Easy Summaries of John Nelson Darby on God’s Grace, the Rapture, Dispensations, the true Church etc.
Author: Sosthenes
Once the ruler of the synagogue at Corinth
Then a co-writer of a letter by Paul - just a brother - no longer an official
Now a blogger seeking to serve the Lord by posting some words that the Lord has given His Church.
Here is what has seemed to me as to your second volume. I think that others, having the beginning, would like to have what follows. When you have it printed, you will be able to notify the subscribers that you are not putting it on public sale on account of the difficulty felt by several brothers, but that the volume will be sent to those who want it. I do not see why you should not sell to others who seek it, without however putting it on commercial sale. If the subscriptions are not yet paying, the thing will rest there; if they have already been received, you will find, no doubt, a means of rendering them. I say this out of voluntary deference to the brethren, a thing which never does any harm when the conscience is not concerned. If it is so, it is quite another matter. There are indeed brethren with whom I am not in agreement on various points, and with whom however I am much more linked than with people who accept all that I say. For the rest, love does not depend on this, although unity of feeling is a desirable objective.
I believe that God in His grace acts in goodness in His church and especially among the brethren. Here, there is truly much good, conversions especially, numerous even for our times; the brethren encouraged, revived and renewed so to say, and this at the same time with a need more felt to realise His presence as a reality in the midst of His own. When God is there, difficulties and even sorrows evaporate. There are also some new workers who are blessed, and this is a great subject of joy. One sees the action of God. There are equally quite large open fields, without there being workers to visit them. Here in Montpéllier, where all was quite dead, the Holy Spirit acts in several souls. I have been to Vigan[1], where the Lord has given His blessing. One must recognise the good hand of God and seek to conserve as much as possible this grace which He grants to us.
I have a letter from Mr F, where he speaks of you with much affection. He has been happy at V; he only says, without insisting on it, that you have a ‘hang-up’, a hobbyhorse, about the new Jerusalem, but he is always reserved and perhaps he would like better not to discuss it. I believe that, while rejecting certain views, and in being sometimes tired with mental work, one has found very good things, spiritual too, in your numbers on the Revelation.
I hope to see you all soon, if it please God. I think of leaving from here in ten days, and I will probably spend ten or fifteen days getting to Geneva, spending several days with the brethren on the way, but I do not want to delay my reply. Greet all our dear brethren affectionately.
Yours very affectionately
It is unnecessary to take decisions too far in advance about your course after the second volume. God knows what will suit you. I believe that more occupation with grace towards souls, and less work in the study, would set you more at liberty, but God knows what you must do. I must say to you that I have not the least concern about your publication. It is very probable that I am not in agreement with you on every point, for that is rare. To hold within the limits of God’s teaching is what I seek to do, and I hope more all the time, but I am not calling for different ideas to be rejected, to be aggressive. There is the case where it is better not to arouse before the world or before those weak in faith questions which they cannot resolve.
[1] Le Vigan is a commune in the Gard department in southern France
I thank you very much for your little letter and the affection of which it was the testimony, affection which is precious to me indeed. I am better, but the cause of my illness is always there. God knows if this will disappear, or if I will carry it to the end, with this poor body of sin which gives rise to it. Whatever it be, I am happy and rest with an unspeakable sweetness the work of Him who has loved me and who loves me with a perfect and eternal love.
As to our dear Sp, I believe that he is a bit mystical, or rather that the German sort have a tendency in their personal character which tends always to look entirely within, to be occupied with the effect of grace, that is to say with self, instead of the object of faith and the source of grace: with God Himself and the Saviour who has loved us. It is an incorrigible evil of the heart, because a [certain] faithfulness is made of it, and, at the bottom, they like to be occupied with self, if they can call this occupation devoutness. Satan indeed makes fun of it, and those who are like that judge others as being Antinomians and unfaithful, as taking the thing lightly, while, indeed, it is themselves that have altogether too good an opinion of themselves. In short, such as I am, I am necessarily lost; seeing that God says I should be so; I acknowledge that His judgment is necessary. However, while making an abstraction of mysticism, I believe (you will be surprised by this) that Sp is right – not in the way he envisages it, but in fact. There is, I believe, a knowledge of oneself before God, besides conscience of sins. The poor Canaanite woman knew her misery and sought a cure from Jesus, but the Lord puts her on this terrible ground for the heart, of being in the presence of the blessing, knowing what it is, and deprived of right to participate in it. She was not precisely guilty of this or that thing, but because of what she was and of what the blessing was, she could not have part in it. The love of God was the full answer to this state, and it is thus only as He is known in His own purity, in His free gift, in His sovereign goodness, that He is known as He is, pure and absolute, God Himself being revealed in this love, such as He is. That is why the faith of the poor woman is acknowledged as being great, because she sees what God is, through the consciousness of what she is herself. Mystics consider this to be a state of soul and, as a result, are seeking for it in a true spirit of their own righteousness. Faith enjoys it as a revelation of God. It is what has been given to me, morally weak as I am, a joy and an unspeakable pleasure during my illness and before. This was not pardon for sins; for I do not doubt it, and I recognise the infinite grace which has pardoned them freely, pure grace towards me, unworthy sinner, and this by the precious Saviour, but I could not rest in One who has done these things without thinking of Him directly. For, for this, one has to recognise oneself as a little dog, and not only recognise one’s sins; and this is what makes peace solid and permanent, because it is in God. I believe that the most part of Christians are not there. It is (although not the only thing) what indeed makes sincere Christians have such conflict on their death beds. They have not been themselves before God. It is not that grace has not acted, it is not they have not sincerely recognised their sins, recognised that the blood of Christ alone can wash them; but they have not truly been led to say: “O wretched man that I am, who will deliver me?”[1] – in result, yes, and they are resting there; but as to the fact of being with the source – that is to say, oneself before God in judgment – no. Look at Job. Grace had acted in him; in the eyes of God Himself, there was not his like on earth. He had never really been in the presence of God himself. This is not to say that a man is not regenerate[2], or that he is not justified. One can be all this and feel the goodness of God, but in personal relation with God, one has not said, finding oneself such as one is before him: “Now mine eye seeth thee”[3]. This experience can happen in various ways: 1) at the beginning, when one is under the law; 2) after a long Christian life, with long exercises or more peace. A mixture of one or the other, it may be. But its true result is not mysticism; it is really the destruction of it, when it is complete. The mystic contemplates himself; and that is his trouble. He speaks of himself, and a ruined self is much better for me, as a God who makes us be forgotten. How can one remember oneself in the presence of God? God can make me feel what I am to lead me into His presence, He can call me a little dog, and I acknowledge it, but faith sees nothing else there than all that God is, even for such a being. Madame de Krüdener[4], of whom our dear friend Eynard has published a biography[5], was only there on her death bed, and then she judged all her preceding life. But it is God alone who can do this work. It is necessary, in confessing one’s sins, to relate to His grace who pardons us, and to walk under His eye with full confidence in Him. One cannot put oneself in this moral struggle with God; one must not do it; it is too true that we are little dogs to be able to do it. When He does it, He knows how to sustain the soul, as in the case of the Canaanitish woman, or in the case of Jacob, although He stopped himself yet mystically at the blessing as happens for a time.
It is a serious and important subject, dear brother. However, let us always hold to the simplicity of God’s grace. The one who has passed there, while having, as before, his battles with himself and with his flesh, is much more stripped of himself, has more discernment of what is judged of man in him, and of God; the outward life, however active it is, takes less importance, and God is more the all in all. Outwardly, this Christian may be much the same, but at bottom he is not; man has taken his true value in his eyes. He has more communion with his brethren, but at the same time he is more isolated, that is to say more with God. It is what Christ was perfectly, because there was nothing to strip away in Him.
Peace be with you, dear brother. If you still have some thoughts on this, write to me. As to the defection of our brother E, I am not surprised. I cannot say more, save for him in charity, than that this has pained me. He knew himself very little, or at all. God has allowed that he should be a great blessing, I believe, to his wife. I knew her for many years, and her family too.
I have a good letter from our dear N at T, and I have written to him. The joy of the assembly and the grace that our Lord gives them are my joy, dear brother, and a grace which He shows to me. I am with them in Spirit. May He keep them near to Him in humility and in the joy of His presence. Many greetings to T, G and F (I have received a card from him; I have been too ill to reply to it), E and all the brethren. D M is, I suppose, always at V. Also greet affectionately, besides C, C and all the others than I cannot call by name. I have still thought of taking my journey in Switzerland, if God allows me to do it. It is possible that my state of weakness will put back it to a fairer season for crossing the Jura, but not for long, I think. Apart from several visits, I do not reckon to find my field of work here. Nîmes will probably call me later. But before that I think – God alone knows – to go to Switzerland.
[2] As noted in No 18 of the Articles, JND sometimes uses the words ‘regenerate’ or ‘regeneration’ as equivalents of ‘being born again’ (as in John 3). But, as he explains in many other places when expounding the sense of these words more accurately, they are not the same. The Greek word παλιχχευεία (palingenesiá) occurs only in Matthew 19: 28 and Titus 3: 5, where it is translated ‘regeneration’, and means ‘passing from one state, that of ruin, into another and new state of things’ (Collected Writings, vol 13, p213).
[4] Baroness Barbara Juliane von Krüdener (22 Nov 1764 – 25 Dec 1824) was a Baltic German religious mystic and author. She had an influence on the Swiss Réveil
[5] Jean-Gabriel Eynard wrote a two volume biography of Madame von Krüdener
I am sending you your paper that I have actually taken with me. I was afraid to send such a big notebook by post. I add some lines.
The Keri[1] says: “read”. The Massorites did not dare to change the text even when there would have been an obvious mistake, but they wrote in the margin: “read thus”. It would therefore be the lessons or variations which are almost always better than the text. De Wette[2] has given the Keri in his “Annotations”. De Wette’s translation does not satisfy me. The “consumption determined” is an expression employed in Isaiah 10: 23; 28: 22 to signify the afflictions of Israel, it seems to me, in those days which precede the reign of the Messiah, whether they be found in Israel or on Jerusalem. The use of these words in Daniel 9: 27 is very remarkable. This has led me to other remarks. The last word in [chapter] 9: 27 is, save in this passage, always translated by “the desolated”. There are good dictionaries that only give this sense. Once elsewhere, the most a remarkable form of a verbal infinitive is used in an active sense. “Desolated” is not the same word as “desolator” in the same verse. For in [chapter] 11: 31, it is the abomination of the desolator. [In chapter] 12: 11, it is the last word from [chapter] 9: 27, that is to say perhaps the desolated. You will find that the examination of chapters 10 and 28 of Isaiah on these two points of the indignation and the consumption determined shed a great light on Daniel. The Assyrian is seen there very clearly and the overflowing flood on account of their covenant with evil.
I hope that the Lord will restore our dear brother C to a soft and loving state. I hope that a sincere and cordial love will be shown towards him. The faults of which you speak are not like others that perhaps annoy our neighbours less, but are none the less bad in the sight of our God.
154
Montpéllier – 20th December 1848
To Mr B R
I make some remarks as they present themselves. There are other interpretations which, while not being yours, do not encounter the difficulties which you suppose.
In the first place, I do not doubt that the Assyrian, or at least a power which is not the Antichrist, is the desolator (Dan 9: 27). I think that it is the “king of the north”, but this does not imply your explanation of this verse, even though it will be the Antichrist who confirms
the covenant. But there is quite simply: “because of the protection of abominations, a desolator”, that is to say, “there will be a desolator”. The Antichrist having led them into idolatry, the desolator will be released against them (cf Isa 28: 14-18).
In the second place, I do not at all assert on Hebrew grammar, but regularly speaking, [chapter] 11: 31 would be: “the armies or forces will stand, will rise up from him, and they will profane … and they will remove, etc”. I would not know that there is an example where the verb accords regularly with the masculine plural already expressed, for which ‘one’ could be substituted.
Then you have confounded the idea of the one who re-establishes the sacrifice with the one who is the object of it, or rather to whom it is presented, the function which he attaches to it.
You ask who removes the continual sacrifice (Dan 8: 11). One has to look to Keri which gives: “it was removed”. The passage says nothing more or less. It must still be previous letters relate these notebooks to notes for the Lausanne translation project ‘let it have effect’
Keri signifies the marginal note of the Massorites, indicating their idea of how the text should be read. All the oldest and best manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible contain on every page, beside the Text lines of smaller writing, distributed between the upper and lower margins. The word Massorah is from the root masar, to eliver remembered that, in Daniel, Israel is always considered as the people of God , a very important remark for understanding the book which goes to the root of some of your reasonings. God speaks in grace and Jerusalem is treated as Daniel’s holy city. For it seems to me that one will not manage to see in the Prince of princes the prince of the army.
Remember also that this is in the hands of the little horn of chapter 7, that the seasons and Jewish ordinances are given up (chap 7: 25). It is that one who changes them, who blasphemes and exalts himself. As to “cast down the truth to the ground” (chap 8: 12), I really think that it is horn of chapter 8, that is not the Antichrist but the Assyrian or the king of the North. As head of the army, Christ is not seen as accomplishing Hebrews 9 and 10, but as Head of the Jews in the last day. In this character, it is to Him that the sacrifices belong, as – as a matter of privilege – they belong to the Jews. Many of the Psalms speak of the sacrifices of righteousness; these are not the same as the sacrifices for sin; the “Thamid” was a burnt offering; without this the Jews had no altar, no public relationship with God.
The remark that I have made as to the way of envisaging the Jews in Daniel sets aside your interpretation of [chapter] 8: 10; as to [chapter] 8: 11, I have already spoken. You say that the “prince who will come” (chap 9: 26) is the same as the desolator (v 27). Why? “On the top of abomination” (chap 8: 27) does not present any idea to me. The abomination is an idol, a profane thing and defiled in God’s eyes. What would the top of an idol signify?
Your heir of Titus, a desolator who follows the prince that shall come (chap 9: 26-27) is nothing; for me, I do not believe there has been one. The Antichrist will be his heir is a sense, as being flesh, or at least the principle horn of the Beast, although effectively it is another, according to me as well as you, who will act as Titus in attacking the city, although not in the destruction at the same time. Titus “ estroye ” the city (chap 10: 26, the king of the North or the Assyrian “overthrows it” (chap 8: 11).
The Assyrian is not therefore the desolator. On this we are agreed. On the other hand, you have not considered enough that Israel is called (chap 8: 24) the holy people, and if God cannot call His people that, He answers to Daniel’s heart in recognising His prophetic faith,
and calls them “thy people” (as He did to Moses). That is to say, that He takes knowledge of them by the intervention of a mediator. For verses 11 and 12 are relevant to Daniel’s view (speaking, it goes without saying, by the prophetic Spirit).
As to your “Summary”, I accept it, without the difficulties which do not exist for me. It seems to me that it is neither Jesus, nor the Antichrist, who will restore sacrifices in this time.
I think that the Jews will have done it themselves. It is very possible that the king of the North will remove his false worship of the Antichrist (but he takes Jerusalem). But can you something into the han of another, so as to commit it to his trust. The name is given to the small writing referred to, because it contains information necessary to those to whose trust the Sacred Text was committed, so that they might transcribe it, and hand it down correctly. The Text itself had been fixed before the Massorites were put in charge of it. This had been the work of the Sopherim (from saphar, to count, or number). Their work, under Ezra and Nehemiah, was to set the Text in order. This work lasted from Nehemiah to Simon the first, 410-300BC. The Sopherim were the authorised revisers of the Sacred Text; and, their work being completed, the Massorites were the authorised custodians of it. Their work was to preserve it. The Massorah is called “A Fence to the Scriptures,” because it locked all words and letters in their places. It does not contain notes or comments as such, but facts and phenomena. It records the number of times that several letters occur in the various books of the Bible; the number of words, and the middle word; the number of verses, and the middle verse; the number of expressions and combinations of words, &c. All this was, not from a perverted ingenuity, but for the set purpose of safeguarding the Sacred Text, and preventing the loss of misplacement of a single letter or word.
A footnote to this verse in JND’s English Bible says that it might be rendered: ‘and the abomination (idols) of the desolator shall be on the pinnacle (ie of the temple)’
153
To Mr B R
Dear Brother
Here at last is another notebook
305
. I have been in Ireland, travelling, ill, all sorts of things. Having had, by the delay in my departure for France, several days of at least a
comparative tranquillity, I have used it in part for this work. I hesitate a little: 1) because this will probably be too late for it to be used; 2) because I have had to do it with less care and attention than the gravity of the service required. However, being subject to others, I send it; one would perhaps still correct some things on the proofs, if it is found good, and as the translation requires it, it seems to me. I have not had even a few of the books which I could in
general use, but at last here is the work such as it is. aleat quantum
with you.
Yours very affectionately
________
Here at last is another notebook[1]. I have been in Ireland, travelling, ill, all sorts of things. Having had, by the delay in my departure for France, several days of at least a comparative tranquillity, I have used it in part for this work. I hesitate a little: 1) because this will probably be too late for it to be used; 2) because I have had to do it with less care and attention than the gravity of the service required. However, being subject to others, I send it; one would perhaps still correct some things on the proofs, if it is found good, and as the translation requires it, it seems to me. I have not had even a few of the books which I could in general use, but at last here is the work such as it is. Valeat quantum[2] – May the Lord be with you.
Yours very affectionately
[1] previous letters relate these notebooks to notes for the Lausanne translation project
I hasten to answer your good letter, especially since I see a little spiritual discouragement there. As for the translation[1], I had pursued it in all simplicity, to add what I could for the common good, even if the specialities of epistles demanded more positive gifts as to co-operation. The answer says nothing about what I asked for in this respect. I shall do the will of the Lord, thereupon as much as I shall be able. What had given rise to my question was that there are particular difficulties because the spirit of the French language does not answer much to Greek abstractions. If it was refused to face up to this difficulty, by acknowledging the bearing of this circumstance, I would have been a bit disheartened in this attempt; the work would have been useless, because, for the idiom of the French language, it is obvious that I must depend in some measure on other people. In the end, I left the thing there without adding anything.
As for the dangers about which you speak, they are possible, but the One who has kept his people before grape harvests, will keep them afterwards. He does not change. The enemy can roar and grind his teeth, but the hair of the head of each of the faithful is counted. I fear rest just as much as persecution for the dear and precious children of God, though I bless God when He grants us this rest. Only let us know how to walk in the fear of God, and it will be in the consolation of His Spirit. It is very natural that the respite, after the tension of persecution, brings a little of spiritual slackening and that the enemy should seek to profit from it, but, by seeking His face, His grace will be enough for us; His power will be perfected in our weakness. It is for each of us to be held near the Lord, not for themselves only, but being there by grace for others. A man of faith often disconcerts (by grace) the enemy in an astonishing way. It is what God desires. He intervenes and He is acknowledged. However hidden it is, the instrument will not lose its reward. It is the hidden work which is the most beautiful, most near God and His heart, most entirely for Him, and He will acknowledge it as such in the day when He will manifest what He will have given and approved.
As for the assemblies, dear brother, apart from what I have just said, it is necessary to trust to the Lord and to seek much to cultivate a true spirit of love, of brotherly affections flowing from the charity which takes nothing into account, so that God is glorified in His own. As for your difficulties which you feel on the subject of your prayers, it is a serious and hard thing, I admit, but God’s grace is not lacking to you. I do not doubt, beloved brother, that the flesh is the reason, negligence, false confidence, the lack of smallness and of poverty of spirit. Alas! I only know it too well. However, there is something to say here. The Lord makes us feel our dependence in the thing which is the easiest to us, in which we prove a certain satisfaction, in which the flesh does not fail to find its worth. I do not say that this incapacity happens to us without there being some fault, some spiritual negligence, for the flesh that takes pleasure in it cannot be active in the presence of God, and does not seek it. Thus, we relax inwardly; there is not the same intensity, the same need; the presence of God is no longer as before the source of joy for us; it does not feel needed in the same way. Our love towards the church is the love of God towards the church, and it is the only object in God’s view according to the love of which He is the source. It no longer carries the same character in our opinion; the motive of prayer lacks in the measure in which the link with the source is weakened. – but at the same time, dear brother, all this makes us make the discovery of the flesh in us, and we understand thereby even more profoundly that everything is grace. In the state about which I speak, having no consciousness of the love of Jesus for the church, we see more easily His sorrows, and these sorrows in a more painful way, less as objects of His solicitude, the more as hard things for us, and, having no trust which inspires His love, we are discouraged by it.
You have spoken of quite an important subject, responsibility and its relationship with grace. I believe that one can very well insist on devotion in a spirit of grace. I desire that you should abound in this grace also, as the fruit of love in us. It is thus that one is encouraged in these things. Devotion is not produced in blaming weakness in devotion, for it is the fruit of grace. Devotion which flows [from this blame] is only an imitation, a bad basis. In reading the epistles, you will easily find this distinction. Besides, if God gives it to me, I will tell you a word on the link between responsibility and grace, or rather between grace and responsibility. Room fails me to do it here.
Whatever it be, beloved brother, draw near to the Lord, our infinitely precious and faithful Head. The grace which is in Him suits all our circumstances, all our states of soul. It is the remedy and more than this, for our sorrows are only the occasion of knowing its fulness and perfection. “I have seen the affliction of my people”[2]; there were indeed other things to see. For the rest, God is faithful. Faith acts individually, although it produces common effects, while there is a common faith to which God answers. It is to Him that I commit you, beloved brother.
I believe that “the end of the Lord” in James 5: 11 signifies the end in contrast with the way. For us, the way is patience, but the end which is in the Lord’s hands is always mercy, as is seen in Job.
Recently, we have read together the epistle to the Hebrews with much communion of soul and, I hope, to our profit. For myself, I have been particularly taken up with the epistle to the Ephesians, and with the position of the church as a dispensation or special object of the counsels of God, and I hope that I have profited from it – mainly in affirming my faith and the basis of this faith which stretches my knowledge.
But the position of the church has been set in relief before me in this reading.
Have you noticed that, in the consecration of the priests (in Leviticus), it was not a question of entering into the holy place, either with blood or with incense? All was outside. Moses and Aaron went in afterwards; but the consecration is not concerned with this. The goat offered for sin would have been eaten. This sets out the ostensible purpose of their priesthood as such, in contrast to the heavenly things of the church. The day of atonement was something else. I would like that you think of it. Christ, of course, occupies this double place.
Moses is Christ rejected by His brethren and risen to glory, identifying himself with his brethren, stranger and misunderstood, in returning to liberate them from their bondage. In the first case, he receives, himself exalted, his people in grace. In the second, he comes as one of them to deliver them.
There are also certain characters of the Holy Spirit during this dispensation, a character which belongs to Him: the union with the hidden Head, risen to the right hand of God, and the earnest of the glory to come.
It is evident that the Holy Spirit will be spread abroad as the Spirit of power during the thousand years, but this will no longer be the power of a life hidden with Christ in God. He will be no longer hidden. Besides, the seal and the earnest during the non-accomplishment of the promises will not have their place in those times. These are those who have hope in advance who need to be thus sealed and obtain thus the earnest, and this by a Spirit come down who links the heart to Him who has gone up.
The Spirit has, it seems to me, two characters at the end of the gospel of John, even as to His office.
The Lord, as Mediator, obtains Him and the Father sends Him, and he acts on behalf of the Father as the Spirit of adoption and of the knowledge of the truth. He comforts and instructs the children here below.
But also, [in chapters] 15 and 16, the Lord Christ risen on high sends Him Himself; then he takes the things of Christ and shows them to His own; and all that the Father has is [given] to the Son, that is to say that He renders testimony to the glory of the Son of man risen as being one with the Father, and finally to all His glory …
We are happy here, thanks be to God; the brethren are quite peaceful and make progress. It has seemed to me that, in the exercise of discipline, we have not given the first place enough to prayer. Without doubt, in flagrant cases, discipline must be exercised. But there are a thousand cases grieving to the Holy Spirit, disturbing His movement in the body, which do not need to become the subjects of public discipline; but do not in the least hinder geral blessing.
Christ loves His church; we are of His flesh and of His bones. For often the heart, instead of being moved to respond, must be pressed towards Jesus, so that His love is manifested towards this soul, a precious member of His body, so that it should be cured, restored. If one thought of souls as members of His own body, one would be interested in what would make them in a good state according to grace, and would count on His grace for this to be accomplished; for He acts directly on the souls of His own, as He does on sinners to call them. It must be remembered, dear brother, that, for knowledge as much for other things, it has to be acquired, when it is true by the Holy Spirit, and that He acts freely in His sphere which he has formed by His power which acts in grace; thus if the objects with which He is occupied do not possess our hearts, these hearts cannot be full of His knowledge in communion.
From this [flows] the importance of the spiritual state of the brethren for the enjoyment of this communion, the food of which will be the revelation of the things of Christ by the Spirit. Without this, they will seek an education which leaves the soul in its own laziness, instead of enjoying it as providing the means of spiritual communion.
It is therefore necessary to think of the state of souls, and if we do not know how to act directly upon them, it is necessary to pray much that hunger and thirst for Jesus take possession of them.
Recently, we have read together the epistle to the Hebrews with much communion of soul and, I hope, to our profit. For myself, I have been particularly taken up with the epistle to the Ephesians, and with the position of the church as a dispensation or special object of the counsels of God, and I hope that I have profited from it – mainly in affirming my faith and the basis of this faith which stretches my knowledge.
But the position of the church has been set in relief before me in this reading.
Je suis heureux que la fin de mon travail sur Matthieu soit plus populaire que le commencement, et j’en bénis Dieu. Il sera évidemment plus utile ainsi. Je crois que, dans l’état actuel de l’Eglise, il faut agir selon le raisonnement de Héb.5-6. Toutefois c’est une bénédiction que cela s’adapte aux simples.
Quant à Matth.25 v.31-46, je ne comprends pas comment vous l’appliquez aux Juifs, et cela par la raison toute simple qu’il parle des gentils. Peut-être me direz-vous qu’il parle des gentils. Peut-être me direz-vous que …… (mot en grec) “Et il les séparera”. ne s’accorde pas avec ….. (mot en grec) “Toutes les nations” ; mais je dis oui, quant au sens, et il n’y a rien d’autre avec quoi l’accorder. Voici donc la phrase : “Lorsque le fils de l’homme viendra dans sa gloire et tous les saints anges avec lui, alors il s’assiéra sur le trône de sa gloire et tous les gentils seront rassemblés devant lui, et il les séparera comme un berger sépare les brebis des boucs.” Ce n’est pas ici une allusion à un témoignage prophétique, mais à un acte du métier de berger. Là-dessus il emploie l’expression : « Il mettra les brebis à sa droite et les boucs à sa gauche » ; mais il l’abandonne aussitôt en disant : “Alors le roi dira à ceux qui sont à sa droite…” Les brebis ne sont plus nommées ; il parle des personnes sans se servir d’image. Enfin, je ne vois pas ici d’autre sujets que les gentils (soit nations) ; ils seront rassemblés et il les séparera ; il n’y pas d’autre antécédent. Vous avez raison quand vous dites que, selon ma division, les “frères” du v.40, ne sont pas “les bénis de mon Père” du v.34. Je ne doute pas que si une brebis avait fait du bien à une autre brebis, cela n’eût été reconnu de Jésus, mais de fait les brebis ou ceux qui sont à sa droite, sont les justes et les bénis du Père. Voici la division :
Roi
Brebis Boucs
Les “frères,” dont il parle, ne trouvent pas leur place dans la parabole. Le Seigneur laisse à l’intelligence spirituelle de ses serviteurs de discerner qui ils sont. Quant à moi, je ne doute pas que ce soient des Juifs, messagers du royaume, d’après l’ensemble de l’enseignement du Seigneur dans ces passages, mais je suis tout disposé à recevoir de nouvelles lumières. Vous auriez tort d’insister sur Ezéch.34 v.17, 22, parce que le mot hébreu traduit brebis ; il indique autant la race des chèvres que celle des moutons. (Voyez par exemple, Deut.14 v.4). Je ne comprends pas non plus pourquoi vous dites que, dans les v.4,6,8 “les boucs les ont fait égarer” ; ce sont les mauvais bergers. Je crois aussi que vous trouverez que dans ce passage, v.22, les béliers et les boucs ne sont pas mis en contraste les uns avec les autres, mais les bêtes faibles en contraste avec celles qui les ont foulées, appelées béliers et boucs. Dieu fera la différence entre brebis et brebis, entre béliers et boucs. (v.17.)
L’énergie qui va en avant pour chercher la vérité est très précieuse. Qu’elle soit tempérée par la prudence qui pense au résultat, c’est une grâce qui vous est faite ; la charité pense aux âmes et pas seulement aux idées, quoiqu’il reste vrai que les idées de Dieu sont les seuls moyens de bénédiction pour les âmes ; mais il faut “la nourriture au temps convenable…”
Quant à la sympathie de Christ, c’est un sujet très important. Il est évident pour moi, que lorsque Paul parle d’accomplir ce qui manque des souffrances de Christ, il parle des souffrances qui restent à accomplir, après celles que le Christ a accomplies sur la terre. Paul se charge, à son tour, de la souffrance. S’il parlait d’un Christ qui souffrait encore, je ne vois pas qu’il pût dire : les souffrances de Christ qui manquent. Ces paroles me semblent être en contraste avec ce que Christ avait déjà souffert ; Paul prenait sa place pour continuer. Ne pensez pas que je nie par-là les souffrances de Christ comme Tête du corps, car j’y crois, et c’est pour moi la plus douce pensée possible. Je crois seulement qu’il est important que l’idée soit assez mûre pour devenir un sujet d’édification et non de controverse. Elle est pour moi trop précieuse et trop près des affections pour cela. Il y a des sujets qu’il faut toucher délicatement. Je ne nie donc pas les souffrances de Christ en sympathie ; j’y crois pleinement ; seulement je doute qu’on puisse appliquer Col.1 v.24, à ce que Christ souffrait dans le ciel. (Sympathiser n’est pas, comme vous sembler le croire, souffrir de la même manière que vous. Je pourrais être appelé, comme vous le dites, à vous couper le bras ; certainement, je pleurerais plus que vous, mais mon bras n’est pas coupé. Je sympathiserai, mais je ne souffrirai pas en moi-même la chose faite ; je souffrirai de voir souffrir un autre. Je ne dis pas du tout que l’on souffre moins, mais on souffre autrement.)
Quant à votre article, il m’a beaucoup intéressé, et je crois qu’il peut être béni pour les âmes. La rédaction aurait besoin d’être revue ; il y a des passages qui ne se lient pas. J’aimerais beaucoup qu’on le publiât, mais il me semble que vous ferez bien de peser et de mûrir l’expression de vos pensées. Il s’agit pour nous de manœuvrer en présence de l’Ennemi et de ne pas prêter le flanc à ses attaques.
Je répète que je ne crois pas que ce passage : “Ce qui reste encore à souffrir des afflictions du Christ,” puisse se dire d’un Christ souffrant avec Paul, quoique d’autres passages prouvent (et je le crois) ses souffrances en sympathie avec lui. Je n’émets ici que des principes ; pour les détails, il me faudrait relire votre article.
157
