:12. 2:10, 11 7:12. 2:13 6:14, 15; 7:2. 2:14 7:21. 3:1; 4:11 7:1. 3:12 7:16. 3:17, 18 5:9. 4:3 7:8. 4:4 6:24. 4:8 5:8. 4:9 5:4. 4:10 5:3, 4. 4:11 7:1. 4:13-16 6:25. 5:2 6:19. 5:10 5:12. 5:12 5:34. From other parts of the Lord’s teaching in connection with the Kingdom we may compare Jam_1:14 with Mat_15:19. Jam_4:12 with Mat_10:28. Jam_5:1 with Luk_6:24. These phenomena in the subject-matter, when interpreted of the Church of God, and appropriated by those who are “in Christ,” and “complete in Him,” led to such confusion that, though the Epistle was in the primitive Syriac version from the first (cent. ii.), and was quoted as Canonical by the great Greek Fathers of cent. iv., yet there were always great doubts about its canonicity, and delays in receiving it. These doubts were revived when translations of the Bible began to be made at the Reformation. Erasmus, Luther, and others questioned the canonicity of the Epistle; and it is well known that Luther went so far as to call it “a veritable Epistle of straw.” The same difficulties and doubts are felt today. But they are all caused by interpreting of the Church of God that which is written to quite a different class of people belonging to “the Twelve Tribes.” The question is, Do we belong to “the Twelve Tribes?” Do we worship in a Synagogue? Is it our custom, as a People, to anoint with oil? Is not the “Assembly” of Jam_5:14 identical with the “Synagogue” of ch. 2:2? The answers to these questions will show that the Epistle is not addressed to us, i.e., to those who are “in Christ,” and who are “the Church of God.” The moment we discern this, and rightly divide off, the class of persons addressed, there will be an end of all the labored arguments to bring the Epistle of James into harmony with the Epistle to the Romans; and of all attempts to reconcile its teaching with that of Ephesians or Colossians. There will be nothing either to harmonize or to reconcile. James will be seen to be true in what he wrote to those whom he addressed, and Paul will be seen to be true in what he wrote. Both will be seen to be true in what they said to those to whom they were respectively inspired to write, if we rightly divide these portions of the Word of truth. (b) The Epistle to the Hebrews.-We have another example, very similar to this, in the Epistle addressed to other Hebrew believers. These were evidently more advanced than those who were addressed by James, and less, perhaps, than those who were addressed by Peter. All these three belonged to the same class; the Diaspora or Dispersion, of Israel. The epistle of James was addressed to the Diaspora. Two were written by Peter (compare 1Pe_1:1 with 2Pe_3:1): and another was written to them by Paul. This is distinctly so stated in 2Pe_3:15, where Peter says “our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written UNTO YOU:” i.e., you believers among the Diaspora. Paul was thus the writer of the Epistle to Hebrew believers among the Dispersion; for no other such Epistle of Paul has ever been heard of. Who these Hebrews were, or what they believed, or what their earlier standing was, may be gathered from Act_21:20, where James says to Paul on the arrival of the latter at Jerusalem: “Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law.” If they were “all zealous of the law,” and continued to offer sacrifices for sins (as it is clear they did from v. 26), they could not have believed that Christ was “the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” (Rom_10:4); and they could not have known their standing in Christ. In Act_21:1-40 they are not distinguished from those who beat Paul (v. 32), and cried “Away with him” (v. 36): and their zeal for the law was so great, that, they not only observed it themselves, but would persecute and destroy those who forsook it (Act_21:21-24; compare 1Th_2:14-16). It was to such Hebrews as these, who believed so little, and worked so much, that Paul was afterward inspired to write an Epistle. It was written to those who had “a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, had not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law, for righteousness, to every one that believeth” (Rom_10:2-4). To make this known to them the Epistle to the Hebrews was written. For Paul’s name to have been prefixed to it, as it was to all his other Epistles, would have been (humanly speaking) fatal to its acceptance or usefulness, after the events recorded in Act_21:17-40 : events which ended his public ministry. The Holy Spirit therefore suppressed Paul’s name, and put the name of “God” at the beginning of the Epistle. Thus, “God,” who had given the law, was the God who showed how it had been fulfilled and ended in Christ. In spite of all this, Christians, today, take the Epistle as addressed directly to themselves; and, when they come to passages like Heb_6:6, and read about “falling away,” or to ch. 10:26, and read how “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” for those who “sin willfully,” they are naturally greatly perplexed and perturbed: for all this is in direct contradiction to what is written and specially addressed to them concerning their own standing in Christ, in Rom_8:1-39 and the other Church Epistles. All this confusion comes from not “rightly-dividing’’ the class of persons to whom, and concerning whom, the Epistle to the Hebrews is addressed. It may be applied by any and all believers who are still “zealous of the law;” and therefore it concerns such, and only such, today, whether Romanists, Romanizers, or Sacramentarians. Of course it is written “for” us, yea, “for our learning.” In the Epistle to the Romans we learn the fact, that “Christ IS the end of the law for every one that believeth,” but in Hebrews we learn how Christ BECAME the end of the law, and the end of Priests and Sacrifices. We learn the true meaning of the types of Exodus and Leviticus; which we could never otherwise have known. But to interpret the Epistle to the Hebrews now of, or as addressed to, those who are “complete is Christ,” “found in Him, not having their own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith” (Php_3:9), is to produce only confusion and trouble. And, to take what was perfectly true of such Hebrew believers who were still “zealous of the law,” and to understand it of those who have died to the law in Christ, is not only to disobey the precept as to “rightly dividing” the Word of truth, but it is to pervert that very Word and make it teach error in the place of truth. Many other examples might be given; but several others will come better under our fourth division of this ONE GREAT REQUIREMENT. In 2Ti_2:15 God’s children are compared to workmen, whose chief work lies in connection with His “Word of truth.” He who gave that Word has directed them how to work, so as to excel as His workmen; and that they may not be ashamed of their work at His coming. He has sent them a special message showing how they are to work in order to secure this happy result. He has sent them an inspired instruction so that they may find the “truth” they seek; and at the same time have the blessed assurance of showing themselves and their work, alike, “approved unto God.”
Posted on: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 13:50:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015