SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service
Theologian
MISUNDERSTOOD
TEXTS OF THE BIBLE
Chapter Four
"Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He (the
Father) taketh away" (John xv. 2).
This passage is often perverted
to undermine the great basal truth that we are saved by grace, and that our
salvation is eternal. And the sixth verse is used to enforce this false
reading. But the question here is not salvation, but fruit-bearing. The
Lords purpose in using this parable of the vine is not to cancel all His
previous teaching about the eternal safety of the sinner who comes to Him, but
to unfold truth of the highest practical importance for all who have been thus
blessed. The language of the sixth verse, if carefully studied, will prevent
our mistaking His meaning. "If any one does not abide in Me, he is cast out as
a branch, and is withered." To bear fruit apart from Him is quite as impossible
as to be saved apart from Him. The severed branch of another sort of tree might
be used in some way. But as every Palestinian peasant knew, vine branches were
useless ; men gather them and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
Indeed, these words of Christ about vine branches are, no doubt, a reference to
Ezekiel xv. 8, 4, "Shall wood be taken thereof to do any work? Behold, it is
cast into the fire for fuel." They are not a doctrinal statement relating to
the future destiny of men, but a parable to illustrate truth relating to the
conduct and life of His people here and now.
"Those that Thou gavest
Me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition" (John
xvii. rz).
This clearly implies that one of Christs God-given
ones may be finally lost. But the words the Lord actually used admit of a
wholly different meaning. According to Bloomfield - and upon a question of
Greek there is no higher authority - "ei me is for alla when a
negative sentence has preceded." And when words admit of different meanings,
one of which is in accordance with, and the other in opposition to, other
Scriptures, we must always accept the former. We cannot doubt, therefore, that
in this passage the Lord used ei me in the same sense as in Luke iv. 25
- 27.
In the famine of Elijahs day there were many widows in
Israel, but to none of them was the prophet sent ; but (ci me) he was
sent to a woman of Sidon. There were many lepers in Israel in
Elishas day, but no one of them was cured ; but (ci me) Naaman the
Syrian was cured. In these passages the ei me does not introduce an
exceptional case within the specified category, but a case belonging to a
wholly different category. As Dean Plumptre puts it tersely, it is not an
exception but a contrast (Ellicotts N.T. Commentary). To quote yet
another instance, we read in Revelation xxi. 27, that there shall in no wise
enter into the holy Jerusalem anything unclean. or he that maketh an
abomination or a lie. But (ei me - in marked contrast) they who are
written in the Lambs book of life shall enter there.
Now, let us
read our present verse in this way, ignoring a punctuation which is arbitrary
"Those that Thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost ; but (ei
me) the son of perdition is lost, that the Scripture might be fulfilled."
And when thus read, the Lords words, instead of casting a doubt upon the
truth that all His God-given ones are safe, becomes a signal confirmation of
that truth.
To deal here with the awful mystery of Judas ministry
and fall would be quite beyond the scope of these notes. But the Lords
mention of him indicates what, indeed, a careful study of the chapter would
suggest, that in this portion of His prayer. down to the twenty-second verse,
it is of His Apostles the Lord is speaking. And if we overlook this, we lose
a most precious insight into His mind and ways. These men have been His
constant companions and fellow-workers during the ministry of His humiliation.
But now He is leaving them in the world. And though the path on which He is
entering leads to Gethsemane and Calvary, His thoughts and petitions are not
about Himself, but altogether about them. Here is something, surely, to bring
Him very near to us when, in any sphere of service, we are lonely or in
peril.
"The times of restitution of all things" (Acts iii.
21).
The Apostle Peters second "Pentecostal sermon" has been
dealt with on a preceding page. No trained lawyer could frame words to teach
more plainly that the "restitution of all things" will be the realisation on
earth, and in time, of Messianic Hebrew prophecy from Moses to Malachi. It
might seem, therefore, that further notice of this verse would he unnecessary.
But eight-and-thirty years ago, an epoch-making book was written by an English
clergyman to prove that the Apostles words point, not to earth and time,
but to eternity and heaven. According to this writer, the teaching of this
passage is that, at some unspecified era in the ages of ages, sinners who have
gone to hell through rejecting the Atonement of Christ will pass to heaven as
the result of working out atonement on their own account, by suffering
punishment for their sins in hell. And this is now an article in the creed of
multitudes of people.
But it will be asked, How is such an exegesis
possible ? The authors answer is, in effect Because Scripture never
really means what it seems to mean. Here are his words "The letter of Scripture
is a veil quite as much as a revelation, hiding while it reveals, and yet
revealing what it hides, presenting to the eye something very different from
that which is within." In other words, we may read into Holy Scripture any
meaning which our fancy makes us wish to find there.
But even assuming
the truth of this writers doctrine, can any person of ordinary
intelligence suppose that the Apostle would make it the gist and climax of his
solemn appeal to the Christ-rejecting Jews ? His aim is to bring them to
repentance and, he does this by assuring theni that it is the teaching of "all
the prophets. from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken,"
that even if they continue impenitent, the will reach heaven at last, though by
a longer and harder road!
But, as every Bible student knows, whether
this doctrine be true or false, it is entirely outside the scope of Hebrew
prophecy. What concerns us here, however, is not its truth or falseness, but
the meaning of Acts iii. 21. And the question arises, whether the suggested
exegesis of that verse does not justify the cynics taunt, that in the
sphere of religion there is nothing too wild to be believed.
"And
(Stephen said) Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on
the right hand of God" (Acts vii, 6).
These words are of
exceptional interest and importance. " The Son of Man " is a Messianic title
which is never used in Scripture save in relation to the Messianic Kingdom. And
this is the only recorded instance in which the Lord was thus named by human
lips. But that is not all. Mark the Lords attitude, as seen by His
martyred servant.
In Hebrews x. 11 - 13, the fact of His being seated
is emphasised as of the highest doctrinal importance but here He is seen
standing. May we not read this in the light of the great Pentecostal
proclamation of Acts iii. 19, 20? The Lord is here seen in an attitude of
expectancy. But the murder of Stephen was the crisis of the nations
destiny. The Lords prayer upon the Cross had secured forgiveness for His
own murderers. But the death of Stephen was, in effect, a repetition of that
greatest of all human sins; and his murder was more definitely the act of the
Jewish nation than even the crucifixion itself. Their Roman Governors had no
share in it. It was the result of a judicial decision on the part of the great
council of the nation. The proto-martyr was thus the messenger sent after the
King to say, "We will not have this man to reign over us." And the Divine
answer was to call out and commission the Apostle of the Gentiles. And the Lord
Jesus, till then "standing on the right hand of God," waiting to fulfil the
Pentecostal promise, now "sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth
expecting till His enemies be made His footstool " (Hebrews x. 12, 18).
"We (the Ephesian disciples) have not so much as heard whether there be any
Holy Ghost" (Acts xix. 2).
The translators of our English version
showed extraordinary carelessness here. As Bengel writes, "These disciples
could not be followers of Moses or of John the Baptist without hearing of the
Holy Ghost." The misunderstanding and error to which the passage has given rise
are sufficiently met by the Revisers translation of it " Did ye receive
the Holy Ghost when ye believed ? And they said unto him Nay, we did not so
much as hear whether the Holy Ghost was given." To be strictly accurate, for
"the Holy Spirit," we ought to read "Holy Spirit." The Holy Spirit was given to
the Church at Pentecost, but as and when we believe we receive Holy Spirit.
"When the disciples came together to break bread" (Acts xx.
7).
The record of the Apostle Pauls visit to Troas is
authoritatively interpreted as saying that, when he met with the disciples on
the Sunday evening, he did not join them in eating the Lords Supper; but
when His address to them was interrupted by the Eutychus accident at midnight,
he had "a private celebration of the Eucharist"! This strange vagary of
exegesis ignores the fact that "breaking bread" was a colloquial phrase in
common use to mean "eating a meal." And while its few occurrences in Scripture
will not warrant our either asserting or denying that the Lords Supper
was ever designated thus, there can be no reasonable doubt that when, as here,
the words "had broken bread" are followed by "and had eaten," their meaning is
that the Apostle ate a meal. The gloss that the presence of the Greek article
before bread is conclusive either way, is refuted by a reference to Luke xxiv.
35.
The Apostles words, in 1 Corinthians xi., indicate clearly
that, among the abuses due to the practice of associating the Supper with the
ordinary evening meal, was that some of the company shamed their poorer
brethren by eating their own supper, and then leaving for home (uv. 21 and 33).
It is certain, therefore, that the Eucharist must have been the initial rite
when they came together. And this being so, can there be any doubt respecting
what took place at Troas? The Apostle partook of the bread and wine with the
assembled disciples; but afterwards, while the disciples were eating their
evening meal, he continued discoursing with them till midnight; and not till
then was he able to have a repast. If the forty-second verse of Acts ii. stood
alone, it would certainly favour the view that "the breaking of bread" there
meant the Lords Supper. But we must take account of the fact that the
phrase recurs in verse 46, where the added words "did take their food with
gladness" give proof that it had no sacred meaning. And surely it is improbable
in the extreme that a colloquial phrase in common, vulgar use in
everybodys mouth every day of the year would be chosen to designate such
a solemn and holy rite.
And in the East the phrase is still in daily
use. For "bread" is a generic term for food. "When the dinner is ordered, it is
still, as of old, by the modest words, "Set on bread," no matter how elaborate
the feast ; and some Oriental dinners consist of more than twenty courses. Thus
it was that Joseph ordered the banquet to be served for his brothers (Genesis
xliii. 31). "And in the East, bread is never cut, for it is thought absolutely
wicked to put a knife in it."
"They that are in the flesh cannot
please God" (Romans viii. 8).
This verse is used to support the
dogma that, because of the Fall, mans nature is so utterly depraved that
he is incapable of leading a moral and upright life. As the Westminster Divines
express it, "We are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all
good."
This theology obviously impugns the righteousness of God in
punishing men for their sins. In fact, it represents Him as a tyrant who
punishes the lame for limping and the blind for losing their way. No less
obviously does it clash with plain and patent facts. For the outward life of
Saul the Pharisee was as pure and upright as that of Paul the Apostle. And in
our own day we ourselves have known many unbelievers whose conduct and
character would bear comparison with those of many a Christian.
It is
not in the moral sphere of his being, but in the spiritual, that man is
hopelessly depraved and lost. Therefore was it that the "zeal of God " of the
Jewish leaders led them to crucify the Christ of God, and that Gamaliels
great disciple, though a pattern moralist, became a persecutor and blasphemer.
And the seventh verse must not be read to mean that men were not subject to the
letter of the law of Sinai. In calling that code "the moral law," theology
means that it is the law of our being. And thus regarded, the Pharisees were
scrupulous in their obedience to it. But "the carnal mind" is absolutely
incapable of appreciating its spiritual significance. Tue difference between
the blind and those who have their sight is not that they see less clearly, but
that they do not see at all. And quite as absolute is the antithesis between
the carnal and the spiritual. But just as a blind man may have full use of his
other physical faculties, so the carnal man may he a thorough moralist. It is
no answer to say that this is true only of some; for the fact that it is true
of any is proof that God is righteous in judging all.
And let no one
dismiss all this as though it were of merely academic interest. There are few
errors more harmful in the present day. For such a false reading of Scripture
disparages it in the judgment of thoughtful men, and fosters the new
enlightenment which has so degraded Germany, and which is rapidly leavening
the British churches of the Reformation. And no less evil is its influence upon
spiritual Christians. For in spite of the solemn, Divine warning that Satan
fashions himself as an angel of light, and his ministers as ministers of
righteousness, Christians are thus betrayed into recognising as ministers of
Christ any man who commends himself as a minister of righteousness. And the
result is that "truth is fallen in the street," and certain of our Divinity
schools and theological colleges are supplying our pulpits with agnostics and
rationahists.
"Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be
conformed to the image of His Son" (Romans V111. 29).
The word
proorizo, on which theology has reared such an imposing edifice, occurs
only in the four following passages Acts iv. 28 ; Romans viii. 29, 30; 1
Corinthians xi. 7; and Ephesians 1: 5, 11. In two only of these, moreover, is
it used with reference to the destiny of men; and never in relation to life,
but only to special positions of blessing to which the redeemed are
predestinated. In our present verse it is "to be conformed to the image of His
Son." And in keeping with this, in Ephesians i. 5 we are said to be
predestinated "unto adoption as sons," and in verse 11 it is " to be His
heritage" (R.V.). The word in the fifth verse is not "children," but sons ; and
in Scripture "son" is not a mere synonym for offspring, but betokens special
dignity and privilege. Whether these statements are true of all the saved we
may not dogmatise, but here they refer to the redeemed of this Christian
dispensation.
The words, "whom He did foreknow" must not be ignored.
But it would be foreign to the purpose of these notes to enter here upon the
controversy with which they are associated. The practice of throwing positive
statements of Scripture into an alternative negative form, and then basing
doctrines upon inferences deduced from them as thus presented, is a fruitful
cause of grievous error. By this treatment, for instance, the words of our
present verse, which are given to promote the comfort and confidence of the
Christian, are so perverted as to become a limitation upon the gospel of the
grace of God.
"I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ
for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh" (Romans ix. 3).
The "difficulty" of this verse would not seem so perplexing if it were
translated more correctly. Dean Alfords note is, "I was wishing - this
imperfect tense . . . implies, as very often, a half expression of a desire."
Or, as Bishop Ellicotts New Testament Commentary puts it, "I could have
wished. The wish, of course, relates to what was really impossible." And this
is the view of numerous authorities who take the word anathema to mean "cut off
from Christ for ever in eternal perdition." But as Greek scholars allow a wide
range of meaning to the word, the question is legitimate whether it be in
harmony with the tone and tenor of Scripture to suppose that the Holy Spirit
would inspire any one to frame and utter such a statement. Or, entirely
eliminating the element of inspiration, whether such an ebullition of
unrestrained feeling be consistent with the known character of the Apostle
Paul. Is not such a reading of the passage calculated to lower our estimate of
him as a man? Let us inquire then in what sense he elsewhere used the word
anathema.
Now we know that the gospel of grace was his special
"trust." And so strong was his feeling on this subject that in warning the
Galatian Church against any one, whether man or angel, who preached any gospel
other than he himself had preached, that twice he used the words, "Let him be
anathema" (ch. i. 8, 9). Having regard then to his treatment of this subject in
Philippians i. 15 - 18, is it credible that he meant, " Let him be damned for
eternity " ? If I do not appeal also to his use of the word in 1 Corinthians
xvi. 23, it is because the Galatian reference seems conclusive. In 1
Corinthians xii. 2, the only other occurrence of the word in his Epistles, it
is evidently used as the technical term for excommunication among the
Jews.
It is very noteworthy that our verse is usually considered
without reference to the teaching of the Epistle in which it occurs, or even to
the immediate context. But, as Bloomfield remarks, between the eighth chapter
and the ninth "there is a closer connection than commentators have been aware."
And he might have added that, betweerl chapter ix. and the two following
chapters, this connection is closer still. The inquiry this suggests is as
interesting as it is important. The received exegesis is a legacy from days
when the prophecies and promises relating to Israels future were
"spiritualised" to make them refer to "the Christian Church" ; and it was
tacitly assumed that nothing remained for Israel but judgment and wrath. And
this seemed to account for such a strange outburst of passionate feeling on the
part of the Apostle. But these chapters show us that, even as he penned these
words, he had prominently in view, first that Israels rejection was but
temporary, and secondly that during this age of grace there is no
difference between the Jew and the Gentile,' and therefore the individual
Israelite is in no respect at a disadvantage; for salvation is equally free
to all (ch. x. 12, 13).
Moreover, at the time when he was writing, the
Jewish converts everywhere, and notably in Rome, far outnumbered the Gentiles.
Are we to conclude then that the burden of his impassioned longing was that a
still larger proportion of Jews might be brought in? A most legitimate longing
surely, but to express it in such terms would be unworthy, I will not say of an
inspired Apostle, but of any sensible man with a well-balanced mind. And this
very chapter vetoes the suggestion that what he had in view was the salvation
of every Israelite - "all the seed of Abraham according to the flesh." What,
then, can have been his meaning? As it was neither that some Israelites might
be saved, nor that more Israelites might be saved, nor yet that all Israelites
might he saved, there is only one conclusion open to us, namely, that the
burden upon his heart was the condition of Israel nationally, and that he
longed intensely for their restoration to the position they had lost. For the
privileges and blessings specified in the fourth and fifth verses of this
chapter did not pertain to the individual Hebrew, but to the nation. And his
argument, broken, more so, by many a parenthesis, reaches a climax with the
words, "And so all Israel shall be saved " (xi. 26) - that is. Israel as a
nation. And the longing of his heart was to witness that consummation.
But, it will be asked, would the Apostle Paul have bartered his eternal destiny
for the realisation of such a hope as that? I would answer (contra
mundum, if needs be) that no possible consideration would have betrayed him
into uttering, or even harbouring, such a wish. And this emboldens me to
suggest a new reading of the passage.
Chapter
Five
Literature | Photos | Links | Home