Types that teach Article 3

---

1. Isaiah 52:8, "They shall see eye to eye."

The context shows that this means the seeing of one another personally "face to face," and not the agreement with one another in opinion or judgment.

2. Habakkuk 2:2, "That he may run that readeth it."

"Write the vision
And make it plain upon tables,
That he may run who readeth it."

The reason given in the next verse (v 3) shows that the verb Cw@r (rutz) is to be taken in its sense of hasten, or flee: viz., that he who reads of the coming troubles may flee from them. It does not mean that he may be able to run while he reads it; but flee when he reads it.

3. Psalm 2:8, "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession."

How often have we heard these words quoted on missionary platforms and in pulpits, as though, by missionary efforts, the reign of Christ here spoken of as the one subject of the psalm is to be brought about. But this is not to be the way in which that glorious reign is to be inaugurated. Many are the Scriptures which state this unmistakably. Judgment, not grace, is to be the means employed. "Worse and worse" is to be the character of the coming days, until they are like "the days of Noah," which will end up in the Great Tribulation. Then, without any interval or break of any kind, "IMMEDIATELY after the Tribulation of those days...then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven...and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven" (Matt 24:29,30).

This exactly accords with Psalm 2 as is shown by the words that immediately follow verse 8:

"Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron;
Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel" (v 9).

But, these words of verse 9 are never quoted at missionary meetings, because it is all too plain that it is not such means as these that missionary societies use, or profess to use. Their agents proclaim the good news of "the grace of God." They are not sent out to break the "heathen." They are not commissioned to "dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." And so the context of this ninth verse is prudently left out! And the quotation always stops short at the end of the eighth verse!

This is very clever; but is it right? It is one way of "dividing the Word of truth." But, Is it "RIGHTLY dividing" it? It is dividing it for a purpose; and that purpose is manifest. It is done in order to make the Scripture appear to give a Divine support to the tradition of men, that the work of the Church and the Gospel is to bring about the Millennium; and that, by their means the earth is to be "full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea" (Isa 11:9).

But here again the context forbids such an application, for verses 3 and 4 state that it is to be by righteous judgment that He will "SMITE the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he SLAY the wicked." If the context, which is always essential, had been duly noted and considered, it would have been impossible for Psalm 2:8 ever to have been distorted, and have an interpretation given to it which is contrary to the whole teaching of the Word of truth.

4. Another example of error arising from disregard of the context is seen in Matthew 22:32:

"God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

Quoted thus, apart from the context, as an independent statement, the words are at once placed, by those who hear them, in the context of their own traditional belief; instead of in the context of God's Word, and in connection with the rest of the words of the Lord Jesus.

Misquoted as above by being taken thus, apart from their context, they are used to teach that the dead are not dead at all, but that they are alive. This is exactly what the Old Serpent said in Genesis 3:4 when he gave the lie to what God had said (Gen 2:17).

But, as in the two cases already cited, not only are the words thus perverted from their meaning, but the logical sequence of the whole context is suddenly broken off, and ends in a bathos. There is no conclusion to the Lord's words. He set out to prove the truth of resurrection, which, among other things, His opponents, the Sadducees, denied:

"Then came the Sadducees which say that there is NO RESURRECTION" (v 23).

They propound a hypothetical case of the woman with the seven husbands, and ask therefore

"IN THE RESURRECTION whose wife shall she be of the seven?" (v 28).

The Lord replies by saying:

"Ye do err, not* knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For IN THE RESURRECTION they neither marry nor are given in marriage." (* Greek, mh (me), not, used subjectively; i.e., not wishing to know the Scriptures.)

"But as TOUCHING THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the god of the dead, but of the living."

Is it not clear that these words are used by the Lord in order to prove the fact and truth of resurrection? How could this argument prove that the dead would rise again if He meant that the dead are alive now? Surely the logical conclusion is that, If God is "the God of the living," the dead Abraham, and the dead Isaac, and the dead Jacob must live again,* in resurrection, in order to have God's promise to them fulfilled. God had promised to each of these three patriarchs, that not only their seed, but that they themselves, should possess the land, and therefore, to do this, they must "live again." (* Compare Revelation 20:5, "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished," which proves that they cannot be alive during the thousand years, while they remain "dead.")

"TO THEE, and to thy seed"

was the promise made to Abraham (Gen 13:15), to Isaac (Gen 26:3), and to Jacob (Gen 28:13), It is a matter of history that neither of them ever possessed the land (Heb 11:13), and never had more than a sepulchre there. That sepulchre they purchased and there they were buried (Gen 49:29-33); but it was not the promised gift. How then can God's promise to these three patriarchs be fulfilled except by resurrection? The argument of the Lord proves, unmistakably, the necessity of resurrection if God is to fulfil His promise to them, and to be faithful to His word to Moses at the Bush.

Apart from the context the Lord's argument is shorn of its conclusion and robbed of its point; while God's promise is made to fall to the ground, and the hope of resurrection lost. And all this because a sentence is wrested from the context in which the Holy Spirit of God has placed it. These are good examples of how a short sentence may be perverted by a violation of this canon.

It will be noticed how these examples point to the fact that it is only traditional beliefs that seem to require such a treatment of Scripture, and that this treatment is practically confined to them. This explains why so many of our examples are connected with these strongholds of tradition. Unable to find Scriptural support for the traditions of men, resort must perforce be had to a few isolated passages which are thus forced apart from their Divine context for this special purpose.

5. "Observe and do."
�Another example may be seen in Matthew 23:3, where the context clearly tells us whether the translation should be "observe and do" as a command, or "ye observe and do" as a statement.

In the Greek the second person plural Indicative Mood is exactly the same as the Imperative. There is nothing therefore to guide us, as to which Mood should be read, but the context. Now, the context of the immediate passage, and the context of the whole Gospel, leads us to expect that the Lord cannot possibly be thought of here as enjoining obedience to the teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees. On the contrary, He was always uttering the most solemn warnings against them and their teachings. We must, therefore, read them as being in the Indicative Mood; as stating a fact, and not as enjoining a precept. This is still more clear if we observe that the word translated "sit" is not in the Present Tense, but in the Past: "have taken their seat."

With these two notes we must translate the passage as follows:

"The Scribes and Pharisees have seated themselves in Moses' seat: all things, therefore, whatsoever they bid you, ye observe and do: but do not ye according to their works."

The word "therefore" is very significant. It is because "they have taken their seat in Moses' seat" that ye observe and do whatever they bid you. But, the injunction is "Do them not." And then in verses 4-33 the most weighty reasons are given why they should not do them. How, then, can we go out of our way, gratuitously to create a difficulty, by taking the Mood as being the Imperative, and make the Lord command them to do the very things He was about to condemn?

The Chief Priests and Elders who had thus arrogated to themselves the authority of Moses, shortly after this used it to bid the people "that they should ask Barabbas and destroy Jesus" (Matt 27:20-23). Are we to suppose, for one moment, that in observing to do this bidding the people were acting in conformity with the Lord's words in 23:3? This consideration by itself is quite sufficient to condemn the "reading" riveted on the Greek by the Revisers' text; quite apart from the Critical evidence which can be adduced in favour of the Received Text.

There is another and overwhelming reason for this understanding of the Lord's words; and that is the concluding reason given why they are not to do the works which the Scribes and Pharisees commanded, "for they say and do not." Can the argument be: Do the works (which they command) because they do them not? Surely there is no sense in such an argument. But rather it is: "Do not ye the works [which they command], for they do not do them themselves"; which clearly shows how grievous their heavy burdens were. This is the continuation of the Lord's argument; and it is the only logical conclusion from His words as recorded in the context.

6. John 6:37, "Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out." This verse is indeed divided; but wrongly, not rightly, divided by quoting only a part of it as though it were the whole.

How often do we hear the promise "Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out." But how seldom do we hear the first half, which is an integral part of the sentence. "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me: AND him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out." The reason for the mangling of this verse is the same reason why, when the Lord stated the same truth in verse 65, "No man can come unto me, except it were given him of my Father; FROM THAT TIME many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." Wherever this same truth is proclaimed to-day, the same result will follow; and this, in spite of all the talk about "the teaching of Jesus," which is only an excuse for attempting to get rid of the teaching of the Holy Ghost by Paul.

7. Acts 16:31, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

This is an example of how a special and personal injunction is detached from its context, put forth, and used as a general and universal command. The quotation generally stops here, because the words "thou and thy house" would show the special nature of the command. The context shows that it was given to one who was under deep conviction of sin. The jailor had seen himself in the presence of God. His one thought was that the prisoners had fled. His one act was that "he drew out his sword and would have killed himself": for he knew what his fate would be in the morning (Acts 12:19).

But there was One who knew what he thought, and the voice said, "We are all here." There was One who could see in that darkness what he was going to do, and the voice said, "Do thyself no harm." "THEN he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling and fell down," and asked, "What must I do to be saved?" To all such in similar circumstances; to all who thus fall down and ask such a question, this is the right answer. But it is no command at all to those who are not under conviction of sin. Such have first to believe God as to their lost and ruined condition.

There are other passages, however, which are not so serious, where mistakes are made and errors are fallen into through partial quotations, where a part of a verse is used to upset the teaching of the other part, or of the immediate context.

8. Romans 8:28, "All things work together for good."

These words are often taken by themselves, as though they were an independent statement; a statement moreover which is contrary to fact. Sometimes the words that follow are added, "to them that love God." But very seldom do we hear the next sentence: "to them that are the called according to his purpose."

9. 1 Corinthians 3:17, "Him shall God destroy."

"If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."

It is well for us first to note the fact that the words "defile" and "destroy" represent but one and the same word in the Greek. In both clauses the word is fqeirw (phtheiro), to spoil or corrupt. That this is the meaning may be seen from 1 Corinthians 15:33; 2 Corinthians 7:2, 11:3, etc. But, the pronoun rendered "him" is touton (touton), this. To what noun does the pronoun "this" refer? The context alone can help us.

It cannot be "this" man, or "him" as in AV; because verse 15 distinctly states that "he himself shall be saved." It can be, therefore, only "this" thing that the man builds on the one foundation as stated in verse 12. Whatever man's building-work may be�good, bad, or indifferent; "gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble"; grand, imposing, insignificant, or mean, whatever it may be, it will be burnt up (vv 13-15).

"Ye are God's building" (v 9).
"Ye are the temple of God" (v 16).
"Which temple ye are" (v 17).

10. 2 Corinthians 5:8. "Absent from the body."

In this case a few words are taken out of their context and used as a motto or proverbial expression; and are quoted as conclusively settling a disputed question. We have already considered this illustration under Canon II (pages 223-226), where we showed the Scope of the Passage from its Structure. We wish to show now, how these words can be explained by simply heeding the context. Again and again we hear:

"Absent from the body,
Present with the Lord"

quoted as though it asserted that the moment a believer is "absent from the body" he is "present with the Lord." But this is what it does not say. Many will be surprised to hear that no such collocation of words occurs in Scripture: and that 2 Corinthians 5:8 reads

"We are willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord,"

which is quite a different thing; because the whole context from 2 Corinthians 4:14 down to this verse, is wholly occupied with the subject of Resurrection, and a longing and desire not to die, or to be unclothed (v 4), but "to be clothed upon" with our heavenly and glorious resurrection body. While we are in this body we are "absent from the Lord." That is why we so earnestly desire to be alive and remain till His coming, that we may be clothed upon with our house* which is from heaven.

* The word here rendered "house" is oikhthrion (oiketerion), which is used of the spirit-body which we shall have in resurrection. The word occurs only here and in Jude 6, where it is rendered "habitation," and is used here of whatever that word may mean when used of angels or angelic beings in Jude 6. The word oikoV (oikos) is used of our present human body or house (2 Cor 5:1). It is also used of our resurrection body in the same verse, but there it is specially distinguished as being "not made with hands." This shows that the meaning of oiketerion in verse 2, is a spirit-body, because it is not made with human hands, but "a building of God," "which is from heaven."

We ourselves are very willing to be thus "absent from the body"; nay, we are desirous of it, because, when we are, we shall then have our oiketerion in which we shall be "at home with the Lord." We have precisely the same teaching in the word "SO" in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. "SO shall we ever be with the Lord." The Greek is outwV (houtos), thus, in this manner; viz. by Resurrection, and Ascension; raised and "caught up to meet the Lord in the air, SO shall we ever be with the Lord." It will be noticed again that it is tradition which thus requires such perverted misquotations. This is because the errors of tradition are produced by ignoring the context. We have another:

11. "To die is gain," (Phil 1:21), constantly cited as though it were a separate, independent, and dogmatic categorical statement of Divine truth; whereas it is nothing of the kind. It is not even a complete sentence. The verse says:

"For to me to live is Christ,
And to die is gain."

The very word "For" should be sufficient to show that the statement is not independent; but that it depends on what has been before said, and is added as a reason for it. What has been said before? What is the context all about? A very cursory reader will at once see that it is all about the "gain" of the Gospel. That is what the Apostle was so deeply concerned about. He was in prison, and yet he wanted them to "understand that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the Gospel." And he goes on to show that the one effect of his bonds on many of the brethren had been to make their confidence to increase, so that they were "much more bold to speak the Word without fear."

Paul rejoiced at this, notwithstanding that some did it of contention and others from love.

It made him bold also, and bold enough to say that he did not care what happened to himself; he did not mind whether he lived or died. Christ would be magnified in his body (v 20) in either case. "The furtherance of the Gospel" was the one thing he cared about; not his own personal "gain." He never thought of that. It ruins the whole scope of the chapter to introduce the thought, yea, the slanderous thought, and charge him with such selfishness, as though he were thinking only of his own personal gain. It is a gross injustice to the Apostle, as well as a perversion of his words, thus to bring against him a charge of which he was not only innocent, but which is foreign to the context.

It also mars and breaks up the logical sequence of the Context, considered merely as literary matter. The argument is this; If my bonds have resulted in the furtherance of the Gospel, what might not my death produce? Christ is preached through my bonds; so He may be magnified through my body, whether by my living or dying, "For to me to live will be Christ; and to die [will be His] gain." In either case He will be magnified. The gain will be His.

But though his death might result in Christ's gain, it might not be their gain; for to abide in the flesh would be more needful for those to whom he wrote.* (* See above, under Canon III, Section 5:8; the word "Depart." )

12. Philippians 2:12.
We have a similar example in the next chapter: "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." These words are quoted as a general instruction applying to everyone universally. Whereas the preceding context shows that they are part of an exhortation for these Philippian saints to do this working in the Apostle's absence as they had always done in his presence. Moreover the context which follows gives the reason why they should, and why they could, do this working out; "FOR it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

What that work is, is added in verse 14. "Do all things without murmurings and disputing." That is how they would work out that salvation which they had in Christ, during the Apostle's absence. We must not dismiss this negative branch of our subject without a reference to the two pernicious practices which may be termed Text-mangling on the one hand, and Text-garbling on the other.

13. Text-mangling is common on illuminated wall-texts, motto-cards, birth-day books, and almanacs.

The practice is to take a few words (for the space is often very limited) regardless of the context in which they may be found; regardless also of their proper interpretation. Hence, passages are often selected which may give false peace to those who stand in need of conviction of sin; or they may disturb the peace of those who need assurance; or they may remove others from the ground of grace to the ground of works. Sometimes also this practice causes the words of God to be treated as Shakespeare is often treated by advertisers, comic artists, and others, who are thus able to show at once their intimate knowledge of Shakespeare and their cleverness in twisting his words to an end and for a purpose which Shakespeare never dreamed of. This is done in order to attract attention by showing the absurdity of making Shakespeare recommend some "buttons," "pills," or "soap" of which he never heard.

This practice may be innocent and amusing when it is confined to a human author; but, when it is brought into use in dealing with the words of God, the practice cannot be too strongly reprobated as being an insult to God, and pernicious to man. Just in this same way we might quote, or rather misquote, the words of Truth:

"There is no God" (Psa 14:1).
"Hang all the law and the prophets" (Matt 22:40).
"Woe unto you lawyers" (Luke 11:52).

All these are true, if taken in connection with the context in which they stand; but not otherwise. Apart from their context these and others may form complete sentences, but they may make either nonsense or false sense. We have actually seen the following short sentence as a wall-text:�

"Thou shalt not drink wine"

as though this was a general command demanding universal obedience. But it is taken from the Minor Prophets, where it forms part of Divine threatening of judgment:

"Thou shalt eat, but not be satisfied;...
Thou shalt take hold, but shalt not deliver...
Thou shalt sow, but thou shalt not reap;
Thou shalt tread olives, but thou shalt not anoint thee with oil;
And sweet wine, but shalt not drink wine (Micah 6:15; compare Zeph 1:13).

Not only are these words thus wrested from their proper context and meaning; but, by so doing, they are set in flat contradiction to Amos 9:14, where exactly the opposite prophecy is given by way of blessing:

"They shall plant vineyards
And drink the wine thereof."

On the other hand, there are texts which are of such universal and eternal application, and which so touch the conscience, that they could not fail to be of untold blessing to thousands, if they were chosen for this purpose. How seldom, if ever, do we see such passages as these plainly printed and prominently exposed:

"The LORD seeth not as man seeth." (1 Sam 16:7).

or

"Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart." (1 Sam 16:7).

or

"Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD?" (1 Sam 15:22).

or

"To obey is better than sacrifice,
And to hearken, than the fat of rams." (1 Sam 15:22)

The governing principle in this matter should be that, what is put out for general observation should be in perfect harmony with, not wrenched from, its context, and universal and eternal in its application.

14. Text-garbling differs from Text-mangling in that a passage is not only taken out of the context in which God has set it, but it is placed in another context in which He has not set it. This, to say the least, is an act of the grossest impertinence. There are some writers who are specially addicted to this habit, and string a number of texts together as though they occurred exactly in this order in God's Word. True, the references may be given with each verse; but unwary readers may not notice or heed this; hence they will read on from one to the other as though they are reading the words as God has given them.

There is one book, especially, in our mind, which does this, and leads many to do this "daily," every day of the year: but whether in each case it gives daily light is another matter. If it comes to merely stringing texts together, this can easily be done; we could say:

"Judas went and hanged himself (Matt 27:5).
Go and do thou likewise" (Luke 10:37).

This shows the absurdity to which such a principle can be reduced. We do not deny, of course, that it is possible for a well-taught and well-read spiritually-minded student of the Word of truth to do this with effect. Great light may be thrown often on a passage by putting it alongside another, thus letting one Scripture be its own Divine comment on another. That is quite a different thing altogether from the ill-considered practice of dislocating a passage from its own context and putting it into another.

What we are speaking of is the habit of garbling Scripture by bringing texts together, regardless as to whether such displacement affects in any way the special interpretation which they have in their own respective contexts.

It may be that, with due regard to this point, the truth and teaching of each of two such passages may be enhanced. But the practice is one which requires much spiritual discernment, great care, long experience, special knowledge of the context, extensive knowledge of Scripture, and a recognition of the principle involved in the important distinction between interpretation and application, dealt with in Canon X.

WHEN TRUTH BECOMES ERROR

The Word of God is the final authority to which appeal is made by believers concerning all matters of conviction. There is no room for opinions, ideas, or conceptions on matters upon which God�s Word gives specific information. If such exist, it merely indicates a tragic lack of faith upon the part of the believer concerned.

Speculation concerning the things of God has existed from ancient times. This has not been due to lack of knowledge, for the numerous ways in which God has made Himself known are beyond dispute. But it is the result of the deliberate rejection of His truth (i.e., His Word) or the equally deliberate alteration of that truth into speculative conclusions. In the Scriptures this process is called "changing the truth of God into the lie" (to pseudei).

Much lies behind this systematized corruption of truth, and the results are usually found among those who know not God. An equally insidious form of deception, however, has had for its special target those who claim a relationship to God. Moreover, because such deception comes in the garb of truth, and therefore is so much harder to detect, it is an ever-present danger to all who seek to walk with God. These are not idle statements made to unsettle timid believers. They are facts that are recorded in the Scriptures of Truth.

In Colossians 2:8 a warning is given in terms that cannot be misunderstood. If time has softened for us the meaning of these words, then perhaps a glance at the original wording will indicate the urgency of the Apostle�s message. The word "beware" (Gk. blepete) means "give earnest heed to." It is a word that was never used lightly, and its form in this context suggested a peril that was very near. In modern times when the words "Danger, beware, road construction in progress" appear on traffic signs placed at conspicuous points, those who read the signs do not expect that the danger referred to is at some distant point. Danger signs indicate a present or imminent peril, and if Scriptural warnings were heeded half as much as road maintenance signs, then much spiritual loss would be avoided.

Unfortunately, however, like reckless road users, many believers seem to have crashed through Scriptural "danger signs" before their presence was realised. Even the root form of the Greek word "blepete" may be expressed in very up-to-date language. Blepete comes from blepo, which means "to see or behold." Therefore, to follow out the figure used above, we might suggest, "Keep your eyes open" or "Look where you are going." Failure to do this is a frequent cause of fearful accidents � spiritual as well as mundane.

The Colossians were warned against an "empty and deceitful philosophy," which had its foundations in the traditions of men and the elements of the world. This philosophy was empty because it possessed no firm foundation and therefore no permanent superstructure. It was deceitful because it was opposed to the Truth � "not according to" Him Who was truth. We notice that this so-called wisdom was "according to�the elements of the world." What then does this phrase mean?

The translators of the Authorized and Revised Versions were apparently not wholly satisfied with the English word "rudiments" to translate the Greek term stoicheion. This appears evident from the marginal renderings of both versions where this word occurs. Their dilemma is quite understandable, however, for this Greek word does provide a translation difficulty. Grimm-Thayer�s Lexicon gives the following definitions:

1. The sound of letters. Thus, the elements or first principles of speech.
2. The elements from which all things have come: the material causes of the universe.
3. The heavenly bodies, these being the primary causes of many phenomenon.
4. The elements, rudiments, primary and

fundamental principles (cp. our A B C) of any art, science, or discipline.

Therefore, from this variety of definitions, we might translate Colossians 2:8:Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

These false teachers sought to beguile the Colossian saints with a vain and deceitful philosophy which was truly "elementary" in comparison to the truth. They uttered half-formed letters -- the rudiments of speech -- while God had announced His wonderful revelation concerning His Son in words that burned with grace and love. Their speculations were characterized by "principles." His truth spoke of "fulness"!

Fortunately, the line of demarcation between God�s truth and the false philosophy which was presented to the saints at Colosse was readily discernible, for the terms of both teachings were completely different. In contrast to this, an incident which happened in the Galatian assembly and which was also concerned with "first principles" provides us with our first example of how truth out of place becomes error.

In Galatians 4:3-11, the Apostle deals with the details of his earlier charge, "Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" (3:3) The danger confronting these believers was more subtle than that at Colosse. Believing Jews, recently reclaimed from the formalities of Judaism, together with the even greater number of Gentile saints, of which the Galatian assembly was composed, were an easy prey to the forceful and persuasive teachers who urged them to return to the requirements of the Mosaic Law. The false instructors maintained that circum- cision was essential, and, once this rite was administered, the whole burden of the law brought its crushing weight to bear upon the faltering believers. (Cp. Acts 15:10.)

Some may object that the Mosaic Law is not in view in the phrase "elements of the world" in verses 3 and 9 of the fourth chapter. But, as Paul includes himself with those who were enslaved to these "first principles" (verse 3), the objection is nullified. This point is most important, for it demonstrates a vital truth.

The Law given by Moses and ordained by angels was nevertheless the Law of God. It was wholly divine. It was God�s Word. In Romans 7:12 it is described as "holy and just (righteous) and good." What then could have impelled the Apostle Paul to describe the truth of God given to Moses as "weak and beggarly elements"? Moreover, we must remember that the letter in which these words are found is itself God�s Word and is therefore the Lord�s own comment upon His earlier revelation. What is it, then, that occasioned this tremendous change of viewpoint? In a word, "the appearance of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ," when God was "manifest in the flesh."

The advent of Christ to this earth fulfilled much that the Law had typified. Furthermore, His life, death and resurrection created many changes in God�s dealings with men. One of the most outstanding of these was the manner in which a man, whether he was Jew or Gentile, could obtain a righteous standing before God.

Prior to Christ�s first coming, an Israelite was accounted righteous by God if he kept the Law (Deut. 6:25; cp. Luke 1:6). Similarly, a Gentile, if he lived in accordance with the light that he had, also was accounted righteous (Romans 2:14, 26-29). But, after Christ had walked this earth and fulfilled the complete requirements of the Law of Moses concerning righteousness, the position was completely different.

He fulfilled the Law in respect to righteousness and extended as a gift from God His own righteousness "unto all and upon all them that believe" (i.e., both Jews and Gentiles). Therefore, those "in Christ" possess the righteousness "of Christ." As we read in Romans 10:4, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth."

This change in the function of the law was the compelling reason for the Apostle�s words in Galatians 4:9. The Galatians had believed on Christ, and were found in Him. If, however, they returned to those material ordinances which, in their proper place, had pointed forward to Him, they were not only taking a retrograde step, but they were denying the truths related to His finished work. In the words of the Apostle, they would become "entangled again with the yoke of bondage," Christ would profit them nothing, and they would "have fallen from grace."

As these phrases are carefully considered, they become very heart-searching for, if misplaced truth can become such terrible error on one occasion, then it is obvious that the process can be repeated. Perhaps it is being repeated today when so much that God has set aside for the time being is eagerly sought, if not clamourously demanded, by the unwary.

When certain truths are no longer part of God�s current method of dealing with man, then for anyone to insist upon their application is simply disobedience, and is strongly condemned in the Word of God. The Apostle�s words are emphatic when dealing with the tragic situation which arose in Galatia: "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed," and again, "I would they were even cut off which trouble you" (Gal. 1:9, 5:12).

The insistence of these false teachers upon the observance of past truths was nothing short of "changing the truth of God into a lie." On another occasion, a divinely-instituted ceremony was likened unto pagan barbarianism simply because some sought to embrace it at the wrong time. When writing to the Philippian saints, Paul warns them of false teachers. He writes, "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision" (Phil. 3:2). The application of the term "dogs" to Judaising zealots is rather interesting, for this word had always expressed the utter contempt in which the Gentiles were held by the Jews.

Originally, circumcision was the symbol of God�s covenant with Abraham and his seed. Unfortunately, however, when Israel became a nation in their own right, they stressed the idea of separateness (suggested by the rite of circumcision) so much that all "un-circumcised ones" were viewed as unclean, impure, and filthy. In time, the Gentiles were looked upon as akin to the scavenger dogs which roamed in packs through the land and cities of Palestine. To the Jewish mind, therefore, "dogs" became the natural synonym for "Gentiles."

The Jews had claimed to be God�s children, eating at God�s table, while those outside the covenant (signified by the sign of circumcision in the flesh) were as scavengers, sifting the piles of refuse in search of food. But Paul, or should we not say "the Holy Spirit," reverses the figure. He says that the Judaisers are the "dogs" still scraping about amongst the garbage of carnal ordinances instead of feasting upon the spiritual banquet which God had provided in Christ (cp. Lightfoot on Phil. 3:2).

The term "dogs" was aimed at the "circumcised ones," but what of the rite itself? The word "concision" (Gk. katatome) gives the divine estimate of this sign when it is wrongly enforced. In the Greek version of the Old Testament, the word katatome (concision) is used to indicate the terrible mutilations associated with heathen idolatrous practices and connected with their false worship. Such disfigurements of the flesh were abhorrent to the Lord and were completely forbidden to Israel.

They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh. (Lev. 21:5; see also Lev. 19:28, Deut. 14:1.)

Another example of this heathen practice is found in I Kings 18:28 after Elijah had mocked the priests of Baal: "And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and spears (A.V., lancets) till the blood gushed out upon them."

The same word that is used to describe these hideous mutilations is applied to those who, in Paul�s day, viewed circumcision with a fanatical awe.

As the Law of Moses had been described as "weak and beggarly elements," so the very sign of circumcision is likened to a savage heathen mutilation of the flesh. Once again, the fact emerges that truth out of place can become grievous error.

The principle of later revelations superseding earlier truths may be found throughout the Scriptures. Sometimes when obsolete truths are followed unwittingly, the results are fortunately not so disastrous as those which occurred in the Galatian church. Nevertheless, when a truth is known and is not followed, the results may be even more tragic.

At Galatia and Philippi, the errors were primarily connected with practice in the natural realm, i.e., obedience to the Law of Moses, and circumcision in the flesh. Can we say that misplaced truths associated with convictions in the spiritual realm are of less consequence?

Truth out of place not only produces wrong actions, but also false convictions. The believer who would guard against both of these snares should follow the advice given to Timothy concerning the Scriptures: give himself "wholly to them."

The errors we have considered thus far have dealt with false practices. In conclusion, we shall deal with an incident which promoted wrong convictions.

The standing of the believer during the Acts period was clearly revealed in the letter to the Romans. In that foundational epistle, identification with Christ is set forth in unmistakable terms, and the believer is led to know of his union with Christ in His death and resurrection.

After the period covered by the Book of the Acts, further truth is revealed, and this later revelation involves something hitherto unknown. The believer now not only walks "in newness of life," but is actually "seated�in the heavenlies in Christ." This is identification in its highest sense, and a truth which can only be apprehended by faith.

The terms which revealed this glorious standing contained a phrase, apart from which the believer could not lay hold of such precious truths. This phrase was, "in Christ." The continued and insistent repetition of such expressions as "in Christ," "in Him," etc., should have been sufficient safeguard to those early believers (and, indeed, to some in our own day) to prevent them from becoming ensnared by false teaching. Unfortunately, it was not so, for this time truth was not only misplaced, but also mishandled. That which revealed a glorious identification with Christ in His exaltation at the Father�s Right Hand was twisted to mean that a saint no longer required a resurrection.

Two such false teachers were named Hymenaeus and Philetus (II Tim. 2:17), and they taught that the resurrection had already taken place. No doubt their false assertions had some link with the truths revealed in Ephesians 2:4-7, but it is highly probable that (when expressed in their terms) the truth was unrecognizable. Nor did the mischief end with their false claims, for we are told that these pernicious doctrines "overthrew the faith of some." Once again, it was misplaced truth that wrought such havoc in the lives of certain of these early believers and, from the examples we have cited, it is very evident that untold harm can be accomplished by this practice.

Any who seek to foist upon believers the teachings or practices of earlier administrations of God with the deliberate intention of hindering the natural outworking of the truth (i.e., the production of God-given freedom, John 8:32) are not only furthering the aims of the Enemy of truth, but are also discrediting the One Who said, "I AM the TRUTH."

In our endeavors to learn of Him and walk with Him, may we do so in the way HE has ordained for this present time.

* * * * * *

"This Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, conquered more millions than Alexander, Caesar, Mohammed, and Napoleon; without science and learning, He shed more light on things human and divine than all philosophers and scholars. He spoke such words of life as were never spoken before or since and produced effects which lie beyond the reach of orator or poet, without writing a single line. He set more pens in motion, and furnished them far more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of art and songs or praise, than the whole army of great men of ancient and modern times."

Schaff, historian

---

1. chat'a, to sin; to miss the mark (as in Judg. 20:16).  Also of the feet, to stumble and fall (Prov. 19:2).  Hence, morally, a coming short, blameworthiness -- not necessarily willful.  An act of thought, word, or deed, not a condition.  Usually (but by no means always) rendered sin, and other words also so rendered.
   
   
2. 'asham, trespass, to sin through error or ignorance.  Cp. Lev. 4:13; 5:2, 3.  Num. 5:6, 7.  Judg. 21:22.  1Chron. 21:3.  2Chron. 19:10; 28:10, 13. 'Asham is a breach of commandment, done in ignorance, but, when the guilt is proved, requiring atonement.
   
   
3. 'aven, iniquity, specially connected with idolatry.  Used because an idol is nothing and vanity (cp. Hos. 4:15; 5:8; 10:5, 8.  Amos 5:5, marg.).  Hence, 'aven comes to mean vanity (cp. Job 15:35.  Ps. 10:7.  Prov. 22:8, &c.).  The word has many renderings, which are pointed out in the passages when it occurs.  'Aven is rather a course of bad conduct flowing from the evil desires of fallen nature, that breaches of the law as such.
   
   
4. 'avah, perverseness, from the root to be bent, or crooked.  English wrong, i.e. wrung out of course, expresses it (cp. 1Sam. 20:30.  2Sam. 19:19.  1Kings 8:47.  Job 33:37, &c.).
   
   
5. 'amal, trouble, labor, toil.  Sin viewed in the light of the trouble it causes; and of its burden; and its grievousness (Isa. 10:1.  Hab. 1:3).  Often rendered perverseness (Num. 23:21), also mischief (Job 15:35).
   
   
6. 'aval, unjust, unfairness, sin in its nature as deceitful, dishonesty, that which is not equal and right, unfairness in dealings.  Rendered unjust (Ps. 43:1; 82:2.  Prov. 29:27.  Isa. 26:10), unrighteous (Lev. 19:15, 35).
   
   
7. 'abar, to pass beyond, transgress.  Hence, transgression (Ps. 17:3.  Hos. 6:7; 8:1).
   
   
8. ra'a', wicked, injurious.  From its root, which indicates its nature as breaking up all that is good or desirable; injurious to all others.  In Greek poneros, evil, or kakos, bad.  Hence especially of moral depravity and corruption, and lewdness.  English "good-for-nothing" (1Sam. 17:28), naughty (2Kings 2:19.  Prov. 20:14.  Jer. 24:2).
   
   
9. pash'a, revolt, rebellion.  Sin against lawful authority.  Often rendered transgression (Ps. 51:13.  Prov. 28:21.  Isa. 43:27).  In Prov. 10:12 the action of love or mercy shown stands in strong contrast to this character of the sin.
   
   
10. rasha', wickedness, in the sense of the restless activity of fallen nature (Job 3:17.  Isa. 53:9; 57:20, 21); where it refers to the activity of the impious and ungodly, or robbers.
    
    
11. ma'al, treachery, unfaithfulness, breach of trust, often rendered trespass and transgression.  It is used of Achan (Josh. 7:1; 22:20).  Cp. Josh. 22:16.  2Chron. 26:18; 28:22; 33:19.  Ezra 9:2, 4.  Neh. 13:27, &c.
    
    
12. shagag, erring from imprudence, rashness, being deceived, not willfully; and shagah, erring willfully through passion or wine, hence, to go astray.  As sin it is to be distinguished from presumptuous or high-handed sin.  Cp. Lev. 4:13.  Num. 15:22, &c., with Num. 15:30.  Ps. 119:21.
    
    
13. zimmah, meditated, wickedness, plotted, planned, and designed; wicked, or lewd purpose, especially of sins of unchastity.
    
    
14. chasad = shameful.  A Homonym, meaning (1) Here, and Job 37:13 (where it is rendered "mercy" in A.V. and R.V.).  But "lightning" is not "mercy" but chastisement.  (2) The other meaning is mercy, lovingkindness, or grace.  See note on Lev. 20:14.
    
    
15. shal, fault, committed inadvertently through negligence.