Monday, June 30, 2014

Acknowledgment. (3) - by Charles H. Welch


















#3. “Face to face”, or future “recognition” of the truths that lie behind the imagery of human speech. 


The earliest use of epiginosko by Paul, is that found in
I Cor. xiii. 12: 

“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” 

In this passage the first “know” is ginosko, the second and third in italics, are epiginosko. The apostle has been speaking of the transitory character of the gifts enjoyed by the church, and contrasts the partial knowledge which then obtained, with a future day, when, in exchange for seeing “through a glassdarkly”, the believer would see “face to face”: when, instead of the partial knowledge which our very nature imposes, we shall “recognize” even as we are “recognized”. This day of full recognition does not refer to the present dispensation of the mystery, for, however transcendent the blessings and superior the calling and sphere of the church of the Body of Christ, no member of that body sees “face to face”, or “recognizes” even as he himself is “recognized” by the Lord and the higher intelligences of the spiritual world. That day is future, not only for the Corinthians, but also for us. 

Before we can appreciate the Apostle’s teaching in I Cor. xiii. 12 it will be necessary to attain some element of certainty as to the figure he uses when he speaks of seeing through a glass darkly. There is a division of opinion among commentators as to whether the world “glass” refers to a mirror “by” which objects are seen, or to a semi-transparent window, “through” which objects are seen. Bloomfield understand esoptron, “glass”, to refer to the lapis specularis of the ancients, thin plates of some semi-transparent substance with which windows were glazed. But as he admits that there is no other example of the use of this word esoptron for dioptron his case is very weak. Alford’s comment on this usage is: 

The idea of the lapis specularis, placed in windows, being meant, adopted by Schöttgen from Rabbinical usage . . . . . is inconsistent with the usage of esoptron, which (Meyer) is always a MIRROR . . . . . the window of lapis specularis being dioptra” (Strabo xii. 2, p.540).

If we keep to the known examples of the use of esoptron, we must reject the idea of the specular, the semi-transparent window, and retain the figure of a mirror. The only other occurrence of the word in the New Testament is James i. 23, where the fact that a man is said to behold his natural face “in a mirror”, makes it impossible to translate esoptron by the word “window”. Two occurrences in the Apocrypha are helpful.

“The unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His goodness” (Wisdom 7:26). 
“Never trust thine enemy: for like as iron rusteth, so is his wickedness. Though he humble himself, and go crouching, yet take good heed and beware of him, and thou shalt be unto him, as if thou hadst wiped a mirror and thou shalt know that his rust hath not been altogether wiped away” (Ecclus. 12:11). 

From these references we may learn two items of interest: 

(1) That it was no uncommon thing for a mirror to be spotted. 
(2) That the reference to “iron rust” indicates that such mirrors were made of metal, not of glass. 

That the mirrors which the women of Israel brought out of Egypt were made of “brass” and not of “glass”, we know, for out of them were made: 


“the laver of brass, and the foot of it” (Exod. xxxviii. 8). 


Job compares the firmament to “a molten mirror” (Job xxxii. 8); and Nahum speaks of the nation of Israel becoming a “gazing stock”, or perhaps better, a “mirror”, so that the nations might see in Israel’s punishment an example for themselves. The LXX departs from the literal here, and translates the Hebrew by paradeigma, “an example” (Nah. Iii. 6). Shakespeare’s conception of drama runs parallel with this Biblical usage: 

“Whose end, both at the first, and now, was, and is, to hold, as ‘twere the mirror up to nature; to show virtue her own feature, scorn here own image, and the very age and body of the time, his form and pressure” (Hamlet iii. ii. 23). 

The writer of the article on “glass” in “Kitto’s Encyclopaedia” thinks that a mirror cannot be intended in I Cor. xiii., for “face to face” he contends, presents an improper contrast, for in a mirror, “face answers to face” (Prov. xxvii. 19). This objection however is not valid: there is no word to correspond with “answer” in the original. A more literal translation yields a different meaning and message:

“As water, face to face; 
So heart, man to man.”

“If I bring rock together, it abuts, but there is no mixture. If I pour sand together, it meets, but I may trace the parcels if they differ; but ‘water’ is a fine picture of ‘heart’ . . . . . two sparkling drops, as they touch, instantly are blended” (Miller). 

There seems no room for doubt but that the apostle speaks of a “mirror” here. No one having any acquaintance with language will be stumbled by the use of dia, “through”. We see “through” a mirror in the sense of “by means of” the mirror and dia with the genitive is translated “by” or “through” in the sense in I Cor. i. 1, 9, 10, 21; ii. 10; iii. 5, 15, to give no more instances. 

What does the apostle mean when he says “in a glass darkly”? The word translated “darkly” is ainigma, our English “enigma”. There is an allusion here to Numb. xii. 8. 

“Mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches” (ainigmaton). 

Ainisso, the verb from which ainigma, “enigma”, is derived, means to hint, intimate with obscurity, insinuate, teach by figurative language. 

We have discussed the necessary limitations of human knowledge and of Divine revelation to human hearers in the series entitled “Fruits of “Fundamental Studies” (Volume XXIX, p.161), and to this limitation the apostle refers when he says that “Now we see by means of a mirror enigmatically”. 

Are there no images, figures, or symbols in the epistles of the mystery? Is not the very title “Christ” a condescension to our limitations? It means “Anointed” and we can appreciate the symbols involved, but when we see “face to face” will not the title “Christ” be, for the first time in our experience, “recognized” even as we are “recognized”? Do not the facts that lie behind the figures “head”, “body”, “members”, “temple”, “citizens” await fuller recognition? If we now “know” even as we are known, what is the meaning of the words: 

“The Love of Christ which passeth knowledge” 
 or 
“The peace of God which passeth all understanding”? 

There are a few, who, by reason of temperament and circumstances, torment themselves with problems concerning the future glory. One such problem that we have had put to us is “Will the saints recognize their loved ones in glory?” For our own part, we have no problem. Recognition is incipient in individuality, and individuality is vitally bound up with memory, and I cannot remember things pertaining to myself without remembering things pertaining to others. Peter, even in this life, apparently had no difficulty in recognizing Moses and Elijah on the mount of transfiguration, even though he had met neither of them in the flesh. Should any reader of these lines still be worried by this question of future recognition, perhaps the amended translation of I Cor. xiii. 12 will come as a relief: 


“Then shall we recognize even as we are recognized.” 


---------------


---------------

Time and Place. (6)

The Scriptural association of chronology and topography with doctrine and purpose. - by Charles H. Welch




#6. The land of Nod, the city of Enoch 
(Gen. iv. 16, 17). 



The first geographical reference of Holy Scripture deals with the site of the garden planted by the Lord, “eastward in Eden”. The second speaks of a city built by rebellious man, “on the east of Eden”. 

“And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son Enoch” (Gen. iv. 16, 17). 

The curse pronounced upon Cain included the words: “A fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.” “Vagabond” is the translation of the Hebrew word Nod, which gives its name to the land whither Cain went. The same word that is translated “Nod” in Gen. iv. 16 is translated “wanderings” in Psalms lvi. 8, where David, though taken by the Philistines to Gath—a spiritual “land of Nod”—rejoices in the fact that “God is for me”, a contrast indeed with the condition of Cain. 

We have a similar instance of the meaning of a place from an experience of a visitor related in Gen. xxviii.19.

“And he called the name of that place Bethel: but the name of that city was called Luz at the first.” 

In this land of Nod the first city upon earth was built. The second city to be mentioned was built by the arch-rebel Nimrod, and its name was Nineveh, (Rehoboth may not be the name of a city, but the boulevard of the great city Nineveh: also “between Nineveh and Calah” may indicate one great city) (Gen. x. 10-12). The next city to be built was Babel (Gen. xi. 4, 5 and 8), and the fourth the wicked city named Sodom (Gen. xviii. 24). 

This sinister history of city-building, recorded in the early pages of Genesis, finds its echo in the book of the Revelation, where Babylon is called “that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth”. Thus Enoch the city of Cain, the vagabond; Nineveh the city of Nimrod, the mighty rebel; Sodom, to which apostate Israel is likened (Isa. i. 10; Rev. xi. 8) and Babel, the city of final antichristian rebellion, are linked together. 

Enoch comes from chanak, “to dedicate”. The word is chiefly used to indicate the dedication of offerings, houses or persons, to the Lord, and this leads us to suspect that Cain dedicated his child and his city to the Serpent, the Wicked One, whose child he was (I John iii. 12). In Dan. iii. 2, 3, the word is used of the dedication of an image by Nebuchadnezzar for idolatrous purposes. Closely associated with Cain’s city is the “civilization” introduced by his immediate descendants (Gen. iv. 20-22), an attempt to blunt the edge of the curse on the earth that Cain suffered. This is in severe contrast with the attitude of the great descendant of the other Enoch, “the seventh from Adam”, who refused to mitigate the 

“work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed” (Gen. v. 29),

and looked forward to the fulfillment of the type which his son Noah, and Noah’s great work, foreshadowed.

Where Cain “builded a city”, Noah “builded an altar”, and both “buildings” are associated with the ground that was cursed (Gen. iv. 17; viii. 20, 21). So, later, we read that Nimrod, the rebel, builded Nineveh (Gen. x. 11) and the rebellious nations of the earth proposed to build a city and a tower (Gen. xi. 4); but Abraham, who obeyed, built an altar unto the Lord (Gen. xii. 7, 8).


Thus we have, in the first two geographical notices in Genesis, the site of the garden which the Lord planted, and the site of the city which Cain builded, which clearly symbolize the two antagonistic lines of doctrine that culminate in the destruction of Babylon and the restoration of Paradise foretold in the closing book of the New Testament. 

[Bold verse - see Time and Place35, page 20 for error corrected] 

--------------


--------------


Time and Place 
An error corrected, and a Berean spirit manifested. 


In Volume xxxiv. page 179, we have the following statement:

"The rebellious nations of the earth proposed to build a city and a tower" (Gen. xi. 4.). 

A valued reader has written, drawing our attention to the fact that "nations" as such did not then exist, as Genesis xi. 6 says: 

"The people is one and have all one language." We readily acknowledge the slip of the pen in the use of the word "nations" in this article. 

In Volume ix. page 107, we recognize the fact that while the division of the race into "nations" is recorded in Genesis x, that the confusion of Babel found in Genesis xi preceded this division.

"Although the division of the earth among the sons of Noah comes before the record of the building of the tower of Babel, the scattering that took place at the confusion of tongues was the cause of the division recorded i n Chapter x. There in Chapter x. 5, 20 and 31, the descendants of Japheth, Ham and Shem are divided according to their tongues. This therefore mu^t have come after the record of chapter xi, for there we read "The whole earth was of one language and one speech". (The Berean Expositor, vol. ix, page 107.) 

Every reader, however, does not possess these early volumes and so we are grateful for the reminder. We rejoice too in the exhibition of a true Berean spirit that dares to "search and see", and for the words with which the correspondence closed. 

" I know it is not a matter of vital importance; save that the reputation for exactitude so worthily established by the Berean Expositor must needs be maintained." 

------------------

(From The Berean Expositor vol. 35, page 24).

------------------

Helpers of your joy. (1)

by Charles H. Welch


The place that joy occupies.



It is surprising in one sense, to note the emphasis which the apostle Paul puts upon “joy”. When we come to think of the life he lived, the nature and revelation made known to and through him-the stewardship of the Mystery-his bonds and imprisonment, the loneliness and the abuse that seemed his daily meat, we should not be surprised after the manner of men, if “joy” never entered his vocabulary. 

But, thank God we do not speak after the manner of men, having seen enough of the grace of God to be prepared for songs in the night and psalms from the innermost prison. Again and again in the epistle to the Philippians Paul bids his readers “rejoice”, even though some brethren (not merely pagan enemies) were endeavouring to add affliction to his bonds. 

The ministry for which The Berean Expositor was first called in existence, and which justified its continuance, is one so fraught with problems, and which makes such demands upon both reader and writer, that it is absolutely necessary that into all the hard study, and in some cases isolation that the truth entails, should be brought the remembrance that faith is not cold but warm and living, and that there is a “joy of faith” (Phil. 1:25) as well as the subject matter of the faith, the fight of faith and steadfastness in the faith. Faith not only leads to justification, acceptance, and life, blessings indeed beyond computation, but to “joy and peace in believing”(Rom. 15:13) with which we should be as much filled, as “with the spirit”. 

Some of the fruits of the Spirit are enumerated in Galatians 5:22,23 which sets forth a veritable cluster of Eschol, nine in all, including gentleness, temperance, and faith. The first in order of mention is “love”, without which all knowledge, faith, and even martyrdom are reduced to nothing: and second in order of mentions is “joy”. Can we conceive of gentleness without joy and still associate it with the Spirit? Temperance without joy may be a mischief-worker and a cause for stumbling. A joyless faith producing a joyless creed neither commends the gospel nor glorifies the Lord. Joy differs from happiness largely and depends upon what “happens”, whereas joy is deeper, being independent of circumstances. The Apostle may at one time be exalted and at another depressed: he may be full or hungry, be in comparative comfort or in lonely neglect. He may be even in fetters and prison, but his joy remains unchanged. 

Strictly speaking, there should be no need in a magazine of this type specifically to deal with such a subject. We should all be so keen to learn all that is possible concerning the Lord and His Word, that the pursuit of some intricate piece of grammar should be a joyful undertaking, the labour of discovering or of verifying and using a structure should be as joyful a piece of work as the singing of a lovely melody. Indeed, a peep behind the scenes would sometimes reveal that when after hours of close study, some intricate point had been resolved, or a complicated structure discovered, and the writer’s manner of celebrating the event so far removed from such the deportment we usually associate with such studies. Some exuberance not only echoes Archimedes’ famous cry of Eureka, but, and which is more to the point, is an echo of a joy such as that of Jeremiah who exclaimed: “Thy words were found and I did eat them: and or of the Psalmist who said: “I rejoice at Thy word, as one that findeth great spoil” (Psa. 119:162). 

“I will not leave thee”

The subject of Christian joy may be approached from several angles, and it is associated with a variety of themes, but the one theme that calls for immediate expression seems to be the close association that Scripture indicates as existing between joy and the presence of the Lord. We might establish the truth of this by an appeal to the epistle to the Philippians, where one of the key-words is “rejoice”, and where in chapter four the secret is revealed that “The Lord is near”. We might appeal to the Psalmist who said: “in Thy presence is fullness of joy” (Psa. 16:11), and realize that all such enjoyment of the Lord’s presence in this life is an anticipation of that future day of resurrection when we shall be satisfied (Psa. 17:15). 

But in the first epistle of John we read: “These things write we unto you, that your joy may be full” (1 John 1:4). Upon examination it will be discovered that John is writing about fellowship with the Father and with the Son, of walking in the light as He is in the light. In other words he associates joy with the presence of the Lord. 

Looking back to the verse in Psalm 16, proceeding that quoted above we read: “For Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell” (Psa. 16:10), and this reference provided us with the first of many aspects of that experimental enjoyment of the presence of God, which is our theme. 

“Thou wilt not leave me”. These words of the Lord spoken in the very valley of the shadow of death are calculated to minister to the joy of all who trust in Him. We observe that: 


(1) The promise, “I will not leave thee” arises out of salvation itself: 

“Hide not Thy face far from me; put not Thy servant away in anger: Thou has been my help; leave me not, neither forsake me, O God of my salvation” (Psa. 27:9). 

As the God of our salvation we can confidently call upon Him to “leave us not”, and when we contemplate all that salvation has cost Him, we may gladly rest upon the fact that He will not leave those to perish who have been bought with such a price. 

(2) “I will not leave thee” is also implicit in the fact that we so belong to the God of our Salvation, that we are called by His name: 

“O Lord, though our iniquities testify against us, do Thou it for Thy Name’s sake: for our backslidings are many; we have sinned against Thee. O the Hope of Israel, the Saviour thereof in time of trouble, why shouldest Thou be as a stranger in the land, and as a wayfaring man that turneth aside to tarry for a night? Why shouldest Thou be as a man astonished, as a mighty man that cannot save? Yet Thou, O Lord, art in the midst of us, and we are called by Thy Name: leave us not” (Jer. 14:7-9). 


The context of this passage is one of terrible retribution. Not until Daniel, in is prayer of the ninth chapter, pleads for the city “which is called by Thy name…and They people (that) are called by Thy name” (Dan.9:18, 19) does an answer of peace come. Nevertheless, in spite of the long wait of 70 years, the prayer was heard. We are called by His name; He has called us by our name, and we can confidently put up the plea: “We are called by Thy name: leave us not”. 


(3) “I will not leave thee” is implied in the promises of God: 

“And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will keep thee in all places whither though goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of” (Gen.28:15) 

Here is a ground of strong confidence. “I am with thee”; I will keep thee”; “I will bring thee” are all implied in the words: “For I will not leave thee until…”

(4) “I will not leave thee” is our strength in the conflict and our pledge of victory:


“Be strong and of good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the Lord thy God, He it is that doth go with thee, He will not fail thee, nor forsake thee” (Deut. 31:16).

“I will not forsake thee” 

Whenever we hear the words, “I will not leave thee”, we immediately add, if only mentally, the words, “neither will I forsake thee”. In on sense “leaving” and “forsaking” have an almost synonymous meaning and, indeed, the same original word is sometimes rendered “leave” and sometimes “forsake”. There are, however, one or two passages that we ought not to omit from our study together, and we trust that the survey will minister something of the joy of faith to any who may know something of what it means to be forsaken here below.

At the dedication of the temple, Solomon blessed the Lord saying, 

“Blessed be the Lord, that hath given rest unto His people Israel, according to all that He promised: there hath not failed one word of all His good promise, which He promised by the hand of Moses His servant. The Lord our God be with us, as He was with our fathers; let Him not leave us, nor forsake us” (1 Kings 8:56,57)

The way in which Solomon links together the fulfillment of the promise with the plea, “leave us not, neither forsake us”, leads our thoughts back to the beginning of Israel’s history in the land, under Joshua: 

“As I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee…And behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye may know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the Lord your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof” (Josh. 1:5, 23:14). 

Let us notice one or two features that minister to the comfort of the believer.
(1) The fact that the Lord will not forsake His people is a pledge of preservation: “For the Lord loveth judgment, and forsaketh not His saints; they are preserved for ever” (Psa 37:28). Surely it must minister to our joy to realize that in spite of all the opposition of the enemy, and of the betrayal of their own failings, the saints are not forsaken, and their preservation is assured. 

(2) the fact that the Lord will not forsake His people is because He is gracious and merciful, and slow to anger: 

“…in their rebellion appointed a captain to return to their bondage: but Thou art a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and forsookests them not. Yea, when they had made them a molten calf, and said, this is thy God that brought thee out of Egypt, and had wrought great provocations: yet Thou in Thy manifold mercies forsookest them not in the wilderness: the pillar of the cloud departed not from them by day, to lead them in the way; neither the pillar of fire by night, to shew them light, and the way wherein they should go …Yet many years didst Thou forbear them, and testifiest against them…Nevertheless for Thy great mercies’ sake Thou didst not utterly consume them, nor forsake them: for Thou are a gracious and merciful God” (Neh. 9:17,18,19,30,31). 

(4) The fact that the Lord will not forsake His people delivers them from bondage of fear: “Be content with such things as ye have: for He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. So that we may boldly say, the Lord is my Helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me” (Heb. 13:5,6). 

Many children of God are compelled to walk in lonely paths. Faithfulness often cuts them off from fellowship. Natural ties are also severed, and friends prove false or frail. It is to such that the blessed assurance comes, with all its sweetness, that the Lord will not forsake them: 

“When my father and mother forsake me, then the Lord will take me up” (Psa.27:10). 
“Can a woman forget her sucking child…Yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee” (Isa. 49:15). 
“At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me” (2 Tim.4:16,17)

The Apostle knew a little of the fellowship of His Lord’s sufferings. He, like the Saviour, was forsaken by his own, but there the parallel ceases. Paul could add, “notwithstanding the Lord stood with me”, but his Saviour, and ours, had to cry, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? (Matt.27:46).

Let us never forget in all the joy that comes to us by His gracious presence, that part of the price for such blessing included the forsaking of the Holy One for our sakes.

--------------


--------------


Sunday, June 29, 2014

The Interpretation of the Scriptures. (3)

by Charles H. Welch



We have considered some of the essential rules to be observed if we are to get a correct interpretation of the Word of God. One of the most important is that we should approach the Scriptures from the literal standpoint, making allowances for figures of speech, symbols, and types, and avoiding the allegorical system of spiritualizing, which is destructive of true understanding, we should note that this does not mean spiritual application cannot be made. This can be done safely only when the primary, basic and literal interpretation of the Bible has been settled. There is only one interpretation of a 
passage of Scripture, but there may be a number of applications of that passage; these are secondary to the interpretation and must be kept so. Roman Catholics find their sacramentalism by allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament and its ritual. Christian Science, Swedenborgianism, Theosophy and other cults can find their basis in the Bible only by excessive spiritualizing and all this leads to hopeless contradiction. Why? Because first account has not been given to the literal exposition of Scripture. To rest one’s theology on a secondary meaning of the Bible is not interpretation, but imagination, and human opinion, and in such a procedure the real meaning of God’s Word is bound to be lost. The only certain way of obtaining a correct understanding is to anchor interpretation to literal exposition in the sense that we have explained the word “literal”. Another reason for the importance of this method is that it acts as a check upon the imagination of men; in other words, it is a principle of control, which enables human opinion and error to be avoided. The failure of the spiritualizing or allegorical method of exposition was made evident in the first centuries, when the early Christians sought to take a stand against antichristian Gnosticism. The Gnostics claimed to have special knowledge and revelation, and when they touched the N.T. Scriptures they excessively spiritualized them. Unfortunately, the early Fathers, men of piety, and sincere as they were, did the same with the Old Testament, and therefore had little effective answer to such heresy, for the Gnostics had as much right to spiritualize the New Testament as the Fathers did the Old. What was right for one part of Scripture was surely valid for another. The fact is that with both, the method of approach was wrong.

Cultural Background.

We mean by this the total ways, manners, tools and institutions by which a people carry on their existence. What a word or expression literally means can only be understood by knowing the background of the people who used it. We are not concerned with what a word means today in the twentieth century, but what it meant in century one, when it was used. Language is always in a state of flux, losing meanings and gaining others, and so we should be prepared to take the trouble to go into past history and explore the background of Bible times. 

Geography.

The seeker after truth should study Bible geography. Most Bibles have maps at the end, but how often are they used? Geography is, as it were, the spatial background of Scripture as history is its temporal one. In order to understand properly the journey of the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan or, let us say, Paul’s missionary journeys, we obviously cannot ignore geography if we are to appreciate fully their importance. We read in the Bible of Tyre, Sidon, Chittim, Hamath, Anathoth and a host of other places. If we know nothing of Bible geography, how can we correctly understand the passages where these are used? And moreover, these places must be taken literally. If the Egypt of Bible times is not the literal land, what is it? Who can be sure of what it represents? Once one has left the normal literal meaning of a word, the door is thrown wide open to any idea, however far-fetched, and uncertainty and error can only result. God’s revelation is set in an historical and geographical context, and involves historic personages and events.

H. H. Rowley writes: 

“A religion which is rooted and grounded in history, cannot ignore history. A historical understanding of the Bible is not a superfluity which can be dispensed with in Biblical interpretation, leaving a body of ideas and principles divorced from the process out of which they were born” (Relevance of Biblical Interpretation). 

Moreover, not only the understanding of the Scriptures, but their truth, is bound up with history. If it could be proved that Pontius Pilate was not a historic personage, the truth of the Bible falls to the ground. Another thing must be stressed in the matter of interpretation and that is, the priority of the original languages of Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek. Inspiration in the Biblical sense applies only to these, and does not extend to the hundreds of translations that have been made, however good they may be. Consequently it is useless to base any argument on a translation without verifying the original. 

The Accommodation of Revelation. 

It must be constantly borne in mind that the Scriptures are the truth of God accommodated to the human mind for its instruction and assimilation. This must be so, because God, infinite and limitless, is seeking to reveal Himself to man, circumscribed and finite. Humanity cannot reach up to Him, but He can, in His goodness and love stoop down to us, and this is what He has done in His Word. To have any meaning to us, God’s revelation had to come in human language and human thought forms, referring to objects of human experience. Revelation for us must of necessity have an anthropomorphic character. Anthropomorphism simply means ascribing human characteristics to God. The understanding of God and the spiritual world is by this means and by analogy. So we have God’s almightiness spoken of in terms of a right arm, because among men, the right arm is the symbol of strength and power. Similarly the glory of heavenly things is described in the Bible in terms of human experience, such as gold, silver and jewels. Such is the description of the heavenly New Jerusalem in the book of the Revelation. Seisenberger, in his Practical Handbook for the study of the Bible, puts it this way: 

“It is with a well-considered design that the Holy Scriptures speak of God as a being resembling man, and ascribe to Him a face, eyes, ears, mouth, hands and feet, and the sense of smell and hearing. This is done out of consideration for man’s limited power of comprehension and the same is the case when the Bible represents God as loving or hating, as being jealous, angry, glad, or filled with regret. This shows that God is not indifferent to man, and his behaviour, but notices them well. Moreover the Bible teaches that man was made in the image and likeness of God, and therefore in the Divine Being there must be something analogous to the qualities of man, though in highest perfection and sin excepted.” 

When we study the Scriptures we must always bear these facts in mind and remember that, in them, God has graciously stooped down to our limited intelligence, using things that we do know, to explain in a measure those that we do not, because they are infinite and beyond us. 

This accommodation is very different from the way that the liberal theologian uses the term. The modernistic critic not only believes in accommodation of form, but of matter and content. Thus he asserts that the atonement of Christ, as a sacrifice, was only the manner in which the first century Christians thought of the death of Christ, but this idea is not binding upon Christianity today. In other words the sacrificial element in Christ’s death was only the opinion of the early Christians. This sort of accommodation we utterly reject. We might as well shut the Bible up for good if this sort of thing is true, for we could never be sure just what is, or what is not divine revelation. 

Interpretation and Application.


Although Scripture basically has one meaning, there are moral applications that can be made. The apostle Paul wrote: 

“. . . . . whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope” (Rom. xv. 4). 

That is, the Old Testament Scriptures, though primarily referring to Israel, can have a message for us. The strict interpretation of them is to the Jew, but there are principles in them that can apply to us today. In another passage (I Cor. x. 6, 11), Paul states that the things which happened to the Israelites during their wilderness journey were for our examples, and in II Tim. iii. 16 we are instructed that all Scripture (and this has primary reference to the Old Testament) is for our profit with regard to doctrine, reproof, correction and education in righteousness. However, we must always bear in mind that such applications are not interpretations, and must not receive that status; nor must we ever misinterpret a passage in order to derive an application from it that appears attractive to us. Furthermore a true application can be made only if it fits in with revealed truth for this present age of grace; if it does not, it becomes error, however appealing it may appear. 

In the Anglican morning service, the congregation quote Psa. li. 11, as a prayer: “Take not Thy Holy Spirit from me.” That is wrong application, John xiv. 16 makes clear: 

“And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever.” 

The Holy Spirit can be grieved by the believer (Eph. iv. 30), but there is no statement in the church epistles that He is ever taken away from the children of God. Such praying, Sunday by Sunday, is needless and quite ineffective. The first thing to do with any passage of Scripture is to settle the interpretation, or its basic meaning, and not until then are we in a position to make any application. 

Todd, in his Principles of Interpretation writes : 

“Only after the meaning or interpretation of a passage has been learned is one in a position to apply it to the life of an individual or of a company. The application is quite a distinct thing from the interpretation. Much has been lost in the study of the Bible by using it almost entirely by way of application, without enquiring into its literal meaning. Specially is this true of devotional study. Sometimes lessons are drawn from Scripture which are, to say the least, very far fetched, and not really warranted by the passage.” 

We can therefore state as a guiding principle that there is one interpretation of God’s Word, but there may be several applications. It is most important to keep these two things distinct and in this order, and in so doing it becomes another check on human ideas and peculiarities. The correct interpretation of the Bible takes note of the people to whom it is addressed, and the background or need that called for its writing. It is like the address on the envelope of a letter. The contents of the letter belong solely to the one to whom it is addressed (this is interpretation), but it may contain statements that are not only true of the owner, but of people in general (this is application). The failure to distinguish between these two things has been the cause of wrong doctrine and confusion, and everyone who wishes to handle the Word of God aright and to receive its riches will take care to avoid doing this. 

---------------


Time and Place. (5)

The Scriptural association of chronology and topography with doctrine and purpose. - by Charles H. Welch


#5. The Site of the Garden of Eden. 
Gen. ii. 8-14.



Our attention having been wholly occupied with “time”, we have hitherto found no opportunity to give heed to the testimony of the Scriptures concerning “place”. We have the first topographical note in early Genesis: 

“And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden” (Gen. ii. 8). 

The name of this country, in which Paradise was planted, means “delight”, and the word occurs in various forms six times, being translated “pleasure” and “pleasures”, “to delight”, “delights”, and “delicates”. Eden itself, the country, is named exactly 14 times in the O.T., where it is found in Genesis, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Joel. As we should expect, the name is found in other languages. In Arabic it signifies “delight”, “tenderness” and “loveliness” (Firuzabadi Kamus). In the cuneiform texts it signifies the plains of Babylon, and in the Accado-Sumerian (inhabitants of Mesopotamia that preceded the Babylonians) it is Edin, “the fertile plain”. The Greek word hedone, meaning “pleasure”, is used in the LXX of Isa. xxxvii. 12; Ezek. xxvii. 23 and Amos i. 5, although these “Edens” have no reference to Gen. ii. 8. It was because of their beauty or pleasantness that the districts were called by this name. The Eden of Gen. ii. 8, is the most ancient name in all geography. The garden of Gen. ii. was planted “eastward” in Eden. In his translation of Rosenmuller’s Biblical Geography of Central Asia the Rev. N. Morran has reduced the numerous theories as to the exact situation of Eden to nine, but none of them answer all the conditions of the problem. This brings us to an important question. For whose information were the geographical notes of Gen. ii. 8-14 written? Were they given by God to Adam? We can see no reason why the information should have been given to him. We know that it was given in writing by Moses, and, to illustrate and enforce the point we desire to make, we turn to another geographical note. In Gen. xxiii. we have the record of the death of Sarah, in which Moses wrote: 


 “And Sarah died in Kirjath-arba, the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan” (Gen. xxiii. 2). 


It is evident that when Moses took up his pen to write the book of Genesis, he had in his possession the several “books of the generation” of his fathers. In the family documents relating to Abraham and Sarah, the place where Sarah died is called by but one name, Kirjath-arba, but, later, for the benefit of Israel who were then about to enter the promised land under Joshua, Moses gives the more modern name of the ancient city, namely “Hebron”, and, in Numb. xiii., adds a note, 

“Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt” (Numb. xiii. 22).


If, therefore, when he wrote Genesis, Moses found it expedient to bring its ancient geography up to date we must be prepared to find his explaining pen at work in Gen. ii. When we realize that the flood in the days of Noah, must have seriously altered the configuration of the land, diverted the course of rivers, buried some tracts of land beneath the sea, and brought up above sea-level, some part of the sea-bed, we can readily see that references to geographical boundaries, countries and rivers true in the days of Adam, may, in Moses’ day, have proved valueless, except for archæological purposes. Moreover, one of the lands mentioned in Gen. ii. is Ethiopia. Now in the Hebrew this word is “Cush”, and as Cush was not born until over two thousand years after Adam, to speak of Adam knowing the land by the name of one of his descendants who lived two thousand years after his time would be an anachronism. 



Ethiopia, in Africa, is not the only land of Cush. Cush was the father of Seba, Havilah, and Sabtechah (Gen. x. 7, 8); Nimrod moved northward into Assyria, the others went South and settled in Arabia, consequently, there is no reason why we should introduce a region of Africa into Gen. ii. We must, however, return to the record of Gen. ii. Moses tells us that the river which watered the garden, parted, and was divided into four heads. The word “head” being rosh, we must understand this to refer to the sources of these rivers, not their mouths. 

“The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of the land is good; there is bdellium and the onyx stone.” 

Nothing further is said of this river in Scripture but the Companion Bible tells us that it flows West of the Euphrates, and that in the year of Nabonides, the last king of Babylonia, it was called Pullakat. Havilah is associated with “Shur, that is before Egypt  as thou goest toward Assyria”, (Gen. xxv. 18), and Ophir, famous for its gold (Job xxviii. 16), is associated with Havilah in Gen. x. 29; and again Moses gives the added note:-- 

“And their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest unto Sephar a mount of the East” 
(Gen. x. 30). 

If four great rivers took their rise from the river that watered Paradise, it is plain that Paradise itself must have been in an elevated tract of country. Lenormantsays, “Eden, in the Accadian and Sumerian texts is used sometimes to designate a plain in opposition to a mountain. But this is never the bottom of the valley . . . . .” The Tigris (Hiddekel, Accadian for Tigris) and the Euphrates both rise in Armenia, thus, once again, we observe a connection between Adam and Noah, for the Ark rested on “one of the mountains of Ararat”, which tradition places in Armenia. Two other rivers take their rise in this region, the Kur and the Araxes, which flow into the Caspian Sea. These rivers cannot be identified with the Pison or the Gihon, but such may be what remains of them since the disruption at the flood. As the Bible is the only book that declares that this district is the cradle of the human race, it has for thirty three centuries been ahead of the “science” of the day. 

Quatrefages, the great French scientist and anthropologists, says, “that the study of the various populations, and of their languages, has led scientists of the greatest deliberation and authority to place the cradle of the human race in Asia, not far from the central mass of that continent, and in the neighbourhood of the region where all the principal rivers which plough their way to the north, to the south, and to the east, take their rise”. It is in Central Asia alone that wheat is indigenous, and must have been carried thence by man as he spread abroad. In Gen. ii. 12 Moses speaks of the gold, the bdellium and the onyx stone as constituting an easy means of identifying this district. The word bdellium occurs but twice in Scripture, once in Gen. ii. 12, and once in Numb. xi. 7, where the manna is likened to it. This shows that Israel, for whom Moses wrote, were well acquainted with this substance, though today there may be uncertainty as to its identity. The LXX considered it to be a precious stone, and translate the word by anthrax and krystallos, while Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion render it bdellium, a transparent aromatic gum which is formed by a tree that grows in Arabia. The Rabbis, however, translate the word by “Pearl”. 

In our earlier studies, we have found that the references to “time” in Gen. i., ii. 3 have a symbolic value far outweighing their primitive meaning. As we look at this first great reference to “place” are we not justified in expecting that its description answers some more important purpose than that of satisfying the Israelites as to the identity of the site of Paradise? 

Three great streams of humanity have their origin in this district; the descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth, and, mingled with the descendants of the true seed preserved alive in the ark, we learn of the Canaanite, and their frightful progeny. 

“In the following times of history, we have seen how the river of mankind from the mountains of Armenia poured itself into the plains of the Tigris and the Euphrates. The tribes of men went forth unto the regions of the stream of Paradise, acquired power and gathered riches. But of gold they made gods, decked them with jewels and brought incense to the things which have noses and smell not” (Dr. M. Baumgarten Theological Com. on O.T.). 

Whether this be so or not may perhaps remain a moot point, but it seems reasonable to suppose that in a book which covers 2000 years of history in eleven chapters (Gen. i.-xi.) not one verse, certainly not seven (Gen. ii. 8-14), would be devoted to matter transient in its application, and the original meaning of which is now beyond the power of man to ascertain. The geography of the book that brings before us the glorious prophecy of Paradise restored, is centred around the same land that is brought before us in Gen. ii. The references to Asia Minor on the West (Rev. i.-iii.); beyond the Euphrates on the East (Rev. xvi. 12); with Jerusalem and Babylon as rival cities and systems, enable us to see that not only does Revelation corresponds with Genesis as to the entry and removal of the Serpent, sin, death and curse, but that the very geographical site of Eden, may yet form 
the earthly basis of the heavenly city when at last it descends from God out of heaven. Its gold will indeed be good, its stones most precious, and its gates pearls (see the earlier reference to the Rabbinical interpretation of bdellium).

--------------


--------------

Acknowledgment. (2) - by Charles H. Welch











#2. Epignosis and Epiginosko 
refer to acknowledgment 
rather than added knowledge. 



When it is true that “all the heart” is engaged with the things of God the normal outward expression will be an acknowledgment of Him in “all our ways”. This close association of “heart” and “way” is very clearly seen in Psalm cxix.: 

“The undefiled in the WAY . . . . . seek Him with the whole HEART” (1, 2). 

The question: 

“Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his WAY?”

is followed by the statement: 

“With my whole HEART have I sought Thee” (9, 10). 

Again the Psalmist says: 

“I will run the WAY of Thy commandments, when Thou shalt enlarge my HEART” (32).

In the next stanza we read: 

“Teach me, O Lord, the WAY of Thy statutes.” 

and its echo:--

“Give me understanding, and I shall keep Thy law; yea I shall observe it with my whole HEART” (33, 34). 

And yet again:-- 

“Incline my HEART unto Thy testimonies . . . . . quicken Thou me in Thy WAYS” (36, 37). 

So in verse fifty-eight we have the “whole heart” followed in verse fifty-nine by “I thought on my ways”. 

Many other examples could be brought forward to emphasize the close connection between “heart” and “ways”, but the foregoing will suffice. 

To an English ear, the word “acknowledge” conveys the idea of “confession”. Another rendering that would perhaps be truer to the original would be “recognize”. It is a blessed thing to be sensitive to the presence and work of the Lord; to be able to “recognize” Him in the dark as well as in the light; in the difficult path as well as in the hour of triumph. When one is able thus to “recognize” Him the direction of our pathway will follow as a matter of course. 

It is interesting to know that the LXX version uses the word orthotomeo “rightly divide”, where the English version reads “direct”. This is an important factor in the true interpretation of II Tim. ii. 15 for the word would be immediately recognized by Timothy as one with which his early training had made him familiar, and thus would understand the practical necessity to follow the Divinely appointed finger-posts regarding dispensational truth as the wayfarer and pilgrim would follow the directions placed for his guidance at the fork of the road. 

If acknowledgment of our sin is a necessary prelude to the “joy” and “experimental knowledge” of sins forgiven, acknowledgment of the Lord in all our ways is assuredly as necessary, if we would be “directed” in all our paths. 

In the New Testament epiginosko and epignosis are translated both by the words “knowledge” and “acknowledge”. In early days the distinction between them was not so sharply drawn as now. For example, the majestic words: 

“We knowledge Thee to be the Father of an infinite Majesty,”

was the recognized form in the year 1535A.D. To-day “knowledge” stands, in the first instance, for the “stuff” of knowledge, the information gathered, or the intelligence possessed. This however is the secondary meaning of the word, and even to-day a first-class dictionary places the primary meaning of “knowledge” as: “Acknowledgment, confession; recognition of the position of claims of any one” (Oxford English Dictionary). 


Epignosis is the combination of epi, “on”, and gnosis, “knowledge”, but it must not be assumed that the addition of epi indicates merely the piling up of knowledge upon knowledge: few, if any, occurrences of the word would justify this usage. 


When Hosea says: 

“The Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land” (Hosea iv. 1),

mere formal knowledge, historical knowledge, grammatical knowledge, is not intended. There is implicit in the word the idea of acknowledgment or recognition. If we could divest the word “recognition” of its secondary meaning (that of “recognizing” a person by feature or manner), and retain only the primary meaning, that of recognizing or acknowledging a liability or an obligation, the word would suit admirably. 

This matter is something more than a mere technicality; it lies near the very heart of all true teaching, and we therefore “recognize” the claims which the word has upon us to make its meaning clearly understood. Epiginosko occurs forty-two times in the New Testament and epignosis occurs twenty times. While space will permit of the setting out of only a selection from all these references, we trust that all who teach others, and those who desire the fullest proof of all that is here set forth as truth, will personally acquaint themselves with the usage of these words in the whole of the sixty-two occurrences: 

“Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matt. vii. 16). 
 “Elias is come already, and they knew him not” (Matt. xvii. 12). 
 “When Jesus perceived in His spirit” (Mark ii. 8). 
 “The people saw them . . . . . and many knew Him” (Mark vi. 33). 
 “Their eyes were holden that they should not know Him” (Luke xxiv. 16). 

In these few references taken from the Gospels, “recognize” could, with advantage, be substituted for “know”. We do not “know” a fig-tree by the mere fact of looking at its fruit, for a “knowledge” of the fig-tree involves acquaintance with several sciences, and then is but partial. Yet the most untutored and illiterate observer would “recognize” a fig-tree by its fruit.

It is a most natural transition for the word “recognize” to take on a moral colouring, so that while the recognition of a fig-tree by its fruit may not involve self-denial or expose to persecution, it becomes another matter to “recognize” the rejected Christ or the doctrine which is after godliness. 

In the passage we are about to consider let us therefore, with this explanation in mind, consistently use the word “recognize” or “acknowledge” in place of “knowledge”. Limitations of space compel us to confine ourselves to one passage only, but that a representative one.

“Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness” (Titus i. 1). 

Here the Apostle associates his ministry with two phases of Christian experience (1) According to the faith of God’s elect, this is basic; (2) According to a recognition of the Truth, this is experimental. This second phase is expanded thus: “According to a recognition of the truth, which (in its turn) is according to godliness.”

The Apostle is inspired to hold an even balance. He stresses neither the sovereignty of God nor the responsibility of man, but gives each its place. The faith of God’s elect comes first, and this is according to truth. We love Him because He first loved us. There could be no recognition of truth on our part, had it not been preceded by grace. It is however entirely untrue to represent the Apostle’s doctrine as the faith of God’s elect, and that only. That is but one side of it. It has another: 

“The Lord knoweth them that are His.” 

That is the elective side, the side that lies beyond our control, responsibility or power. The other is: 

“Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity” (II Tim. ii. 19). 

This is the experimental side, the side that lies within the ambit of our control, responsibility and power, as those who have received mercy to be faithful. 

The possession of the “knowledge” of the truth which is according to godliness is no guarantee that a “life” of godliness will ensue. But the “acknowledgment” or “recognition” of such truth does carry with it the idea of taking one’s stand, and abiding by any consequences that may follow. 

“Be not . . . . . ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner” 
(II Tim. i. 8). 

was a call to Timothy, who “knew” the truth, to “acknowledge” it, or, in the sense adopted in this series, to “recognize” its claims. The call comes with equal force to us to-day, when “knowledge” has increased, but when “the godly man ceaseth”, and acknowledgment of the truth, at times, costs dear. 

---------------


(From The Berean Exxpositor, vol. 36, page 9).


---------------