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.” 

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

(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 36, page 12).

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

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] 

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

(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 34, page 179).

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

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.

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

(From The Berean Exxpositor, vol. 47, page 92).

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