21. 1. THE PAST: "GO NOT" AND "BUT NOW"

or, there must be some explanation which shall exonerate such contumacy.

If it be said, in defence, that there are later commands, such as "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mark xvi. 15): then this is to argue (1) that the Word of God either flatly contradicts itself as to the fundamental principle of the missionary work; or (2) that some division must be made between the two commands.

But this latter is all that we are contending for. Only, the division which we would make does not ignore either command, but gives each its own due and proper place, significance, and importance. It does not exalt one at the expense of the other, but assigns to each its own appropriate sphere.

The former command, "Go not," etc., was given in connection with the proclamation of the King and the kingdom: but, when both had been rejected, and the King was about to be crucified, then this command was no longer appropriate to the changed circumstances.

Another command could then be given, "Go ye," instead of "Go not."

Both were equally true. The one was true as to its special reference to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; the other is true as to its general reference to all. But both commands were given in the past Dispensation.

(b) Luke ix. 3. In connection with the above command there were other precepts given. "Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, nor yet staves" (Marg. Gr. a staff). Matt. x. 9, 10.

But when the kingdom had been rejected, and the King was on the eve of being crucified, these commands were formally abrogated by the Lord Himself, as being no longer suitable to the changed circumstances. The Lord repeats them, and asks whether they did not find His promise true: "When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing."

"Then said he unto them, BUT NOW, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one" (Luke xxii. 36).

Those two words "But now" announce the fact that even in that same Dispensation, with only a brief interval of time between them, those two commands are to be rightly divided.

The whole principle for which we contend is wrapped up in those two words "But now." According to this principle, that which belongs to one part of the past Dispensation, must not necessarily be interpreted of another part of that same Dispensation. How much more then must the truth and teaching of the different Dispensations themselves be carefully divided: when not only different circumstances prevail, but where the whole sphere has changed: not only where the people dealt with are different, but where the principle on which they were dealt with by God is changed.

And yet, in spite of these two examples from Matt. x. and Luke ix., the whole Bible is jumbled together. Law, Gospel, Grace, Judgment, Glory, Jew, Gentile, Church of God, Times and Dispensations, all confused in one vast tangle, till it is no wonder that thousands of readers, if they do not give it all up in dismay, neglect it to their own present loss of peace and joy and strength.

2. We must not take Truth belonging to a PAST Dispensation and interpret it of the PRESENT.

If we do we at once put ourselves under the Law, to which we died, in Christ, and from which Christ hath therefore made us free; the Law having no power over a man that has died.

(a) Law and Grace.—To those who lived under the Law it could rightly and truly be said: "It shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us" (Deut. vi. 25). But to those who live in this present Dispensation of grace, it is as truly declared, "By the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight" (Rom. iii. 20; see also Gal. ii. 16; iii. 11, &c.). But this is the very opposite of Deut. vi. 25! What then are we

2. PAST NOT INTO PRESENT: LAW AND GRACE to say, or to do? Which of these two statements is true? and which is false?

The answer is, that neither is false. But both are true if we rightly divide the Word of truth as to its Dispensational truth and teaching.

Deut. vi. 25 was true, then, "concerning" Israel; and is in harmony with the covenant of works under which Israel had placed itself. But Rom. iii. 20 and Gal. ii. 16 are true now "concerning" all three, Jew, Gentile, and Church of God. The statement in these two passages concerning all "flesh" was made after Israel had broken that covenant (Heb. x. 20); and after Christ had introduced the unconditional "everlasting covenant" (Heb. xiii. 20) of grace, into which He entered for His people "before the foundation of the world" (Eph. i. 3, 4).

These are two statements exactly opposite to each other. Is it then the fact that the one is true and the other false? Nay, both are true; absolutely true. And this will be seen at once if we appropriate each to, and interpret each of, the Dispensation to which it properly belongs. The former is not true now in this Present Dispensation. It was true of those under the Law. The latter is as true now of those who are under Grace.

But we fear that multitudes as they hear the Old Testament read in our churches fail so to divide them rightly, but understand the interpretation of them as belonging to themselves now. They thus put themselves under law, and deny their standing which God has given them in Christ; hence it is that they fail to enjoy that liberty wherewith Christ hath made His people free (Gal. v. 1).

In the Old Dispensation God, dealt with one nation only; but in the Present Dispensation He no longer deals with any one nation, but with individuals out of all nations. This is the key to the understanding of those many passages where the words "all" and "every" and "world" are used in the New Testament. "All" must mean one of two things: either "all" without exception, or "all" without distinction; and it is in this latter sense it is constantly used in contrast with the one nation of Israel.

"I, if I be lifted up from the earth¹ will draw all men unto me" (John xii. 32). If this means "all" without exception, then it is not true, for all men have not been drawn unto Him. But it is most blessedly true, if it means "all" without distinction, as it surely does.

The expression He tasted death "for every man" (Heb. ii. 9) must be understood in the same sense; i.e., not limited as heretofore to Israel; but extended without distinction to all, whether Jews or Gentiles. With this agrees I John ii. 1. 2.

In the Old Dispensation God's light shone only in and on Israel; but now, having come into the world, it lighteneth "every man" without distinction of nation, race, or creed (John i. 9; compare Titus ii. 11).

In the Old Dispensation God dealt according to man's work: now He deals according to Christ's work.

In the Old Dispensation, Israel was to work for life: now we work from life.

The Law gave works for man to do: Grace brings words for man to believe.

Two words distinguish the Two dispensations. "Do" distinguishes the former: "Done" the latter. Then, salvation depended on what man was to do; now it depends upon what Christ has done.

(b) The Imprecatory Psalms.—These have been a trouble to most Christians: who among us has not been disquieted by them? Critics speak of them as "very unfit for the lips of our Lord." There must be very, very few who have not felt the difficulty; and though they have realized it they have not seen the way out of it: neither will they, nor can they do so, until they learn to rightly divide the Word of truth, and interpret these Psalms of the Dispensation to which they belong. They must be appropriated to the Old Dispensation of the Law. There they are in place; as they will be in place again in the coming Dispensation of Judgment.

"The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance" (Ps. lviii. 10, 11). So will the great voice of much people in heaven say "Hallelujah . . . for true and

¹ I.e., in crucifixion, as the next verse (23) distinctly states.

² How God Inspired the Bible, Rev. J. Paterson Smyth.

2. PAST NOT INTO PRESENT: IMPRECATORY PSALMS righteous are his judgments" (Rev. xix. 1, 2).¹ This clearly shows that these and all such "Cursing" Scriptures (as they are called) are in perfect keeping with the Dispensation to which they belong.

In all probability Ps. cix. admits of another explanation by putting verses 6-19 within a parenthesis; in which case verse 20 may be rendered as explaining it:—

"This is the work of mine adversaries from the LORD,

And of those that speak evil against my soul (i.e. me)."

Verses 6-19 will then be the "evil" which David's enemies spake against him.² These will be the words that came from "the mouth of the wicked and deceitful": and the proceeds of the "lying tongue" (v. 4). These will be the "words of hatred" (v. 3), and the "evil for good" with which David's enemies rewarded his love (v. 5).

But Psalm cxxxvii. 8, 9 does not admit of such an explanation. The spirit is appropriate to the Dispensations of Law and Judgment, but not to the present Dispensation of Grace:—

"Remember, O Jehovah, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem:

Who said, Rase it, Rase it even to the foundation thereof.

O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed:

Happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

There is a time of judgment coming for which all such language will be appropriate (Isa. xxvi. 9. Rev. ii. 26, 27); but that language is not for this present Dispensation of grace. If we do so interpret it, then there is an end of ever hoping to find the "truth": and all hope of ever understanding the Word of God is destroyed.

(c) As to the Sabbath.—Obedience to 2 Tim. ii. 15 clears away heaps of confusion, and delivers from the bondage

¹ Thus the first "Hallelujah" (praise ye the LORD) in the Old Testament (Ps. civ. 35) agrees with the first in the New Testament in connection with vengeance and judgment.

² See above, under Section I. of this Chapter III. of Part I., p. 59.

of law, in which so many, through disobedience to that great precept to "rightly divide the Word of truth," are still bound: some of them "bound hand and foot."

The Ceremonial Laws of the Sabbath were given to Israel, and not to the Gentile nations of the earth, Pagan or otherwise. While the interpretation therefore belongs to Israel, it would be wise for all nations to make an application of the great principle laid down in the Law, as to resting from servile labour on one day in seven. But the law of the Sabbath is neither abrogated, changed, nor transferred to any other day of the week. And if any believe that the Law is to be obeyed now, they have no liberty to alter that law, or to modify it in any way; but are bound to "keep holy the seventh day." They have no choice in the matter, and dare not take the liberty of altering the law of God.

But, on the other hand, Christians in this present Dispensation are "not under law, but under grace." We "died to the law," in Christ (Rom. vii. 4), and the law has no power over one who has died. "We are delivered from the law, having died to that wherein we were held" (v. 6). We are "under [obedience to the] commandments of Christ" (I Cor. ix. 21).

To those in Galatia who desired "to be under the law" (Gal. iv. 21) the Apostle wrote, "How turn ye again to the beggarly elements (i.e., religious ordinances) whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain" (Gal. iv. 9-11).

This Scripture is specially addressed to, and is to be interpreted of the Church of God, to-day; and all who would thus have us return to and put ourselves under law we have great need to be "afraid."

As towards others and himself, the Christian can apply those laws as far as they are compatible with his own Church Epistles. There he is told that, "one man esteemeth one day above another: another [man] esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord: and he that regardeth not

¹ See The Church Epistles, pp. 109, 176, etc., by the same author and publisher.

2. PAST NOT INTO PRESENT: THE SABBATH the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it" (Rom. xiv. 5, 6).

It is a matter of being persuaded in one's own mind, and not as being under law; still less as being under the judgment of our fellow believers in this matter. "Let no man therefore judge you in meats or in drink; or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath" (Col. ii. 10). We do not "let them judge" us, but they do so all the same. We shall be judged, yea, and condemned by many for writing even as much as this: and though we quote the Word of God, we shall be met by arguments of expediency, which are all based on a total disregard to another command, equally binding, belonging as it does to this present Dispensation; and that is the command, as to "rightly dividing the Word of truth" (2 Tim. ii. 15).

The Sabbath laws are either still binding on us, or they are not still binding. If they are, then those who keep "the seventh day" and not "the first," are right. If they are not binding, then we are all "free from the law," and we have our guidance in Rom. xiv. 5, 6. Col. ii. 10 and Gal. iv. 1-11.

But, if we read into the present Dispensation that which pertained only to the former, there can be nothing but confusion in our own minds, and conflict and arguments with our fellow-Christians.

And, beside this conflict with them, we shall be seeking to put not only the Church of God, but all the Gentiles also under the laws which were given by Moses to Israel alone.

It will be seen that thus "rightly dividing the Word of truth" as to Sabbath-keeping is the only effectual answer to the large body called "Seventh Day" Christians; who, not seeing the blessed truth that we are free from the law of Moses, and under the law of Christ, who is the Lord of the Sabbath, are not only observing the seventh-day Sabbath themselves, but are carrying on an active propaganda to induce all Christians to join their ranks.

(d) As to the Kingdom.—There are some Past Dispensational truths, like those which concern the Kingdom

H which leap over the Present, and belong both to the Past and the Future.

They were truth in the Past Dispensation; and they will be truth in the Future: but, they are not truth in or for this Present Dispensation.

This Present Dispensation, so far as regards the truth pertaining to the other two, is not reckoned; and this present interval is passed over as though it did not exist.

The Past and the Coming Dispensations have to do with the Kingdom. This Present Dispensation has to do with the Church of God.

The former had to do with the Law, the next has to do with Judgment: but, the Present Dispensation has to do with Grace.

If therefore we read into the present that which has to do both with the past and the future: and, if we read into the Dispensation of Grace that which has to do with Law and Judgment we at once leave the high ground of Grace on which God has set us; we lose the blessing of that standing which is ours in Christ; and we interpret of ourselves, language, which is appropriate only to a Dispensation of Judgment or of Glory. This means, not only loss of blessing to ourselves, but it means the introduction of confusion into our minds, and contradiction into the Word of God.

This is specially true if we take that which was spoken of the KINGDOM and understand it of the CHURCH of God.

Of course, if anyone holds that the Kingdom IS the Church, it would be consistent so to take it. But those who do so make no attempt to rightly divide the Word of truth: and they treat language as being useless for the purposes of Revelation.

If, when God says one thing He always means another, then the Bible becomes a book of Enigmas instead of Enlightenment; and the door is opened for all those differences of interpretation which are not only a puzzle to the children of God, but are a source of all those divisions among Christians which are a defilement of God's building (1 Cor. iii. 17); and of all those controversies which are a scandal and a stumblingblock to those that are without.

2. PAST NOT INTO PRESENT: KINGDOM & CHURCH

It would be a sufficient answer to those who say that the Kingdom is the Church, to reply, "You say so." Or, to those who say the Church is the Kingdom to answer, "So you say": for no such assertion is made in the Word of truth. It is only an inference; and it is wrong, because it comes of wrongly dividing the Word of truth.

But, as we write, not for confutation, but for instruction, we may mention the following facts for the guidance of those who would, like the Eunuch of Ethiopia, understand what they read.

The Kingdom, as we have said, belongs to the past Dispensation. It was proclaimed by John the Baptist; and afterward as being then "at hand"; it was the first subject of the Lord's own ministry (Matt. iv. 17); but, having been rejected, it is now in abeyance until the time comes to set it up in Divine power and glory.

It is clear, therefore, that truth which is appropriate for that Kingdom, whether past or future, is not truth appropriate for the present Dispensation of the Church. Even the expressions used and the terminology employed are not the same. What is said of the Kingdom is not true when spoken of the Church.¹

The Kingdom is said to be "set up" (Dan. ii. 44. Acts xv. 10). The Church is "built up" (Eph. ii. 20-22. 1 Cor. iii. 9. Col. ii. 7).

We hear much about the "extension of the Kingdom" and the "advancement of the Kingdom"; but these are non-scriptural expressions when spoken of the Kingdom, and un-scriptural when used of the Church.

We read of those who are "heirs of the Kingdom" (Jas. ii. 5), but not of the Church; of "Children of the Kingdom" (Matt. viii. 12); but not of the Church (except in the Church of Rome).

We read of having "received the Kingdom" (Luke xix. 12, 15); and of "entering" it (Matt. xviii. 3); of "seeing" it (John iii. 3); and of "inheriting" it (Matt. xxv. 34). But never do we once find such expressions used in Scripture of the Church of God! In no sense can any one "inherit," or "see," or "receive" the Church.

¹ See a pamphlet, The Kingdom and the Church, by the same author and publisher.

H 2

Among all the Figures used for the Church the Kingdom is never so used. We find it compared to a "house" (1 Tim. iii. 15); "a Temple" (1 Cor. iii. 16, 17); "a Body" (1 Cor. xii. 27, &c.), but never to the Kingdom.

The Kingdom, proclaimed in the past, and now in abeyance, is yet to come; and all Christians pray "Thy kingdom come." But the Church is here, now; and is soon going away: for it is waiting to be "caught up to meet the Lord in the air, so to be ever with the Lord" (1 Thess. iv. 14 -17). If the Church, therefore, is the Kingdom, the prayer ought to be "Thy kingdom go"!

Again, the Church is an election, hence its name Ecclesia, which means a calling out. But the Kingdom, when it is set up, will be universal and all-embracing (Ps. ciii. 19. Rev. xi. 15).

Christ is now the Head over all things to His Body, the Church (Eph. i. 22; iv. 15. Col. i. 18); but He is never called its King. How much error and confusion is created from the use of non-scriptural expressions it is impossible to tell.

We quite understand that, as the word βασιλεία (basileia), kingdom, means not the material country or the subjects, but the sovereignty or administrative rule of the King, so, the Church necessarily finds its sphere and place within that rule. But, in this case it is always "the kingdom (i.e. the sovereignty) of God" (Rom. xiv. 17. 1 Cor. iv. 20. Col. iv. 11); or "the kingdom (or sovereignty) of the Son of His love" (Col. i. 13). Amid all the realms of this all-embracing Sovereignty of God in heaven and on earth, among angels and men, the Church has its proper, distinctive, and unique place; just as in the sovereignty of a house, there is the place for the Head, the Wife, the Children, the Friends, the Visitors, the Guests, the Officials, and the Servants. This is not to say that any one of these IS the other. Each one has its own peculiar position within this universal sovereignty; and the Church of God its own unique position within it. It is part of the "Body" of which Christ is the "Head"—part therefore of the Head, "one NEW MAN" (Eph. ii. 15), "a PERFECT MAN," even "the measure of the stature of the fulness of the Christ" (Eph. iv. 13). If these scriptural expressions had been heeded we should never hear

2. PAST NOT INTO PRESENT : KINGDOM & CHURCH the Church spoken of as in our Hymns and Sermons as "she" and "her"; as though the Church were "one new woman," or "a perfect woman."

But, while this is so, as to the Church having its own place in the vast and universal sovereignty of God, it is never included in the more limited expression "the kingdom of heaven" as it appears in the Gospel of Matthew, and which belongs peculiarly to Israel. Nor is it included in the wider, but yet limited, Kingdom of Heaven to which the Lord's prayer refers; for the sphere of this is on the earth.

"The Kingdom (or Sovereignty) of HEAVEN"

Has the Messiah for its King.

It is from heaven, and under the heavens upon earth.

It is limited in its scope.

It is Political in its sphere.

It is Jewish and Exclusive in its character.

It is National in its aspect.

And is the special subject of Old Testament prophecy.

"The Kingdom (or Sovereignty) of GOD"

Has God for its ruler.

It is in Heaven, over the Earth.

It is Unlimited in its Scope.

It is Moral in its sphere.

It is Inclusive in its character (including even the Church).

It is Universal in its aspect.

And in its wider aspect is the subject of New Testament revelation.

All this is true, and yet it is equally true that, if we call the Church the Kingdom, we are not "rightly dividing the Word of truth."

Thus, even though the Church, as such, comes within and under the universal Divine Sovereignty, we may not put one part of that Sovereignty for another part without injuriously affecting the whole.

When the Lord said to Peter "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven" (Matt. xvi. 19), He did not mean the keys of the Church. This, at one stroke, does away with the preposterous claim of the Church of Rome. Keys are used for opening and for admission. Peter used these keys when he again proclaimed the kingdom to Israel (Acts ii.—vii.), and afterward to Gentiles (Acts viii.—xii.).¹

(e) The Various Gospels.—From this confusion between the Kingdom and the Church comes the confusion between the various GOSPELS of which the Scripture speaks.

There is no dispute as to the meaning of the word. The English word Gospel may mean either good news, or God's News. But the Greek word means only good news. This does not carry us far. It tells us only the fact that the news is good. There is a further question for us to ask; viz., What is the news that is so good?

News is of different kinds. In our Newspapers we find Political News, Financial News, Judicial News, Social News, Sporting News, and indeed news of all kinds.

We have therefore to answer our own question as to what this "News" from God is, and what it is that makes it "good."

We read for example of—

The Gospel of the Kingdom,

The Gospel of God,

The Gospel of the grace of God,

The Gospel of the Glory, and

The Everlasting Gospel.

The question is. Do all these expressions mean the same thing? Is the "good news" the same in each case? If God has thus put these five Gospels asunder, are we at liberty to join them together? Has God thus distinguished them, and, shall we say that there is no distinction whatever?

It is very general not only for those who read, but for those who teach, to say that there is only one kind of Gospel, and those who say this do not hesitate to use

¹ The other part of the Commission (p. 19) was likewise confined solely to Peter. To no one else was this commission given, and Peter had neither the power nor authority to transfer that commission to others, still less to give to the others the power of transmitting either the one or the other. This is the explanation also of those other passages as to "binding" and "loosing," "retaining" and "remitting."

2. PAST NOT INTO PRESENT: VARIOUS GOSPELS harsh language of us, and of those who seek rightly to divide these Gospels and endeavour to apportion them and their peculiar news to the Time or Dispensation to which they respectively belong.

"The Gospel of the Kingdom"

Was the good news that, the Kingdom, which had been the subject of Old Testament promise and prophecy, was at length "at hand." That was good news indeed for all those who waited "for the consolation of Israel" (Luke ii. 25); who "looked for redemption in Jerusalem" (v. 38); and who "waited for the Kingdom of God" (Mark xv. 43). Many believed this good news concerning Christ the King, and "trusted that it had been he who should have redeemed Israel" (Luke xxiv. 21).

But, after the Kingdom had been rejected, and the King crucified, it was again proclaimed to Israel, and the announcement made that the King was ready to return (Acts ii. 38; iii. 19-21), on the one condition of national repentance. But the making of this proclamation was still opposed by the People through their rulers (Acts iv. 17, 18); and the preachers of this "Gospel of the Kingdom" were "threatened" (v. 21).

When Peter's Ministry to the Circumcision ended in his imprisonment (Acts xii.), and Paul was raised up and sent forth, it was with the added good news of Grace. This was what is again and again claimed by Paul as "my Gospel." Then after all this: after the rejection and Crucifixion of the King, after the Martyrdom of Stephen, and after the Imprisonment of Peter, the Epistle to the Romans (which stands first of the subsequent Canonical writings) opens with the words, "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be (or, by Divine Calling) an Apostle, separated unto