56. (a) The Nearer Context

By this we mean what we may find and read on the same page, or opening; or at the most on the pages or in the chapters near to it.

[By the Remoter Context we mean that which is separated from it by some chapters at least; or even by other books of Scripture.]

1. In Gen. xxxv. 2, we read Jacob's command, "Put away the strange gods (Heb., the gods of the stranger) that are among you, and be clean and change your garments."

This looks, at first sight, as though Jacob and his family had become idolaters. It is true, we read of the "teraphim" which Rachel had taken away when she fled with Jacob from her father's house (ch. xxxi. 19); but it does not appear that they were for worship. More probably they were of silver or gold, and were taken as valuables in lieu of the balance of wages still owing by Laban to Jacob.

It is hardly credible that idolatry could have been common in Jacob's household as the command in Gen. xxxv. 2 would seem to imply.

We have not far to look before we find the explanation. Only a few verses before (ch. xxxiv. 26-29) we read iii. TRUTH FROM NEARER CONTEXT: DAN. VI. 1 how the sons of Jacob had just captured the city of Shechem and taken their cattle, and "all their wealth, and all their little ones and their wives took they captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house."

Here then we have the explanation of these strangers and their strange gods. Here also we see why Jacob gave this command not only "unto his household," but "to all that were with him."

2. In 2 Kings iv. 13 Elisha asks "a great woman" of Shunem (who had befriended him): "Behold, thou hast been careful for us with all this care; what is to be done for thee? Wouldest thou be spoken for to the king or to the captain of the host?"

This sounds strange, when, from the previous history, we should hardly suppose that Elisha was on sufficiently good terms with Jehoram king of Israel to have any grounds for holding out such hopes to this woman. And yet he could not be trifling with her after all her care of him.

What then is the explanation? We find it in the immediate context. Chap. iii. 16, 17 tells how he had just by a miraculous supply of water saved the armies of Israel and enabled them to defeat their enemy.

Elisha might well therefore presume that he had some ground on which he could appeal for a favour to the king; or at any rate to "the captain of the host."

3. In Dan. v. 30 we read, "In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median took the kingdom."

In ch. vi. 1, we read, "It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes which should be over the whole kingdom."

In Esther i. 1-3, we read that Abashuerus (a subsequent king of Persia) "reigned from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces."

Here, if princes necessarily imply provinces, there appears to be a discrepancy as to which no explanation is vouchsafed by the historian: the fact being stated as well known and needing nothing beyond its statement.

However, in Dan. viii. 4, the Nearer Context, we find that Daniel had a vision in the reign of Belshazzar, showing the nature and character of the impending change, and the rise of the Medo-Persian kingdom.

It is pictured as "a ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him" (Dan. viii. 1-4).

This can mean only that, in the early days of its existence, the Medo-Persian kingdom would extend its boundaries, and receive accessions of empire.

This is exactly what we find from Esther i. 1-3, where the one hundred and twenty provinces of Dan. vi. 1 had increased to one hundred and twenty-seven in the subsequent reign of Ahashuerus.

4. Eph. iii. 15, "The whole family in heaven and earth." This is another illustration of quite a different character. But first we must ask what is the sense in which we are to take the word "family." It is an unfortunate rendering of the Greek πατρία (patria), and yet it is so difficult to suggest a better, that the only alternative is to try and understand it. Our English word "family" takes its meaning from the lowest in the household; from famulus, the servant, and not from the father. The Latin familia was the household of servants. But the idea of patria is Hebrew, and is a group or class of families all claiming a common descent from one πατήρ (patēr), or father. The twelve tribes were divided into patria, and these again into οἶκοι (oikoi), houses. Joseph was of the house and family of David. The word occurs only here, Luke ii. 4, and Acts iii. 25. It denotes a clan all descended from a common stock.

So much for the meaning of the word. Now for the meaning of the verse: "Of whom the whole family (R.V. every family) in heaven and earth is named."

This verse is always understood of "the Church of God;" and is taken to mean that one part of it is already in heaven, and the other part is on earth.

But this is not an illuminated wall-text, or a text from a birthday book, or from an almanac. It occurs in the middle of an Epistle which has something to say about the names, and about the naming of these families.

iii. TRUTH FROM NEARER CONTEXT: EPH. iii. 15

God has many families, in heaven and on earth, both in this world and in the world to come. But we, with our usual selfishness, can see only one Family; and that must, of course, be the Church, for that is the Family we belong to. Thus we bring everything round to ourselves; especially if there is blessing, mercy, or glory attached to it.

In Eph. i. 21 we have the names of some of these "Families":

"Principalities,"

"Thrones,"

"Powers,"

"Angels,"

"Might,"

and

"Dominions."

"Archangels."

These belong to "heaven above" and to "the world to come." Two of them are again mentioned in Eph. iii. 10, viz., the "Principalities and Powers," to whom God is manifesting now His manifold wisdom by means of the Church, using it as His object-lesson. The Church must, therefore, be distinct from these families in heaven.

What these heavenly families may be we do not know. Others are mentioned in Rom. viii. 38. Col. i. 16. 1 Pet. iii. 22,¹ but the Greek words employed reveal no more to us than the English words. For words that pertain only to "this world" cannot contain any information as to the "world to come."

Other "names that are named" are referred to in Eph. i. 21.

And yet in spite of all this when the R.V. correctly renders πᾶσα πατρία (pasa patria) every family (Eph. iii. 15) an outcry is made because Eph. iii. 15 has been heretofore wrongly limited and restricted to the Church; and that verse has been used as a proof that part of the Church is in heaven and part of it is on earth. On this unwarranted limitation the non-Scriptural (not to say un-Scriptural) terms of "church militant" and "church triumphant" are based.

But the text reads, "Of (or, by) whom every family in the heavens and upon earth is named."

¹ From Eph. vi. 12 we gather that there are similar classes of spirit-being who are evil and fallen, opposing and conflicting with the good and unfallen (See Col. ii. 15).

We know this only because we are here told of it. No further explanation is given. We have the key to the interpretation in the Nearer Context (Eph. i. 21). We have "every family that is named" in chap. iii. 15, and "every name that is named" in chap. i. 21. It seems very inconsistent to translate "every name" in ch. i. 21, and "the whole family" in ch. iii. 15. But out of this inconsistency flows the error; and on this inconsistency is built up the figment of part of the Church being in heaven and part on earth. Those who believe in and teach an "Intermediate state" must get over this difficulty as best they can. For our own part we see no difficulty at all; but only a simple revelation as to unseen realities.

We have here in Eph. iii. 15 and i. 21 a universal truth; but those who limit it to the Church of God not only lose that great truth, but they get error in its stead.

Rightly divided, the families in heaven consist of Principalities, Powers, Might, Dominions, Thrones, Angels and Archangels, while the families on earth are Israel and the Church of God.

All the promises of God to the Church are made concerning heavenly things; all the promises made to Israel, the other earthly family, have to do with earth and earthly things.

Presently the Church will take its place in the heavens, and will be the chiefest of every family in heaven, while Israel will be the Family on Earth. The object in the Epistle to the Ephesians is to show how the risen Christ has been given and made the Head over all things to (or for) the Church. He is and will be the centre of all things in heaven and on earth, both to the Church and to Israel.

Join together what God has put asunder; fail to divide rightly or to recognize the distinction between these families; allow ourselves to be misled by tradition and deceived by partisan teachers that there is only one family (part of it in heaven and part on earth), and we shall not only lose some of the most wonderful truths of the Word of God, but we shall find ourselves in the mists and clouds of darkness and error.

Rightly divide the Word of truth, giving due heed to the Context, and there will be opened out to us whole vistas of separate truths, which will all converge and iii. TRUTH FROM REMOTER CONTEXT: GEN.

unite in magnifying the Word of God, and in glorifying the Christ of God.