-1-

Which Translation? (3) …………………………….………………….…………………………...……... 2 The Judgement of Gehenna ………………………...…….....…………………………………..……. 6 Correspondence ……………..…...…..…………………………………………………………………….…. 15 Tobiah—The Infiltration of an Enemy (2) …….………..………..…………………....….. 20 The BASF—Its Importance and Teaching (Clauses XVII, XVIII, XIX) ... 26 The Inspiration of the Scriptures …..………….…………………….…………………………... 30 Secretary’s Notes ……………………………………………………………………………………...….….. 33

Set thee up waymarks, make thee high heaps, set thine heart Toward the highway, even the way which thou wentest (Jer 31:21)

Devoted to the Defence and Proclamation of the Way of Life

in Opposition to the Dogmas of Papal and Protestant Christendom

Volume 3: Issue 1 April 2002

“The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable … ” (Jas 3:17) “Earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3)

“I saw, and behold, a white horse; and he that sat upon him had a bow; and a crown was

given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer” (Rev 6:2)

THE CHRISTADELPHIAN

WAYMARK

-2-

WHICH TRANSLATION? (3)

CONSTANTINE’S BIBLE When the Emperor Constantine embraced Christianity he commissioned his own version of the Bible. This was based on text edited by Eusebius and written by Origen. The result was the inter-mingling of the Word of God with Greek philosophy and Gnosticism. Brother John Thomas when describing the depths of Satan, draws on a quotation of some second and third century corrupters of the Truth, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Pantaenus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Cyprian and others as, “specimens of these clerical fathers whose teaching corrupted the discipline divinely revealed.” One translator, JA Richter, suggests that the Sinaitic Codex was one of fifty copies of the Scriptures that Constantine directed to be made in 331AD. The Emperor Justinian founder of the convent at Mt. Sinai sent a copy to the monks there. Richter commends the value of the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrian Codex. The views of Eusebius, Origen and others weighed favourably with him. There appears to be two sources of manuscripts which have produced two different Bibles. The minority of manuscripts support Bibles approved by Rome and the majority of manuscripts (80%-90%) the re-ceived text, support the source text used for the Authorised Version.

DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES - THE AUTHORISED VERSION COMPARED WITH

THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION There are a number of significant shifts in the text in the NIV which strengthen the doctrines which will bring us nearer to the teaching of Rome and her daughters.

The changes arise in varying degrees in modern versions which come from the Alexandrian group of manuscripts. These Bible versions include, RV (1881), ASV (1901), RSV (1952), NASV (1960), NEB (1970), GNB (1976), REB (1989) and NRSV (1990). The Jehovah’s Witnesses, New World Translation is also from the same stable. The NIV (1973) appears to be the most significant ver-sion in terms of the doctrinal changes it introduces and the rapidly increasing acceptance it re-ceives in churches around us.

The NIV generally supports the position taken at the Council of Nicea in 325AD, convened by the Emperor Constantine, on the relationship of Jesus to the Father. The Son was “consubstantial” meaning of one substance with the Father. The examples given in the table on the next page illustrate the need for caution by our community regarding acceptance of the NIV as a reliable text. The word “begotten” in the AV has precise meaning to do with when life begins. In other words, Jesus clearly had a beginning to his life and to his work. Therefore there was a time when Jesus did not exist. The NIV has removed the word begotten in some significant passages of Scripture. The NIV version of John chapter 1:18 is now presented in a form which I do not believe any

-3-

brother could agree to read aloud in the presence of brethren and sisters or enquirers after the Truth. It clearly promotes the apostate doctrine of the Trinity and the pre-existence of Jesus. In John chapter 20:17 “ascended” has become “returned”, thus implying that Jesus was to go back literally to where he had come from. In Hebrews chapter 5, the NIV reads, “Today I have become your Father”. These words lack the strength and clarity of the unequivocal AV statement, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee”. The word “begotten” has also disappeared from, John 1:14, John 3:16.

2. Jesus nature - redefined

Authorised Version New International Version No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him (John 1:18)

No-one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only who is at the Father’s side, has made him known (John 1:18)

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God (John 20:17)

Jesus said, Do not hold onto me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God (John 20:17)

Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee (Heb.1:5)

You are my Son; today I have a become your Father (Heb 1:5)

1. Jesus - “pre-existed”

Authorised Version New International Version In whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of sins. Col.1:14

in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. Col.1:14

For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also took part of the same... Heb.2:14

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity... Heb.2:14

“...such an High Priest became us... Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: this he did once, when he offered up himself.” Heb.7:26-27

“...such a high priest meets our need... Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.” Heb.7:26-27

-4-

The NIV Colossians chapter 1 reference removes the link between redemption and the blood of Christ, this is a small shift away from a link with the Adamic nature of Jesus during his earthly minis-try. The two references in the book of Hebrews show how subtle the shift is in the doctrinal position. The AV Hebrews chapter 2 reference teaches that Jesus had flesh and blood, the same as we have. The NIV avoids such a clear statement, substituting, “took part of the same” for “shared in their hu-manity”. This could mean that Jesus experienced or understood human suffering in some way. Similarly, in the AV, Hebrews chapter 7 teaches that Jesus single sacrifice was superior to that of the priests. The priests sacrifice was for their own sins and then for the sins of the people. Jesus sacri-fice covered both these requirements with a single sacrifice. Jesus was without sin (Heb.4:15) there-fore his “sin” was his Adamic nature (2 Cor.5:21; Gal.4:4). The NIV presents a subtle shift in doctrine, Jesus sacrifice was solely, “for their sins”, i.e. the people’s sins.

3. THE TRINITY The John reference shows that the Sonship of Jesus is marginalised in favour of Godliness. These

changes to individual verses may seem minor in isolation, but when the picture is viewed as a whole we can see the teaching of Scripture, that Jesus is the Son of God, is being eroded in favour of the Trinitarian concept of God the Son. The Timothy reference blurs the clarity of the AV “God was manifest in the flesh”. The NIV, “He ap-peared in a body” could be shown to mean almost anything the reader chooses. The Philippians reference is perhaps the most blatant change in favour of promoting the doctrine of the Trinity. This passage perhaps demonstrates most clearly why we should not use the NIV as a lead text for Ecclesial or public reading. We cannot read around the translation as we do, for exam-ple, with substituting the “Spirit” for the word “Ghost” in the AV.

OTHER CHANGES As shown In the table over the page, the faith attributed to Sarah...” (Heb.11:11) has been deleted. We should ask who among men has the authority to challenge God’s assessment of Sarah the wife of Abraham? She like Abraham was among those of whom it is recorded, “These all died in faith...” (Heb.11:13).

Authorised Version New International Version ...we believe and are sure that thou art Christ, the Son of the living God (John 6:69)

We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God (John 6:69)

He took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham. (Heb.2:16)

For surely it is not the angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants (Heb.2:16)

...great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh (1Tim.3:16)

...the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body (1Tim.3:16)

Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God (Phil.6:4)

Who being in very nature God did not consider equality with God something to be grasped (Phil.6:4)

-5-

The point of Jesus’ teaching in the parable in Luke 6 is not how the house was built but where it was built, i.e. on “a rock”. The AV refers to “the prophets” because the quotes are taken from both Malachi and Isaiah. The NIV appears to attribute the Malachi reference to Isaiah.

CONCLUSION The Truth has not changed, God has not left Himself with out a witness in the earth. The prolifera-tion of new translations is happening now, because it was promised by the Pope and they add very little to our understanding of the Truth. Rather, there is a gradual attempt to blur the clarity of the distinctive teaching we understand regarding the nature of Jesus and his relationship with the Father. The papal policy is to promote a universal Church with doctrines acceptable to all. If the Lord remains away and our children rely on the NIV, the Truth will be eroded to the point where the next generation will have Bibles which do not support the first principles of the Truth, regarding the nature of Jesus. This could in time, lead to our understanding of the efficacy of Je-sus’ sacrifice being obscured from view. Most Versions of the Bible have a place as aids to Bible study. However, we should not forget that the NIV is one of the products of the declared papal ecumenical policy and should therefore be used with caution. If we ignore this, we do so at our peril.

Peter Moore (Concluded)

“As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before my face...” (Mark 1:2)

“It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you...” (Mark 1:2)

Authorised Version New International Version “Through faith also Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.” (Heb.11:11)

“By faith Abraham, even though he was past age - Sarah herself was barren - was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise.” (Heb.11:11)

“He is like a man which built an house and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.” (Luke 6:48)

“He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When the flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built.” (Luke 6:48)

“Quietude and silence are not the prerogatives of the Saints in this present evil world. Their duty is to “cry aloud and spare not; to lift up their voice like a trumpet and show the people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.” They have nothing to do with results and consequences. Let them make the Truth known, and leave the rest to Him who gives the increase”

John Thomas

-6-

THE JUDGMENT OF GEHENNA

“Serpents, progeny of poisonous serpents, how can ye escape the Judgement of Gehenna?” In his disputes with the proud and wicked aristocracy of Israel, Jesus frequently directed their atten-tion to the things written by the prophets concerning the wrath about to come upon them to the utter-most; which, in reporting his denunciations, Matthew styles the Krisis of Gehenna; a phrase which in the common version is rendered “the damnation of Hell” - a most unfortunate translation, if we attach to the word “Hell” the meaning bestowed upon it by the ignorant and fanatical priests of Romanism, and adopted likewise by the sectarian clergy of our own times. In Mark, the Crisis, or Judgment of Gehenna, is frequently mentioned, though in terms somewhat modified. In conversing with his disci-ples upon the unhallowed ambition by which their minds were agitated, Christ warned them against it as a fatal offence; for, if the strife of who should be the greatest should get possession of their hearts, it would not only lead to their exclusion from the Kingdom of God, but also to their destruction in the fire of Gehenna with the proud and wicked rulers of the nation. His discourse upon this topic is recorded in Chapter 9, part of which we shall retranslate more literally from the original:

“If thine hand cause thee to stumble, amputate it; it is better for thee to enter into life crippled, than having two hands to go forth into the Valley of Hinnom, into the fire extinguishable; where their worm ends not, and the fire is not put out. And if thy foot cause thee to stumble, amputate it: it is better for thee to enter into life mutilated, than having two feet to be hurled into the Valley of Hinnom, into the fire extinguishable; where their worm ends not, and the fire is not extinguished. And if thine eye cause thee to stumble, pull it out: it is better for thee to enter one-eyed into the Kingdom of God, than having two eyes to be hurled into the Valley of Hinnom (the place) of the fire: where their worm ends not, and the fire is not extinguished. For every one shall be salted with fire even as every sacrifice is salted with salt” (Mk 9:43-49).

“Woe unto the world,” said Jesus, “because of offences!” And “Woe to that man by whom the of-fence cometh!” See, then, my disciples, that ye be not the cause of these. This was the application of the discourse. The offenders then, were the contemporaries of our Lord, and living citizens of the then existing commonwealth of Israel. “Woe to Israel because of offences!” Jesus once wept over their city, because of the woes to come upon them. “Fill up,” said he, to it’s rulers, “the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye progeny of poisonous serpents! How can ye escape THE JUDGE-MENT OF GEHENNA? - poos phuzeetes apo tees KRISEEOOS TEES GEENNEES? Upon another occa-sion, he inquired of these same men, “When the Lord of the vineyard cometh, what will he do with those husbandmen?” And they pronounced sentence upon themselves, saying, “He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.” And in the same discourse, he informed them by another parable, that this miserable destruction would be effected by the King, who would “send forth his armies, and destroy those murderers, and burn up their city.” (Mat 22:7). The krisis tees geennees, or JUDGEMENT OF GEHENNA, was that to which Jesus referred when he said, “He (the Holy Spirit) shall argue with the world conclusively (elegxei ton kosmon) concerning judgement; because the ruling power of this Kosmos (the Jewish Commonwealth as constituted by the Law of Moses) hath been sentenced” Jno 16:11; and again he says, alluding to his Judgment, “these be days of retributive justice (ekdikesseeoos) that all things which are written may be ful-

-7-

filled” (Luke 21:22); parallel with which is Matt 13:34-36: “Wherefore, behold, I send unto you,” says Jesus, “prophets and wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city; that upon YOU may come all the righteous blood shed upon the land, from the blood of right-eous Abel, unto Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye shall have then slain (ephoneusate) between the Temple and the Altar. Verily, I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation;” that is upon you Pharisees - v. 35.

THE JUDGMENT OF GEHENNA— THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROHETS

The time then, when the Judgement of Gehenna was to happen, was at the period of the murder of Zecharias between the sanctuary and the Altar. Several of the prophets have written con-cerning it. “The Lord shall bring,” says Moses, “a nation against thee from far (Italy), from the end of the earth as the eagle flieth; a nations whose tongue thou shalt not understand; a nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor show favor to the young; and he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land, until thou be destroyed; which also shall not leave thee corn, wine, or oil, or the in-crease of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have destroyed thee. And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land … And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daugh-ters, which Yahweh, thine Elohim, hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, where-with thine enemies shall distress thee; so that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil towards his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall have: so that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the seige, and in the straitness wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all

thy gates. The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter, and toward her infant, and toward her children which she shall bear, for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the seige and straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in thy gates. If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear glorious and fearful name, Yahweh, thine Elohim, then Yahweh will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses … and it shall come to pass, that as Yahweh will rejoice over you to destroy you to do you good, and to multiply you, so Yahweh will rejoice over you to destroy you and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it. And Yahweh shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even to the other … And among these nations thou shalt find no ease, neither shall the sole of they foot have rest; but Yahweh shall give thee there a trembling heart, and fading of eyes, and sorrow of mind; and thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life; in the morning thou shalt say, “Would God it were even,” and at even thou shalt say, ‘Would God it were morning!’ for the fear of thine heart wherewith thou shalt fear, and for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see. And Yahweh shall bring you into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again, and there ye shall be sold you.” (Deut 28:49-68).

THE PROPHECY OF JEREMIAH Jeremiah thus speaks of Gehenna, the place of Judgement for the House of Judah: “they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the

-8-

Valley of the son of Hinnom (or Gehenna) to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. Therefore, behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that it shall no more be called To-phet, nor the Valley of the son of Hinnom (Gehenna), but the Valley of Slaughter: for they shall bury in Tophet till there be no place. And the carcasses of the people shall be meat for the fowls of heaven, nad for the beasts of the land; and none shall fray them away. Then will I cause to cease from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride; for the land shall be desolate.” (8:31-34). The place of Judgment, then, according to this prophet, where Jerusalem was to be judged, was a valley, originally styled Tophet, and after-wards Gehenna, and still later, the Valley of Slaughter, in which fire burned continually, and where frequently multitudes of putrid carcasses of the citizens were rotting and consuming under the undying energies of myriads of loathsome worms. Truly of this place it might be said, “where their worm ends not, and the fire is inex-tinguishable;” for the consumption of carcasses should not fail for want of a worm to feed upon them, or a fire to burn their bones into lime. “Tophet ordained of old; yea, for the King (the Assyrian, or Gog and his army) it is prepared; he hath made it deep and large; the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it;” (Is 30:33) “whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusa-lem” (34:9). Gehenna will then be found to have been the place of retributive justice on three sig-nal occasions, to say nothing of minor conflicts; first, where Jerusalem fell under the destroying hand of Nebuchadnezzar; second, under that of Titus; and thirdly, when the armies of the nations shall come against Jerusalem to battle, and meet their final discomfiture at the hand of the King of Israel when he shall be revealed from heaven.

That Gehenna, translated “Hell” in the common version, is not a subterranean place of torment, but a place of Judge-ment in Palestine, also ap-pears from the fact that the Lord commanded Jeremiah to go in company with the an-cients of the people and of the priests of Judea to Gehenna, and proclaim there the words which he should tell him.

A PROPHECY GIVEN AT GEHENNA

As it is written, “thus saith Yahweh, Go, and get a potter’s earthen bottle, and take of the ancients of the people, and of the ancients of the priests; and go forth unto the Valley of the son of Hinnom (Gehenna), which is by the entry of the east gate (between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives), and proclaim there the words that I shall tell thee” (19:1); and among these words, he said, “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that this place shall no more be called the Tophet, nor the Valley of the Son of Hinnom (Gai-ben-hinnom; or in the Greek, Geenna; in our tongue Gehenna is the orthography), but in the Valley of slaughter. And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives; and their car-casses will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth. And I will make this city desolate and an hissing; everyone that passeth thereby shall be astonished, and hiss because of the plagues thereof. And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons, and they shall eat everyone the flesh of his friend, in the siege, and straitness wherewith their ene-mise, and them that seek their lives, shall straiten them.” He was then to break the potters vessel before them, and say, “even so will I, Yahweh, break this people and this city; (20) and they shall bury them in Tophet, there shall be no place (or

The place of Judgment, then, according to this

prophet, where Jerusalem was

to be judged, was a valley,

originally styled Tophet, and

afterwards Gehenna, and

still later, the Valley of

Slaughter, in which fire

burned

-9-

room) to bury.” Having delivered himself of these things, he left Gehenna, as it is written, “Then came Jeremiah from the Tophet, whither Yah-weh had sent him to prophesy” (vs 6-14).

THE ROMAN DESOLATION OF AD 70 The Lord says, “I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place,” even Ge-henna. This was accomplished in the highest sense, when Jesus sent his armies against Jeru-salem and destroyed the city and people. The Psalmist inquires, “Why do the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the land set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together against Yah-weh, and against His Annointed King.” But he “made void their counsel,” and deriding them, “he spake unto them in his wrath, and vexed them in his sore displeasure;” so that, ac-cording to the testimony of Josephus, “when Titus in going his rounds along those Valleys saw them full of dead bodies, and the thick purification running around them, he gave a groan and spreading out his hands to heaven, called God to witness that this was not his doings; and such was the sad case of the city itself.” No, it was God’s retributive justice that had caused it; and thus he fulfilled his word, “they shall bury them in Tophet,” or Gehenna, “till there be no place,” where their worm luxuriated in the semi-fluid putrification of their carcasses, and the fire of his indignation was inextinguishable. “As the vine among the trees of the forest which I have given to the fire for fuel, so,” saith the Lord, “will I give the inhabitants of Jerusalem. They shall go out from one fire, and another fire shall devout them,” (Ezek 25:7), all which was literally and preeminantly accomplished by the Romans. This same JUDGEMENT OF GEHENNA, which should consign the people of Jerusalem to mu-tual slaughter, famine, cannibalism, suicide and death by the Roman sword; by which the city should be filled with rapine and pestilence, and

“the Valley of the Son of Hinnom,” or “Tophet,” without the walls, should be choked with putrefy-ing bodies whose worm should not fail, was also told by Daniel in the 8th chapter, verses 23 and 24:

“and in the latter time of their (Alexander’s successors) Kingdom, when the transgres-sors are come to the full, a King (the Roman Nation, Power, or Prince, symbolised by the “Little Horn” which came out of one of the four horns of the Goat,) of fierce counte-nance, and understanding dark sentences (see Deut 28:49) shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; and shall prosper and practice, and shall destroy the Mighty and Holy people;”

And in chapter 9, verse 26, he adds upon the same subject, “and the people of the prince (the Romans under Titus) that shall come shall de-stroy the City and the Sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood (an inundating war), and unto the end of the war desolations are de-termined.” All which are symbolically set forth in these words: “And it (the Little Horn) waxed great even to the Host of Heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. Yea, he magnified himself to (against) the Prince of the Host (Messiah the Prince), and by him the Daily Sacri-fice was taken away, and the place of his Sanc-tuary (the Temple) was cast down. And an army was given him against the Daily be reason of transgression, and it cast down the Truth (the Law of Moses) to the ground; and it practised and prospered” (9:10-12).

THE WORDS OF MALACHI The Old Hebrew Oracles close with a prophesy of the Judgment of Gehenna:- a passage which has been very much misapplied by lovers of the terrible in these days. There is terror enough in store for the Gentiles without superadding that which the prophet says to those who were under

-10-

the law. Malachi delivered a word to Israel, in relation to things which immediately concerned them, and not to the Gentiles; as is written, “the burden of the word of Yahweh to Israel by Mala-chi” (Mal 1:1). Now, in relation to Israel he says, “Behold the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly (the Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Lawyers, &c.) shall be as stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up (with the fire which no man can extinguish), saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave neither root nor branch” (4:1). Then, after setting forth the blessedness of those in Israel who are constituted the righteousness of God, he exhorts Israel to “remember the Law of Moses, the servant of the Lord, which he com-manded to him in Horeb for all Israel with the statutes and judgements” (v 4). The Lord then gave them a sign by which they might know of the approach of “the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord;” and this was the appearance of “Elijah the Prophet,” who, Jesus declared, had pre-ceded him as John the Baptist, and whose mission, both Malachi and Luke affirm, was to revive the disposition of the Fathers in their children, and to turn the disobedient to the wisdom of just persons; in other words, “to make ready a people for the Lord” - “lest he come and smite the Land with a curse.” John the son of Zecharias, then, was the Elijah who was to precede the terrible Judgement of Gehenna; while the real Elijah comes to Israel at the approaching advent. The reason why he who baptised was fortold by Elijah’s name is, because he was to come “in the Spirit and power of Elias.” He preached “the Baptism of Repen-tance,” because of the approach of the great and terrible day of national retribution. Hence his denunciation of the proud and of them that did wickedly in Israel, who, he declared, shall be

hewn down for fuel, and cast into the fire. “O generation of Vipers,” says he, “who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? … One mightier than I cometh—he shall baptize you with fire. His fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.”

THE PROPHECY OF ISAIAH Omniscient, as Jesus was, of all that was written in the Law and the Prophets, when speaking of the wrath about to fall upon the nation, he ex-pressed himself in the language of the prophets.

Thus, he quotes the saying of Isaiah, “their worm dieth not, and their fire is not quenched,” three times, with the change of a certain word which ex-plains the use of the possessive in their phrase, “their worm.” Instead of “their fire,” Jesus says, “the fire;” but Isaiah calls “the fire” “their fire,” because it is an agent in their destruction; so “the worm” becomes “their worm” upon the same principle. And further, the abiding place of “their worm which ends not,” is not in the living of all mankind, but in Ge-henna, when tenanted by corrupting

animal matter: thus, “it is better for thee to enter into the Kingdom of God one-eyed, than having two eyes, to be hurled into Gehenna (the place) of the fire (eis teen Geennan tou puros;) WHERE (that is, in Gehenna), their worm (the worm that preys upon them) ends not, and the fire is not quenched.” The Valley of the Son of Hinnom, or Gehenna, was preeminantly the place of worms and of fire at the destruction of Jerusalem; and will be again when it becomes “the Valley of Slaughter,” when “the slain of the Lord shall be many.” (Is 66:16)

ENTRY INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD The alternatives presented by Jesus to his disci-ples in this discourse, was that of being cast into Gehenna, or of entering into Life; which is the

“John the son of Zecharias, then, was the Elijah

who was to precede the

terrible Judgment of

Gehenna; while the real Elijah comes to Israel

at the approaching

advent”

-11-

same thing as entering into the Kingdom of God. Upon the supposition that the Kingdom of God, the gospel of which Jesus preached from Dan to Beersheba, was immediately to be set up, as the multitude, who wished to make him King, ex-pected—a man might enter into it maimed; for, in that case, he would not return to the dust; but if it were to be set up then, none who caused of-fences would be permitted to enter it, but would be seized as thieves and robbers, and hurled without the “City of the Great King,” into the Val-ley of the Son of Hinnom (Gehenna), a prey to worms among the offal and filth of the Metropolis. “The unrighteous shall not inherit the King-dom of God,” but “every one, saint and sinner shall be salted with fire.” As we have seen, the Lord will have a “sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel,” for the birds and beasts of prey at his appearing in his glory; so, as before the judgement of Ge-henna, “the bodies” of the faithful became a “living sacrifice,” salted by the fire of per-secution, “holy and acceptable to God,” at that dreadful crisis he had a sacrifice, “which was salted with fire;” a sacrifice of proud and wicked men, destroyers of the saints who were consumed by the fire which salted them; but “every sacrifice” which he accepts “shall be salted with salt,” and not with fire; “have salt in your-selves,” said Jesus; let wisdom dwell in you “and have peace one with another.” We have given a translation of this passage in Mark, which, we doubt not, will be admitted by all who can read the original, as more literal than the common one. They differ principally in these particulars. In Mark 9:43, it reads “unto hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched;” - “their worm dieth not;” - v 47, “into hell-fire.” The former of these expressions we have rendered “into the Valley of Hinnom, into the fire inextinguishable;” the next, “their worm ends not;” and the last, “into the Valley of Hinnom (the place) of the fire.” “Into hell” is an objectionalbe rendering for the phrase

eis teen Gehennan; first, because it is not literal; and secondly, because the ideas attatched to the word “hell” by Romanists and Protestants, are not those which the prophets associate with, “Gehenna.”

MATTERS OF TRANSLATION The Grammatical sense of a discourse is its true meaning; before we can therefore judge of this, the original speech must be literally, that is, gram-matically and precisely, transferred into our tongue. In the phrase “into hell” the Greek article

teen is untranslated. We do not say that the article should always be translated into our language; but in this case we conceive it ought, seeing that it is emi-nently demonstrative. “Into the hell,” naturally suggests the enquiry, “into what hell?” Is there any hell but the one hell of pagans, Papists and Protestants? For “Hell” is the same in the “divinity” of all these respectable alliterations. The answer to this is “into the hell to which Jesus referred, the receptacle not of ‘immortal souls,’ but of mortal bodies with hands, feet, and eyes complete.” What name did Jesus designate this place by? By Gai ben Hinnom, which the evangelist Mark, or his amanuensis, Hellenized by the word Geena. But what is the English of Gai ben Hinnom?

It is the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, and nothing else. It ought therefore to have been so ren-dered; and men would then have searched the prophets to see what the Spirit had revealed to them, in connexion with that place of blood, pu-trefaction, and destruction. “Into the fire that never shall be quenched” is no more the correct rendering of eis to pur to abeston, than “into hell” is of eis teen Geennan. This translation is, as the lexicographers term it, by implication; that is, “never shall be quenched” is implied, but not expressed in words. Asbeston

“The Valley of the Son of

Hinnom, or Gehenna, was pre-eminently the place of

worms and of fire at the

destruction of Jerusalem; and will be

again when it becomes “the

Valley of Slaughter,” when “the slain of the

Lord shall be many.”

-12-

is an adjective agreeing with pur “fire”, and not a verb in the future passive. It is derived from a, a privative participle, which negatives the word to which it is joined, and signifies not, having the force of un or in, in composition in English and Latin; it does not signify never. The word with which this negative participle is radically associated, is sbennumi which signifies “to extinguish:” asbennumi would therefore mean “not to extinguish,” which is the ideal import of asbestos, which defines the quality of the fire in respect of its relative duration. To pur to as-beston, then, simply affirms, that it is “the fire in-extinguishable” in the Valley of Hinnom; and not a “fire, which shall never be extinguished:” but one, which the prophets show shall burn till it have accomplished the indignation of God. It has been long since quenched; but will be kin-dled again in these “Latter days,” for the destruc-tion of those who shall fall in “the battle of the great day of God Almighty.” Their worm dieth not;” - literally, ho skooleex autoon ou telunta, “the worm of themselves (proceeding forth of them) ends not”. This pro-duction of worms is affirmed of bodies hurled into the Valley of Hinnom, hopu “where,” that is, in the Valley “where the worm ends not.” Ou teleuta is rendered “dieth not.” There is no very special objection to this, save that it is not so literal as “ends not.” Teleuta is the third person present of teleutaoo, which signifies “to end, to finish, to complete,” and is predictable of any thing animate, or inanimate; but if “he dies” be the rendering of the verb, teen zoeen must be under-stood; for in the passage before us, these words are not expressed: hopou ho skooleex autoon ou teleuta teen zoon is the phrase for “where their worm ends not the life:” but teen zoeen not being expressed, we have rendered into English only those words we find recorded by Mark. But the reader will observe the time or tense of teleuta. It is the present, not the future. To what

present does this refer? Was it relative to the time when Jesus spoke or uttered the words; or to that time when the bodies should be cast into the Valley? Manifestly to the latter as the pronoun “their” or “of them-selves” plainly indicates. The continuence of the negation “dies not,” or “ends not,” is therefore coexistent with the duration of the “carcasses” upon which they feed, unless anyone can demonstrate, that a worm generated in a putrefy-ing carcasse is itself essentially incorruptible! “Dieth not” does not then signify “shall never die,” but simply “ends not” whilst it has any carcass to exist upon; this is the extent of the present teleuta, no more. Lastly, “into hell-fire,” eis teen Geennan tou pures, “into the Valley of Hinnom of the fire,” or “of fire.” This is plainly elliptical, and requires words to complete the sense. The Valley of Hin-nom, as we have seen in Jeremiah, is also styled Tophet, and concerning this Isaiah has said, “it is deep and large; the pile thereof is fire and much wood:” we are authorised, thereore, to supply the words the place to make out the sense. Hence, instead of “into hell-fire,” it ought to read, “into the Valley of Hinnom the place of the fire,” where the fire is not extinguishable,” “which should burn up the chaff of the House of Judah.

EVERLASTING FIRE

In the parallel text of Matthew, the “fire not extin-guishable” is expressed by the phrase to pur to aioonion, and translated in the common version, “everlasting fire.” In the Vulgate “everlasting” is rendered by “aeternum.” But no eternal attibute can be reasonably affirmed of a subject which is not in itself incorruptible and persistent. Animal matter is corruptible; therfore nothing endlessly continuing can be predicated of it organically; fire

“The Grammatical

sense of a discourse is its true meaning; before we can

therefore judge of this, the

original speech must be literally,

that is, grammatically and precisely,

transferred into our tongue”

-13-

is the result of the combination of certain princi-ples, and if these cease to be supplied in definate proportions, combustion ends, and the fire is said to go out. Doubtless, God could cause fire to evolve fire through endless ages; but in fire essentially con-sidered, there is nothing necessarily enduring; it is an effect, not a first principle, and therefore the same remark applies to it as much as “sinful flesh.” Wood, though “much wood,” is destructi-ble, and consequently cannot endlessly burn. Hence, whatever may be the duration expressed by aioonios when added to the word “God,” it does not therefore follow, that when associated with the word “fire,” the duration is of equal con-tinuance. God is essentially “from everlasting to everlast-ing”- without beginning and without end; but flesh, fire, worms, priesthoods, ages, &c., are essentially terminable subjects; hence, whatever may be the length of time indicated, aioonios, when related to them, does not mean “eternal,” or “everlasting,” in the sense of having no end, as God has no end. We have no difficulty therefore, in understanding how the “fire not extinguishable” may be an “everlasting fire,” and yet go out at length. The fire in the Valley of Hinnom was co-existent with the destruction it had to work out at the end of the Mosaic aion; so that in relation to this work it was aioonian; and everlasting also, as it respects the results which it so fearfully elabo-rated. The phrase, to pur to aioonion, then, we translate “the cyclical fire.”

A SMELTING FURNACE

There is another passage in Matthew which we must notice in relation to the Judgement of Ge-henna. It is written, “so shall it be at the end of the state: those sent shall go out, and sever the wicked from the midst of the just, and cast them into the smelting furnace of the fire; there shall be (ekei estai) wailing and gnashing of the teeth. The kaminos tou puros in this passage, rendered

“smelting furnace of the fire,” is defined by the theorists to be “Hell”, the place of endless tor-ment;” but with their leave we will consult the prophets, and inquire of them where this smelting furnace may be found? Moses saith, “the Lord hath taken you, Israel, out of the furnace (Deut 4:20). Here the word “furnace” means Egypt, where Israel had suf-fered grievous oppression, so that it does not necessarily signify a subterranean place of tor-ture. Speaking of the overthrow that awaits the “multitudes in the Valley of Decision,” “in that day when every man shall cast away his idols of sil-ver and gold,” Isaiah says, that “the princes of the Assyrian (‘the king of the North.’ Dan.) shall be afraid of THE ENSIGN, saith the Lord, whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem.” (ch. 31:9).

FURTHER EVIDENCE But lest this should be deemed inconclusive, we will present another witness before the reader, and inquire of him if he can enlighten us in rela-tion to his smelting furnace of the Lord? What saith Ezekiel? Let us hear him! - “The word of the Lord came unto me, saying, ‘Son of Man, the House of Israel is to me become dross: they are all brass, and tin, and iron, and lead, in the midst of the furnace: they are the dross of silver. Therefore, saith the Lord God, because ye are all brass, and tin, and iron, and lead, in the midst of the furnace, to blow the fire upon it, to melt it; so I will gather you in my anger and in my fury, and I will leave you there, and melt you. Yea, I will gather you, and blow upon you in the fire of my wrath, and ye shall be melted in the midst thereof; and ye shall know—that I the Lord have poured out my fury upon you” - Ch 22:17-22). These are testimonies sufficient to prove, that the phrase “cast them into the smelting furnace of the fire,” declares the melting of Israel in Jerusa-lem, become torrid with the consuming indigna-tion of the Lord. But to what time does Jesus refer?

-14-

THE TIME PERIOD DEFINED This question is easily answered: - en tee sun-teleia tou aioonos,” rendered in the Latin Vulgate, in consummatione seculi. “Sunteleia” is a noun derived from the verb sunteleoo, which is itself compounded of the preposition sun, “with,” and teleoo, “to end, to bring to an end, &c. The true ideal meaning is, therefore, something more than “end”: the verb then signifies to complete one things with another thing, that is, to bring the two things to a convergent crisis; hence suntelia will signify the completion of the aioon contempora-neously with something else. What is that one thing? Hear what Daniel the prophet saith! “By Him (the Roman power) the Daily (sacrifice) was taken away, and the place of his Sanctuary (the Temple) was cast down. And an host (army) was given against the Daily by reason of a trans-gression, and it cast down the Truth (the Law of Moses) to the ground.” This is styled “the trans-gression of desolation, to give both the Holy and the Host (of Israel) to be trodden under foot “of the Gentiles” (ch 8:11-14). Here then, are four things, which were appointed to one common suntelia; - the Daily Sacrifice of the Altar, the Temple, the Law of Moses, and the Nation; so that whatever may be the signification of aioon, the end of it was contemporary with the end of these four things. When did the sacrifice cease to be offered daily on the Altar of the Burnt Sacrifice? When was the Temple destroyed? When did that truth, or covenant, which Paul saith in his time “decayeth and waxeth old,” van-ish away? And when was the Jewish Nation conquered, “the power of the Holy people scat-tered,” and desolation spread over the Land? At what common epoch did all these events hap-pen in Judea? Without one dissentient voice, all men intelligent in history and unbiased by any novel hypothesis answer—when Jerusalem was sacked by Titus. This then was the sunteleia ton aioonos, the end of the world, dispensation, state or course constituted by the Mosaic Law. Then were the proud and wicked severed from the just

persons in Israel and cast into the smelting fur-nace of the fire which melted them as tin and lead.

A CHAOS OF ABSURDITY We have said that the ideas attached to the word “Hell” by Romanists and Protestants, are not those which the prophets associated with “Geena,” which they translate, “Hell”. If it be urged that all these understand it alike, we are hurled into a chaos of absurdity, of which the following may be adduced as a specimen: Let the readers turn to Jeremiah 19., and read the verses 1,2,3,6,14, with the word “Hell” in the popular sense substituted for Tophet, the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, and the Valley of Slaugh-ter, phrases which all apply to the same place, and rendered “Geena” in the Greek! He would be surprised to find that Hell, “the place of damned immortal souls,” is “by the entry of the east gate” of Jerusalem; that the Lord sent the prophet Jerusalem; that the Lord sent the prophet Jeremaiah to Hell to prophesy; the Hell should be choked full of Jewish carcases; that the prophet went to Hell, accompanied with other living men in the flesh, (this is very much like the pagan story of the descent of Æneas into Hell!) and there in their presence he broke “a potter’s earthen vessel;” and that having accomplished all this, “Jeremiah came from Hell (Tophet) whither the Lord had sent him to prophesy!!” All of which is true, if pagans, papists,protestants, and apostles understood the same things by the word “Gehenna” - Hell; but they do not, hence the above is all nonsense and folly. Paul refers to the same Judgment, when he says, “to wait for his Son from the heavens, whom God raised from among the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath about to come” (1Thess 1:10). Again he saith: “The Jews are contrary to all ment: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to the filling up (the measure of) their sins always: but (de) the wrath comes (ephtase, aorist; see note on ephoncusate, equally applicable to this place)

-15-

upon them at the end—eis telos—ch 2:16. James also tells Israel in chapter 5 verse 5, “ye have nourished your hearts as to (en) a day of slaughter.” And Peter saith in relation to the same crisis, “the end of all things approaches.” What things? Those enumerated by Daniel as we have seen: and which were brought to an

end in the Apostle’s day, styled “the last days;” that is, or the Mosaic Commonwealth of Israel. But of 2Peter 3 we have spoken at length elsewhere: let the things upon this topic already before the reader for the present suffice.

John Thomas (August 1886)

CORRESPONDENCE

The following message was posted on an internet discussion group, suggesting that belief in present-day possession of Holy Spirit gifts is not a serious error. Our reply follows:

“The bible teaches gifts of the holy spirit. Whether someone feels that this is possible today or not to me matters very little (unless someone can prove beyond doubt that this is a very serious error and right now I don't see it as very serious) … … So, I throw out a counter challenge to those who like to challenge others. Prove to me that this is a serious error. Br. Glenn” “Glenn, When a person claims to have the Holy Spirit Gifts when in fact he has not, he is: 1. Claiming that God has given him something which has not been given. 2. Will claim to be able to do things by the Spirit of God which he, in fact, does not so do. 3. Will be forced to "wrest" scripture to support their claims, an action which Scripture itself states will be to his own destruction (2 Pet 3:16). 4. If others believe the claim of spirit-possession, that will give that person authority - if the Spirit is with the man, his teachings will be endorsed by God ... for that was the case in the 1st Century. 5. They will therefore be mis-led by him. 6. A person will therefore be teaching as an authority who has no authority, on the claim that God has given him a power which has not been given. That is serious. There is something more serious. The Creator has provided us with a power, which can secure our

-16-

eternal redemption. The Gospel is the "power of God unto salvation". The command of Scripture is to "lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word which is able to save your souls". It is a persistent characteristic of those who claim Spirit-possession that they do not place a high emphasis on personal Bible study. Why should they - they already have a power that can help them - why do they need to go to the effort to do personal study? So, a person claims to have a power that God has not given, yet neglects the power He has given. That is serious, both for the person individually, and those that follow him as an authority. Finally, for those who believe it is necessary to have direct Spirit-assistance, it is written "All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction of righteous-ness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2Tim 3:17). So ... when the word can do all that for us, why do we need the Spirit gifts? Do we need to be made more "perfect" than "perfect"? Those who teach present-spirit possession in effect deny that the Word is able to make the man of God perfect in the sight of the Father, because they claim that some other power is also needed. That is serious. CAM Dear brother Chris, Please could you inform me as to what will be the position of Central brethren and sisters who are opposed to reunion with the Unamended community on the basis on the NASU and will refuse to fellowship them on that basis? Surely, if reunion occurs, they will be forced to stand aside from the new fellowship grouping or eventually they will be extruded if they stand by their convictions? Sincerely your brother in the Messiah, Paul Moore Reply:- Bro Moore has forwarded his question to several “prominent” editors of other magazines, whose replies, aside from indicating an unwillingness to answer the questions, also indicate an unwilling-ness to accept that there may indeed be those who will refuse to accept the proposed ‘reunion’ with the Unamended group on the basis of NASU. In the absence of any clear answer therefore, it falls to us to examine the matter as requested. For the benefit of those who may not be aware of it, NASU stands for the North American Statement of Understanding, a document which has been formulated to be a basis for re-union between Chris-tadelphians, and the Unamended group in America. The main historical division between the two

-17-

fellowships centres around the matter of what it is that makes a man responsible to judgment. The Christadelphian position is that knowledge makes a man responsible to act upon what he has learned. As the BASF expresses it: “at the appearing of Christ prior to the establishment of the king-dom, the responsible (namely, those who know the revealed will of God, and have been called upon to submit to it) dead and living—obedient and disobedient—will be summoned before his judge-ment-seat “to be juged according to their works …” By contrast, the Unamended group does not believe this part of the BASF. Rather, they believe that Baptism makes a man responsible to judgment, not knowledge. That man who is baptised will be raised to judgement, but a man who knows the Gospel, yet refuses to obey it through baptism may not be raised. The reason for this position being held, is the belief that there is a “legal condemna-tion” to eternal death inherited by all men from Adam, and that therefore without this condemnation to death being removed by the blood of Christ, a person may not be restored to life; even for judge-ment. This was an idea held by JJ Andrews in the 19th Century, one which Bro Roberts vigorously resisted, and which eventually divided the brotherhood. The Unamended group are so called, be-cause they were the party who could not accept the Amendment made to the Statement of faith that clarified the matter on this issue; their present position is still one of objection to the doctrine taught in the BASF, and also that the belief that the issue ought not be made a matter of fellowship. The following is from our response to Bro Moore’s enquiry:

“The BASF sets forth the matter of resurrectional responsibility most plainly indeed: "That at the appearing of Christ prior to the establishment of the kingdom, the responsible (namely, those who know the revealed will of God, and have been called upon to submit to it), dead and living - obedient and disobedient - will be summoned before his judgement seat ..." (Clause XXIV). If the Unamended group wish to enjoy the fellowship of those who hold the Truth as it is in Christ Jesus, then they must accept, endorse, and teach this point of the One Truth Faith without reser-vation. Part of the BASF is it’s title: "a statement of the doctrines forming the Christadelphian basis of fellowship," those who cannot accept it in all it's parts are not Christadelphians by definition; and neither ought they be regarded as such by those who are. A major concern with the so-called 're-union' is that its criteria for accepting the Unamendeds into the fellowship of Christadelphians is not an acceptance of the BASF, but rather an acceptance of certain documentation which seeks to harmonise the BASF with the Unamended statement. It is true that this documentation does not contain wrong doctrine, in that it does not specifically teach that enlightened rejectors of the Gospel will not be raised. But a reason why it cannot be a satisfac-tory ground of fellowship for lovers of the Truth, is that it glosses over, rather than emphasises the vital truth as described in the BASF, cited above. It states: "God's hands are not tied in any way from raising for condemnation any rebels and unbelievers He deems to be so deserving, regard-less of whether they are baptised or unbaptised." Notice, whilst this is quite true, the statement is merely to the effect that Yahweh is capable of rais-ing whosoever he chooses—which no-one will deny. It does not say whether or not such will be raised to be judged, whereas the BASF certainly does, being something which the Unamended

-18-

group do deny. The statement continues: "those who have responded to the call of God through baptism (in this dispensation) will therefore appear at the judgement seat of Christ. His faithful servants will receive the gift of life, but the un-faithful will be condemned. Based on the intrinsically interwoven factors of knowledge and calling, God will raise to condemna-tion those rebels and unbelievers whom His justice demands. As humans, none can determine who has been called according to knowledge to submit to His will" Notice the reference to Baptism; the words are very explicit that those who are baptised will defi-nitely be raised. But also notice the reference to 'knowledge', which nowhere near as definite. God will raise those "whom his justice demands"!!! No-one but those in the darkest of apostasy would disagree with the fact, that Yahweh can raise anyone whom His Justice demands to be raised. But the BASF is far more explicit in stating that His Justice does indeed require the "Responsible, namely, those who know the revealed will of God, and have been called upon to submit to it" to be raised to judgement. Those words are echoed in the NASU above, but in a much diluted form that allows for the enlightened rejector not to be raised. The difference is this; the re-union documentation does not exclude the fact that knowledge, (or Light) is the ground of judgement, but it does not teach that it is so. The BASF teaches that it is so. The re-union documentation does not exclude the belief that God's justice might be that enlight-ened rejecters will never be raised - not that "His hands are tied" from raising them, but because his justice does not require it, which is the very historical position of the Unamended fellowship that has been the reason why Christadelphians do not fellowship them. The BASF does exclude it. In short, the re-union documentation is quite obviously worded in such a manner that both posi-tions can be accommodated; it contradicts neither, and teaches neither. It is a compromise docu-ment specifically designed to bring together two groups, whilst taking into account the position held by each, and without emphasising which is right. It is being claimed by some prominent brethren that the documentation merely sets out principles of the BASF, and that re-union on it’s terms will involve an unreserved acceptance of the BASF. We find it very strange, however, if the Unamended group do accept the BASF, why it is that they are still publishing material specifically opposing it! On the internet (open to all to view), the Unamended group have an article, headed: A Summary of Reservations Concerning the Amended Statement of Faith, which plainly states: “There are seven reasons we shall provide to explain why we do not believe the Amended Statement of Faith is an acceptable basis for fellowship” (http://www.truthgleaner.org/seven.htm) This, we suggest, is not the language employed by those who “unreservedly accept” the BASF as a basis of fellowship! In addition to this, the Advocate Publishing Committee, the central publishing office for the Unamended group, continues to distribute literature directly attacking Christadelphians (which it describes as the “amended” group), and the BASF. One example of this, is it’s booklet entitled Doctrinal Consequences of Clause 24 B.A.S.F. Speaking of 1Thess 4:13-17, it is stated:

-19-

“This information fits the Unamended Model exactly but lends no support whatever for the Amended Model. This must be a source of embarassment to Amended apologists”. And again, in speaking of Rom 14:10, and 2Cor 1:1: “this information fits perfectly with the Unamended Model but forms a serious defect in the Amended Model” Again, on Hebrews 13:20, “This grand explanation of the resurrection of the dead saints, given by the writer to the Hebrews, is highly consistent with the Unamended model. Where does the Amended Model fit into this elabo-rate expostion offered in the epistle to the Hebrews? … this key verse … is so damaging to the Amended Model of resurrection that Amended apologists agonize to find an explanation that avoids the clear implications of the text” Actually, the explanation is quite clear, and with no “agony” involved, if the Father permits, we shall consider this passage in the next issue of this magazine. The booklet concludes: “we have also called into question the scriptural support for the Amended model. However much support for the Amended model can be inferred from the Scriptures, it is not sufficient in our opinion to raise it to the level of a first principle and hence should not be made a matter of fellowship amongst believers of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God”. This is the key point, as this is the very basis upon which union between the Unamended group with Christadelphians is being proposed, as is well recognised by Unamended members with whom we have had contact.. The fact that the Unamended fellowship continue to publish material attacking the Christadelphian position on the matter is proof that the difference in belief still remains, and that, contrary to what we are being told, union is not on the basis of the principles of the BASF that forms the Christadelphian basis of fellowship, but rather upon the belief that this difference is not important. Re-union founded upon such a dishonest portrayal of the situation cannot last. The Unamended Fellowship’s position is that it is baptism into Christ that makes a man responsible to judgement, and therefore possible rejection at the judgement-seat of Christ—and thereby they make the blood of Christ the ground of wrath, and casting out, rather than of love and reconciliation to the Father. Yet Scripture never so speaks. Thereby, they make the ordinance of Baptism de-signed to enable a man to be associated with the Salvation that comes through identification with the death of Christ, the means of condemnation. The Scriptures do no so speak. There can be no fellowship between the brethren of Christ, and those who present such a distorted view of the Sacri-fice of the Slain Lamb as this - and the BASF makes that clear. You ask: What will be the position of Central brethren and sisters who are opposed to reunion with the Unamended community on the basis on the NASU? Will they be forced to stand aside from the

-20-

new fellowship grouping? As our series of articles entitled “The BASF—it’s importance and Teaching” seeks to show, the fel-lowship of Christadelphians is founded upon the doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles, which are epitomised in the BASF. The Unamended group, far from believing those doctrines, continue to attack the BASF, whilst at the same time desiring fellowship, and “union” with those whom they call it’s “Apologists”! There can be no fellowship with such, even if it does become sanctioned by a com-mittee, and their carefully formulated truth-nullifying documentation. True, many are likely to abide by the decision of the committee, and will accept those into their midst who reject this clause of the BASF. But it is not compulsory—lovers of the Truth will not support re-union on such a basis as this. But this is not an age of Truth-lovers. Those who earnestly contend for the faith will vigorously op-pose the wrong doctrines being accepted, if not embraced, by the NASU documentation, even if by doing this, they are brought into direct conflict with the 'prominent' brethren - and magazines - who may lend their support to such a faithless enterprise. But this is not an age for contenders for the faith. It is inevitable that re-union (but certainly not unity) will be brought about. It remains for the faith-ful remnant to decide where they will stand, and how they will react to it. Those who follow the Christ will stand "against all" (antipas) forms of apostasy from the Truth, and will vigorously resist those who seek to compromise fundamental principles for the sole purpose of the social niceties of association with others who have different beliefs. Those who desire fellowship and association only with those of like precious faith will be against the basis of this so-called re-union, and will continue to vigorously oppose the heresy which it is designed to permit entry to, even if they find themselves being de-spised and rejected of men. Should they find themselves being cast out for steadfastly adhering to the Apostle’s doctrine and fellowship, they may rejoice exceedingly, for they will be in good com-pany—that the prophets of old who lifted up their voices as a trumpet against the iniquities of the people (Is 58:1). Your brother longing for the day when the unenlightened rejecters shall be judged according to the Righteousness of Yahweh, and when those who have held fast the Truth will be rewarded accord-ing to their deeds, Chris Maddocks”

TOBIAH—THE INFILTRATION OF AN ENEMY (2)

In the last issue, we considered how Sanballat, Tobiah and their accomplices who sought to frus-trate the work of the faithful builders of Jerusalem, adopted very specific tactics. They sought to dis-courage the people by deriding the efforts of those who were raising up the city wall (Neh 4:1-3), and when this failed to weaken the hands of the labourers, they resorted to physical violence, attempting to infiltrate the camp, and cause the work to cease by force: “our adversaries said, They shall not know, neither see, till we come in the midst among them, and slay them, and cause the work to cease” (4:11). Vigilance was crucial at this time; it was vital to watch and be ready lest the enemy should succeed in entering in unawares, and thus have opportunity to strike. And it is even so with the labourers today who are engaged in the work of building up the ecclesia of Christ. They also will inevitably face opposition by the fleshly-minded, yet whose designs will inevitably be frustrated if the

-21-

Ecclesia be firmly founded upon the precepts of righteousness and truth. In our day, there is not the same threat of death at the hands of the en-emy as there has been in times past, it is true; but the opposition is there all the same, as the diabolos, or sin incorporate in the flesh, employs many tactics and means to frustrate the work of those who seek to raise up walls of defence, and strengthen the foundations of Truth. The Apostle gave words of warning to those who were being built up to become the bride of Christ (cp Gen 2:22; Rev 22:9-27), “I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. There-fore watch … and now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up …” (Acts 20:28-32). These wolves do not openly manifest themselves to be wolves. They rather have the same resem-blance as sheep, for as the Master himself taught, they wear an outward appearance of righteousness, as if they are clothed with the skin of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits …” (Mat 7:15). This class of men are evi-dently comprised of prominent, popular mem-bers, for they are in such a position to “draw away disciples after them.” They have a name, or reputation that they are spiritually alive and active (cp Rev 3:1) but are, in fact, dead in the Spirit’s estimation. But if they are in sheep’s clothing, how can other members of the flock identify them? How can those who “watch” discern which are inwardly ravening wolves, that they might cry out a word of warning? According to the master, his disci-ples “shall know them by their fruits.” Is the spiri-tual sustenance which their fruits impart whole-some meat in due season, after the pattern or shape of the Hope of Israel (i.e. grapes and figs)

or is it wild fruit that is unpalatable to those whose senses are exercised to discern the good from the evil? “Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” By no means. “Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit” (Mat 7:16,17). Ye shall know them by that which emerges from them, and after the pattern of old times, such men, be-ing evil, can only bring forth evil fruit which cannot be eaten (cp Jer 24:8, Is 5:2), and thus prove to be unable to meet the dietary requirements of those wishing to be fed with the things of the Spirit. Corrupt minds bring forth corruptness in both doctrine and behaviour, neither of which are of any use in the ecclesia of Christ.

“COME, LET US MEET TOGETHER” Just as these “wolves in sheep’s clothing” sought to devour the flock of God in the mortal days of Christ, even so the adversaries who contended against Nehemiah sought to enter in among the people unawares, in order to slay the people, and cause the work to cease. They would ap-pear to be no different from any other of the peo-ple, speaking and behaving in the same way, until the time appointed for them to strike. In fact, as we saw in the last article, Sanballat and To-biah had already infiltrated the people through marriage (Neh 6:18, 13:28) as their families had become joined to families in Israel - they had in fact, become part of the congregation, even though to do this was specifically forbidden under the Mosaic Law (Deut 23:3). And with the appear-ance of sheep, these wolves changed their tac-tics from open hostility to a semblance of right-eousness, involving a show of good works (6:19), and an outward show of reasonableness, with a willingness to discuss the situation. They sought to draw Nehamiah away from the safety of the city and the people for a meeting: “Sanballat and Geshem sent unto me, saying, Come, let us meet together in some one of the villages in the plain of Ono. But they thought to do me mis-chief” (Neh 6:2).

-22-

Although they spake fair words, these men laid up deceit within themselves, and Nehemiah be-lieved them not (Prov 26:24,25). They covered their hatred with smooth words of deceit (Prov 26:26), yet Nehemiah was not beguiled by them. He knew their objectives, and that their carnal minds were at enmity with the purposes of the Deity in whose service he was labouring, and therefore gave no heed to the veneer of reason-ableness they displayed in secretly laying such a snare before him. “I sent messengers down to them, saying, I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down: why should the work cease, while I leave it, and come down to you?” (Neh 6:3). Here is the most effective method to employ when faced with those who would desire to channel our energies away from the vital work of edifying those with ears to hear, to unprofitable debates with no purpose. We are engaged in a needful work - why should it cease whilst we have talks with the adversary? If they are of the right disposition, they will assist our work, and abide by the principles of right-eousness and uprightness that govern that work. If they do not abide by those principles, and pre-fer rather to adopt carnal methods in opposition to us, what profit is there in discussion with them? What fruit can be had in being drawn away into the tangle of worldly debates and confused phi-losophisings of those who reject the wisdom which is from above? There can be none, and so in following the ex-amples of both Nehemiah and the Apostle Paul, we ought not give place to them for one hour (Gal 2:5), lest time and energies be wasted on things that do not profit - and we ourselves fall into a snare. This was Nehemiah’s approach; to refuse peace-talks with the enemy, in the full knowledge that their only motive for having them was that they might do him harm: “yet they sent unto me four times after this sort; and I answered them after the same manner.” He refused to be moved.

THE MAKING OF FALSE ACCUSATIONS Simple requests for discussions having failed to draw Nehemiah into their snare, the adversaries through Sanballat sent another letter, this time an open letter raising a certain false accusation. Evidently, the intention was that this time Nehe-miah would meet with them in order to defend himself:

“It is reported among the heathen, and Gashmu (an arabian accomplice, see v 1—CAM) saith it, that thou and the Jews think to rebel: for which cause thou build-est the wall, that thou mayest be their king, according to these words. And thou hast also appointed prophets to preach of thee at Jerusalem, saying, There is a king in Judah: and now shall it be reported to the king according to these words. Come now therefore, and let us take counsel to-gether” (Neh 6:6-7).

Here was the new tactic exposed, one com-monly employed against those who uphold the righteous principles of Yahweh in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation. This is the tactic which it is our experience to find employed most often - that of Character Assassination; the imputation of questionable motives and behav-iour, yet with no proof, or even evidence offered, but mere assertions, and the testimonies of oth-ers (cp Acts 24:13; 25:7). This was an open letter, meaning any party handling it could read what was written. No reasoning was given, no logical argument was employed; it was simply a sug-gestion— a false accusation - allegedly being put by others. Notice, the accusation was not made outright - “it is reported” that it is so. “We have heard that it is so; we are not personally accusing you of any-thing, just repeating what we have heard … let’s talk about these things, you can then give your side?” The claim was that Nehemiah sought some personal advantage, that in fact, he was

-23-

wanting to exalt himself to be a king over the people, and so challenge the authority of the Persian king, Artaxerxes. Indeed, it was a similar charge that was brought against the Lord Jesus Christ: “we found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a king” (Luke 23:2). And again, when Pilate sought to release him, “the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar” (Jno 19:12). In both cases, with a marked inability to find any fault, the Adversary found it necessary to raise a false charge of self-exaltation, and rebel-lion.

NEHEMIAH’S RESPONSE Nehemiah’s response to the accusations of the adversary is again most instructive: “Then I sent unto him, saying, There are no such things done as thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of thine own heart.” (Neh 6:8). He wasted neither time nor energy in composing lengthy rebuttals of the allegations made against him. He did not seek to justify himself in the denial of what was being claimed; his words were short and to the point. The allegations were not true, but were devised through the counsels of the hearts of wicked men. Again, he refused to be distracted from the work in which he was engaged. Lovers of Truth will give an impartial examination to the evidence of charges raised against build-ers in the Household of faith, and soon finding the evidence lacking, will reject the allegations as being no more than the evil fruits of evil men. Rather than to be distracted from the vital work of building up the ecclesial walls, by spending time and energy in self-justification and self-defence, it is more profitable for all for the builders to keep building, and leave the adversary to froth out great and swelling words as it pleases them, yet to eventually die down to nothing; foaming out their own shame (cp Jude 16,13).

Perceiving that they would be unable to influence Ne-hemiah by direct communi-cations with him the next tactic employed by Tobiah and Sanballat, was to em-ploy the services of others. Using the age-old device of finding someone Nehe-miah would respect and listen to, to speak with him, they hired Shemaiah to give a report to him, which would put him in fear: “Afterward I came into the house of Shemaiah the son of Delaiah the son of Mehetabeel, who was shut up; and he said, Let us meet together in the house of God, within the temple, and let us shut the doors of the temple: for they will come to slay thee” (Neh 6:10). It would appear that it was as evidence of his own fear of being slain by the devices of Tobiah and Sanballat that Shemaiah had shut himself up in his own house. He appears to have been previously respected by Nehemiah, for he went to Shemaiah, rather than vice-versa. Perhaps it was that Nehemiah had frequent discourses with the man, hence he was the one selected to lay another snare before Nehemiah. The proposition was that the danger being so great, to avoid being slain Nehemiah and he ought to retreat into the Temple, into the area normally reserved for the Priests and Levites only; hidden there, with the doors closed, they would be safe. What may have given weight to the suggestion, is that in previous times others had done just this; Joash was saved from de-struction at the hands of Athaliah by being hidden as a child in the house of Yahweh for six years (2Kings 11:3). But Nehemiah recognised that to do this with no Divine authority would be sin. And in

Lovers of Truth will give an

impartial examination to the evidence of charges raised

against builders in the Household

of faith, and soon finding the

evidence lacking, will reject the allegations as

being no more than the evil

fruits of evil men.

-24-

his position, there was a vital need for him to provide a leading example of faith and courage to the people, rather than to simply disappear from their sight through fear for himself. He rec-ognised that though this suggestion was being presented to him by one purporting to be a prophet, that it could not be genuine, for if he were to hearken to it, the work would cease, rather than be advanced. He answered accord-ingly: “I said, Should such a man as I flee; and who is there, that being as I am, would go into the tem-ple to save his life? I will not go in. And, lo, I per-ceived that Elohim had not sent him; but that he pronounced this prophecy against me: for Tobiah and Sanballat had hired him. Therefore was he hired, that I should be afraid, and so do, and sin, and that they might have matter for an evil report, that they might reproach me” (Neh 6:12,13).

THE HIRING OF FALSE PROPHETS

We notice, that it was Tobiah, and Sanballat, that hired the false prophet to testify before Nehe-miah; an Ammonite and a Moabite (Neh 2:10), who followed the pattern of the earlier enemies of Israel, in seeking to ensure their downfall. In-deed, it was precisely because of this same ac-tion that Ammonites and Moabites were strictly forbidden entry to the congregation of Israel. So it was commanded:

“An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of Yahweh; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of Yahweh for ever; because they met you not with bread and water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Meso-potamia, to curse thee. Nevertheless, Yah-weh thy Elohim would not hearken unto Balaam; but Yahweh thy Elohim turned the curse into a blessing unto the, because Yahweh thy Elohim loved thee. Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all

thy days for ever” (Deut 23:6). The Ammonitish involvement with the hiring of Balaam is not recorded in the record in Numbers, but the Law specified that because of this particu-lar matter, both Ammonites and Moabites were to be excluded to the tenth generation - which Nehemiah expounded to signify a complete ex-clusion “for ever” (Neh 13:1). The entry of Tobiah and Sanballat is the first recorded breach of this command, where both the Ammonite and Moab-ite were welcomed into the congregation, who permitted these men to marry into Israel. And so, history repeated itself as they sought to hire, not just one prophet, Shemaiah, but many, including a prophetess. So Nehemiah prayed before the Father: “My Elohim, think thou upon Tobiah and Sanballat according to these their works, and on the prophetess Noadiah, and the rest of the prophets, that would have put me in fear” (Neh 6:14).

SECRET COLLUSION In addition to presenting false prophetic words before Nehemiah to cause him to fall, Tobiah sought to gain the favour of the people. So, we find that he was able to organise a secret collu-sion against Nehemiah: “in those days the no-bles of Judah sent many letters to Tobiah (which Nehemiah had refused to do—CAM), and the letters of Tobiah came unto them. For there were many in Judah sworn unto him, because he was the son-in-law of Shechaniah the son of Arah; and his son Johanan had taken the daugh-ter of Meshuallam the son of Berechiah. Also they reported his good deeds before me, and uttered my words to him. And Tobiah sent letters to put me in fear” (Neh 6:17-19). “there were many in Judah sworn unto” Tobiah; thus they had made a covenant, a pact with him, against Nehemiah. These were those of the people who had been seduced by the false prophecies, and false accusations being levelled at their Governor. They “sent many letters” to Tobiah, which is suggestive that they were util-

-25-

ised as spies, to provide intelligence on what Nehemiah was doing. Even so, the adversaries of the Lord Jesus Christ did likewise: “they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, so that they might deliver him to the power and authority of the governor” (Luke 20:20).

A SHOW OF GOOD WORKS Tobiah was himself a prime example of a wolf in sheep’s clothing; one who had crept in un-awares, forming his alliances, and feigning him-self to be a just man, by doing “good works” be-fore the people. They testified of those works before Nehemiah, and uttered Nehemiah’s words to him. How could Tobiah be an enemy of the people, when he was doing so much good towards them? Just look at what he was doing, and how much we have benefitted from him - surely you are being unjust towards him; why not just give him the benefit of the doubt, and accept him for his work’s sake? Human nature never changes, and so it is today that when lovers of the Truth testify against those whose fruits are not after the shape and pattern of the Israelitish hope, but wild fruit unable to be eaten by the children of light, a testimony of “good works” is produced. Just look at all the good that man is doing travelling about all the world preaching the Gospel, enduring much hardship for Christ’s sake, we are told! You are being “unloving” and “unChristlike”! You are “jealous” of my success, says the man himself. Why don’t we see you doing as many “good works” say his followers - it is easy to criticise from your armchair, but show us your good works!!! The fact that it is not the Gospel be-lieved by Paul that is being preached appears to matter little; the “good works” attracts the admira-tion of men. The reason why the critics do not behold our ‘good works’ performed before the Deity, is that rather than seek present popularity, we desire to follow Christ, who taught “Take

heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hyprocrites do in the syna-gogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward” (Mat 6:1-2). They have their reward. The critic is gravely mis-taken in imputing the motive of Jealousy for our exposure of a wolf’s real identity, demonstrated from the Word. They have their reward, a re-ward which we do not desire. Rather, we desire the reward from our Father in Heaven, who sees those things that the critics, wilfully ignorant of these words of Messiah, claim we do not do.

TOBIAH’S REWARD

Tobiah had his reward. Temporal advantage, and the favour of men for a season. During the period of Nehemiah’s absence, when he went back to Shushan the palace, Tobiah took every opportunity to grasp as much of his reward as he could lay his defiled hands upon. The meat offer-ings ceased to be offered, and Tobiah was given the room in the Temple where they were pre-pared, to dwell there. “Eliashib the priest, having the oversight of the chamber of the house of our Elohim, was allied unto Tobiah: and he had pre-pared for him a great chamber, where aforetime they laid the meat offerings, the frankincense, and the vessels, and the tithes of the corn, the new wine, and the oil, which was commanded to be given to the Levites, and the singers, and the porters, and the offerings of the priests” (Neh 13:4,5). This was Tobiah’s reward; a place ob-tained by deceit and iniquity in the House of the Most High. But the Deity is not mocked. A time of purging was at hand, when at the Return of Nehemiah, the defilement of Tobiah would be cast out, that the offerings could be made in sin-cerity and truth: “Behold, he shall come, saith Yahweh of Hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? And who shall stand when he ap-

-26-

peareth? For he is like a refiner’s fire, and life fuller’s soap: and he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purge the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto Yahweh an offering in righteous-ness” (Mal 3:1-3). Even so, Nehemiah as a Type of the Lord Jesus Christ returned to cleanse the house, and judge the members thereof after the commandment of the Most High.

JUDGED BY THE WORD The word of Yahweh was read; words of judge-ment against the infiltrators, before all the people: “They read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of Elohim for ever … now it came to pass when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude

… I cast forth all the household stuff of Tobiah out of the chamber. Then I commanded, and they cleansed the chambers: and thither brought I again the vessels of the house of Elohim, with the meat offering and the frankinsence” (Neh 13:1-9). Tobiah had his reward. A temporary reward, popularity amongst the people, as he sought to display a show of good works to further his own ends, of sowing the seeds of discord against Nehemiah, and against those who put their hand into making the foundations sure, in building up Jerusalem. But the reward was cut short. Nehe-miah returned as One appointed by Yahweh to purge the household, and so Tobiah was cast out, never again to be mentioned in the annuls of history, his name having fallen into shame and age-lasting contempt as a defeated enemy of Yahweh’s people.

Chris Maddocks (Concluded)

THE BASF—ITS IMPORTANCE AND TEACHING

XVII.- “That the gospel consists of “the things concerning the kingdom of God and the

name of Jesus Christ”.—Acts 8:12; 19:8, 10, 20; 28:30,31. XVIII.- “That the things of the kingdom of God are the facts testified concerning the king-

dom of God in the writings of the prophets and apostles, and definable as in the next twelve paragraphs.

XIX.- “That God will set up a kingdom in the earth, which will overthrow all others, and

change them into “the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ”.—Dan 2:44; 7:13,14; Rev 11:15; Is 32:1,17; 2:2-4; 11:9,10.

In describing the Acts of the Master’s Apostles, the Spirit recounts for our learning both “the things” that Phillip preached, and the response of the People to them: “When they believed Phillip, preach-ing the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12; see also Acts 28:31). Here, the matter is plainly set before us; Baptism follows a belief in certain “things,” which “things” are described as falling into two catego-ries - the “things concerning the Kingdom of God”, and also the “things” concerning “the name of Jesus Christ.” These “things” collectively form the elementary principles of the Gospel that saves (Rom 1:16), for they together speak of the mode of Salvation - Immortal life in the Kingdom Age,

-27-

and the means whereby these things might be accomplished - the Atoning work of the Father in Christ. These then, were the “things” uttered by the Apostles when the taught the Gospel, and are therefore “things” to be believed prior to Baptism. We would do well to reflect upon that fact. If we might so say, presented in these terms, the “things concerning the kingdom of God” actually form half of the Gospel! Is that something reflected in the preferred method of preaching utilised by some, a method involving the minimal use and mention of Doctrine? In both lecture and seminar, the current trend appears to be to emphasise man’s prob-lems, the evils of this present world, and to present the Kingdom as almost nothing other than a wise and Divine solution to those problems. Yet such is more than a useful side-effect in the Divine Scheme of things; the Deity is not so much concerned with solving the problems that man brings upon himself, as establishing an order of things where, it might be proclaimed by the innumerable company of the Redeemed, “Holy, Holy, Holy is Yahweh Tzavaoth; the whole earth is full of his glory” (Is 6:3). That is the overarching Divine Purpose; He formed the earth “to be inhabited” (Is 45:18), ultimately with a Divine Family of men (Eph 3:15) who shew forth his Image and Glory, hav-ing been redeemed to the Deity by the shed blood of the Lamb (Apoc 5:9,10), to give Him Glory and Honour, being a New Creation formed for His Pleasure (Apoc 4:11, cp Col 1:16), and the magnifica-tion of His Name (Ps 40:16). The return of Yahweh’s Annointed to the earth for the purposes of Reigning as King then, is not merely to resolve human difficulties. It is a necessary part of subduing the World, that the haughti-ness of man having been cut down, Yahweh only will be exalted in that day (Is 2:11,12). In actual fact, for many, in the day when Yahweh shall arise to shake terribly the earth, their problems shall be far from resolved, for it is written that “the day of Yahweh of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up … in that day a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which they made each one for himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of ragged rocks, for fear of Yahweh, and for the glory of His Majesty, when He ariseth to shake terribly the earth” (Is 2:12, 20-22). The coming “day of the Lord” is not to be a benefiecent act of goodness towards sinful men, to make life easier and more pleasing for them. Rather, Scripture describes it as “the day of Yahweh’s vengeance, and the year of recompenses for the controversy of Zion” (Is 34:8). It is a time when Jacob shall be de-lievered from the hand of the enemy, and when those who despise the ways of the coming king shall perish, for it is testified that he shall “be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2Thess 1:7). That is not, of course, to suggest that it will not be a time of blessedness for those who survive the terrible judgments to come. Rather, it is to show that the focus of the matter is wrong; the coming Kingdom is not for man’s benefit, so much as for the accomplishement of Yahweh’s good pleasure. Human habit is to place emphasis upon man, and not Yahweh, for things to be done for man’s good, rather than Yahweh’s pleasure. But such a view is seen to be a distorted, unfocussed picture when compared with the clarity of Revelation. The Scriptures in many places speak of a day of con-solation, and a time of great joy to come. The day of vengeance is also to be a day of release to the oppressed of Zion, for the King shall himself declare: “The spirit of Adonai Yahweh is upon me; be-cause Yahweh hath annointed me to preach good tidings to the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are

-28-

bound; to proclaim the acceptible year of Yahweh, and the day of vengeance of our Elohim; to com-fort all that mourn; to appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garments of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of rightesousness, the planting of Yahweh, that he might be glorified”. (Is 61:1-3). As well as being a time of judicially inflicted evil therefore (cp Is 45:7)., it will also be a time of good, and prosper-ity for Zion - but that Yahweh “might be glorified”. In this passage of Isaiah, we find the matter presented in perfect balance and true focus. The com-ing day will involve both divinely inflicted evil, and divinely provided good - but for the ultimate aim that Yahweh be glorified. He will be magnified by judgments to the nations, (cp Ezek 38:23), and blessedness to His People. Either way, He will be magnified, and held in esteem by all that remain.

A LITERAL KINGDOM

It must be plain and obvious to all but those whose hearts and minds have been closed by sectarian thinking and humanistic philosophy, that the above passages all require that the Kingdom is a literal political entity to be established upon earth. That the kingdom shall commence with the appearance of Abraham’s Greater seed upon the earth, in whom all nations shall be blessed (Gal 3:8). That it cannot be now said that “the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ,” (Rev 11:15), neither can it be, until “the Elohim of heaven” shall “set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed, and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever” (Dan 2:44). But it is with much heaviness of heart that we look at the writings of men purporting to be Christ’s brethren that claim othewise. A booklet recently came into our possession, produced some years ago by the Christadelphian Bi-ble Mission, entitled Preparing for Baptism, and asserting “This is a Christadelphian booklet it gives you true Bible teaching.” How sorrowful it is that this “official” publication teaches grave error on a number of topics, including the notion the Kingdom is now in existence. The Question and answer is given (emphasis as per original): “Is it true that the Kingdom of God means the Lord Jesus ruling in our hearts now? ANSWER: Yes, this is true, but it is not the whole truth. We must show that Jesus Christ is our king by permitting him to rule in our hearts, but the Kingdom of God means much more besides this …” The publication proceeds to briefly outline a kingdom centred around Jerusalem, true, but it provides a definition of the Kingdom in bold print above, that “the Kingdom of God means the Lord Jesus ruling in our hearts now”. Although it acknowledges a literal kingdom, first and foremost, it claims that the Kingdom of God is a present reality in the hearts of men. It therefore teaches a dangerous mix of truth and error. But the CBM are not alone; the Endeavour magazine teaches like ideas: “The believer has clearly already entered the kingdom, because he has recognised Jesus as Christ the king” (May 1994)

-29-

“His title of King of Israel will be redefined in his interchange with Pilate, which represents his domin-ion as a spiritual, not an earthly power” (June 1997) “Our community has produced literature … in which there is sadly little or nothing said about one of the central features of New Testament teaching, namely the present reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. “it is certainly not good enough to say that Jesus will not begin his reign until he returns to the earth when God will then begin to make his enemies his footstool …” “True, evil and wickedness have continued … but nevertheless the gospel has made inroads into the kingdom of Satan and victories have been made for Christ. In other words, the Son has been busy bringing the world into subjection to the Father, so that, in the end he may ‘hand over the King-dom to God the Father’ (1Cor 15:24)” (June 1999) So then, according to these writers, “the believer has clearly already entered into the kingdom…” But how does that compare with the Holy Writ? How can such pray, “Thy Kingdom Come” (Mat 6:10) if they believe that they are already in the Kingdom? Surely, the Disciples, having been educated for a 40 day period of the things concerning the Kingdom by the Master himself (Acts 1:3) would have understood themselves to be in that kingdom, if it were true? Yet they asked, “Lord, Wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (v 6), demonstrating their belief that the Kingdom was something yet to come, and would be Israel Restored. We shall consider the nature of this Kingdom in future articles, if the Father wills, but the notion of a present-kingdom in men’s hearts is not a new idea, for Bro Roberts contended against it 100 years ago, in his work Christendom Astray: “Jesus taught his disciples to pray, “Thy kingdom come”. It is not yet come. If it were, the kingdom of men would not be in existence, for “the kingdoms of this world” are to cease when the kingdom of God comes. They are to become His; and the prophets show us that when this comes to pass the governments of this world will no longer be in the hands of unauthorized, ambitious, erring kings and rulers. When the kingdom of God comes, it will displace and overthrow every powerr in the world, and visibly establish God’s power on the earth, by the hand of Christ and his saints” And again, in addressing whether or not Christ is now reigning as King in the believer’s hearts: “Christ is not king of his own people. Of them he says, “I call you not servants, but friends”. They are his brethren, “joint heirs with Christ” (Rom 8:17), destined to reign with him a thousand years (Rev 8:17). They are not his subjects, but aggregately his bride, “the Lamb’s wife” - signifying the closest communion and identity of relational interest.” Christ’s brethren, therefore, are not his subjects, but those who are to share the rule with him. They are not called by him his servants, but his friends, who will be seated with him in royal authority and power in the Age of come, for they will be given to sit with him in his throne, even as he is presently sat with the Father in His throne (Rev 3:21). It is a command that believers are to “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness” (Mat 6:33). But what if a man seeks after a kingdom which does not exist? A present kingdom which the Father has not established? Can he expect to enter into a future political kingdom that he does not believe in? Can he reign in that kingdom when he believes himself to be a subject, and not a king or priest (Rev 5:10)? Those who are wise will rather seek first the Kingdom spoken of, and preached by Christ and his Apostles.

Chris Maddocks

-30-

THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES

“Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law” (Ps 119:18). Indeed, the more that we ask, seek and knock, the more the inspiration of the Scriptures is revealed to be wondrous—and the more our faith is edified. The present writer has been interested for very many years in the structure of Scripture - the way in which, for example, incidents are recorded in an organised way for expositional purposes.

STRUCTURE OF EACH BOOK For example, the Gospel records may sometimes appear to be a random series of events and doc-trine, but that is not the case, for as John records “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the pres-ence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name.” Thus John specifically selected certain signs in pursuit of a theme, and indeed, each Gospel can be shown to have a carefully designed structure. The concept of a structure is most obvious with the book of Revelation, with seven ecclesial epistles, seven seals, seven vials, seven trumpets, and seven thunders, but the present writer believes that all sixty-six books of the Bible have a demonstra-ble structure. Here, by way of example, is a suggested analysis of the prophecy of Jeremiah:- 1. Chapter 1 Jeremiah’s call and mission 2. Chapters 2-45 The Prophet to Judah 3. 2:1 Moreover the word of Yahweh came unto me 4. 3:6 Yahweh said also to me in the days of Josiah 5. 7:1 The word that came to Jeremiah from Yahweh 6. 11:1 The word that came to Jeremiah from Yahweh 7. 13:1 Thus saith Yahweh unto me 8. 14:1 The word of Yahweh that came to Jeremiah 9. 15:1 Then said Yahweh unto me 10. 16:1 The word of Yahweh came also unto me 11. 18:1 The word which came to Jeremiah from Yahweh 12. 21:1 The word which came to Jeremiah from Yahweh 13. 24:1 Yahweh shewed me and behold two baskets 14. 25:1 The word which came to Jeremiah (26:1 & 27:1) 15. 30:1 The word which came to Jeremiah from Yahweh 16. 2:1 the word which came to Jeremiah from Yahweh 17. 33:1 Moreover the word of Yahweh came unto Jeremiah the second time, 18. 34:1 The word which came unto Jeremiah from Yahweh, when Nebuchadnezzar … 19. 34:8 This is the word that came unto Jeremiah from Yahweh, after that the king Zedekiah … 20. 35:1 The word which came unto Jeremiah from Yahweh in the days of Jehoiakim … 36:1 21. 39:1 Now the word of Yahweh came unto Jeremiah, (Ebed-melech) 22. 40:1 The word that came to Jeremiah from Yahweh after that Nebuzaradan … 23. 40:1 The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the Jews … 24. 45:1 The word that Jeremiah … spake to Barach … 22 sections in part 2 of the prophecy correspond to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, that is to say, Jeremiah declared the whole Word of God to Judah and Jerusalem (cf 26:2; 36:2). Lamentations also contains acrostics of 22 verses.

-31-

2) Chapters 46-51 The Prophet to the Gentiles 1. 46:1 Egypt 6. 49:23-27 Damascus 2. 47:1 Philistia 7. 49:28-33 Kedar 3. 48:1 Moab 8. Hazor 4. 49:1-16 Ammon 9. 49:34-39 Elam 5. 49:17-22 Edom 10. 50:1 Babylon

“Thus far are the words of Jeremiah” The ten nations mentioned are appropriate the use of the number 10 in Scripture with a meaning of ‘all’ or ‘ordinal completeness’ (cf Zech 8:23 “Thus saith Yahweh of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.”) 3) Chapter 52 Appendix: The End of the Kingdom 1. 52:1-30 Judah’s fall and captivity: Zedekiah bound in fetters and carried into exile, typical of

the nation as a whole. 2. 52:31-34 Jehoiachin’s liberation: a typical resurrection, again prophetic of the nation.

SYMMETRY

On another level, there is a remarkable and marvellous symmetry in the comparisons and con-trasts of details recorded in various historical incidents, such incidents sometimes in close prox-imity, others recorded hundreds or thousands of years apart, but linked by common words and features. This is a rich vein, and to demonstrate this, there follows two examples - two incidents from John’s Gospel record, and than a comparison of Saul’s meeting with the necromancer in 1Samuel 28 with the record of the transfiguration. The value of such research not only confirms our understanding of, and faith in the inspiration of Scripture, but regularly provides exhortation and sometimes clarification of a portion of the Word which may seem enigmatic.

Woman of Samaria (John 4) Woman Gentile Unnamed 4:6 Jacob’s well 4:27 Jesus talked with her 4:16 Jesus called her husband 4:18 ‘husbands’ not involved

Progression of her belief 4:9 Identified Jesus as a Jew 4:19 Percieved Jesus as a prophet 4:11,25,19 Acknowledged Jesus as Lord (‘Sir’ - Gk. ‘kurios’ often translated as ‘Lord’)

The Blind Man (John 9) Man Jew Unnamed 9:7 Pool of Siloam 9:37 Jesus talked with him 9:18 Pharisees called his parents 9:18-21 Parents are involved Progression of his belief 9:11 “a man called Jesus” 9:17 “He is a prophet” 9:33 Jesus a man of God

-32-

SIMILAR NAMES Another interesting feature of inspiration is the regularity with which people with the same name have a similar role. An obvious example would be to compare Joshua and Jesus, but the same elements apply in a comparison of the following: • Elijah and Elihu, both of whom precede a manifestation of Yahweh • The Gaius’s of Rom 16:23 and 3Jno 1 (unless these are the same person), both of whom

are connected with hospitality to the saints • The Joseph’s (including Barnabas) in Scripture, - for example Joseph in the book of Gene-

sis is one of the greatest Types of Christ in Scripture, but interestingly, there is a ‘Joseph’ at Jesus’ birth, death and His resurrection,

4:29 Believed that this man is the Christ 4:26 Jesus revealed himself to her as the Christ 4:39 Testified to the Samaritans about the Christ 4:39-42 Gentiles Samaritans believed Him to be

the Christ, the Saviour of the world Gentiles Samaritans believed without a sign/miracle

4:40 Gentile Samaritans invited Him to abide with them

Acts 8:5-6 Gentile Samaritans responded with one accord to the preaching of the apostles.

9:35-38 Believed that Jesus is Son of God 9:37 Jesus revealed Himself to him as the Son of

God 9:10 etc Testified to the Pharisees about Jesus 9:34 Jews refused to believe words of blind man 9:18,24 Jews refused to believe the sign of the

healing of the blind man 10:39 Jesus has to escape from the Jews Acts 13:46 etc Jews did not accept teaching of

the apostles.

1Sam 28 V8 V8 V 7 V 14 V 19 V 20 V 20 V 22 V 20

Saul Disguised himself and put on other raiment Took 2 men with him to meet the woman (3 persons) Enquired of the necromancer He met a vision of the dead seer, Samuel Samuel spoke of Saul’s death on Mt Gilboa Cast down to the earth He had no strength Necromancer said “Hearken … unto the voice of thy handmaid …” Saul sore afraid

Luke 9 V29 V28 V29 V 30 V 31 V 31 V 32 V 35 Mk 9:6

Jesus His raiment became white and glistering Took 3 disciples with him Prayed to his Father He met with the vision of the dead prophets, Moses and Elijah They spoke of Jesus’ death at Jerusalem Appeared in glory on the moun-tain Healed the epileptic boy God said “This is my beloved Son, hear him.” Disciples sore afraid

Comparison of Saul visiting the Necromancer of Endor with the Transfiguration

-33-

• Micaiah (2Chron 18:27) and the prophet Micah (Mic 1:2) • Zechariah the son of Jehoiada (2Chron 24:21) and Zechariah the son of Barachias (Mat

23:35) - both Zechariah’s dying a similar death. Readers may wish to follow through with some research on the above mentioned and other names, but here is a more detailed comparison of two women with the same name:- Hannah—1Sam 1&2 Anna—Luke 2:36-38

Their names mean ‘grace’ Both prophetesses

Their relationships with their husbands recorded Associated with the Temple, either in Shiloh or Jerusalem

Context of corrupt priesthood with both women Women of fervent prayer

Both gave thanks when their prayers concerning the seed of promise were answered Both looked for redemption in either Shiloh or Jerusalem

The name ‘Hannah’ occurs 13 times in OT and ‘Anna’ once in NT, making total 14

Russell Ebbs

SECRETARYS NOTES Subscriptions Due to force of circumstances, we have begun Volume 3 of The Christadelphian Waymark with the April issue, rather than March. Would subscribers who wish to renew their subscriptions please do so accord-ingly. Free subscriptions are available for any who cannot remit the requested amount. We are thankful to those who have kindly sent donations of varying amounts to assist our earnest contention for the Faith in these last days of darkness and wickedness. The Bournville Statement In the December 2001 issue, concern was expressed at the “Bournville Statement” which is being in-cluded with some ecclesial constitutions as having a bearing on inter-ecclesial fellowship, particularly in relation to it’s specific denial of a commandment of Christ to his disciples, as recorded in Mat 5:31,32 and to the Pharisees, as recorded in Mat 19:3-12. At the Secretary’s repeated insistence, a meeting took place between Bro Maddocks and 4 brethren representing the Bournville ecclesia on 23rd February spe-cifically to discuss the matter of Divorce and Remarriage. Bro Maddocks presented the case from Scrip-ture, as believed by Bre John Thomas and Robert Roberts; the standard Christadelphian position, whereas the Bournville brethren presented the stand that a denial of that position was a touchstone of soundness. During the course of the meeting, several major obstacles were placed before the Bournville brethren which they were not able to address. Instead, they have stated both at the meeting, and later in writing that they must “agree to differ”. The report was compiled immediately following the meeting by Bro Maddocks, and as agreed at the out-set of the meeting (and in correspondence prior to the meeting), it was sent to the four brethren for com-ment/correction prior to being made available to others. As the report clearly demonstrated that the four were unable to address the points made, an accompanying letter invited the brethren to raise objection to those sections, with an offer to make amendments if necessary to avoid any possible misrepresentation. In their reply, the brethren have declined comment. Copies of the report are available to any party free of charge, we would particularly recommend it for ecclesias who may be considering abandoning the Scrip-tural position held by our earlier brethren in favour of the Bournville position … which the Bournville ec-clesia themselves have been unable to prove, or defend from the Oracles of God.

-34-

ALSO AVAILABLE:- NEW:- The Revelation of Jesus Christ - £0.80

NEW REPRINT: - The Time and Manner of Christ’s appearing (Bro JT) - £0.80 The Glories of the Age to Come - A Vision of the Future - £1.00

The TRUTH Concerning the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ - The Christadelphian Position Vindicated - £1.00

Haggai - Consider Your Ways - £0.80 The Defilement of Human Nature and it's Cleansing in Christ - £1.00

Flesh, Sin and Sacrifice — FREE COMING SOON:- Prayer and the Holy Spirit

Annual subscription (12 issues) £13.00

FROM ANOTHER PUBLISHER:- * The Atonement (Bre JT & RR)

Worship in Relation to Christ & Is Prayer to Christ Scriptural? (Bre RR & JT) * Our Motto (The Standing up of Nebuchadnezzar’s Image) (Bro JT)

What Constitutes A Marriage (Bro RR) How Are We Drawn by the Father? (Bro RR)

Why is One Generation Favoured More Than Another? (Bro JT) NEW REPRINT:-The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ - Translation* (Bro JT)

* Tempter and Tempted (Bro JT) New Testament Evidence of the Restoration of The Jews

to the Land of Israel (A McCaul) Catechesis (Bro JT)

A Call to Arms (Bro RR) * Fellowship Chart (A Neate & M Pilbeam)

* 20p, the rest 10p each plus 40p P & P

These booklets only produced by the Bexleyheath Ecclesia

Devoted to the Defence and Proclamation of the Way of Life in Opposition to the Dogmas of Papal and Protestant Christendom

Edited by The Secretary, Bro Chris Maddocks, 214b London Road, Greenhithe, Kent, DA9 9JF

Tel (01322) 380340; Mobile: 07815 932288 E-mail: secretary@christadelphian-waymark.org.uk

Website: www.christadelphian-waymark.org.uk