These words are often quoted as supplying the reason for the rooting out of false doctrine. The application made of them is this: ‘Just as leaven, given time, permeates and changes the whole mass of dough, so also any single difficulty in any ecclesia will inevitably ruin the otherwise good character of the rest.’

However, what Paul is talking about in this chapter is bad behavior, not false ideas. The context is the case of incest: “sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife” (1Co 5:1).

This open flouting of all moral restraints on the part of one was aggravated by the permissive, even proud and defiant, attitude of the ecclesia: “And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?” (1Co 5:2).

In the entire chapter there is no hint of doctrinal error. This simple fact alone makes it clear that the words quoted are being made to do duty for a purpose other than their original intention.

Objection to a general application of this saying (“A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump”) is also made in the following:

“Long experience shows that whereas nothing contributes to the lowering of tone in an ecclesia like persistent bad behaviour, it is possible for the community to immunize itself almost completely from the cranky ideas of one member, be he never so good a propagandist. Paul’s words [however] are absolutely true in the field of morals” (HAW, Tes 43:312).

In the case of Corinth, what made the sin “leaven” was the proud willingness to allow its influence to affect the whole of the ecclesia. And even should we talk of doctrinal divergence as “leaven”, then it is still true that one false teacher does not introduce the “leaven” singlehandedly. He usually has to have the approbation of the arranging brethren or the whole ecclesia. In supporting this deviation in their midst, and taking no steps to correct or isolate the problem, it is in fact they who are introducing the leaven.

“In the case of 1Co 5 the evil was not only unrepented of, it had not been repudiated by the ecclesia, although it was the case of open and manifest sin. The second epistle, however, shows the response of the ecclesia to rebuke, and also (so at any rate many would interpret it) the restoration of the repentant sinner (2Co 2:5-11; 7:8-11)… It is, as Paul showed, the ecclesia’s responsibility to judge open sin, and to repudiate it while doing all possible for the recovery of the sinner (1Co 5:12,13)” (LGS, Chdn 105:218,219).

As to those who resort to this passage for proof of the necessity to separate from error, how often have they been as eager and energetic to seek the reclamation of the brethren whom they brand in the most infamous terms? If we follow the apostle’s example (supposedly) in purging out any who offend, then we must endeavor to follow his example also in fervently seeking their reinstatement. This, in the case of “false doctrine”, would involve a most serious effort to bring about reunion of the divided sections of the brotherhood — especially when the ones who “caused” the divisions by their peculiar ideas have now in some cases been dead for years.

A further point must be made in regard to 1Co 5: even if this passage may be used of those who teach wrongly concerning the first principles, it still goes no further than demanding that the single ecclesia purge out its own “leaven”. There is no hint that failure to do so would result in the Corinthian ecclesia being expelled from the worldwide association of all her sister-ecclesias.

“If the application so often put on this passage be granted, it becomes a terrible ground of censure of those who apply it thus. For, if the leaven of false teaching really leavens so drastically, how is it that the writings of the ‘spiritually decadent’ are read, scrutinised, criticised, and discussed so vigorously? If such activities do not ‘leaven’ some who are doctrinally ‘pure’, why should they be so damaging to others?” (HAW again).

It is in the nature of leaven, and indeed it is the only reason for ever using the figure, that it changes the basic nature of any material with which it comes into contact. If this proves not to be the case with something that is called “leaven”, then the whole argument with regard to that divergence — whether in morals or doctrine — collapses.

Using this criterion, certain retroactive tests may be made. The Christadelphian body has experienced many grievous divisions, ostensibly to excise “leaven” from pure dough in each case. If the thesis were correct that those errors or so-called errors would have a leavening influence on the rest, then it should be true that the body that contained such leaven would be by now thoroughly leavened. But this is just not the case! What has actually happened many times is that the teaching, or perhaps action, that aroused so much indignation in other ecclesial circles far removed from the center has quietly sunk into oblivion, never again to trouble anyone except those who separated themselves prematurely and who, to justify their separation, continue to be exercised about a long-dead issue.

One of the main historical reasons for one “pure fellowship” group’s separation from the main body of believers was the queer ideas of a rather eccentric brother; this brother circulated several pamphlets on the nature and sacrifice of Christ in the early part of the 20th century. His uncertain speculations were not summarily repudiated by more responsible brethren elsewhere (though neither were they accepted), and the pages of the break-away periodical were for years filled with denunciations of the leavening nature of his work. Some 90 years have now passed since all this began, and one occasionally still reads criticisms of this brother and of his “toleration” by others. But his writings have completely vanished, and no one else has to our knowledge ever taken up those ideas he so weakly articulated. It was told me by another brother who once belonged to one of the separated ecclesias that, in his travels, he had visited the old ecclesia of that long-dead brother. The ecclesia met in a hall with an extensive library, and our friend began a search therein for some of the brother’s questionable writings. He found none and so asked a brother of that meeting where they were kept; this brother in fact was a relative of the original perpetrator of the questionable ideas. “Oh, we wouldn’t have that sort of thing around here!” was the immediate reply. And so it seems that the only ecclesias where the old “leaven” still exists are those who supposedly “purged” it out in the first place, but who still keep a few “fragments” under wraps on the “top shelf” to demonstrate to later generations how terrible it really was!

Returning to a more positive conclusion here, we should endeavor to make an application of these verses to ourselves individually, for certainly this was Paul’s intention, as 1Co 5:8 would indicate: “Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.”

“To this day the Orthodox Jew is ruthless in the exclusion of all leaven (or yeast) from his home for the seven day feast [ie, of Passover]; even to the extent of using a special set of cutlery, crockery and cooking utensils lest a trace should be left on that normally used. In many cases this is merely a slavish adherence to the letter of the law but we can take a lesson from it. Should we not be just as diligent and just as ruthless ourselves with our lives, with our thoughts, words and deeds to exclude from them anything savouring of malice or evil? Bearing in mind the nature of the evil which Paul had in mind at this time the warning is surely not to be lightly passed over when we live in a world rapidly becoming as morally degenerate as was the world by which the brethren and sisters at Corinth were surrounded. Such moral depravity must at all costs be kept at bay, and the only way this can possibly be done is by each one purging from his or her heart the old leaven that as a community we may be a new lump, as we are unleavened” (E. Toms, “Christ Our Passover”, Dawn 21:280,281).

The Man: Amos was a native of the little village of Tekoa, a few miles south of Bethlehem in Judah. He is described as a herdsman (Amos 1:1; 7:14: in two different words which probably mean, respectively, a keeper of sheep and a keeper of oxen), as well as a gatherer of sycamore fruit (Amos 7:14: probably figs); this sounds very much like a lowly farm worker. Many of the metaphors used by Amos in his prophecy reflect this humble background, and the natural surroundings which apparently had a profound effect on him (Amos 1:2; 2:9; 3:4-5; 5:19,20,24; 6:12; 7:1-6; 8:1; 9:3-15). [It is possible that, instead of a humble herdsman, Amos was a cattle-driver or “trader” of livestock, an occupation which might explain his traveling between Judah in the south and Israel in the north.]

The Times: The historical period covered by the reigns of Uzziah of Judah and Jeroboam II of Israel is very significant. Jeroboam II (who reigned c 783-743 BC) led a great revival of Israel’s political power, casting off the Syrian yoke from Israel and extending her borders even beyond those achieved by Solomon (2Ki 14:25,28). Simultaneously in the south Judah was “benefiting” from a similar political revival. Uzziah conquered the Philistines and the Arabians, took tribute from Ammon, fortified Jerusalem, and built walled cities for defense of his borders (2Ch 26:6-15). Of course, political developments in a wider field, under the hand of God, were the real explanation. The period 800 to 750 BC was marked by Assyrian involvements to its north and internal struggles in Egypt. This left Israel and Judah with more or less free hands to become, for a short while at least, dominant powers in the land of Canaan. The effects of these “successes” were disastrous in both civil and religious life. Owing to increased control of important trade routes, wealthy classes emerged in the people of Israel. The poor were increasingly oppressed, and the rich lived lives of immoral self-indulgence. Civil justice was corrupted; the spirit of the Law of Moses was abandoned, even while nominal worship of Jehovah flourished. Their God was with them! or so it seemed: had He not given them wonderful prosperity? But it was all a delusion. The “sepulchre” was whitewashed on the outside, but inside were “dead men’s bones”: greed, dishonesty, licentiousness.

Outline

1.	Judgments against the nations: Amos 1:1-2:16
	a)	Introduction: Amos 1:1-2
	b)	Judgment of neighboring nations: Amos 1:3 – 2:3
	c)	Judgment of Judah and Israel: Amos 2:4-16
2.	Three oracles of judgment against Israel: Amos 3:1 – 5:17
	a)	A declaration of judgment: Amos 3:1-15
	b)	The depravity of Israel: Amos 4:1-13
	c)	A lamentation for Israel’s sin and doom: Amos 5:1-17
3.	Two oracles of woe against Israel: Amos 5:18 – 6:14
	a)	Woe against Israel’s perverted religion: Amos 5:18-27
	b)	Woe against Israel’s complacent pride: Amos 6:1-14
4.	Five visions of judgement against Israel: Amos 7:1 – 9:10
	a)	The devouring locusts: Amos 7:1-3
	b)	The flaming fire: Amos 7:4-6
	c)	The plumb line: Amos 7:7-17
	d)	The basket of ripe fruit: Amos 8:1-14
	e)	The judgment of the Lord: Amos 9:1-10
5.	The promise of Israel’s restoration: Amos 9:11-15

“For Three Sins, and for Four”: The most distinctive feature of Amos’ prophecy is the eight-fold repetition of: “This is what the LORD says: ‘For three sins of ______ , even for four, I will not turn back my wrath.’ ” (“Three… and four” does not necessarily mean “seven”! In Hebrew, a three-fold repetition suggests finality: ie “I will overturn, overturn, overturn…” in Eze 21:27. So “three sins” would be the fullness of transgression, and “four sins” would be a wretched excess — implying the God had waited far too long to exercise His wrath!) This formula introduces divine statements of judgment about Israel (the northern kingdom) in Amos 2:6-8, and Judah (the southern kingdom) in Amos 2:4,5, as well as six Gentile nations surrounding God’s people:

1. Damascus, or Syria (Amos 1:3-5);
2. Gaza, or Philistia (Amos 1:6-8);

3. Tyre, in Lebanon (Amos 1:9,10);
4. Edom (Amos 1:11,12);
5. Ammon (Amos 1:13-15); and

6. Moab (Amos 2:1-3).

Why these nations? Because, during the general period of Israel’s (and Judah’s) expansion and prosperity, the Jews had allowed themselves to become very much like the idolatrous, immoral nations around them (Amos 3:14-4:2; 6:1-6; 8:11-13). And so the time of God’s judgments upon the Gentile nations would also see severe chastening of Israel and Judah. But there would be this difference: God’s people, or rather a remnant of God’s people, would survive the severe judgments and emerge stronger, their faith having been tested so that they learn once again to trust in the Lord their God (Amos 3:1,2; 9:9).

Coming Judgments: The judgments Amos had in mind were probably those to be brought upon Israel and Judah by the Assyrians, and then the Babylonians. These soon-to-be-powerful nations are not mentioned by Amos at all, but their approaching shadow looms over his message. When they finally came, then the smaller nations, whom Israel had thought they need not fear, rose up against Israel — Syria, Philistia, Edom, Moab, and Ammon joining themselves with first the Assyrian and later the Babylonian against their ancient enemy Israel. The result of God’s judgments was the carrying away into captivity (Amos 5:18-20,27).

The Return: But the promise of Amos was that, after the captivity had run its course, the tested and chastened remnant of Abraham’s seed would be brought back to the Land. The almost unrelieved burden of Amos’ earlier message gives way, in his very last utterance, to a message of hope and renewal (Amos 9:11-15).

Multiple Fulfillments

• Israel’s return from captivity in the days of Ezra and Zerubbabel, Haggai and Zechariah, was a near-term fulfillment of this prophecy.

• Amos 9:11,12 is quoted by James in Acts 15:16-18 to support the argument that God intended to include Gentiles among His people. So there was a first-century fulfillment of Amos’ prophecy.

• The chastening judgments of God, followed by the restoration of a humbled people, provide us a pattern by which we might discern developing events in our own day. How might this be? This outline is suggested:

1. Israel prospering in their own land in the Last Days,
2. but surrounded by Arab nations,

3. and practically indistinguishable from them in character and conduct,

4. is subjected to attack by Assyria/Babylon….
5. …and also by Edom, Moab, Ammon, Syria, and the Philistines,

6. loses all it has worked for and accumulated,

7. and is carried away in another captivity,
8. out of which a remnant turns to God and is saved (by calling upon the Messiah!),

9. so that God will bring them back once again to their own Land,

10. this time in righteousness as well as prosperity!

And so, in the near future, for the first time, will Amos’ very last words be truly and completely fulfilled: ” ‘I will plant Israel in their own land, NEVER AGAIN TO BE UPROOTED FROM THE LAND I HAVE GIVEN THEM,’ says the LORD your God” (Amos 9:15).

A surprising number of New Testament passages, from Paul and others, arise out of the events of our Saviour’s birth. They suggest many valuable lessons. A look at several:

Romans 8

Man in his natural state is heir only to death; more precisely, he earns death as his “wages” (Rom 6:23). There is only one way of escape from death, and that is to die! This the believer does in baptism:

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?… For he that is dead is freed from sin” (Rom 6:3,7).

But true baptism is more than a mechanical process. It is validated only by belief, before baptism, and obedience, after baptism. Otherwise it is a meaningless show.

But for those who have escaped death, even if only prospectively, what a wonderful blessing!

“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death” (Rom 8:1,2).

What exactly is this “law” of sin and death? This passage refers back to Rom 7, where “law” means either the law of Moses (vv 1,2,6-9) or our sin-prone natures. Moses revealed, in those who heard it and tried to keep it, the “law” or principle within themselves that tended solely toward sin.

How is it that God, through Christ, has made us free from this two-faceted law of sin and death?

“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in (the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in (he flesh” (Rom 8:3).

God’s first step in releasing man from this bondage was the begettal of a Son in the likeness, or sameness, of our flesh.

Here was one who though “in the flesh” physically, did not “walk after the flesh” (v 4). Instead, he walked “after the Spirit” by being “spiritually minded” v 5) — giving us an example to follow.

In following Christ’s example, we are “born” again: Although we remain physically “in the flesh” — and nothing can change this in the present age — we must walk “in the Spirit of Christ (v 9). In other words, Christ is “born” again in us (v 13), and we become new creatures. We are “led by the Spirit” (v 14) — not the Holy Spirit in its miracle-working manifestation — but rather the spirit, or teaching, or example, of Christ. In following this path, we become the “Sons of God” — patterned after His first Son born long years ago in Bethlehem.

In the exalted language of the Spirit John describes the birth of Jesus — and our “rebirth”:

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth” (John 1:12-14).

Of course, Jesus here is unmistakably “the Word made flesh”, reflecting the glory of the Father. Not so obvious perhaps is the teaching in vv 12,13, that we may also become “the word made flesh” by a rebirth of our “spirits”. Which is just another way of saying that as we read and believe the gospel of Christ, and as we put his principles into practice in our lives, then God is impressing His word upon us, and we are in the process of becoming individual “writings” of God.

John concludes his gospel with these words:

“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” (John 21:25).

There is no limit to the works of Jesus. His work continues even to this very day, in all those who believe. By receiving the written word of God in their hearts and conforming to its impulses, those who believe become at last the other “books” of which John spoke. The life story of each one is another “gospel,” another “book” telling of the works of Christ! So many are they that the world will scarcely be able to contain them — a multitude which no man can number.

“Adoption” or “Sonship”?

Paul continues his theme in Rom 8:15:

“For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.”

The RSV more correctly renders “adoption” as “sonship,” which is quite proper — the root word being “son.” “Adoption” gives the unfortunate idea, to modern minds at least, of a distinctly second-class relationship. It is a word that in no way does justice to the blessed state to which God has elevated us. In one sense there is, of course, just one “only-begotten” Son. But in a broader sense we are all “begotten” by the Word of God to be His sons, and no son of God is “second-class”! But then again, in the very fullest sense, there is only one Son of God, for we are all sons only in that we have become “the body of Christ”!

Paul next pictures the whole creation in birth-pangs, groaning to be “delivered”. It is the universal longing, almost inexpressible, for the fulfillment of God’s purpose in the “birth” of sons (vv 19,22). These “sons” will be born as the dew from the womb of the morning (Psa 110:3, RSV). They who have been “dwellers in dust,” and God’s dead men, will awake and sing for joy, as dew of light upon the earth (Isa 26:17-19, RSV).

“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom 8:28-29).

All things, even trials and suffering, have a place in God’s overall purpose for His children. This purpose calls for their spiritual development in conformity with His Son “the firstborn”, whose character was formed and tested in the things which he suffered (Heb 5:7-9). In learning of Christ and emulating his character, we “die” to our sins and “live” again according to his righteousness (1Pe 2:19-25).

“What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall He not with him also freely give us all things?… Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” (Rom 8:31-35).

Galatians 4

After concluding in Gal 3 that we may become the children of Abraham by faith in Christ, and therefore heirs according to the promise, Paul proceeds in Gal 4 to consider the preeminent “heir,” the “one seed” of Gal 3:16:

“Now I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all” (Gal 4:1).

“The heir” is singular; Paul is speaking of Christ — although the principles may have application to those in Christ as well. He refers to (he standard wisdom of his day, that even the heir of a great estate must be subjected to discipline in his early years, as a preparation for the great work of rulership that awaits him. In such a preparatory stage, then, the heir is essentially no different than the lowliest of servants, and is placed under “tutors and governors” (v 2) who later will be his servants! This is precisely the situation in which God placed His Son; even after Jesus had begun to recognize his divine mission, he was still for some years “subject unto” Joseph and Mary (Luke 2:51).

Paul argues further, to those who were once in bondage to the law of Moses, that Christ has come to lift them from a lower state, servitude, to a higher one, sonship.

“But when the time had fully come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman, horn under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir” (Gal 4:4-7, RSV).

Though the elevation to sonship necessitates a further discipline of servitude, it is now a servitude (as was Christ’s) in full awareness of the potential heirship of all things. How could “sons” of God, once delivered to this higher tutelage, with the wonderful vistas it provides, how could they ever desire to return to a degrading bondage which offered no release but death? But this is precisely what the Galatian believers were doing!:

“My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you” (v 19).

“Listen to the law,” says Paul, and he illustrated the two states by reference to the two sons of Abraham. One (Ishmael) was never more than a slave and the son of a slave because of his foolish reliance on the flesh. The other (Isaac), though younger, was the son of the freewoman, and himself the child of promise and heir of all things — although he was first subjected to persecution. Paul concludes for us all:

“Even so it is now … So then, brethren we are… children… of the free (woman)” (vv 29,31).

1 Peter 1,2

Peter also takes up this theme of the believer’s new birth, in language patterned upon the birth of Christ:

“Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (1Pe 1:22,23).

Christ was “begotten” by the special procreative power of the Holy Spirit. We too become “sons of God” when His Holy Spirit-word acts upon our minds. The incorruptible seed is planted in our minds and takes root in a “plant” that is radically different than the natural growth of “grass” and “flower” (v 24), because it has the potential to endure forever (v 25). This is the only sense of course, in which believers have eternal life now (1Jo 5:12,13)!

So, Peter continues, Christ is “born” in you, although at first he is only a “baby”. As newborn babes then, he says, you must earnestly desire the “milk” (1Pe 2:2) — as did the babe in Bethlehem. Do not seek high things, but bide your time, trusting in the Lord, resting upon His gracious care — as did Jesus before you. Then grow up in the Lord, again as did Jesus, to a full maturity of sonship.

Christ appears to us first as a newborn babe in a manger. And so are we, “newborns”, when first called by the glorious gospel. Yet, as with that babe, there is a wonderful hope for the future, in the flowering of youth and strength, and fin — ally in supreme manhood. Our faith and character must grow and will grow, until we approach to “the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4:13).

It can be done! If we stand at the beginning of our probations and look right to the end, seeing Christ in his perfection, it may seem an impossible task! But even a “marathon” is the sum total of so many single steps, and God has told us that He will give us strength to run that race! He has commanded us to follow His Son, and to grow up — as he did, step by step, learning obedience through trials. And to those who obey, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, and the sufferings through which they pass in the “fellowship.” of His Son. More and more, step by step, they will learn who Christ truly is, and become more conformed to that image. The baby in the manger uttered his first cry, and thereby his Father slaked a claim upon our lives. Thereby the Mighty God of all creation became also “Abba” — the tender Father of a little child; and our Father as well! The God of remote abstractions and technical theories. He is a God who loves people, a Father who holds back no blessing from His “children”, who searches out and loves even the least worthy and most neglected.

A tiny cry in a manger. It was truly a miracle. It was the greatest of all miracles -the birth of God’s own Son! But isn’t every birth a “miracle,” and a mystery? Isn’t every child a “holy child,” because he or she receives life from the God of holiness? Isn’t every child a “gift” from God, showing His continuing love for man, showing that even yet He has not “given up” on us? And isn’t every child a special child — like Samuel or John or even Jesus — to be dedicated by righteous parents to the service of God? Like Mary and Joseph, many of us have been entrusted by God with future kings and queens — who will one day, by God’s grace, sit upon thrones and apply to the nations the lessons learned in their parents’ homes.

And, in fact, aren’t we all “children of God,” begotten by His love, who manifest our “sonship” in our love for one another? If there is a lesson in the “nativity,” it is this: the preeminence of love. We love Him, because He first loved us. For, after all, “sonship” is not what we do, but what we receive. Not what we earn, but a gift.

“Behold the amazing gift of love The Father hath bestowed, On us, the sinful sons of men, To call us sons of God.”

“In harmony with this [ie, the conditional deferment of the return of Christ] is the significant occurrence of the Greek particle ‘AN’ (Greek ‘alpha nu’) in practically every NT passage which speaks of the time of the Lord’s return. This small and practically untranslatable particle always imports an element of contingency or doubt into any statement where it is included, ‘giving to a proposition or sentence a stamp of uncertainty, and mere possibility, and indicating a dependence on circumstances’ (Edward Robinson — Lexicon).

“For instance, all the Synoptists include it in connection with the statement, ‘There be some of them which stand here which shall not taste of death till (‘AN’, it may be) they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.’ [Mat 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27; John 8:52] So also every NT quotation of Psa 110:1 ‘until (‘AN’, ever) I make thy foes thy footstool’. [Mat 22:44; Mark 12:36; Acts 2:35; 1Co 15:25; Heb 1:13; 10:13] Specially forceful is the following: ‘Ye shall not see my henceforth, till (‘AN’, the time whenever that may be) ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord’ (Mat 23:39).

“Other passages which by the use of the same word suggest that the time of the Lord’s return would be dependent upon some unspecified contingency are: Mat 10:23; 12:20; Luke 19:23; 1Co 4:5; 11:26; Jam 5:7; Rev 2:25” (WRev 269).

Along these same lines, BDAG has: “AN [alpha nu] is a particle peculiar to Greek… denoting an ASPECT OF CONTINGENCY, incapable of translation by a single English word; it denotes that the action of the verb is dependent on some circumstance or condition; the effect of AN upon the meaning of its clause depends on the mood and tense/aspect of the verb with which it is used.”

“Meno” is a word of very frequent occurrence. Its simple meaning is “abide” in the sense of “dwell, or stay, in a house”. It is commonly used in this sense in the gospels. “Zaccheus, today I must abide at thine house” (Luk 19:5). “The servant abideth not in the house for ever” (Joh 8:35). And so on — lots of them.

From here the meaning moves on to the idea of “remaining, or continuing an existing condition”. For example, “Labour for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life” (Joh 6:27). “Let her remain unmarried” (1Co 7:11). “Let brotherly love continue” (Heb 13:1).

From these simple ideas there springs the deep spiritual meaning which makes “abide” one of the key words in John’s gospel and epistles: “close spiritual fellowship”, the result of being in the same “house” with the Father and the Son and the brethren. It is a fellowship which has an abiding, lasting quality — it goes on and on, world without end, Amen.

“Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God… God is love, and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him” (1Jo 4:15,16). “As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me” (Joh 15:4).

“Meno” has got itself augmented with nearly every preposition in the language; in some cases the new meanings are particularly interesting.

Hupomeno means “to continue in hardship or suffering”. Mostly, the AV very beautifully translates “endure”. This is usually just right. “He that shall endure to the end, the same shall be saved” (Mat 24:13). “If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons” (Heb 12:7). The translation, twice in 1Pe 2:20, “take it patiently”, hardly conveys the right idea.

When Jews from Thessalonica stirred up opposition in Berea also, the brethren, anxious for Paul’s safety, sent him on to Athens, “but Silas and Timotheus abode (hupomeno) there still”, putting up with the trouble, enduring the persecution, but the narrative does not indicate by one word what they had to put up with.

Somewhat surprisingly, the same word comes in the story of the boy Jesus at Jerusalem for his first Passover: “he tarried behind in Jerusalem” (Luk 2:43). Here the idea probably is: “he hung on”, unwilling to leave the holy city, with its wonderful associations and spiritual opportunities.

Another instance calls for slight correction. “If we suffer, we shall also reign with him” (2Ti 2:12). But it is not suffering which guarantees reward, but the right enduring of suffering. The noun which goes with hupomeno — hupomone — is all but once translated “patience”. But in modern English this word presents a picture of placid waiting and tranquil inactivity, whereas hupomone really suggests the notion of tenacious hanging on and grim clenched-teeth endurance. Every occurrence of the word needs re-scrutinizing from this point of view.

The modern idea of patience is more in evidence in anameno, the one occurrence of which speaks of “waiting for his Son from heaven” (1Th 1:10). But even here there is something of endurance, as the two occurrences in LXX show. “Thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day” (Psa 25:5). “Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart: wait, I say, on the Lord” (Psa 27:14).

Epimeno means, quite literally, “stay upon”, and accordingly in the AV appears as “continue, abide” and especially “tarry”. All the 18 occurrences are straightforward except perhaps Phi 1:23,24: “I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart (ie go away into retirement for the study of Scripture and the experience of “revelations from the Lord”) and (so) to be with Christ: which is far better. Nevertheless to abide in the flesh (ie continue a personal active presence in the ecclesias) is more needful for you.” So Paul, the aged, who would dearly have loved to “retire” (as everyone does nowadays as a matter of course), hung on, giving his converts assurance of his continuing care: “I know that I shall abide (meno) and continue (parameno — prolong my stay) with you all” (v 25).

There is a terribly important lesson to be learned from the next word in this family: emmeno. AV translates it rather tamely “continue”, but “stay in” gives the idea more exactly. “They continued not in my covenant” (Heb 8:9). Esp Acts 14:22: “exhorting them (the new disciples) to continue in the faith”, ie to stay on regardless of all discouragements. This is also the idea in most of the LXX passages, where it is used on confirming a vow (Jer 44:25) or standing firm in an undertaking (Dan 12:12; Deu 27:26).

It is not easy to see why Jesus, bidding his apostles “wait for the promise of the Father (the Holy Spirit)” in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4), should use another meno compound: perimeno, “wait around”, when meno itself or one of the others already discussed would appear to be as good. The solitary OT occurrence of perimeno in Jacob’s prophecies to his sons (Gen 49:18) doesn’t help much: “I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord”. The apostles’ obedience to their Lord’s command is neatly indicated by mention of how they “stayed put” (katameno) in the house of the upper room (Acts 1:13).

Parameno seems to carry the idea of prolonging a stay or visit — as in Phi 1:25, already cited. This is certainly the idea in 1Co 16:6, where Paul considers the possibility of spending the approaching winter in Corinth.

There is a nice emphasis about James’ use of parameno in his figure of the mirror: “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and so continueth (ie instead of a casual glance, a protracted gaze) — this man shall be blessed in his doing” (Jam 1:25).

In prosmeno the prefix very neatly implies abiding for the sake of continuing face to face with someone. Jesus insisted that the multitude must be fed because they had “stuck to him” into the third day (Mat 15:32). When Barnabas encountered the first Gentile converts in Antioch, he exhorted them to “stick to the Lord” (Acts 11:23) — this, whatever else.

In 1Ti 5:5 Paul picks out one of the essential characteristics of a true widow in Christ as one who “continueth in supplications and prayers” — sticking to her person-to-person contact with the Lord.

But in 1Ti 1:3 Paul had a different kind of person-to-person contact in mind. “I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus — that thou mightest charge certain not to teach a different doctrine.” And timid Timothy needed the exhortation, for prolonged encounters of this kind were not at all what he relished.

Diameno sometimes emphasizes continuance without end: “They (the heavens and the earth) shall perish, but Thou remainest” (Heb 1:11). And similarly in several of the psalms: “His name shall continue as long as the sun” (Psa 72:17). “The fear of the Lord endureth for ever” (Psa 19:9). Those who mock the promise of Christ’s return confidently assert that “all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (2Pe 3:4). Such people need reminding that “the foolish shall not stand in thy sight” (Psa 5:5).

In a more limited sense, diameno describes an experience more long-lasting than might have been expected. “Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations,” Jesus said to the eleven (Luk 22:28). And the deaf and dumb Zacharias beckoning and “remaining (continuing) speechless” provides a vivid picture of the old man’s desperate and persistent attempts to communicate.

ADAMIC CONDEMNATION AND THE LORD’S INVOLVEMENT IN HIS OWN SACRIFICE

The following outlines the beliefs of JJ Andrew concerning the state of man after the fall, our Lord’s involvement in his own sacrifice and being in Adam and in Christ. Quotations are from “The Blood of the Covenant”.

I.	Adamic Condemnation — two aspects of Sin.
	(a)	Physical — transferred to all Adam’s descendants because they were in his loins when he was condemned. JJA says that we are not guilty of this offense, but we must be justified from it. “Just as Adam’s descendants were in his loins when he partook of the tree, so they were in his loins when he was judged and condemned… The descendants of Adam were condemned before they were born… Owing to this fact, all men are liable as soon as they are born to be cut off by death” (BOC 5). JJA said that the apostle Paul calls this condemnation (that all men are born under) “the Law of Sin and Death”. Adam, because of his sin, had incurred a violent death. Since all his descendants sinned in him, they deserve, whether actual transgressors or not, a violent death in execution of the “Edenic Law” (BOC 24). “All under it are, by birth, ‘children of wrath’ and as long as they continue under it they are ‘dead in trespasses and sins’; everything that they do is the offspring of sin, and is itself sin, for ‘the plowing of the wicked is sin’ (Pro 21:4); God is angry with them ‘every day’ (Psa 7:11) ; and if they died under the Law of Sin and Death, they die under the wrath of God from which there is no escape” (BOC 29). Sacrifice (shedding of blood) is necessary to take away sin in its physical and moral aspect. If this sin is not removed then the gates of the grave are closed. (This is the key step in reaching the point that only the baptized will be raised.) “Sacrifice is as essential to take away sin in its physical, as in its moral aspect; a violent death is the punishment due to the one as well as to the other; physical sin is as powerful to keep closed the gates of the grave as is actual transgression” (BOC 7).
	(b)	Moral sin — acts of transgression which deserve punishment. These acts incur the same wrath and punishment from the Father as the physical sin that we are born with. See quote above.
II.	How did this affect Christ and his involvement in his own sacrifice?
	(a)	Because Christ was a descendant of Adam he was born with the same physical sin (sin-in-the-flesh) that all Adam’s descendants are born with. Christ therefore suffered the same consequences. See the quote above from BOC 29. He possessed sin physically but not morally. His death was required to take away / cover this physical sin that he was born with.
	(b)	Christ’s death justified him from this condemnation. Had he not shed his blood, the Law of Sin and Death would have kept him in the grave. “Christ was, by his shed blood, justified from the condemnation under which he was born, therefore those who are sprinkled with his blood at baptism are then justified from the same condemnation. That is, the divine disfavor under which they were born and which continued until the time entering water is then taken away” (BOC 27). “It was not possible, according to the ‘Law of Sin and Death’, for Christ to be freed from Adamic Condemnation without the shedding of his blood, and after this event ‘it was not possible’ according to the ‘law of the spirit of life’ for the grave to retain him… when he came out of the grave he was ‘justified from sin’, though still flesh and blood, and he was immortalized as a result of that justification” (BOC 26).
	(c)	The sacrifice of Christ was the payment of a penalty. This penalty was the violent death that Adam deserved but did not pay. “Adam was threatened with death on the day that he sinned, but God by an exercise of mercy, provided an animal on which was inflicted the literal death incurred by Adam. But to be of any service in the ablution of death, it had to be substituted by a sacrifice of a higher order” (BOC 7). “If Adam had obeyed he would have fulfilled the righteousness of God, and would have experienced the blessing implied in the Law by not dying. But having disobeyed the penalty of the Law must be inflicted. If it had been carried out on Adam there would have been no human race, and as a consequence no sinners to save. But God in his mercy provided a descendant of Adam on whom to execute the penalty” (BOC 24). That violent death was inflicted on Christ, and was the result of the Father’s anger. “As all his descendants ‘sinned’ in him (Rom 5:12), they deserve, whether they be actual transgressors or not, a violent death in execution of the Edenic Law” (BOC 24). “(Christ), though free from personal transgression, submitted to that which was the inevitable result of his Father’s anger against sin, physically and morally, thereby exhibiting the perfection of righteousness. After passing through the ordeal he was able to say from experience, ‘the Lord’s anger endureth but a moment: in his favor is life; weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning’ (Psa 30:5)” (BOC 25).
III.	In Adam/ In Christ
		JJA believed that one came out of Adam and into Christ at baptism. He saw the terms as identifying a change in legal relationship (not necessarily in moral relationship). He saw this legal change as having the power to bring one out of the grave for judgment. “When does this take place? At Baptism. In what sense do believers pass out of Adam? In the same sense that they pass into Christ. Is it accompanied by a physical change? No; the change is one of relationship. What is the immediate effect of this? They are imputed with the righteousness of Christ rather than the disobedience of Adam. What is the effect in relation to the future? That death as a result of Adam’s disobedience cannot prevail over them. When, therefore, the relationship of any toward that offense is altered their relationship toward its consequence is altered. In what way? By keeping them from entering the grave? Not necessarily; but, should they enter, by bringing them out” (BOC 30,31). ” ‘In Adam all die.’ Who are they? Those who have not been transferred out of Adam and into Christ. ‘In Christ shall all be made alive.’ This is a totally different class. Although they die due to Adam’s sin they do not die in Adam. Having been washed and justified they die in Christ, and while in the grave they are ‘dead in Christ’ and because Christ rose, they will rise. He rose through the ‘blood of the covenant’ and they will rise through the same” (BOC 32). “The Ecclesia, or called out assembly, is composed not only of the few chosen but of the many called. Against none of these will the ‘gates of Hades prevail’; for Christ will use the ‘keys of Hades’ to release them from the grave, because as the church of God he hath purchased them with his own blood. But, against those who, since the establishment of his ‘church’, have not entered therein, ‘the gates of Hades’ will prevail” (BOC 31).

Summary

1. All men are born deserving a violent death because of Physical Sin (sin-in-the-flesh) inherited from Adam.

2. Not only do they deserve death, but God is literally angry with them. Everything that they do is sin.

3. This Physical Sin is as powerful to keep the gates of the grave closed as moral sin.

4. Because Christ was born with physical sin he was alienated in like manner from his Father. Christ’s death provided a justification from the sin he inherited from Adam.

5. A violent death was the penalty incurred by Adam for disobedience. That penalty could not be carried out or the human race would have ceased to exist. Therefore God slew animals instead, and Adam and Eve lived. The animal sacrifice had to be supplemented by one of a higher order. This was accomplished in the sacrifice of Christ, who paid the penalty Adam rightfully should have paid.

6. In Adam and In Christ describes a legal relationship that changes at Baptism (one passes out of Adam and into Christ). When one comes into Christ the consequence of Adam’s sin is changed, so that if they die they will be brought out of the grave.

(Adapted from Gary Burns)

Barrenness

In the beginning, God created man (and woman, for that matter), in His image, and said unto them, “Be fruitful, and multiply”. This being so, why were so many women in Scripture unable to bear children? It was obviously not an uncommon condition in Bible times, and today much medical attention is devoted to seeking cures for it.

At least seven women are specifically mentioned as suffering from barrenness: Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, the mother of Samson, Hannah, the Shunammite, and Elizabeth. In several of these cases there is particular comment on the cause of sterility:

Sarah believed her condition was of God: “Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing” (Gen 16:2). Rachel was taught by her husband Jacob that God was the Source of her condition: “Am I in God’s stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb?” (Gen 30:2). Were these patriarchs right in thinking that this affliction of barrenness was from God? Clearly God could do this, and in the case of Hannah it is explicitly stated that “the Lord had shut up her womb” (1Sa 1:6). In fact, in the time of Abraham there was a clear demonstration of God’s power in this matter. When Sarah was taken into the house of Abimelech, all the women in his household stopped bearing children, and at the end of the incident the record states: “So Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bare children. For the Lord had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah…” (Gen 20:17,18).

By contrast with all these cases, Israel as a nation was promised that if they would keep God’s laws, He in turn would bless the fruit of their wombs, and none would be barren among them (Deu 7:13,14).

Conception

He who has power to shut the womb is clearly able also to open it — sometimes with unexpected results. Thus Sarah at the age of 90 “received strength to conceive seed” (Heb 11:11)! It is stated of both Leah and Rachel that God “opened” their wombs (Gen 29:31,32; 30:22,23); but the case of Ruth is even more specific. She was married to Mahlon for anything up to ten years without any child, but when she married the older man Boaz, “the Lord gave her conception, and she bare a son” (Rth 4:13).

Gestation

Every aspect of the whole wonderful process of childbearing is mentioned in the Bible, including gestation: “For thou hast formed my reins: thou hast knit me together in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks unto thee: for I am fearfully and wonderfully made… Thine eyes did see my imperfect substance, and in thy book all my members were written, what days they should be fashioned, when as yet there was none of them” (Psa 139:13-16).

The Scriptures leave their reader in no doubt as to what words should be used to describe that which is developing in the womb of a pregnant woman: in Rebekah’s case, they are called “children” (Gen 25:22), and in Elizabeth’s, it is called “the babe” (Luk 1:44). These two passages show that even before birth there is in some sense a personality and individuality developing, all known to God.

“Before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations” (Jer 1:5). This is how God speaks of Jeremiah when in modern medical terms there was no Jeremiah, just some impersonal cells multiplying in the womb of a woman.

Birth

Again there is no doubt that God is involved at this stage: “Thou art he that took me out of the womb” (Psa 22:9); “Thou art he that took me out of my mother’s bowels” (Psa 71:6); and “God, who separated me from my mother’s womb” (Gal 1:15) are three examples of the testimony of Scripture to this effect.

Summary

The clear evidence of the above passages is that Israel, and by extension the saints of all ages, were taught that God, having created the first man and woman and commanded them to reproduce, did not “rest from his work”, but on the contrary is actively involved at all stages and in every case of the formation of a new life. He “withholds from bearing” or “gives conception” according to His will. He “knits together” the developing members and organs in the womb, and ultimately He “brings forth” the perfectly-formed child from its mother at the appointed time.

The worship of the Canaanites

While Israel was in the wilderness, God solemnly warned them of the depths of depravity to which the nations of the land had sunk, and of the necessity for Israel to keep themselves separate from these things:

“After the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances” (Lev 18:3).

The worship of Ashtaroth and the Baalim, the gods of the Canaanites, was very much fertility worship: the worship of sex in all its forms and even of the sex organs. Tablets, statues and other information from archaeological digs have revealed the utter depravity of Canaanite “religion”, and the need for such warnings as “Defile not yourselves in any of these things” (Lev 18:24).

Yet above all these dreadful things (pornography, incest, prostitution, homosexuality, and even bestiality), there was a practice held so abominable in God’s sight that it defiled not only the people if they committed it, but it also defiled their land as well as God’s sanctuary and holy name! This was the sacrifice of children to the abomination Moloch (or Molech). So hideous was this practice that the Israelites were forbidden even to inquire as to how it was carried out (Deu 12:30,31; Lev 20:1-5).

God condemns all idolatry; but this particular perversion is singled out for special and precise divine reprobation. Why? In Eze 16 there is an extended allegory concerning the unfaithful behavior of the people of Jerusalem: “Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter, that thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire?” (vv 20,21).

Two points are obvious: (1) They were sacrificing their children to an idol; and (2) The children were not, in fact, theirs to do with as they pleased; but rather they belonged to God!

Today

Nothing remotely approaching this horrible and abominable practice of Molech-worship would be tolerated today in Western society. Yet all the other elements of Canaanitish fertility worship are abundantly manifest in all their depravity in the Western “Christian” nations, where sex is a multi-billion dollar industry. The churches around us, having departed from a healthy attitude to the Scriptures, have progressively retreated on moral issues also, until several of the sexual abominations of the Canaanites are considered by them to be quite compatible with a good “Christian” life.

What is perhaps not quite so clear, is that along with all the other filth of Canaan has come the modern “Molech”, discreetly called “legalized abortion” or “freedom of choice”. The parallel between an Israelite family sacrificing a child to Molech and a brother and sister having a pregnancy terminated by abortion is very powerful. In both cases knowledge of the Bible should be sufficient to cause realization that: (1) conception is given by God; (2) He oversees the development of the child in the womb; and (3) that child is an inheritance from Him. The only real difference is that in the one case the child emerges naturally from the womb before being cast into the fire, while in the other it is taken unnaturally from the body of its mother before being disposed of. In both cases there is a deliberate intention to destroy a child created by God. It offers no solution to dismiss that child as a mere “fetus” or “embryo” — such is not the language of the Bible, as has been shown. Thus we must conclude that to destroy human life willfully, whether legal or not according to man’s laws, is in God’s sight quite simply murder.

As is frequently true, this NT principle of spiritual life [Mat 16:24,25] finds its best illustration in the OT. In the story of Abraham and Isaac [Gen 22] we have a dramatic picture of the surrendered life as well as an excellent commentary on the first Beatitude [Mat 5:3].

Abraham was old when Isaac was born, old enough indeed to have been his grandfather, and the child became at once the delight and idol of his heart. From that moment when he first stooped to take the tiny form awkwardly in his arms he was an eager love slave of his son. God went out of His way to comment on the strength of this affection. And it is not hard to understand. The baby represented everything sacred to his father’s heart: the promises of God, the covenants, the hopes of the years and the long messianic dream. As he watched him grow from babyhood to young manhood the heart of the old man was knit closer and closer with the life of his son, till at last the relationship bordered upon the perilous. It was then that God stepped in to save both father and son from the consequences of an uncleansed love.

‘Take now thy son,’ said God to Abraham, ‘thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of’ (Gen 22:2). The sacred writer spares us a close-up of the agony that night on the slopes near Beersheba when the aged man had it out with his God, but respectful imagination may view in awe the bent form and convulsive wrestling alone under the stars. Possibly not again until a Greater than Abraham wrestled in the Garden of Gethsemane did such mortal pain visit a human soul. If only the man himself might have been allowed to die. That would have been easier a thousand times, for he was old now, and to die would have been no great ordeal for one who had walked so long with God. Besides, it would have been a last sweet pleasure to let his dimming vision rest upon the figure of his stalwart son who would live to carry on the Abrahamic line and fulfill in himself the promises of God made long before in Ur of the Chaldees.

How should he slay the lad! Even if he could get the consent of his wounded and protesting heart, how could he reconcile the act with the promise, ‘In Isaac shall thy seed be called’? This was Abraham’s trial by fire, and he did not fail in the crucible. While the stars still shone like sharp white points above the tent where the sleeping Isaac lay, and long before the gray dawn had begun to lighten the east, the old saint had made up his mind. He would offer his son as God had directed him to do, and then trust God to raise him from the dead [Heb 11:19]. This, says the writer to the Hebrews, was the solution his aching heart found sometime in the dark night, and he rose ‘early in the morning’ to carry out the plan. It is beautiful to see that, while he erred as to God’s method, he had correctly sensed the secret of His great heart. And the solution accords well with the NT Scripture, ‘Whosoever will lose… for my sake shall find…’

God let the suffering old man go through with it up to the point where He knew there would be no retreat, and then forbade him to lay a hand upon the boy. To the wondering patriarch He now says in effect, ‘It’s all right, Abraham. I never intended that you should actually slay the lad. I only wanted to remove him from the temple of your heart that I might reign unchallenged there. I wanted to correct the perversion that existed in your love. Now you may have the boy, sound and well. Take him and go back to your tent. Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing that thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me’ [cp Rom 8:32].

Then heaven opened and a voice was heard saying to him, ‘By myself I have sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.’

The old man of God lifted his head to respond to the Voice, and stood there on the mount strong and pure and grand, a man marked out by the Lord for special treatment, a friend and favorite of the Most High. Now he was a man wholly surrendered, a man utterly obedient, a man who possessed nothing. He had concentrated his all in the person of his dear son, and God had taken it from him. God could have begun out on the margin of Abraham’s life and worked inward to the center; He chose rather to cut quickly to the heart and have it over in one sharp act of separation. In dealing thus He practiced an economy of means and time. It hurt cruelly, but it was effective.

I have said that Abraham possessed nothing. Yet was not this poor man rich? Everything he had owned before was still his to enjoy: sheep, camels, herds, and goods of every sort. He had also his wife and his friends, and best of all he had his son Isaac safe by his side. He had everything, but he POSSESSED nothing. There is the spiritual secret. There is the sweet theology of the heart which can be learned only in the school of renunciation. The books on systematic theology overlook this, but the wise will understand.

After that bitter and blessed experience I think the words ‘my and ‘mine’ never had again the same meaning for Abraham. The sense of possession which they connote was gone from his heart. Things had been cast out forever. They had now become external to the man. His inner heart was free from them. The world said, ‘Abraham is rich,’ but the aged patriarch only smiled. He could not explain it to them, but he knew that he owned nothing, that his real treasures were inward and eternal…

The Christian who is alive enough to know himself even slightly will recognize the symptoms of this possession malady, and will grieve to find them in his own heart. If the longing after God is strong enough within him he will want to do something about the matter. Now, what should he do?

First of all he should put away all defense and make no attempt to excuse himself either in his own eyes or before the Lord. Whoever defends himself will have himself for his defense, and he will have no other; but let him come defenseless before the Lord and he will have for his defender no less than God Himself. Let the inquiring Christian trample under foot every slippery trick of his deceitful heart and insist upon frank and open relations with the Lord.

Then he should remember that this is holy business. No careless or casual dealings will suffice. Let him come to God in full determination to be heard. Let him insist that God accept his all, that He take things out of his heart and Himself reign there in power. It may be he will need to become specific, to name things and people by their names one by one. If he will become drastic enough he can shorten the time of his travail from years to minutes and enter the good land long before his slower brethren who coddle their feelings and insist upon caution in their dealings with God.

Let us never forget that such a truth as this cannot be learned by rote as one would learn the facts of physical science. They must be experienced before we can really know them. We must in our hearts live through Abraham’s harsh and bitter experiences if we would know the blessedness which follows them. The ancient curse will not go out painlessly; the tough old miser within us will not lie down and die obedient to our command. He must be torn out of our heart like a plant from the soil; he must be extracted in agony and blood like a tooth from the jaw. He must be expelled from our soul by violence as Christ expelled the money changers from the temple. And we shall need to steel ourselves against his piteous begging, and to recognize it as springing out of self-pity, one of the most reprehensible sins of the human heart.

If we would indeed know God in growing intimacy we must go this way of renunciation. And if we are set upon the pursuit of God He will sooner or later bring us to this test. Abraham’s testing was, at the time, not known to him as such, yet if he had taken some course other than the one he did, the whole history of the Old Testament would have been different. God would have found His man, no doubt, but the loss to Abraham would have been tragic beyond the telling. So we will be brought one by one to the testing place, and we may never know when we are there. At that testing place there will be no dozen possible choices for us; just one and an alternative, but our whole future will be conditioned by the choice we make.

(AWT)

In the NT this word means, nearly always, “acceptable to God”. Three Greek words come in this sense quite often: dektos and its more emphatic cognate euprosdektos and another not dissimilar word euarestos. The first two are mostly equivalents of the Hebrew words “ratzah”, and “ratzon”, which normally have reference to acceptable sacrifice or to one of the Jewish feasts when sacrifice was specially acceptable. The first meaning is obvious in 1Pe 2:5: “Ye also… offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable (‘euprosdektos’) to God by Jesus Christ.” And in Rom 15:16 Paul uses the figure of himself as a priest ministering at an altar and offering up as a gift to God a multitude of Gentile converts: “…that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable (euprosdektos), being sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 10:35 is interesting as being a modified quote of Pro 12:22 LXX (the Hebrew is distinctly different). But why did Peter say “he that worketh righteousness is accepted with him” (note the idea of sacrifice in v 4), when LXX has “worketh faith”? Wouldn’t this have served Peter’s purpose even better? Was he adjusting his language so as not to offend “them of the circumcision” who were with him?

This is also one of the meanings attached to euarestos. So in Phi 4:18 Paul uses two of them together for emphasis: “The things which were sent from you are an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable (dektos) well-pleasing (euarestos) to God.”

In two places “dektos” is used in NT quotations of OT passages. In the synagogue at Nazareth the Lord read from Isa 61 about “the acceptable year of the Lord”, where there is one allusion after another to the Year of Jubilee. Jesus was proclaiming the time of release from sin.

Similarly, 2Co 6:2 quotes Isa 49:8: “Behold, now is the accepted time.” Again, the primary reference is to Hezekiah’s Passover and the great deliverance which took place then. But in the NT that “dektos” time was the Passover when Jesus died, thus inaugurating a new and continual Passover which is all deliverance.

The “euarestos” passages fall into two groups which seem to overlap. As with the other two words there is often well-defined allusion to acceptable sacrifice: “…that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God…” (Rom 12:1, alluding to Lev 1:4). “God… working in you that which is well-pleasing (euarestos) in his sight” (Heb 13:21) comes immediately after an allusion to “the blood of the covenant”.

There is also another clear-cut meaning which has been largely lost sight of. Euarestos is used in LXX as equivalent to Heb “hithalek”, walking with God. This word is used with ref to Enoch (Gen 5:22), and in LXX and Heb 11:5 it becomes: “he pleased (euarestos) God”. LXX treats Gen 17:1; 6:9; Psa 56:13; 116:9 in the same way (but, strangely enough, not Isa 38:3). So it may be taken as fairly certain that the idea of “walking with God” was in Paul’s mind when he wrote Rom 14:18; 2Co 5:9; Eph 5:10; and Tit 2:9. And this may well be true of Rom 12:2; Col 3:20; and Heb 12:28; but it is in these three places where the two ideas of acceptable sacrifice and walking with God seem to overlap.

“This is good and acceptable before God” comes twice in 1 Timothy (1Ti 2:3; 5:4). This word means “welcome”. The verb (apodechomai — 6 times) and the noun (apodoche — twice) always carry this meaning. But the adjective, apodektos, is marvelously like the word for paying tithes. Then was Paul deliberately making a play on words here? — suggesting that prayers for those in authority (1Ti 2:3) and care for aged parents (1Ti 5:4) are a fine form of tithe-paying for those not under the Law of Moses.