Thoughts of a mother…

THOUGHTS OF A MOTHER ON HER NEW-BORN SON

Now he sleeps, and I am left in quietness to look on his tranquility. Some scorn the reality of miracles, but how could I? Man extols his inventions, but you he could not make, for you are a masterpiece of God, fearfully and wonderfully made. The days of waiting have been joyous, though I longed for them to pass. The task of preparing for you has been a delight. And now realization exceeds all anticipation. But then I am overshadowed with sadness, realizing the responsibility which you bring on me. Yet I am comforted that God knows my frailties, and has provided a stronger heart than mine, sharing with me the burden, and together our Father will give us strength.

How strange it seems that your first understanding of your Maker will be learned from my lips; your first conception of right and wrong will be gained from my teaching. “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” Could, then, any occasion be more opportune that I should “examine myself, whether I be in the faith”? Perhaps you will be one of the happy children who will play in the streets of Jerusalem, but if the heralding of that Day is delayed, what lies beyond? What are my ambitions for you? Shall I always remember that goodness and gentleness of character are to be desired above all else? Shall I bear in mind to teach you to seek first the Kingdom of Heaven? Shall I not forget to tell you the stories of Jesus, of his love and kindness and his justice, encouraging you to be like him?

Will I ever be ready to encourage you, to spur you on along the right way, until that happy day dawns when you, now my new-born son, will be born again? I will see you change from babyhood to boyhood, from boyhood to manhood, and as you change so my influence will recede, but the impression of those earlier years will be imprinted on you for all your days. According as your parents have taught you so will you be.

I see a mother of long ago and the thoughts she utters are my thoughts also: “For this child I prayed; and the Lord hath given me my petition which I asked of Him.” I, too, desire that my son should be given to the Lord. So when the final trumpet shall sound, and when I stand before the Judge of all the earth, what will he say to me? I see him reproving me for my failures, but then he asks, “Where is the one talent that was given you? What use have you made of it?” Will I have hidden this talent in the earth, or will I with confidence be able to reply, “Lord, see my son”?

THOUGHTS OF A MOTHER ON HER NEW-BORN DAUGHTER

Now she sleeps, and I am left in quietness to look on her tranquility. Some scorn the reality of miracles, but how could I? Man extols his inventions, but you he could not make, for you are a masterpiece of God, fearfully and wonderfully made. The days of waiting have been joyous, though I longed for them to pass. The task of preparing for you has been a delight. And now realization exceeds all anticipation. But then I am overshadowed with sadness, realizing the responsibility which you bring on me. Yet I am comforted that God knows my frailties, and has provided a stronger heart than mine, sharing with me the burden, and together our Father will give us strength.

How strange it seems that your first understanding of your Maker will be learned from my lips; your first conception of right and wrong will be gained from my teaching. “Train up a child in the way she should go: and when she is old, she will not depart from it.” Could, then, any occasion be more opportune that I should “examine myself, whether I be in the faith”? Perhaps you will be one of the happy children who will play in the streets of Jerusalem, but if the heralding of that Day is delayed, what lies beyond? What are my ambitions for you? Shall I always remember that goodness and gentleness of character are to be desired above all else? Shall I bear in mind to teach you to seek first the Kingdom of Heaven, so that it may be said of you, “To her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints”? Shall I not forget to tell you the stories of Jesus, of his love and kindness and his justice, encouraging you to be like him?

Will I ever be ready to encourage you, to spur you on along the right way, until that happy day dawns when you, now my new-born daughter, will be born again? I will see you change from a baby to a girl, from a girl to a young lady, and as you change so my influence will recede, but the impression of those earlier years will be imprinted on you for all your days. According as your parents have taught you so will you be.

I see a mother of long ago and the thoughts she utters are my thoughts also: “For this child I prayed; and the Lord hath given me my petition which I asked of Him.” I too, desire that my daughter should be given to the Lord. So when the final trumpet shall sound, and when I stand before the Judge of all the earth, what will he say to me? I see him reproving me for my failures, but then he asks, “Where is the one talent that was given you? What use have you made of it?” Will I have hidden this talent in the earth, or will I with confidence be able to reply, “Lord, see my daughter”?

(Adapted from Ruth McHaffie, Xdn 90:84)

Three Creeds (chart)

Apostles Creed *[May be traced 130-140 AD, and perhaps earlier.}*	Nicene Creed [As approved in amplified form at the Council of Constantinople (381), it is the profession of the Christian Faith common to the Catholic Church, to all the Eastern Churches separated from Rome, and to most of the Protestant denominations.]	Athanasian Creed [*Exact date uncertain; generally assumed to be 5th or 6th century.]*
		1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; 2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

I believe in God the Father, Almighty; Maker of Heaven and Earth;

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

and in Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary;	And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man;	29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. 31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world. 32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. 33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. 34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. 35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God. 36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. 37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; the third day he rose from the dead;	and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;	38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father;	and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and	39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.	He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.	40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit;	And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.	41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; 42. and shall give account of their own works. 43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
*the holy church;*	*And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church.*
the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.	I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
		44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

Note how the earliest statement (the Apostles Creed) has remained relatively static in most of its clauses, through the later revisions, while certain clauses (the ones dealing with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) have been amplified and expanded far beyond reasonableness, until at last they are altogether out of proportion with the rest. And it is in these clauses, of course, where the Church — over several centuries — has criminally departed from the Apostolic Faith, and excommunicated and condemned those discerning ones who will not accept such error and confusion.

Three in one (1Jo 5:8)?

The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic) except the Latin; and it is not found in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate as issued by Jerome and revised by Alcuin. The first reliable Latin text to contain it was written in AD 550. In the revised Greek text underlying the modern versions, 1Jo 5:7 (the Johannine “comma”) and all reference to a trinity is obliterated.

Some Trinitarians say that other early church fathers also “quoted” the Comma, but this is pure obfuscation. Bishop Clement of Alexandria in AD 200, quoting from the First Epistle of John: “Because there are three who testify, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one. Three things are mentioned above, but there’s no mention of a three-in-one god, the ‘trinity’. Nor is any trinity, or anything like it, discussed in any of the NT manuscripts before about 600 AD, including the Latin and Greek translations. Once again, bear in mind the fact that Clement is a Grecian bishop. He cannot be quoting the Latin text, but must use the Greek as this is the only one available to him. And of course, the Greek text does not have the Comma…

Tertullian is supposed to have quoted 1Jo 5:7 as well. In Adversus Praxean (c AD 200) Tertullian writes: “And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, which three are one entity. This is NOT 1Jo 5:7, even though it does sound disturbingly close. Cyprian (who lived in the 3rd Century AD) is said to have quoted it, but a careful examination of his writings shows that he did not. According to Daniel B. Wallace (PhD):

“…A careful distinction needs to be made between the actual text used by Cyprian and his theological interpretations. As Metzger says, the Old Latin text used by Cyprian shows no evidence of this gloss. On the other side of the ledger, however, Cyprian does show evidence of putting a theological spin on 1Jo 5:7. In his De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 6, he says, ‘The Lord says, “I and the Father are one”; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one”.’ What is evident is that Cyprian’s interpretation of 1Jo 5:7 is that the three witnesses refer to the Trinity.”

Apparently, he was prompted to read such into the text here because of the heresies he was fighting (a common indulgence of the early patristic writers). Since Joh 10:30 triggered the “oneness” motif, and involved Father and Son, it was a natural step for Cyprian to find another text that spoke of the Spirit, using the same kind of language. It is quite significant, however, that (a) he does not quote ‘of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit’ as part of the text; this is obviously his interpretation of ‘the Spirit, the water, and the blood.’ (b) Further, since the statement about the Trinity in the Comma is quite clear (‘the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit’), and since Cyprian does not quote that part of the text, this in the least does not afford proof that he knew of such wording.

One would expect him to quote the exact wording of the text, if its meaning were plain. That he does not do so indicates that a Trinitarian interpretation was superimposed on the text by Cyprian, but he did not change the words.

Wallace has taught Greek and New Testament courses on a graduate school level since 1979. He has a PhD from Dallas Theological Seminary, and is currently professor of NT Studies at his alma mater. His “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament” has become a standard textbook in colleges and seminaries. He is the senior NT editor of the NET Bible.

The Greek NT (as compiled by modern scholars from the extant mss) omits the key passage to which you refer. This is what it says: Literal translation: “Then three [there are] which witness, the spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are the of one.”) This verse is now universally recognized as being a later “insertion” of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the RSV, the NRSV, the NASB, the NEB, the JBP, etc have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why is this? Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his Emphatic Diaglott:

“This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek ms which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to its authority. It is therefore evidently spurious.”Edward Gibbon explained the reason for the removal of this verse from the pages of the Bible with the following words: “Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception… The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza.”

Gibbon was defended in his findings by his contemporary, the brilliant British scholar Richard Porson who also proceeded to publish devastatingly conclusive proof that the verse of 1Jo 5:7 was only first inserted by the Church into the Bible in the year AD 400. Regarding Porson’s powerful evidence, Gibbon later said: “His structures are founded in argument, enriched with learning, and enlivened with wit, and his adversary neither deserves nor finds any quarter at his hands. The evidence of the three heavenly witnesses would now be rejected in any court of justice; but prejudice is blind, authority is deaf, and our vulgar Bibles will ever be polluted by this spurious text.”

To which Bentley responded: “In fact, they are not. No modern Bible now contains the interpolation.” Bentley, however, was mistaken. Indeed, just as Gibbon had predicted, the simple fact that the most learned scholars of Christianity now unanimously recognize this verse to be a later interpolation of the Church has not prevented the preservation of this fabricated text in our modern Bibles. To this day, the Bible in the hands of the majority of Christians — the KJV — still unhesitantly includes this verse as the “inspired” word of God without so much as a footnote to inform the reader that all scholars of Christianity of note unanimously recognize it as a later fabrication.

Peake’s Commentary on the Bible says: “The famous interpolation after ‘three witnesses’ is not printed even in the RSV, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek ms contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-century Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus.”

Consider what one of the world’s leading authorities on the transmission of the NT text (and a staunch Trinitarian!) has to say regarding these verses. After quoting the reading of the KJV in 1Jo 5:7,8, Bruce Metzger, in his Textual Commentary on the New Testament, pages 715-717, says:

“That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the NT is certain in the light of the following considerations.(A) External Evidence.

(1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except four, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. These four manuscripts are ms 61, sixteenth century manuscript formerly at Oxfornow at Dublin; ms 88, a twelfth century manuscript at Naples, which has the passage written in the margin by a modern hand; ms 629, a fourteenth or fifteenth century ms in the Vatican; and ms 635, an eleventh century manuscript which has the passage written in the margin by a seventeenth century hand.

(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

(3) The passage is absent from the mss of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied AD 541-546] and codex Amiatinus) or (c) as revised by Aleuin (first hand of codex Vercellensis). The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (ch 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius.

Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of the three witnesses; the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation which may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1Jo, see 1Jo 2:17; 4:3; 5:6,20.)

(B) Internal Probabilities.

(1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, and by translators of ancient versions.

(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense. Thus, on all counts, this passage as worded in the KJV, is not a part of God’s Word. It was added first as a marginal interpretation, then that margin, several centuries after John wrote his letter, found its way into various later Latin mss, and then became a part of only four Greek mss, none of which are earlier than the 12th century.”

Thyatira ecclesia (Rev 2:18-25)

“Thyatira had a false prophetess Jezebel who had already been openly admonished regarding her evil teaching (whatever it was): ‘I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.’ Included in the Lord’s rebuke of this ecclesia is the reproach: ‘Thou sufferest that woman Jezebel to teach and to seduce my servants….’ Even so, Thyatira was not deemed unworthy of fellowship with the Lord. And far from there being any requirement placed on the faithful to separate themselves from the contaminating influence of Jezebel and her coterie, the exact opposite is explicitly laid upon them: ‘But unto you I say, and unto the rest that are in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. But that which ye have already, hold fast till I come.’ Such words need no explaining. They tell their own story.

“Other letters to the Churches emphasize the same lesson even more forcefully, if that be possible. Ecclesias like Smyrna and Philadelphia incurred no reproach from the Lord of any sort. Yet if the ‘exclusives’ are right in their insistence on a ‘pure fellowship’, both of these ecclesias were sadly at fault in that they had not broken off all fellowship with Sardis, Thyatira, Laodicea. The rejoinder that they were too far from these other ecclesias to know about the vexed problems existing there is ridiculous nonsense. Asia was one of the most highly developed areas in the Roman Empire, and these cities lay on its main arteries. Intercommunication in remote corners of the empire may have been somewhat uncertain, but here in Asia conditions were more comparable with the twentieth century. Thus Smyrna and Philadelphia continued in uninterrupted fellowship with ecclesias which the Lord himself castigated” (HAW, “Block Disfellowship”, Tes 43:341).

Brother Thomas concludes the same — that is, that all other ecclesias (those other six mentioned in the Apocalypse and their latter-day counterparts) are “in fellowship” with Laodicea (Eur 1:403). His position here is decidedly at variance with many of the “stricter fellowships” of today!

Titus the man

Titus was a companion and helper of Paul for a period of about 20 years, possibly longer, but he is only mentioned four times during that period:

Paul probably converted Titus, a Cilician Gentile, in Antioch, 45 AD (Acts 13:1). He went with Paul from Antioch to Jerusalem (about 50 AD) regarding the issue of the Gentiles being circumcised and keeping the Law. Titus, a Gentile, was the test case (Gal 2:1-3). Paul refused to let him be circumcised, and the apostles supported him, and the freedom of Gentiles from the Law was established. Thereafter Titus was a living symbol of that freedom, as Timothy was of not needlessly offending Jews (Acts 16:3; 1Co 9:20).
About five years later, during Paul’s three-year stay at Ephesus, Titus was sent twice to Corinth concerning the ecclesial troubles there, as we learn from the Corinthian letters (2Co 7:5,6; 8:6). He was successful in correcting the problems and reconciling the brethren there To Paul. Due to the seriousness of the matter and Paul’s great concern, Paul apparently considered Titus his most qualified fellow-laborer.
About ten years later (65 AD), as we learn from this letter to him, Titus was left in Crete (Tit 1:5) to complete the work Paul had begun in organizing ecclesias in various cities there, appointing suitable elders, and setting up a strong discipline for guiding the new ecclesias in constructive godliness. Here again he is chosen for an important and difficult task; when the foundations were laid, he was to be relieved by Tychicus or Artemas, who would carry on, so that Titus could join Paul at Nicopolis (Tit 3:12) to be used for pressing work there. Clearly he was one of Paul’s primary helpers.
Finally, a few years later, in Paul’s second letter to Timothy, in his second imprisonment shortly before his death, he writes that Titus has gone to Dalmatia (just north of Nicopolis) — probably again carrying out ground-breaking work in the establishment of the Truth (2Ti 4:10).

Whereas Timothy seems to have had an inborn timidity and shyness against which he had to struggle (2Ti 1:7) and “oft infirmities” to put up with (1Ti 5:23), Titus seems to have had something of Paul’s own aggressiveness. Titus was perhaps older than Timothy, since Paul makes no reference to his youthfulness, as he does to Timothy’s (1Ti 4:12; 2Ti 2:22) — though it may be simply that Timothy was only more conscious of his youth than was Titus. Titus was a man of resourcefulness and initiative, able not only to take orders, but also to go ahead on his own (2Co 8:16,17) — a man of contagious enthusiasm (2Co 7:13).

Tongues, speaking in

Can we know what physically happens in the modern-day Pentecostal experience of talking in a tongue? There is evidence, which we will come to later, that there is often some degree of faking. But it cannot be all a hoax — they cannot be all faking? With the great majority, as in the case of Pat Boone, something really happens. A good illustration to begin with, is the testimony, back in the 1960s, of a Christadelphian who was brought up in a Pentecostal atmosphere before he found the Truth. He wrote:

“When I was 16 I was encouraged to try and get this experience. One evening a special prayer meeting was held for this purpose, and for about two hours prayers were said, hands were laid on me continuously; there was much singing and chanting. I concentrated my mind to the one single purpose and knelt with hands tightly clenched, so very, very tightly, in an all-out endeavour to receive this ‘gift’. You see, I felt I had to get this gift; if not, I would have felt I’d been rejected by God! A strange atmosphere seemed to build up. It was a tension you could almost touch. And then, as far as I was concerned, I blacked out. The only impression on my mind was a vision of two tightly clasped hands. My next really conscious moment, it only seemed like seconds, was of still kneeling with clenched hands and realising it was 10:30 pm, and being told I had spoken continuously in ‘tongues’ for 2 hours! — a “mighty blessing” I was told! My sister, who heard me, said she thought I had ‘gone bonkers’.

“It might be asked of what value was this ‘gift’ to me? Well, they told us to use tongues in prayer and thus praise God in His language. I did this sometimes, I never again spoke in tongues at church: only at home, by myself. I did not go unconscious on these occasions. It is hard to explain what happens; it is as though you throw a switch in your mind — utterances come from your tongue without making any effort to mentally control or direct what you are ‘saying’. It is all unintelligible of course, but there is no mental effort involved to deliberately speak ‘mumbo jumbo’. I suppose one is in a kind of light trance. Since coming to a full knowledge of the Truth I have tried to do this sort of thing on a couple of occasions without success. It appears God has cured me from His ‘Gift’!” (Shield: 1971: 273,274).

Another example of a description of what actually happens is contained in the testimony of a Christadelphian who became involved with Pentecostals and who “received the Gift” at one of their prayer meetings with the laying on of hands. Sadly he was convinced this was from God. He wrote out and gave me an account of what happened as far as he was concerned.

“After sitting down for quite some time, praying, praising God, and asking for the Holy Spirit (incidentally, which I had done in my own personal prayer of a night for up to six months anyway), I determined that I was not going to speak of myself or even try — no jumping up in the air, no getting emotional and ‘het up’… I felt and knew it was there, a hot sensation, not unbearable (very warm), a feeling throughout my stomach area. Then I realised what it was, opening my mouth and then just speaking, not quietly, but loudly, and quite clearly, conscious all the time of what was happening around me. No mesmerism as I had my eyes closed, and certainly no excitation of the mind as some anti-Holy Spirit expositors try to make out, but power from on high.’

This brother was convinced by this experience, no argument could penetrate his thinking and in those early days (this happened in 1966), we were beginners at coming to grips with this issue. There was no doubt as to his sincerity. The fact that he had prayed nightly for this power for something like 180 days showed he was convinced this power was available, and that it was a matter of having enough faith, as far as he was concerned. This conviction appeared to spring from his personal situation of being in a business partnership as a builder who was a fervent Pentecostal. A graphic example of the dangers of being “unequally yoked” (2Co 6:14). Two cannot “walk together except they be agreed” (Amos 3:3).

Of those who claim this experience, nearly all speak of the release of tensions which accompany their speaking in tongues. A popular book of that period has many parallels with this brothers’ testimony. . John Sherrill, a reporter who investigated Pentecostalism and became convinced of the reality and genuineness of it all, interviewed many people who had had this experience. Here are some of the comments he puts on record (“They Speak with Other Tongues”, p 113).

“It was like being flooded with joy.””I started to praise God in the new language I had been given. There was at the same time a feeling that my spirit had taken wing; I was soaring heavenward on a poem.”

“I started laughing. It was a strange thing to do, but I just wanted to laugh and laugh the way you do when you feel so good you just can’t talk about it. I held my sides and laughed until I doubled over. Then I’d stop for a while and start again. Laughing. Laughing.”

“For the first time I discovered for myself why the disciples were accused of being drunk at Pentecost. That’s the way I felt at my own Pentecost: in the highest spirits. Just drunk with joy.”

“With me there was peace. Just a wonderful, quiet, steady, deep peace.”

Now let us try to analyse what all these reports mean. In every case I am intimately acquainted with, or have read about, the person seeking “tongues” has prayed, seen others do this and desired, sometimes with great mental effort, to emulate what he or she has seen in others.

How very different at the first Pentecost! There is no indication that the disciples anticipated at all what was about to happen. That some thought them drunk (Acts 2:13) is true. But this was just the “mockers” — the fact that visitors from many parts heard them speaking of “the mighty works of God” in their “own native language” (vv 8, 11) is no evidence that they were splitting their sides laughing! The claims to feel “peace” and “joy” have, of course, much more appeal. But is this the effect that the “gift” had in the first Century? Only by giving a slant to one or two isolated texts can this inference be drawn.

What is the explanation? Pentecostalists are very anxious to refute any suggestion that their experience is a kind of self-hypnotism. I suggested this to the brother who became involved with them. He earnestly rebuked me. I can quote his letter, “Hypnotism is a form of witchcraft,” he said. This way of seeing things led to the point in his written testimony that it was “no mesmerism, as I had my eyes closed.”

A leading international hypnotherapist has written:

“…the hypnotist started with the subject’s eyes closed. To some people this may be surprising, for it is popularly assumed that causing the subject to close his eyes as a result of suggestion is an essential first step in the inducing of hypnosis. Nowadays hypnotic induction relies mainly upon verbal suggestion” (“Hypnosis: Fact or Fiction”, FL Marcuse, 51,54).

Another interesting comment: “…the hypnotic subject may say that during hypnotic induction he ‘experienced being warm all over’, or that ‘I seemed to be looking at a rapidly receding square of white light’ ” (Ibid, 56).

Now this is an interesting parallel with the testimony quoted previously — “a hot sensation, not unbearable (very warm)”, while the reference to a white light is interesting in the light of Sherrill’s description of his “baptism” being preceded by a “light blazing through my closed lids” (Ibid, 122).

We can perceive a definite parallel, after allowing for some imagination generated by the enthusiasm of the memory of the event!

It is of added interest that Kurt Koch in his researches into this subject cites examples of descriptions of “Spirit Baptism” made to him. Three of the examples spoke of feelings of warmth (“The Strife of Tongues”, 17,28,29):

“He experienced a warm sensation going through him, and he began to speak in tongues.”
Two friends prayed for the “Spirit” — “After intensive prayer it was as if something hot came over them. They felt very excited inside.”
“She then experienced a warm feeling that she regarded as the second blessing.”

According to Koch, not one of the above examples remained in Pentecostal circles. Two later renounced the experience as not of God; the other two eventually lost all “assurance of faith” and had given away religion.

It is to be remembered that it was not claimed that all hypnotic induction produced a warm feeling (Ibid, 81). Indeed, there is one testimony to the opposite: “I felt cold and my limbs felt numb.” Then again, not all descriptions of the Pentecostal experience testify to warmth; the brother who was brought up in their circles did not experience any warm feeling; but the third description above much more nearly fits his situation.

One interesting feature of our brother’s case was the fact that, as he testified, he went completely unconscious while speaking in tongues. The relationship of this with hypnotism is clearly suggestive while not being conclusive. The hypnotherapist Marcuse states, “Roughly, however, it may be said, considering limitations, and evaluating results of thousands of reported cases, that about five to 20 per cent of hypnotic subjects reach the deepest depth (somnambulism), and that another five to 20 per cent are not at all susceptible to hypnosis. The remaining 60 to 90 per cent are said to be capable of entering light or medium hypnosis” (Ibid, 78).

There are areas of disagreement between hypnotists of the definition of “light hypnosis” — mostly such people are not good subjects. “Light hypnosis has been said to be present even though the hypnotized subject is unaware of being hypnotised” (Ibid, 67), but this is a theory not all accept. I formed the tentative conclusion that the case of the one who went completely unconscious while speaking in tongues was a deep “somnambulist” trance in which his subconscious mind copied what he had witnessed in others. One could further conclude that the other experiences are a form of light self-hypnosis, such as that indicated by the testimony that he was “conscious all the time of what was happening around me.” I have discussed this with practitioners a few times over the last 30 years and all have indicated that these are reasonable conclusions.

We can tie up this parallel a little further. The outstanding claim of modern Pentecostalists is the wonderful “peace” their “experience” brings. Dr. Ainslie Meares, who was a universally acclaimed Melbourne psychiatrist, has researched in many countries on the subject of hypnosis. He has written,¹¹

“There have been many theories as to the nature of hypnosis. All of these past theories have explained some particular aspects of hypnosis, but none of them have explained all the phenomena of the hypnotic state. In 1957 I published a paper outlining a new theory… it has gained considerable acceptance among many workers in this field. This theory offers a satisfactory explanation of the state of mind in both yoga meditation and auto-hypnosis… In hypnosis it (the mind) slips back, as it were, and works at a more primitive level. Our logical or critical abilities are lost or work in less degree; and we become very suggestible because suggestion itself is a primitive mechanism of the mind. When the mind has regressed a little in this way, it tends to lose its integration so that different elements of the mind come to function independently in what we know as disassociation. It is this process which produces many of the obvious phenomena of hypnosis. In auto-hypnosis the individual learns to let his mind regress and it comes to function in this more primitive way. This accounts for the absence of anxiety and the feeling of calm and ease which we experience in auto-hypnosis” (“Strange Places and Simple Truths”, p 37).

These facts are very interesting. Perhaps we should not call them facts in the normal sense of the term, but as a widely accepted hypothesis. However, we can take them one step further. Auto-hypnosis when coupled with “auto-suggestion” can, we suggest, produce the modern-day phenomena we are witnessing. D. Robert Lindberg, an American Presbyterian pastor, has recorded his experiences when he sought and received the “gift”. At the time he felt something of the joy and thrill which others claimed; he was later caused to re-evaluate what it all really amounted to. He affirms that he does not wish to deny that some have had a transforming experience as a result of the “gift”. But he is now convinced that it is not of God, but rather “has at its heart a false mysticism which is contrary to the word of God” and that what we see today is the result of “auto-suggestion, self-induced — piously, yes, but wrongly and unscripturally” (Presbyterian Guardian, Feb 1965, p 19, as quoted by AA Hoekema in “What about tongue speaking?”).

This view is remarkably parallel with the testimonies of the Christadelphians quoted previously — as to their feelings associated with their tongue-speaking experience. This is the result of possessing a dedicated desire to emulate what is believed to be a Biblical experience under the absolute conviction that it is available today. This leads to a state of mind in which auto-suggestion, coupled with self-hypnosis, (usually, but not necessarily) under emotional conditions, produces the Pentecostal “experience”. It is also worth noting that hypnotism in its early forms often relied on “passes” (ie, bodily stroking with the hands) as part of the means of achieving hypnotic induction. This is so similar to the “laying-on of hands” as practiced today. This sounds Scriptural, but one cannot imagine it being necessary for the apostles, for example, to have laid hands on the converts in Samaria for some two hours before they received the Holy Spirit.

But is it possible that there are some genuine gifts today? Is there a danger of going too far in denying that no gifts whatsoever operate today? We have to keep our own prejudices in check if we are to convincingly search out all truth. To answer as fairly as possible, we need to explore the matter of experiences further and then make a careful analysis of Scripture, which so far we have not attempted. There is much scope for comment also on other practices of modern Pentecostalism, or charismatics as most prefer to call themselves, in particular practices relating to the acts of “healing” which would appear to be the next most desirable “gift” that is sought today.

(David Caudery)

Touch of the Master’s hand

‘Twas battered and scarred, and the auctioneer Thought it scarcely worth his while To waste much time on the old violin, But held it up with a smile: “What am I bidden, good folks?” he cried, “Who’ll start the bidding for me?” “A dollar”, a dollar; then, “Two!” Only two? Two dollars, and who’ll make it three? Three dollars, once; three dollars, twice; Going for three…” But no, From the room, far back, a gray-haired man Came forward and picked up the bow; Then, wiping the dust from the old violin, And tightening the loose strings, He played a melody pure and sweet As a caroling angel sings.

The music ceased, and the auctioneer, With a voice that was quiet and low, Said, “What am I bid for the old violin?” And he held it up with the bow. “A thousand dollars, and who’ll make it two? Two thousand! And who’ll make it three? Three thousand, once; three thousand, twice, And going, and gone,” said he. The people cheered, but some of them cried, “We do not quite understand What changed its worth.” Swift came the reply: “The touch of the master’s hand.”

And many a man with life out of tune, And battered and scarred with sin, Is auctioned cheap to the thoughtless crowd, Much like the old violin. A “mess of pottage”, a glass of wine; A game — and he travels on. He is “going” once, and “going” twice, He’s “going” and almost “gone”. But the Master comes, and the foolish crowd Never can quite understand The worth of a soul and the change that’s wrought By the touch of the Master’s hand.

(MB Welch)

Translations, methods of

How translation occurs

It is important to realize — and most people who have not learned a second language wouldn’t know — that there is no such thing as a one-to-one correspondence between languages. You cannot have a word for word translation that is at all readable, because the word order is different, the nature of the grammar is different and even the sense of a word may cover a wider or smaller range than the corresponding English word.

For instance, the word “house” in Hebrew can mean “immediate family” or “a royal dynasty” besides the equivalent English idea of a building where a person dwells. Therefore to have an accurate English translation you cannot simply translate the Hebrew word with “house”; you need to translate it according to which of the possible meanings is intended.

Idioms, likewise, do not translate across directly: for instance the English phrase “I’m sick and tired of apple pie” if translated literally could give a reader in another language the false impression that the individual in question is sleepy and ready to throw up.

Consider the following “literal translation” of the first verse of the Bible, which maintains the Hebrew word order and phrasing, and ask yourself if it is easily comprehensible:

In-beginning he-created God (definite direct object) the-heavens and-(definite direct object) the-earth.

But even this is not entirely accurate in a word for word sense, because Hebrew does not have a true past tense; but there is no other way to indicate perfect aspect (completed action). However, when one of the prophets makes use of the perfect aspect to show the certainty of the prophesy, to translate it as a past tense can create the false impression that the prophet is speaking of things that have already happened when that is not the case at all! And in front of the single words (they are only one word in Hebrew) “the-heavens” and “the-earth” is the Hebrew word that indicates that what follows is a definite direct object — hardly translatable into English at all.

Having said all this, one would imagine that this first verse is a complicated sentence. Not at all. It is remarkably simple. It only becomes difficult if we expect translation to be “literal”. It isn’t. All translation, by its very nature, is paraphrastic and interpretive.

The way translation happens is as follows. The translator learns a foreign language and learns it well. Learning Hebrew or Greek is just like learning French or Spanish in high school. There is nothing mysterious or special about the ancient languages. Then the translator reads the foreign text and understands it. Having understood it, he or she then puts it into the best English possible.

There is no mystery associated with the translation of the Bible, nor are there any significant disagreements between translations. However, by the nature of what translation is — the work of individuals with their own separate styles — the wording of, say, Today’s English Version is not going to be identical to the King James Version or the New International Version. Not because anyone is trying to twist something or make it say what it doesn’t, but only because each translator is going to word it as he thinks best. But the MEANING will be the same. And of course, between the King James and the more modern translations there is also the gap caused by the change in the English language — we do not speak like the people in Shakespeare’s time did, but their way of speaking is no “grander” or any more “eloquent” than ours. King James English was the way any farmer or fisherman of 1611 would have talked, just as Today’s English Version or the New International Version is the way an average person speaks today. For all the snobbishness of attitude on the part of some regarding Shakespeare today, in his own day he was considered somewhat vulgar and not a little risque. Shakespeare was like an ordinary television drama or sitcom is for us today.

Textual criticism

One other change since the time of the King James translation, of course, is the improvement in the texts that are available to today’s translators. They are older and that much closer to the original (although that fact, by itself, does not guarantee greater accuracy). Moreover, the methods of textual criticism — the science of comparing the different and sometimes inconsistent manuscripts and determining which one is the closest to the original reading — have advanced considerably since the 1600s.

The history of the Biblical texts shows clearly that all of them stand far removed from the originals both by time and by the process of transmission. They contain not only scribal errors, but even some actual transformations of the text, both deliberate and accidental. By means of textual criticism we attempt to find all the alterations that have occurred and then recover the earliest possible form of the text.

Textual criticism proceeds in three steps:

All the variant readings of the text are collected and arranged. Of course, this is the very reason textual criticism is necessary at all. If we had only a single copy, there would be no questions, but since we have several, which all say different things, we have a problem. Which text accurately records the original statements?
The variants must then be examined.
The most likely reading is then determined. For the OT, in order to carry out these steps, it is necessary to use the Masoretic Text, which ordinarily serves as the basis from which the textual critic will work. Combined with the Masoretic Text the critic will consult all the ancient Hebrew manuscripts and versions that might be available.

The most important Hebrew manuscripts for Old Testament textual criticism are:

The St. Petersburg (or Leningrad) Codex, 1008 AD. It is the largest and only complete manuscript of the entire OT.
The Aleppo Codex, 930 AD. It used to be a complete copy of the OT, but was partially destroyed in a synagogue fire in 1948.
The British Museum Codex, 950 AD. It is an incomplete copy of the Pentateuch.
The Cairo Codex, 895 AD. A copy of the Former and Latter Prophets (Jos, Jdg, 1Sa, 2Sa, 1Ki, 2Ki, Isa, Jer, Eze, and the twelve minor prophets).
The Leningrad (St Petersburg) Codex of the Prophets, 916 AD, containing only the Latter Prophets.
The Reuchlin Codex of the Prophets, 1105 AD.
Cairo Geniza fragments, 6th to 9th century, AD.
Qumran Manuscripts (the Dead Sea Scrolls), 200 BC — 70 AD.

The most important ancient translations of the Old Testament into languages other than Hebrew are:

a. The Septuagint (several versions) b. The Aramaic Targums (several versions) c. The Syriac Peshitta d. The Samaritan Pentateuch e. The Latin Vulgate

Ideally, the work of textual criticism should proceed with all of these ancient versions and copies readily available. There are then some basic rules that help place the textual criticism of the Bible, whether OT or NT, on a firm basis that generally avoids arbitrariness and subjectivity.

For the OT, where the Hebrew manuscripts and the ancient versions agree, we may assume that the original reading has been preserved. Likewise, with the NT, where the various manuscripts agree, we may assume the original text has been preserved. To our great relief, this covers 95 per cent of the Bible.

Where the mss differ among themselves, one should chose either the more difficult reading from the point of view of language and subject matter or the reading that most readily makes the development of the other readings intelligible. In order to make this choice, it is necessary that the critic have a thorough knowledge of the history and character of the various mss. It needs also to be realized that these criteria work together and complement one another. A “more difficult reading” does not mean a “meaningless reading.”

However, the critic must not assume that just because a reading appears meaningless that it necessarily is. Scribes are not likely to turn a meaningful passage into gibberish. Therefore, if a passage is not understandable, that is often as far as we can go. We must, as scholars, acknowledge our own ignorance.

With the OT, where the Hebrew manuscripts and the translations differ, and a superior reading cannot be demonstrated on the basis of the above rules, then one should, as a matter of first principle, allow the Hebrew text to stand. With the NT, one will generally choose the shorter reading because of the tendency of scribes to try to “explain” passages.

Where the different mss differ and none of them seem to make any sense, one may attempt a conjecture concerning the true reading — a conjecture that must be validated by demonstrating the process of the textual corruption that would have lead to the existing text forms. Such a conjecture, however, must not be used to validate the interpretation of a whole passage in that it might have been made on the basis of an expectation derived from the whole.

The Causes of Textual Corruption

The goal of textual criticism is to remove the textual errors and restore the original readings. To aid in this goal, it is helpful if the textual critic has an idea of what sorts of errors he or she is likely to find.

When copying out a text, errors occur in every conceivable way, as we no doubt know from our own experiences. Sometimes it is difficult to explain, even to ourselves, how we might have come to make a particular error. Therefore it is unlikely that we will be able to correct or explain everything that has eluded the scribes over the centuries. A reading that appears doubtful or corrupt to us today may have been caused by a hole or some other damage to the copyist’s manuscript. Or maybe the letters or words in a given section of his text were faded and nearly illegible, forcing the copyist to make his best guess. Moreover, a single error can give rise to many others, leaving us with no clue as to how it might have happened.

And of course, as always, the assumption of a textual error may really be only a cover for our failure to understand the language or the idiom.

Beyond these unrecoverable sorts of errors, there are two categories of errors that may be distinguished and often corrected: errors due to an unintentional, mechanical lapse on the part of the copyist (often called Errors of Reading and Writing), and two, errors that are the result of deliberate alteration (called Intentional Alterations).

a. Errors of Reading and Writing

Confusion of similar letters In Hebrew, there are several letters which look very similar to one another: the B and K, R and D, H and T, W and Y.
Transposition of Letters,
Haplography — a fancy word that means when there were two or more identical or similar letters, groups of letters, or words all in sequence, one of them gets omitted by error. Of course, there is some evidence that some of these supposed “errors” are actually equivalent to English contractions like “don’t” instead of “do not” and therefore are not errors at all.
Dittography — another fancy word that refers to an error caused by repeating a letter, group of letters , a word or a group of words. The opposite, really, of Haplography.
Homoioteleuton — an even fancier word which refers to the error that occurs when two words are identical, or similar in form, or have similar endings and are close to each other. It is easy in this sort of situation for the eye of the copyist to skip from one word to the other, leaving out everything in between.
Errors of Joining and Dividing Words. This is more a problem in the NT than it is in the OT, for while the Greek manuscripts were written well into the Medieval period without spacing or dividing signs between words, there is no evidence that this was EVER the case with the OT Hebrew texts. In fact, the evidence is very strong to the contrary; inscriptions on walls from the time of Hezekiah actually had dots between each word to separate them from each other.

b. Deliberate Alterations

The Samaritan Pentateuch, as an example, is notorious for its purposeful changes designed to help legitimize some of their sectarian biases.

A more substantive change in the Hebrew text came after the Babylonian captivity in the time of Ezra (fifth century BC) when the alphabet changed from the Old Hebrew Script to the Aramaic Square Script — in which all copies of the OT except for the Samaritan Pentateuch are written.

It should not surprise us that there have been a certain amount of alteration in the text over time, since the Bible was not intended to be the object of scholarly study but rather was to be read by the whole believing community as God’s word to them. Thus, the text would undergo adaptations to fit the linguistic needs of the community. For instance in Isa 39:1 the Masoretic Text preserves a rare word, hazaq, which has the sense of “to get well, recuperate.” The community that produced the Dead Sea scrolls altered this word to the more common Hebrew word for “to get well”, “zayah”. Other examples of adaptation to colloquial usage are likely. The lack of early material for the OT makes it impossible to demonstrate these sorts of alterations on a larger scale. But a few small alterations are easily demonstrable.

The treatment of the divine name Baal is an example of deliberate change for theological reasons. In personal names which included the word “Baal”, which simply means “master” or “lord”, the scribes deliberately replaced “Baal” with “Bosheth,” which means “shame”. Hence, Jonathan’s son was actually named “Meribbaal” rather than “Mephibosheth” (cp 1Ch 8:34; 9:40 and 2Sa 9:6; 19:24; 21:7).

Another example of deliberate alteration is found in Job 1:5,11 and Job 2:5,9 — where we now read the word “berek”, to bless (with God as the object) even though we should expect to find the word “qalal”, to curse. The scribes replaced the offensive expression “to curse God” with a euphemism — motivated no doubt by their fear of taking God’s name in vain.

Treasures and treasures

“Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth” (Mat 6:19), but…

“Lay up treasures in heaven” (v 20) — for…

“Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (v 21).

This is perhaps the most comprehensive and searching of all the commands of Christ, because it deals with the whole direction and motivation and purpose of life. Broadly defined, “treasures on earth” means

anything

related to this present mortal life.

The natural way is to accumulate “treasures” of many different kinds. “Mammon” (v 24) includes riches, material possessions, and pleasures. This desire to lay up treasures… this acquisitiveness (a nice word for simple greed!) is so universally taken for granted that it is almost heresy to question it. It is the foundation assumption of almost all advertising. Even many “believers” consider it “foolish” and “impractical” even to try to imitate Christ in this respect, and quote such passages as 1Ti 5:8 and Ecc 9:10 with more than usual vigor, to help set “the proper balance”!

How much impact does this command of Christ have upon us? Whether we consider job promotions, or “consumer goods”, or that hazy Valhalla of materialistic indulgence called “the good life”, how many times have any of us made the conscious decision?: “No! I will go no further. I have more than I really need already. I will not pamper myself!” Probably, for most of us, not nearly often enough. It is in our natures (and simply learning “the Truth” does not change those natures!) to want “treasures” both in heaven and on earth, to seek both salvation and present advantage. It is so easy to forget that Christ specifically said we cannot have both:

“Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Mat 6:24).

God wants us to be different from the world, with our minds on very different things. Of course, most of us

must

work, in one way or another, to provide for necessities. Certainly Jesus worked at a trade until the time came for his special mission. And Paul, as he moved about the ecclesias, found work from place to place so as not to be a burden to the believers. But for them these daily affairs had importance only insofar as they were related to eternal things. “Seek ye

first

the kingdom” (v 33) was the rule of Christ’s life, and of Paul’s life. Is it the rule of our lives?

Seven reasons

“Do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on” (v 25, RSV). It is a revolutionary concept, totally foreign to our natural inclinations. But Jesus does not bid us obey him without reasons. He gives, in fact,

seven good reasons

why this philosophy makes sense:

v 25: Life itself is more important than those things that sustain it. If our lives come from God and are held in His hand, then certainly, when we do our part faithfully in the “great adventure” of dedication and service, the lesser matters will be taken care of.
v 26: The birds do not make frantic provision. They do not worry or scheme or plan. And you, says Jesus, are much more important than they (Mat 10:29-31).
v 27: “Which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his span of life?” (RSV).
vv 28-30: If God takes such care for the flowers that soon will shrivel in the heat, will He not provide much better for you, His children, made in His image?
v 32a: The nations that do not know God worry and hoard riches. Surely you will not be like them!
v 32b: Your Heavenly Father knows what you need. He will not forget.
v 34: “One day at a time”: The world is such an evil place that we need as much of our mental resources as can be spared to face the spiritual trials of today.

To borrow worries from next week is to overburden our capabilities and risk failure in spiritual pursuits.

“For thou art my God”

We recognize that the “world”, even the nominally “Christian” world, does not heed Christ’s advice. But do

do any better, or are we swept up and molded into conformity with the world around us? This is an age dedicated to getting more and yet more money, in order to spend it on more and yet more selfishness: fine houses, fine foods, expensive trips, and the worship (yes, it is “idolatry” — Col 3:5!) of car and garden and, last but not least, our own adorned, deodorized, tanned, and groomed selves! It is an age of narcissism; millions succumb to the blandishments of “health spas” and “country clubs”, to exercise, and jog, and diet, and build the new, improved “You”. One cannot help but draw the analogy to Isaiah’s bitterly ironic description of the idolater — who seeks out a tree trunk and cuts and shapes and polishes it into a natural beauty, finally to fall down and worship it:

“Deliver me, for

thou

art my god” (Isa 44:14-17).

Different? Or the same?

What are our ambitions, our goals in life? Are they different than the world, or are they all too similar? Are our older folks eager for retirement, so they can take it easy and enjoy life? Are our middle-aged folks keen on “security”? Are our younger folks caught up in the “timetable syndrome” — get an education, get a good job, get married, get a house, “get ahead” — and each goal by a certain date, or they are falling behind? And if they — the young ones — are this way,

whose

example have they followed?

What sets us apart from the masses around us who have no true hope? Is it enough that we believe differently, without living differently? Do we preach “separateness from the world” one day a week, and then live the other six days as though we were still very much a part of that world? In our pious preaching, do we even manage to convince ourselves that we are really following Christ’s example?

“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth.”

The use of our money may be the “touchstone”, the truest indicator, of our heart’s desires. Why? Because the obtaining and the using of money makes up so great a part of our daily lives — we are

always

spending money! — so that our

ordinary

life must be much the same in nature as our

ordinary

ways of spending money. If we spend our money for purchases that appeal to pride or pleasure or ostentation, then we are demonstrating in the most practical way possible that those characteristics have firm hold on our lives, to the exclusion of God’s truth.

If I had extra arms or legs or eyes, that I did not need, that I could not use, and instead of giving them to the lame or the blind, I locked them away in a vault or displayed them on hooks in my living room, I would be a selfish fool. None of us would be so stupid, would we? But what if, for “arms” or “legs”, we substitute “money”?

Common objections

There are several common objections to giving money to help the unfortunate. What is so attractive about these objections is that they masquerade as Scriptural, wise, and prudent — putting “a good face” on the greed that hides behind them:

“Since Jesus said, ‘The poor you have with you always’ (John 12:8), and we cannot change the world, why should we bother trying?”: But Jesus did not say, “Forget the poor because they are always there.” He said, in effect, “You will always have opportunities to help the poor.” When Jesus was present, his followers lavished gifts upon him, and they did well. But now that he is absent, we may forget that we can give gifts to Jesus just as well by helping his poor brethren. Who would ignore the needs of the Master? But now he sits at the right hand of God, and he can no longer use the cup of cold water, the food, the clothing.

But someone else can!

One of Christ’s parables was most explicit as to the grounds of rejection at his judgment. It is enlightening to note that the wicked were not rejected for holding some false doctrine. They were not rejected for failing to preach the Truth. They were not even rejected for neglecting to attend a specified number of ecclesial meetings. They

were

rejected because they ignored the simple, material needs of their brethren, and thereby they ignored Christ (Mat 25:41-45)!

“If I am not careful and prudent (which really means ‘selfish’), I may give charity to someone who does not deserve it, or someone who does not use it properly”: This is a common Christadelphian “worry”, And it sounds all too much like the businessman proclaiming to the board of directors the “virtue” of the preservation of capital. But in showing love for others through our material gifts, we are exemplifying the character of our Father in Heaven, who sends His rain on the just and the unjust (Mat 5:45). God loves us whether we deserve it or not. He loves us even when we definitely do not deserve it. He loves us even when we do despite to His grace and turn our backs on His outstretched hand. He is not “careful” or “responsibly prudent” about His gifts.

“By giving away my money (or the ecclesia’s money), I encourage others to be beggars and irresponsible”: But then, why should I ever forgive anyone? It will just “encourage” him to do wrong again. Or why should I give medicine to a sick person? It might just “encourage” him to get sick again.

“It’s more important to use our money in preaching the Truth than to give it to the needy”: This is the only one of the four common objections to charity that can stand up to any examination at all. It is true that to give a starving man the gospel is better than to give him a crust of bread. But it can hardly be denied that both could be useful!

The only response to this objection is: If you really believe this, then do it! Do not be like the Pharisees who cried “Corban” when reminded that others could use their material help, and then when the need was past, kept it for themselves!

The only other thing to be said here is that surely there are resources lying dormant which are sufficient for sizeable efforts on both fronts. At the absolute minimum, resources are available so that our own spiritual “family” at home and abroad need not suffer hunger and illness, while their “brethren” are well-off and with goods to spare.

Christ gave everything, even life itself, for us. What can we give him? What “price-tag” do we put on our redemption? “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

Trials

I never knew pain; So I never learned compassion.

I always got my way very quickly; So I never learned patience.

I never had a friend in need; So I never learned generosity.

I never lacked for food or raiment; So I never learned thankfulness.

I was never wronged by anyone; So I never learned forgiveness.

I always found it easy to accomplish my goals; So I never learned discipline.

I never had any desires that I was forbidden to indulge; So I never learned self-control.

I never learned any godly traits through trial; So I never entered the Kingdom.

“Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed” (1Pe 4:12,13).

“Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him” (Jam 1:12).