The Goal of God. (I Cor. xv. 28).- (12)

by Charles H. Welch

No.12. I Cor. xv. 28.

The attainment of a goal not only involves Purpose, Wisdom and Power, but when the attainment of that goal includes moral creatures, who are free to love and serve, but also free to disobey, then margin must be allowed for moral lapses, sin may manifest itself, Redemption may be necessary, Reconciliation and Salvation, Death and Resurrection, all may be involved before such a goal, with such materials, can be reached. We have no need to labour this point, the whole testimony of Scripture and the witness of history are unanimous on the subject. James knew that the tongue of man might be used not only in the blessing of God, but in the cursing of man made in the similitude of God. 

Man, as a son of Adam, quite irrespective of nationality, whether Jew or Gentile, was made in the image and after the likeness of the Creator, but man, irrespective of nationality, whether Jew or Gentile, degraded the high glory of his Maker, and in so doing degraded the high dignity of his own calling, by falling into the senseless sin of idolatry. Today, surrounded by the evidences of ‘civilization’, with science laying bare the innermost secrets of matter, and man triumphing in the physical conquest of earth, sea and sky, the idea of anyone becoming an ‘idolater’ seems absurd, yet we have to face the fact that idolatry has been well nigh universal, that it is confined to no class or period, that it was the snare not only of the ignorant barbarian, but of the people of Israel and of the men of Athens and moreover, that idolatry was seriously discussed in the early church (Acts xv. 20); in the epistles of Paul (I & II Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians); by Peter (I Pet. iv. 3) and in the book of the future, the Revelation. 

The epistle that contains the glorious determination of the God of all grace that His believing people shall one day be “conformed to the image of His Son” is the one that reveals the folly and degradation of the image of God in man. All indeed have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Man, as we have already seen is “the image and glory of God” (I Cor. xi. 7), and we have the Apostle’s own argument to confirm our thought that this very fact alone should have made idolatry impossible (Rom. i. 23). 

Speaking in a city renowned alike for its ‘wisdom’ as for its ‘idolatry’, namely Athens, Paul said: 

“For we are also His offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device” (Acts xvii. 28, 29). 

We come therefore to Rom. i. 23, where we read that men “changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things”. Did the nations know the truth or did they “hold down” the truth? The answer depends upon the meaning of katecho translated ‘hold’ in Rom. i. 18. A number of commentators feel that the ordinary meaning of katecho cannot be permitted in Rom. i. 18, and teach that in this instance the meaning must be ‘hold down’ or ‘hold back’. Alford and Bloomfield take this view. The Companion Bible at Rom. i. 18 gives the note “Hold down, suppress. cp. II Thess. ii. 6”, but when we turn to II Thess. ii. 6 we discover that katecho is not there translated “hold down” but “withholdeth”. Paul uses the word 13 times out of the 19 found in the N.T. and in no passage does “hold down” make good sense. Rom. vii. 6 reads “held”; I Cor. vii. 30 “possessed”; I Cor. xi. 2 “keep”; I Thess. v. 21 “hold fast”. We come back to Rom. i. 18 and read afresh that the ancients ‘held’ or ‘possessed’ the truth, but that they held it ‘in unrighteousness’. 

If one is acquainted with the writings of ancient philosophy, one is often struck with the fact that these men did have a knowledge of the unity and spirituality of the Godhead, but that as Socrates in his Timaeus says: 

“It is neither easy to find the Parent of the Universe, nor safe to discover him to the vulgar, when found.” 

Augustine blames the philosophers (see Estius, De Vera Relig. c. 5) because they practiced the most abominable idolatries with the vulgar, although in their schools they delivered doctrines concerning the nature of the gods, inconsistent with the established worship. They did not, as verse 21 asserts, “glorify Him as God” even though they knew Him as such. Let us examine Rom. i. 23 once more. “Changed.” The word occurs but six times in the N.T. so that it will be well to have the references before us.

“Shall change the customs” (Acts vi. 14). 

“Changed the glory” (Rom. i. 23). 

“We shall be changed” (I Cor. xv. 51, 52). 

“Change my voice” (Gal. iv. 20). 

“They shall be changed” (Heb. i. 12). 

Instead of attempting an explanation of our own, we direct the reader’s attention to the Divine comment in Rom. i. 25: 

“Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever, Amen.” 

Here, metallasso the stronger word is used, where allasso is found in verse 23. There is but one other occurrence of this word, and that is in Rom. i. 26. 

Truth was exchanged for ‘the lie’ when man began to worship idols. So interrelated is the purpose of God with His Own attributes and with man’s creation, that it is impossible for man to entertain degrading thoughts of the incorruptible God, without bringing about an immediate repercussion, and degrading himself. This is the tragic story of Rom. i. 

“Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness . . . . . to dishonour their own bodies” (Rom. i. 24).

This ‘change’ therefore, of verse 23, is not only explained in verse 25 as the exchange of the truth for the lie, but as a “giving up” by man, of God, otherwise the “also” in verse 24 would have no place. “God also gave them up.” The man who wrote this terrible indictment of Gentile degradation knew that his own people Israel, with greater advantages than the Gentiles possessed, had gone the same evil way. In fact Psa. cvi. contains the very expression found in Rom. i. 23, together with several parallels with the rest of Rom. i. 

“They made a calf in Horeb, and worshipped the molten image. Thus they changed their (correct reading is ‘My’) glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass. They forgat God their Saviour . . . . . they joined themselves also unto Baal-peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead. Thus they provoked Him to anger with their inventions: and the plague brake in upon them” (Psa. cvi. 19-29). 

The argument of Rom. i. follows the same sequence:

“They changed the glory . . . . . dishonoured their own bodies . . . . . inventors of evil things” (Rom. i. 23, 24, 30).

To tabulate the prohibitions to idolatry contained in the law, or the repeated lapses of which the history of Israel is replete, would make more demands on our limited space than we can afford. The reader however can supplement the above notes by his own reading. We are not at the moment writing a discourse upon idolatry, we are concerned with the subject as it is associated with the goal of God which has the restoration of the image and likeness of God in man in view. There is however a more serious view presented by the Scriptures, than that idolatry degrades the worshipper who was made in the image of God. Idolatry is a cunningly disguised attack upon the supreme office of Christ. The exchange, we read, was the exchange of “the truth” for “the lie”. Satan originates nothing. He imitates, substitutes, counterfeits. He takes a truth and distorts it to his own evil ends. 

God is invisible, God is Spirit, God is omnipotent. Man by his very constitution needs imagery. The ‘Invisible things’ of the Creator are ‘clearly seen’ by those who intelligently behold the works of His hands. “The heavens declare the glory of God.” When God uses human speech He stoops from the realm of pure thought to the world of imagery. Every attribute revealed is revealed in human terms. This essential need of human nature is fully met by Christ. He is the Word, the Form, the Image of the Invisible God. They that have seen Him have seen the Father. They that come to God, Who is Invisible and Spirit, come to the Father through Christ. Idolatry taking advantage of the basic need of human nature for an Image to interpret the Invisible, foisted upon man the crude and licentious imagery of idolatry, ‘the lie’ thereby occupying the place that alone belongs to Christ, the Image of the Invisible God, Who is Himself “The Truth”. There are two agents through which the ‘Invisible’ God may be ‘seen’ by man. The one is Creation, the things that are made, as Rom. i. 18-22 makes clear, the other is Christ the only begotten Son, Who ‘declares’ Him (John i. 18). 

“The one object of the incarnation was to satisfy the natural desire for a sensible representation of the Divine Being” (Webster and Wilkinson). Even though we might feel obliged to correct this statement, and say that “one of the objects of the incarnation” instead of “The one object of the incarnation”, it is sufficiently true to enable us to see that all idolatry is necessarily of the spirit of Antichrist, that it did not originate in man’s ignorance, but comes from the same source as the original temptation of man “Ye shall be as God”, and betrays an appreciation by the Evil One of the original purpose of God in the creation of man in His Own image and which shows how vital that truth of the ‘image’ is to the ultimate purpose of God and how near this conception of the ‘image’ must be to the attainment of the goal of the ages. 

Let us look very briefly at the references to idolatry that are found in the epistles. In I Cor. x. 14, the Apostle urges the believer to “flee from idolatry”, in Gal. v. 20 it is included in the “works of the flesh”. Conversion is described as “turning to God from idols” (I Thess. i. 9). John writing to his believing children says “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” (I John v. 21), but it is in the epistles of the mystery that light is shed upon the essential nature of idolatry. 

“A covetous man, who is an idolator” (Eph. v. 5). 

“Covetousness, which is idolatry” (Col. iii. 5). 

The moment we read these revealing words, can we not see that He Who framed the ten commandments, fully understood this fact? The law opens with the commandment to have ‘no other gods’ before the Lord, nor to make graven images, while the commandments close with the words “Thou shalt not covet”. 

The composition of the word idolatry shows that it means “The service of that which is seen”, and anything, be it money, business or brains, anything that becomes a substitute for simple faith in God, be it bowing to “stocks and stones”, or to “stocks and shares” is incipient idolatry. Thus we see that God made man to be the shadow of His Own glory, to set forth in miniature the purpose of the ages, and that the ‘likeness’ after which he was created, was nothing less than that of the Person of Christ “Who is the Image of the Invisible God”. We shall be obliged to give a fuller consideration to this aspect of the subject when we are able to assemble what is said under the word ‘Likeness”. For the moment we must pursue our study of the several aspects of the word ‘image’ that still await investigation. Our next study being the references to the ‘earthly’ and the ‘heavenly’ image as taught in I Cor. xv.

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

(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 44, page 87).

-------------- 

The Will of God. (5) - by C. J. Holdway

No.5. The Ten Commandments.

It would seem strange if God had not given certain explicit indications of His will to His ancient People who were under tutelage. These indications we find in the Law. For our purposes perhaps we may place the covenantal Law under three division: the ceremonial or ritual, the dietary and the Ten Commandments. As to the ceremonial or ritual, clearly this has been fulfilled in Christ and was obviously a shadow of that which was to come. The dietary may be considered outside the scope of this study as being a subject which is seldom, if ever, raised as a point of dispute. There remains, however, the Ten Commandments.

There are those believers who are convinced that the Ten Commandments are as obligatory today as they were for those to whom they were first given, while on the other hand there are those who are firmly convinced that the obligations of the Ten Commandments were included in the ‘handwriting of ordinances that was against us’ and which Christ took ‘out of the way, nailing it to His cross’ (Col. ii. 14). It is by no means a question of unimportance to the members of the Church which is Christ’s Body: are we under obligation to observe the Ten Commandments? 

We will seek to deal with this question in two ways: (1) what, if anything, is said in the prison epistles in connection with the Commandments and (2) the ‘lawful’ use of the Law. 

The first Commandment states: “I am the Lord thy God . . . . . Thou shalt have no other gods before my face” (Exod. xx. 2, 3, see The Companion Bible note). What is here enjoined is stated as a fact by Paul in Eph. iv. 6 “There is . . . . . One God and Father of 

all”. No member of the Body of Christ is likely to dispute this, nor claim the liberty to have any other god. So the will of God concerning the relationship existing between Himself and His people of all dispensations is made plain: There is one God. 

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image” says the second Commandment, ‘or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth’. Paul, however, takes the standard higher in his statement “No . . . . . covetous man, who is an idolater hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God” (Eph. v. 5, cf. Col. iii. 5). To covet anything is to make of it a god, an idol. Perhaps here is an instance where we need to exercise particular care due to the influence of the materialistic society in which we live. 

“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” Among those things ‘which are upon the earth’ and are to be mortified (Col. iii. 5, 8) Paul include ‘blasphemy’. This he tells Timothy is one of the marks of the last days (II Tim. iii. 1, 2), pointing out that ‘men shall be lovers of their own selves . . . . . lovers of pleasures more lovers of God’ (verses 2, 4). In such a situation the name of God and all things holy are unlikely to be held in reverence. Nor, would we think, even allowing for the influence of the ungodly society around us, would any member of Christ’s Body wish to speak lightly, or without reverence, of God.

Of all the Ten Commandments, the fourth is the one which is most in dispute so far as members of the One Body are concerned. But there are certain points to be noted: the fourth Commandment is as much (perhaps more) a command to ‘labour six days’, a point worth noting at the present time when the working week grows gradually shorter and even nominal acknowledgment of God grows less. In the second place the emphasis is upon remembering the sabbath day to keep it holy. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hollowed it.” The sabbath, as such, is then first an ordinance of creation and then, following six days of labour, a welcome opportunity for man to rest from his labours, as God did from His. Dr. E. W. Bullinger’s comments in Number in Scriptures are of interest here (p.9): 

“Moreover, man appears to be made on what we may call the seven-day principle. In various diseases the seventh, fourteenth, and twenty-first are critical days; and in others seven or 14 half-days. Man’s pulse beats on the seven day principle, for Dr. Stratton points out that for six days out of seven it beats faster in the morning than in the evening, while on the seventh day it beats slower. Thus the number seven is stamped upon physiology, and he is thus admonished, as man, to rest one day in seven. He cannot violate this law with impunity, for it is interwoven with his very being.”

Man therefore, being made on ‘the seven day principle’, it is hardly surprising to find that the People of God were enjoined in this covenant relationship with God ‘to remember the sabbath day’ following six days of labour. 

But what should be our attitude to the ‘sabbath’? Paul makes but one reference to it in the prison epistles, Col. ii. 16, “Let no man judge you . . . . . in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days”. The matters of which he has been speaking are, he says, ‘a shadow of things to come; but the body (or substance) is of Christ’. :Let no man judge you”; but precisely what does Paul mean by this? The primary significance of ‘judge’ (krino) is ‘to separate, divide, put apart: hence to pick out’. “Let no man pick you out . . . . . in respect of an holy day, etc.” The principalities and powers, who, it would seem, had some jurisdiction or authority in these matters have been ‘spoiled’. Indeed the inference suggests that prior to the triumph of the cross, these principalities and powers clung to Christ Himself in an adverse way; these He ‘stripped off’ as a garment, divesting Himself of their influence. Having done this, He displayed them freely, revealing them for the ‘weak and beggarly’ things they are and showing that the areas in which they had held sway were mere shadows of the reality to be found in Himself (Col. ii. 15). Let no man ‘pick you out’ in respect of shadows. 

A few verses later (Col. ii. 20) Paul questions their subjection to ordinances, according to the precepts and teachings of men. This, surely, is the crux of the matter. It is wrong for the believer to be subject to the opinions of men, and unthinkingly to adopt a course of action or a way of life, simply because other people, albeit other Christians, ‘lay down the law’ on the matter. There is the danger that members of Christ’s Body may err by going from the extreme of “thou shalt not” to “thou shalt” and vice versa, thereby equally becoming ‘subject to ordinances according to the precepts and teachings of men’. We are free ‘with the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free’; free to do the will of God. We are freed from the bondage of the sabbath law, or the first day of the week: the fact that there is the possibility of choice on this point indicates the bondage has been removed. 

But what should be our attitude to ‘Sunday observance’? We have already seen that ‘man appears to be made on what we may call the seven day principle’, and thus needs, physically one day’s rest in seven: is it not equally true that he may need a similar opportunity for his spirit? C. H. Welch has this to say (Just and the Justifier, p.316): 

“While the believer today may not be in danger of judging or despising so far as ‘meats’ are concerned, there are many who adopt the attitude here condemned (Rom.xiv.) regarding the observance of the so-called ‘Lord's Day’. Those of us who are free from the tradition concerning the observance of either the Sabbath or the First Day of the Week, should remember that we are called upon to respect the consciences of those who, though ‘weak’, ‘regard the day unto the Lord’. It is not the first part of this sentence that matters, it is the second part: ‘unto the Lord’.” 

Following his discourse on the question of meats and the observance of ‘days’ in Rom. xiv., Paul continues in chapter xv. thus: 

“We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not Himself . . . . .”. 

Again in Volume XI, p.27, of The Berean Expositor, C.H.W. says: 

“We are bound to observe no day in particular (this does not give license to outrage other believers’ feelings concerning Sunday) but gladly seek to walk worthy before the Lord and our fellows.”

We have dealt at some length with the Fourth Commandment because we believe this to be an issue of particular relevance in the days in which we live. The way in which we treat Sunday can have a great influence upon our witness as believers. 

Passing on, then, to the Fifth Commandment: “Honour thy father and thy mother”, we find the Apostle Paul makes specific reference to this in Eph. vi. 1-3 and Col. iii. 20 and it is worth noting his comment in the former: “which is the first commandment with promise”. So also the comment in Col. iii. 20 should be noted: “for this is well pleasing unto the Lord”. Here at least is a commandment which should be taken as an indication of what is ‘well pleasing unto the Lord’, and hence of His will for His people. 

While it is true there is no specific mention of murder in the prison epistles, bearing in mind that the Lord Jesus Christ said: 

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, thou shalt not kill . . . . . But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment . . . . .” (Matt. v. 21-22). 

Eph. iv. 26, 31 and Col. iii. 8 make it clear that wrath and anger, the root of murder, have no place in the life of the member of Christ’s Body. 

So it is with theft: “Let him that stole steal no more” (Eph. iv. 28). Similarly with false witness, Eph. iv. 25 exhorts the putting away of lying and the speaking of truth every man with his neighbour. Covetousness is doubly condemned both as covetousness and idolatry. 

Clearly and logically, nine of the Ten Words will be fulfilled by members of the Church which is Christ’s Body. This being the case is there any good reason why the Fourth should be an exception? 

However, why should we be bound by any of the Ten Commandments when Christ has made us free from the Law? In writing his first letter to Timothy Paul gives us the answer, Chapter i. 8-11: 

“But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine . . . . .”. 

So then the law is not for the ‘righteous’ man, but rather for the ‘unrighteous’. The principle is laid down in Rom. iii. 31:

“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” 

That is to say, we are no longer subject to the law, nonetheless our conduct does not make the law pointless; rather it gives point to the law, for those for whom it is intended, i.e., ‘the lawless’, etc.

Perhaps we can make the difference clearer by referring to Gal. iv. 1-7. Before the ‘redemption’ which is in Christ Jesus we were infants (better than ‘child’ as in A.V.), but since “God sent forth His Son . . . . . to redeem them that were under the Law”, we have received ‘the adoption of sons’, and are no more servants, but heirs. “The law was our schoolmaster” (Gal. iii. 24). It is the difference between the immaturity of the infant and the responsibility of the mature son; the latter can be relied upon to conduct himself properly without the need for the discipline of the law. The reason for the existence of laws in our own society is often the irresponsibility of many people. For example, the responsible driver would naturally slow down when traveling through a built up area, but there were many who did not do so, with the result that a law had to be drawn up restricting the liberty of the ‘lawless’. This law was not given for the law-abiding, but for the law-breaker. Thus those who are ‘in Christ’, are not subject to the law, but this does not give them license to break the law, nor does it mean that they will do so, for by so doing they number themselves among those for whom it was given! 

What believer is there who willfully breaks the Ten Commandments? Do we know of any believer who has another god as well as God or who worships a ‘graven image’, who claims the right to commit adultery or bear false witness? Why then should there be any who turn from the privilege afforded by our society for one day’s rest in seven: an opportunity to turn from the specific claims of daily living for worship, meditation on the Word of God, fellowship with other believers, an opportunity for a ‘day of rest and gladness’? We are not subject to such a day, we are not obliged to observe one day above another, nor in our observance of it do we hedge it about with all sorts of pettifogging restrictions. But as nine of the Ten Commandments are clearly the expression of God’s desire for us, why should the one (the fourth) not be also His desire for us? 

It seems clear then that in the Ten Commandments we have laid down for us the basic principles of the Will of God for us and that, while we may not be ‘under the law’, the members of Christ’s Body will delight to do His will with the psalmist of old. For it was for this reason: 

“He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children (better: placing as sons) by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace wherein He hath made us accepted in the beloved” (Eph. i. 4-6). 

God has placed us as sons in Christ that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love to the praise of the glory of His grace. 

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

(From The Berean Exposxitor, vol. 47, page 172).

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

The Goal of God. (I Cor. xv. 28).- (11)

by Charles H. Welch

No.11. “We must all be changed” 
From Earthly to Heavenly and 
from glory to glory. 

We now pass on to the consideration of three connected references that, taken together, give light upon the ways, means and end in connection with the ‘image’ and ‘the goal of God’. “We must all be changed.”

(1) The Change. Earthly and Heavenly Image (I Cor.         xv. 49). 

(2) The Change. From glory to glory (II Cor. iii. 18; iv.       4). 

(3) The Change. Conformed to the Image of His Son         (Rom. viii. 29).

Before we can understand any particular passage, something more has to be done than merely collecting words even though they may be key words. The doctrine is decided by the scope of the passage and the scope is exhibited by the structure. In the case of I Cor. xv., the most casual reader would agree that the one great theme of the chapter is “Resurrection”. This is made very evident by the structure.

I Corinthians xv.

A1 | 1-11.   Resurrection. EVIDENCE and EVANGEL. 

A2 | 12-34. Resurrection. The FACT. “How?” 

A3 | 35-58. Resurrection. The MANNER. “How?”

It is impossible to cover all the ground indicated by this structure, and so we must pass over the first member A1 | 1-11 and give our attention to the two sections dealing with the fact and the manner of resurrection. 

I Corinthians xv. 12 - 58. 

A | 12. FACT. “How?” 

   B | 13-33. ADAM. Death destroyed by CHRIST. 

      C | 34. Practical exhortation. “AWAKE.” 

A | 35. MANNER. “How?” 

   B | 36-57. FIRST and SECOND MAN. Death                      swallowed up. 

      C | 58. Practical exhortation. “BE STEDFAST.”

The reference to the ‘image’ is found in verse 49, and is in the section which raises the question “How are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come?” The reference to the image in verse 49 is a part of a larger section which constitutes the Apostle’s answer to this great problem. 

“And as we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly” (I Cor. xv. 49). 

We can range practically I Cor. xv. 35-57 under the two headings “earthly image” and “heavenly image”. 

“That which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be . . . . . but God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him.” 

That which is sown is ‘the earthly’, that body which ‘shall be’ is ‘the heavenly’. 

When Paul goes on to say “To every seed its own body” and to differentiate between the flesh of men, beasts, fishes and birds, and the difference between ‘bodies celestial’ and bodies terrestrial’, he still thinks of the ‘earthly’ and the ‘heavenly’ image. So also in verse 42, the contrasts indicated there are but the differences between the ‘earthly’ and the ‘heavenly’. 

“It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 

It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: 

It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body” (I Cor. xv. 42-44). 

“The first man Adam was made a living soul; 

the last Adam was made a quickening spirit” (I Cor. xv. 45). 

The earthly image is that which is ‘natural’ and which comes first, the heavenly image is that which is ‘spiritual’. We, who have borne the image of the earthly, with its corruption, its dishonour and its weakness. (O the glory of it), shall bear the image of the heavenly with its incorruption, its glory and its power. We shall exchange the ‘natural body’ for the ‘spiritual body’; we shall be changed into the likeness of the ‘last Adam’ and of ‘the second Man’ the Lord from heaven.

“We shall all be changed” (I Cor. xv. 51). 

Here is the first step towards the goal of God. We now turn to the references in II Cor. iii. and iv. to learn something of the atmosphere in which this change will be made. Here again ‘change’ meets us, for II Cor. iii. 18 contain the words: 

“We all . . . . . beholding . . . . . are changed into the same image.”

The theme we are considering is the goal of God, seen in relation to the idea of the “Image” commencing with Creation (Gen. i. 26) and ending with satisfaction (Psa. xvii. 15); commencing with predestination (Rom. viii. 29) and ending with transfiguration (II Cor. iii. 18). 

The word translated ‘change’ in II Cor. iii. 18 is the Greek metamorphoomai, a word which is used in the Gospels of the transfiguration of the Saviour. He was there glorified on our account, even as His sufferings were endured for us men and for our salvation. Glory had been placed in need of a ‘transfiguration’ had He not for our sakes humbled Himself to man’s low estate. In Him we see the pattern to which God works, and His transfiguration is fulfillment of the teaching of I Cor. xv. where we read: 

“That was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual” (I Cor. xv. 46). 

According to I John iii., this ‘change’ is associated with seeing Him:

“It does not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; FOR WE SHALL SEE HIM AS HE IS” (I John iii. 2). 

In like manner, the passage before us (II Cor. iii. 18; iv. 6) is most intimately connected with ‘beholding with unveiled face’, and ‘the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ’. 

The change is ‘into the same image’ and ‘from glory to glory’. This latter phrase emphasizes the fact that this change operates in grace and not in law. There are two kinds of ‘glory’ in the context. The fading glory of the law, as exemplified by the face of Moses, and the lasting glory of grace as seen in the face of Jesus Christ. 

In II Cor. iii. and iv. the Apostle is comparing the two covenants, and does so by a series of striking contrasts, culminating in the passing glory associated with the face of Moses, as contrasted with the abiding and transfiguring glory that pertains to the face of Jesus Christ. In order that these contrasts may be the better appreciated we set out some of them in two columns, thus: 

The A.V. has somewhat ‘veiled’ the truth by translating in verse 18 ‘open face’ instead of ‘unveiled face’ and ‘hid’ in iv. 3 instead of ‘veiled’. The transfiguration of this passage is ‘from glory to glory’, that is from the glory of the law which was done away, to the glory of the new covenant which excelleth. What is here seen in the change from law to grace, is but a shadow of that change which will be accomplished when the Saviour: 

“shall change the body of our humiliation that it may be fashioned like unto the body of His glory” (Phil. iii. 21).

In the context of II Cor. iii. 18, we meet with the passage that says: 

“Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (17). 

Moreover, we learn from Heb. iii. that Moses was a ‘servant’ but that Christ was a ‘Son’. These words ‘spirit’, ‘son’, ‘liberty’, are key words of Rom. viii., the next passage to which we must turn. 

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

(FromThe Berean Expositor, vol. 44, page 84).

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

The Will of God. (3) - by C. J. Holdway

No.3. This is the Will 
of God. 

In our last study we distinguished between the desire, or wish of God, and His Purpose or Intention. For most believers the problem is to know what is the wish of God for them, in their particular circumstances. This is no easy matter, and in the last resort is a matter entirely for the individual to decide in the light of prayer and study. There are however, certain clear guidelines in the N.T., which may be helpful in coming to a decision. Twice we read “For this is the will (or desire) of God” (I Thess. iv. 3; v 18), and once “For so is the will of God” (I Pet. ii. 15). The first concerns sanctification, the second giving of thanks, and the third submission to lawful authority. 

We have briefly considered sanctification in an earlier study, and we saw that sanctification is a matter of separation, and that not so much from anything, as to God. 

As we are separated to God, so we shall thereby be separated from all that displeases Him. Yet sanctification is one of the subjects on which a very great deal of confusion reigns. There are those who believe sanctification is a matter of a ‘second blessing’ and should result in ‘sinless perfection’; others expresses the opinion that they are already sanctified, and therefore can now do as they like; yet others make this an experience which is entirely the work of the believer. While there is some truth in each of these positions, not one of them is wholly true, and each one of them has its own particular perils. 

It is true that the believer is already sanctified, such Scriptures as I Cor. i. 29-31 bear this out: 

“That no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, Who of God is made unto us . . . . . sanctification . . . . .: that, according as it is written, he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.” 

In the same epistle Paul is writing (verse 2) “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints . . . . .”. The original shows a very close relationship between the words for ‘sanctified’ and ‘saints’, so much so that it could be rendered “to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called ‘sanctified ones’.” Yet these sanctified ones are, we find as we read on in the letter, guilty of immorality “as is not so much as named among the Gentiles” (v. 1). Nonetheless they are called of God and sanctified. It is significant that of all his letters, only in this one, to a church which is particularly unsanctified and carnal (iii. 1, 3) does Paul lay such stress upon the fact that they ‘are sanctified’. It seems clear that his purpose is to encourage them to reckon on the fact of their sanctification in Christ Jesus, and so to live according to the fact, to be in practice what they are in Christ in the sight of God. Having dealt with their divisions, their immorality, their litigiousness and their general unrighteousness in chapter v. and the first part of vi., he continues (vi. 11) “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God”. Of such people the Apostle could say “ye are sanctified!” But obviously he is not satisfied with their behaviour, for he continues: “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any”. While it may be true that because they are sanctified and justified “all things are lawful”, nevertheless “all things are not expedient”, and they should not be ‘under the power of any’ of those things which once exercised authority over them. The reason for this is “ye are not your own. For ye are bought with a price.” Paul reminds them that the supreme compulsion for their behaviour should be ‘the mercies of God’ (Rom. xii. 1), ‘therefore’ he says, ‘glorify God in you body’. The motivation for Christian living is the glory of God.

The word for glory, doxa, has to do with opinion, judgment, reputation; from the same root comes doxoo ‘to give one the character of being so and so’. Hence, whatever else may be involved in the meaning of glory, it has very much to do with the character of God. The believer’s life should accord with the character of God. No longer is it what I wish to do, but a life which will reveal, increasingly, the true character and reputation of God. There is no sphere of life which is exempt from this high standard. Some one has written: “Thus there are those (a) who do not accept Christ and are subject to the desires of their own mind and body and (b) who have accepted the sovereignty of God and have settled for a life of unity with and obedience to God through the operation of His Spirit working with the believer’s spirit”. 

“What constitutes the outward difference between (a) and (b)? Think about this yourself. Mainly it will be a choice of friends, pastimes, reading material and viewing. Convince yourself that these are pleasing to the Lord, especially your thoughts. Your thoughts are an open book to Him. The allocation of your time and money; the choice of a marriage partner are all subjects that should be placed before the Lord in prayer. If we have trusted Him to give us an answer in His own time, and moreover we have followed this lead, then we may be sure that our lives will be transformed. If we chose the things of the Spirit, life’s empty pleasures will lose their hold and will be replaced by the lasting joy of the knowledge of God and a conscious participation in His will.” 

This kind of life will be very much ‘other’ than the life lived by the majority of folk today. It is a life of complete honesty before God: how easy it is to convince oneself that a particular activity is pleasing to the Lord, and will bring glory to Him, when in fact we are simply rationalizing our own desires. It is a life which, in the eyes of the world, is narrow and we must be prepared to be known as ‘narrow-minded’; but it is a life which is increasingly filled with the joy of the Lord. It is a life which in every detail submits to the approval of God. This is the desire of God, even your sanctification. 

In I Thess. v. 18 we read ‘in everything give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you’. Here is an aspect of God’s desire for His people which is often overlooked. He desires that in everything we should give thanks: not merely in those things which we enjoy, nor in those matters in which we are successful and prosperous, nor in those times when all goes smoothly; but in the things we do not enjoy, in those matters where failure and loss attend us, in those times when all seems to go wrong for us. Do we give thanks in everything? 

Among the answers the Psalmist gives to his own question: “What shall I render unto the Lord for all His benefits toward me?” (Psa. cxvi. 12) is this: “I will offer to Thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the Lord” (17). It becomes the more pointed when we realize that it signifies “I will sacrifice the sacrifice of thanksgiving”. Thanksgiving can be costly. In O.T. times this was recognized in the offering of an animal without blemish, as a peace offering for thanksgiving. All thanksgiving thus is marked with a cost. It may be that there are times when we do not ‘feel’ like thanking God for the various experiences we are undergoing, nonetheless there is every cause for so doing. “For we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose” (Rom. viii. 28). This is not an easy lesson to learn; it is one which can take a lifetime. Yet we have cause to ‘in every thing give thanks’. We are inclined to think that thanksgiving must always spring from a ‘feeling’, but the believer’s thanksgiving should spring from the fact of his knowledge that even in this circumstance, God is working for his good. In everything give thanks: for this is the desire of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. 

The third reference before us (I Pet. ii. 15) has particular reference to submission to every human creature for the Lord’s sake; whether it be to the king . . . . . or unto governors. Peter also brings in the same thought we found to be Paul’s in considering sanctification: 

“For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God” (I Pet. ii. 15, 16). 

Perhaps ‘a covering of badness’ might be a little simpler to understand than ‘a cloak of maliciousness’. The thought is that, because of the liberty which is the believer’s in Christ, some may say they are no longer under obligation to obey human authorities, and in so doing they would take their stand beside the lawless and appear as bad as they. But the believer is now lawless, though he may be free from every human ordinance. As the servant of God, however, he puts himself under every human ordinance for the Lord’s sake. The thought is similar to that of Paul in Rom. xiii., where (verse 1) we read: 

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” 

Paul continues in the next verse “Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God”. In submitting therefore to the ‘powers that be’, the believer is submitting to God, and we have come very close to the thought that he should in all he does bring glory to God. Both Paul and Peter, in what they say on this matter are quite uinequivocal, so much so, that there are those who express the opinion that ‘every ordinance of man’ should be obeyed unquestioningly, even if it should be against the ordinance of God. Yet if we look more closely into Rom. xiii. 1-7, it becomes apparent that Paul assumes, for sake of argument, that the ‘power’ will not misuse the authority given him by God. In verse 4 we read: 

“For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” 

Again verse 7: 

“Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.” 

Peter concludes his exhortation to submit to every ordinance of man, I Pet. ii. 17: “Honour all. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king”. Respect all: love fellow-believers: fear, even dead, God: respect the king. In this context surely only one conclusion can be arrived at: the believer’s submission to God overrides his submission to all others. If the higher power so abuses his God-given authority that he orders his subjects to undertake some course which conflicts with the known will of God, then the servant of God must fear Him. The statement of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself would seem conclusive: 

“Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. x. 28). 

Where there is a conflict of submission, then the submission must be to the Greater, God Himself. Submit . . . . . for so is the desire of God. 

God’s desire is that each one of us should live moment by moment “as unto the Lord, and not unto men”: He desires that in everything we should give thanks, knowing that everything works together for our good: He desires that we should submit to earthly authorities who hold their position from Him, only withholding submission to them, when their ordinance conflicts with His. 

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

(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 47, page 164).

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