J’écris seulement quelques lignes au sujet de nos notes sur la traduction de Lausanne. Probablement je suis bien en arrière de leurs travaux. J’ai eu passablement d’hésitation au sujet de ces notes, ayant le sentiment, pas du tout qu’on dû recevoir mes pensées, mais qu’ils seraient un peu trop liés par leur système actuel, pour les recevoir, quand même elles seraient vraies. Toutefois dans les évangiles et encore plus dans les Actes, livre presque entièrement historique, ces difficultés entraient peu en ligne de compte, et j’étais heureux de travailler comme sous-ouvrier si, par ce moyen, quelque chose pouvait être ajouté à l’exactitude d’une traduction de la Parole, à laquelle toute l’Eglise de Dieu en langue française est intéressée. Maintenant, arrivé aux épîtres, cela me préoccupe un peu plus. De plus, je ne sais pas si je ne suis pas trop arriéré quant à l’ouvrage pour me tenir au niveau de leurs travaux. Enfin, j’aimerais savoir ce que vous en pensez et à quel point d’avancement ils en sont dans ce moment. Il y a des questions graves sur la loi, et même des difficultés de langage, en ce que le français ne sait guère rendre les pensées abstraites. “Des œuvres de loi,”, si cela pouvait se dire, est bien autre chose que “des œuvres de la loi”. Or je crois que l’apôtre tient souvent à mettre les choses au clair par le moyen de proposition très abstraites. Maintenant, quant au français, il est clair que nos amis seraient à même de faciliter le maniement d’une langue qui est la leur, pour se rapprocher au moins de l’exactitude du grec, s’il y avait accord quant au sens de ce grec. Sans cela, on travaillerait un peu inutilement, parce qu’on ne chercherait pas à reproduire ce sens. Je prends seulement le mot “loi”, comme exemple. Je crois que leur travail est un travail important. Je suis tout heureux de travailler sur cette base pour le bien de tous, et étant étranger quant à la langue, de le faire dans mon cabinet, inconnu hors de cette limite. C’est ce qui devrait être. Si le travail est bien exécuté, nos frères en profiteront comme les autres, ainsi que toute l’église française. Etant arrivé à ce point de l’ouvrage où les doctrines se développent en détail, je m’arrête un instant seulement pour savoir si mon travail contribuera vraiment en quelque chose à l’œuvre. Il y a des notions de traduction que j’estime peut-être petites ; cela ne me fait rien ; c’est leur œuvre, et je ne fais que travailler aux carrières et à la montagne comme un ouvrier d’Hiram, tout en recevant mes gages du vrai Salomon, et ils sont bons. J’en suis très satisfait, car j’en profite beaucoup pour moi-même. Ma question est seulement si vous pensez que je puisse encore leur être utile dans la tâche à laquelle ils se sont voués. Dites-moi un mot là-dessus. Saluez beaucoup les frères. Je me trouve béni et heureux, par la grâce de Dieu. A la hâte.
I just write some lines on the subject of our notes about the Lausanne translation[218]. Probably I am well behind their work. I have had quite some hesitation on the subject of these notes, having the feeling, not at all that my thoughts have to be received, but that they will be a bit too tied by their current system to receive them even when they are true. However, in the gospels and even more in the Acts, a book almost entirely historical, these difficulties did not enter the reckoning much, and I was happy to labour as under-worker if, by this means, something could be added to the exactitude of a translation of the Bible in which all the French-speaking church of God is interested. Now, having come to the epistles, this concerns me a bit more. Moreover, I do not know if I am too late as to the work for me add significantly to their work. Finally, I would like to know what you think and how far they have reached at this point in time. There are grave questions about the law, and even language difficulties, in that the French hardly knows how to render abstract thoughts. “Works of law”, if this could be said, is quite another thing from “works of the law”. For I believe that the apostle often aims to make things clear by means of a very abstract proposition. Now, as to the French, it is clear that our friends would be in a position to make the handling of a language which is theirs easier, to get closer at least to the accuracy of Greek, if there was agreement as to the sense of this Greek. Without this, one would work a bit ineffectively, because one would not be seeking to reproduce the sense. I take just the word ‘law’ as an example. I believe that their work is a very important work. I am quite happy to work on this basis for the good of all, and being a foreigner as to the language, to do it in my study, unknown outside this limit. It is what should be. If the work is well done, our brethren will profit from it as others, as well as the whole French church. Being come to this point of the work where doctrines are developed in detail, I am stopping for a moment only to know whether my labour will truly contribute something to the work. There are notions about translation that I reckon to be small, that is nothing to me; it is their work, and I only work at the quarries and on the mountain as a worker of Hiram, while accepting my wages from the true Solomon, and they are good. I am very satisfied with it, because I profit a lot from it myself. My question is only if you think that I can still be useful to them in the task to which they have devoted themselves. Say to me a word thereupon. Greet the brethren much. I think I am blessed and happy, by the grace of God. In haste.
Yours very affectionately
______________
Letter originally written in French, translated by Sosthenes, 2013
Click here for original – If you have any comments on the translation, feel free to let me know.
I do not know how much you would have official news, since I am not written to in French on our side; but I am not the less aware of your goodness. Thank you very much. I am just as aware that I do not merit anything like this from my dear brethren but happily affection is not merited. It grows in the good ground of the grace of our God. I have taken up again my work on the translation[1]. But there is no lack of business which has accumulated during my illness; perhaps God has desired that this work should be interrupted.
And now, in reply to your question about evangelisation, I rejoice at the thought that you are occupied with souls; this always does us good ourselves. One would not know how to answer in a categorical way to such a demand, because I would act differently in different cases. In general, the gospel is set in its simplicity before the soul, without committing it to prayer, like our dear brother R desires it, because souls always put something between themselves and their salvation, and attach to this something of importance, as to all that they do. One would desire something in the soul before it is loved and washed; this is the case with most evangelical Christians, while it is necessary to present Christ as wisdom, justification and righteousness[2]. So that, generally speaking, I agree with R. But this is where another principle enters, not only in the case of an atheist, but rather with others. I present Christ to the soul; in consequence of which it is exercised by it, but not yet set free. Here therefore, I add something that you seem to me to leave out in what you say to me, whether on your part, or as being the views of R.
It is not only “believe and thou shalt be saved”, for God’s testimony convinces the soul of sin. This is a fact, and a fact which must be come to absolutely if the soul is truly penetrated by the gospel. It is not the presentation of faith as the means of salvation which does this, but the revelation of Christ to the conscience, of Christ who as light makes the soul aware of what is within. Faith in this sense produces the healthy, butsorrowful conviction, but not peace. Often, there is quite a long interval (I do not say there has to be; for this is not the case when the Spirit acts in power) between the conviction of sin and being set free. There is another effect of faith to present; not only the person of Jesus who has already produced the conviction of sin of which we speak, but the efficacy of His work. It is this which must always be put forward, but which still answers in this case to a need produced. But here the effect of faith is presented to the soul, to know the propitiation and love which has been given to it. I do not urge the soul to pray for faith. But what does not seem to me to have its place in your thoughts, or in those that you give me of R, is the conviction of sin. To stop there with the teachers urging them to pray – that is bad. I agree here with dear brother R. But I seek this firm conviction in my discussions with a soul and, if it is not there, I try to produce it by the truth. It makes one cry: this soul prays (not: ‘must pray’). To this cry, the fullness of the gospel is the answer. The sins of which it weeps are not imputed to it because of the blood of Christ. What I seek with a heathen or a nominal Christian is the conviction of sin. I seek it in announcing pure free grace and the efficacy of God. Where this conviction is found, I present what grace has accomplished. It is very important to present all this as an accomplished thing on which one believes, without which it would be a question neither of prayer or anything else. But if I find some obstacle, something which hinders the soul making progress, whatever sincerity there may be (and this happens sometimes), things which the Spirit of God must drive from the heart before giving it peace – then I could urge it to pray. In the state of mixture and confusion where we are, this is what happens. Only care must be taken not to put prayers or whatever between the soul and Christ, for faith is only the view which one has of Him. ‘Faith’, in Scripture, often means the doctrine which faith embraces, or the system of faith, in contrast to law.
I therefore present Christ as He as an object of faith, and where the Holy Spirit acts in power, the knowledge of the Lord displaces and replaces every obstacle; the soul is set free.
Cases arise where I would urge one to pray, because of something which makes an obstacle. In general, one hardly needs to urge such a soul. As to election, it is not a matter of this in preaching the gospel. I preach Christ, God will act in His counsels of grace. I do not preach Christ dying for the elect, although among believers it may be important to develop the special links between His death and the elect. Without this, their thoughts about His work are vague, lacking stability and mixed with the work of the Holy Spirit in their souls. I announce Christ as propitiatory victim for sin, the glorious Son of the Father and One with Him, His sufferings and His glory, and this on account of sin. I show them perhaps the darkness of the soul, in showing them what He is, Him, [both] light and grace. And I announce to them that whoever believes is saved, pardoned, and enjoys eternal life.
I explain, as needed, efficacy for those who believe because, in nominally Christian countries, this is what is needed, and efficacy announced shows them that they do not believe it. To God’s children, election is useful to make them humble, for all is grace; to reassure them, for grace is efficacy and flows from a source that does not dry up, from a counsel which does not waver. Here the work and joys of the Holy Spirit can be preciously developed.
Here I am, dear brother, at the end of my letter for this occasion. The more there is simplicity, the more there will be blessing. It is Christ that must be preached, Christ the Saviour of souls, and of sinful souls in their needs and their sorrows, the fruit of God’s free love.
May God be blessed; I have good news in general of the work in Switzerland and France.
The difference of the preaching now is that the story is generally known; one has to announce the efficacy, and the glory, but at the beginning this story presented the glory of it to souls by the power of the Holy Spirit. Now, it is necessary to attract attention. The effect of it will always be the same, where the Holy Spirit acts.
Farewell, beloved brother. May God direct you and strengthen you. Greet the elderly ones, T, G, and all our precious brethren. It is only by a letter from G that supposed I already knew that I have learned that our beloved Tapernoux has gone in peace. He is happy. I long ardently for the time; yes, ardently. However, one fulfils one’s day as a hireling. Assure his widow and his family of all my sympathy. Yes, he is happy! Oh! may that day come when we will all be reunited in the presence and glory of Jesus, without sin.
Yours affectionately
Plymouth – 29th June 1846
I am sending you a notebook. I fear it betrays a little haste, because in getting over illness, I have found a mass of letters and business awaiting me, and I have been a bit crushed with fatigue.
[1] the Lausanne version – see note in Letter No 147
It should not be thought that God is shown to be against the brethren. Much the contrary. What is true is that there have been very great tests. But I have never been so convinced that God loves the brethren and that He desires to keep them. What is true is that the enemy had sought to turn all their principles upside down and to test them by a touchstone, in a way which the flesh would not know how to escape; but this has been shown well, in humbling us it is profoundly true, that our principles were of fine gold. God has recognised them in humbling those who professed them all. But division has only happened in two places and, in the second, it has only occurred last week; undoubtedly in my view, however the brothers work, I do not doubt, to make a party elsewhere. But I think that God laid His hand on the work of the opposers, and that they will hardly be able to do any more, because [the matter] is known now. God was over this, in spite of all the tricks which they used. Perhaps our patience will be exercised, and it will be for our good. But God has shown His goodness to us in a way which, for me, I have never seen the like. Never have we had meetings so happy, or in such a spirit of service, however poor we are. I think I can say (while being sure that what was already sown will still be reaped here) that the plague is stayed.
God has already answered, I dare not to say to faithfulness, but at least to the desire to be faithful.
This is what I think of the affairs here. If there had been more spirituality, the thing would have been – or would have been able to be – cured outright. God has acted according to the state of the church and in this, it seems to me, much more solidly in individual consciences. I have left the thing, I believe, according to the mind of God; and I am happy about it.
I do not know how to say anything, dear brother, about the Jewish resurrection, but, whatever it may be, it is here in John 11; my thought, besides, is basically yours. I think that the action of Christ as the resurrection and the life[1] answers to its position. Being on earth, He quickened Lazarus with life, which left him on the earth. Now He is only present spiritually. When He returns, He will raise those who have believed, even though they may be dead (literally), and those who live and believe on Him will not die (literally). This is the only complete sense of the passage. I do not know why one would not apply this to the resurrection of the faithful. I do not doubt at all that the Jews were mistaken in verse 36 about the tears of Jesus. The Lord had on His heart the feeling of the power of death on these poor creatures.
The passage in 2 Peter 1: 10 has never more arrested me, because the Greek word βέβαιος – babaios – has not only the sense of making firm, but the conviction a truth of which is affirmed, as for example, in verse 19: “We have the prophetic word made surer”, a perfectly similar case. The word – no more than election (at least if you want, as God has expressed Himself in the word – would be made no firmer, but the term means that it was confirmed, known by the transfiguration. For the consciousness (the intimate or inward feeling) of our election is affirmed to us, if we walk according to God, that is certain. The Holy Spirit, God, has His liberty in our hearts and is maintained there.
As to Hebrews 12: 22, 23, the use of the word “and” (have you noticed it?) tends to make the interpretation of the passage thus: “and to myriads of angels, the universal gathering; and …”. The use of the word myriad is known in the case of angels, as in Revelation 5: 11; on the other hand, the universal gathering is used for the assembly of Israel. The use of this word in other classics is too well known for one to have needed to speak of it. It seems to me that the thought of the myriads of angels suggests to the apostle this beautiful assembly, all solemn and joyous. I have thought for a long time, without seeking to impose my idea on others, that “the assembly of the firstborn who are registered in heaven” forms the church properly speaking, and that “the spirits of just men made perfect” are the saints of the Old Testament in a special way. The absence of the article must not be forgotten in this passage, which gives a characteristic and not objective force to the phrase, so: “to a mount Zion”, in contrast with “a mountain which could not be touched”.
I hope that our dear brother R does not lack anything. Greet all the brethren very affectionately.
Yours very affectionately
Really, I am very happy and blessed in my work; we are more than ever, but I am busy all the time. I am obliged sometimes to defer my replies to letters which demand careful study.
Letter originally written in French, translated by Sosthenes, 2013
Click here for original – If you have any comments on the translation, feel free to let me know.
Do not be discouraged, dear brother, about your dear daughter. There are hearts which close up in a crowd, which often are open only to God. Sometimes this is linked in some way to some fault. But they have confidence only when they are near God and hide amid the noise of the world where hardier souls are found. God has care of these hearts, but they must be cared for as much as others, for the flesh which is always there always tends to associate with the world. If life is there, which I do not doubt, it must be cultivated as with any other soul, leaving its manifestation to God. One has said: the grace of God in the heart of a man is a delicate plant in a bad climate. One must think about this.
When the faith of your daughter becomes firmer and leans less on its joy in Christ, or rather on the joy which flows from Him, your daughter will have more confidence to face the world. It is necessary to wait for the work of God, and, in the meantime to watch that the world does not spoil this work. There is difficulty in finding one’s first freshness again; but if it is kept, all this will be rediscovered later, more solid, and more completely Christ itself.
Letter originally written in French, translated by Sosthenes, 2013 Click here for original – If you have any comments on the translation, feel free to let me know.
Just a few words. I do not reply to what you have said about the fourth class of the first resurrection. The thing interests me a lot, because it is found in so many passages and even, almost, in so many truths, that one ought to examine it in a rather close way to be able to form any judgment. As soon as I shall have been able to do so, I shall say something to you about it. It also links to some thoughts which I have on Revelation 14, but I so feel my ignorance on these points that it would be madness to say too much about it; it is true that this makes it all the more interesting to look into. I only believe that it is evil to rush to establish a system thereupon, because of the smallness of our minds, by virtue of the One for whom the system, or rather the revelation has gone out. We know in part; we accept (by faith) isolated truths. The linking of these truths comes from the activity of our mind. I do not say that the Holy Spirit does not help us – why would we doubt it? – but it is no longer a revelation properly speaking, and the sum is always incomplete, so that if we limit ourselves however it may be to this, other truths are excluded, lose their power, and the soul and fellowship with the brethren (who have perhaps understood other truths) suffer from it. As to the translation[1], I work remotely from most of my resources – books in fact, so that I present my notes as being able to serve for common usefulness, and, in this work, it is evidently a matter of recognising that. I acknowledge in this translation (the one which exists), a conscientious task, but careful examination which I have made has convinced me that it is sometimes a little less literal than I had [previously] thought. This is what I have done lately in a task which I undertook on the English New Testament: in the beginning, I had not thought of critical improvements of the received text. As I am travelling (for I worked on it only at moments of leisure), I have my Tischendorf as travel book. Now I have stopped for a short time: I have an edition with the text by Scholz in the margin, the received text, that of Griesbach, Scholz and Tischendorf[2]. If there is agreement between them, and the witnesses show in the true text in an unequivocal manner, I accept it. If there is a variance of some importance, depending on a good number of witnesses, I put in the margin, ‘several’, or ‘some’ read this or that thing. I do not touch the question when this becomes a critical affair, because it is a question of a translation and not of a critical edition. If all those who have examined the text are agreed, it is a folly to give a bad reading. In the case where there is a large number of authorities for a thing, I can tell historically that this fact exists, but I do not enter critical domain as such. I use it, but I do not initiate it; it is not my work there.
Tomorrow, I shall send, I think, notes on Matthew; the others will follow shortly, with God’s help. The comments on epistles will be very important otherwise. I have followed the way of the translations in my notes.
As to the passage in Revelation 5: 9, 10, the text is indeed confused, such that one must not insist much doctrinally on that which is variant in this passage. Scholz reads: (ἡμῶν – hemon) we in v 9. Griesbach also; the only old manuscript of the Revelation rejects it. At verse 10, Scholz and Griesbach read τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν βασιλείαν (tō theō ēmōn basileian)[3] (“thou hast made them kings, etc”) with the great majority of witnesses. Scholz and Griesbach retain βασιλείαν (“kings”). A Copt, Vulg are the authorities for βασιλεία – basileia (“kingdom”). There are almost as many witnesses, more even, for “they will reign”, than for “they reign”, but the only old manuscript cited favours the last reading …
There remains a question about the four living creatures, which you have not yet raised. Are they the symbols of a certain character of power, which we find manifested in the service of certain beings which are not necessarily always the same? Is it a seraph? It is only found in Isaiah 6, save the brazen serpent. I doubt a bit your teaching on the priesthood. It has to be shown first that there was one which was not of the character of that of Melchisedec. “They shall reign over the earth” does not signify the seat of sovereignty but its object.
I have been interrupted and I stop. Peace be with you, dear brother. May God deign to keep the brethren in simplicity and humility, and may their hearts be united. May He make them prosper under the breath of His Spirit. Greet our dear friends very affectionately on my behalf. May the presence of God in Spirit be in the midst of you all; there is our joy. The only thing which gives me sorrow in Herzog’s pamphlet[4] is that it is a brother; apart from that, it is only not to be taken account of.
Yours very affectionately
______________
[1] The 2nd edition of the Bible translated at Lausanne. Motivated by the conviction that the Scriptures communicate the very mind of God, a group of Piétistes Protestants set to work in Lausanne on a tranaslation under the direction of Louis Gaussen, and then Louis Burnier. The New Testament appeared initially in 1839, then the Psalms in 1854 and the remainder of the Old Testment between 1861 and 1872. This Bible of Lausanne did not have a wide readership itself, but provided a foundation for a later Bible, the Louis Ségond Bible, which became a classic version. This Lausanne Bible was not a revision, but a scholarly concordant Bible, not really fit for wide use.
[2] In the revised Preface to second edition of the New Testament (1871), JND says – ‘In my first edition my translation was formed on the concurrent voice of Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, and Tischendorf: the first of soberer judgment and critical acumen and discernment; the next with a narrower system of taking only the very earliest MSS, so that sometimes he might have only one or two; the third excessively carelessly printed, but taking the mass of Constantinopolitan MSS as a rule’
[3] These Greek insertions have been inferred and need to be checked – see note to Letter No 143
[4] Editor’s note:- ‘a pamphlet hostile of the writer of the letter’. Professor J J Herzog of Lausanne wrote – ‘The Plymouth Brethren or Darby and his followers in the canton of Vaud, its relationship to the dissident’s municipalities and to the national church’, published in the Protestant Church Newspaper in 1844
Letter originally written in French, translated by Sosthenes, 2013
Click here for original – If you have any comments on the translation, feel free to let me know.
I have read the two letters which you have had the goodness to send me and I proceed, without preface, to tell you something. M’s flesh, sweet, hospitable and flattering, pleases me less than the honest absent-mindedness of H, although it may be less cutting. As to the confidence in each, I do not see a great difference between the two; and you see, as soon as his carnal system and unbelief fall, struck at the base, how all the sweetness disappears with M! ‘It is Jesuitical sophistry’, he says. He will speak of love as much as you want, but never of what touches his conscience. I believe that he is in the saddest state possible. The only true testimony as to him, I am sorry to say it, is to avoid him. He avoids all that could wound the flesh, in avoiding anything that could judge it, because he wants to be able to walk peacefully himself. This gives him an air of amiability, of sweetness and charity, but all this only does the work of the enemy. If he is opposed, one has the air of not having charity; if one is with him without opposition, one consents to the evil he does. God knows to lay this bare, but it is Him who does it. You see that he already has the reputation of a man oppressed, because of what he calls your attacks. It is thus, knowing all the evil that he does to simple souls by these means, that I have taken such a decisive part as to refuse to go and see him or to invite him …
As to H, you have been hurt, dear brother. You should keep above his lack of wisdom or know-how, and show him in love that his letters lacked maturity at least, and also wisdom too. It would have been good for him. I have written to him, perhaps too frankly, but I would have felt that I lacked in charity if I had not told him what I thought. I still do not have an answer; I hope that God will act in his heart.
I dare to urge you, dear brother, not to write much just now. When one studies the ministry or rather the Word with that end in view without being concerned with souls, there is always danger. One can follow ideas. Seeking souls is a remedy; it is necessary to know how to apply our knowledge to their state, without which it is worth nothing. To be clear oneself is not to be clear to others in opening up the truth. Grace and the truth came by Jesus Christ[1]. When our intelligence is too much in activity, the truth ceases to be a link between the soul and God. I have never seen a person reading the Word a lot without acting in charity and in responsibility towards souls, who did not hold something of little importance and often erroneous. The truth is not even a link between my own soul and God. It becomes ‘subjecta veritas quasi materia’[2], and this is doubly detrimental when it is a matter of the Word. If you set yourself to produce a lot, I urge you to produce it for souls, and especially for poor sinners. It is inconceivable what good this does to ourselves, how it makes one become small, and in what way the truth takes its place. I have said ‘produce’ because one cannot study without producing; however what seeks souls is always good in itself; these are the realities of faith and not our ideas, and our own souls find their true place before God. It is evident that this does not divert from Biblical studies; on the contrary, they are much more profitable, because the Spirit of God, having His true activity, according to His nature, acts freely in the communication that He makes to us of divine things. This is what I have often found.
Actually, God acts in us as much as by us, and the first of these things is never agreeable but very profitable. Sometimes those who do not know what it is think that they have lost His love, because He makes them reflect on themselves for their good. It is a sorrowful discipline, but which has for its end to make us enjoy Him more really, and to set us in the truth, at the bottom of our hearts, instead of being happy on the surface which is being very negligent underneath. All this is our fault, but it is God’s goodness which desires that we should enjoy Him more deeply, washing us of all that would hinder, if the conscience were to be in full exercise, making us judge all that. Instead of our being able to see Him entirely simply, He who is our full joy, He puts something hidden on our conscience, without our knowing it, whether it be in the heart or in nature, and at least He stops us in the way. He is faithful in His love; if we know Him, we soon see what He is, and confidence returns even if the work is not finished.
In great haste, your very affectionate brother in Jesus, our Lord and precious Saviour. Greet all the brethren much. I hope, God willing, to see them soon, but I do not know exactly when.
Letter originally written in French, translated by Sosthenes, 2013
Click here for original – If you have any comments on the translation, feel free to let me know.
I am seizing the opportunity to send the enclosed letters to the brethren for you to say that, as you asked, I have sent your charts to brother S. You apparently do not say if you want them published; I do not know if you have made any decision on the matter. I believe I have told you, in my letter, what struck me, but that as a whole they were very good; only I would have preferred to omit the thoughts about the parables, which actually do not enter directly into your framework. I believe there is still light to be received on these parables. And your article on the sufferings of Christ, have you reviewed and re-written it a little? The letters which I sent you will interest the brethren; they will see a bit where the work is in certain quarters, but they are for the brethren. I read a part of them to the assembly on Sunday, at a time the brethren here had fixed, to be able to send them quicker to the brethren in V; but this has left a bad impression on my soul, as if one published the goodness of God to exalt oneself a little. I have had to be humbled before God and pray to Him that this will do no harm; for it is sad to have these things other than as a subject of prayers and labour before Him, or for joy and the brethren’s actions of thanksgiving, when the occasion presents itself.
Greet all the brethren cordially
Letter originally written in French, translated by Sosthenes, 2013
Click here for original – If you have any comments on the translation, feel free to let me know.
I have read your chart, on the words έπιφάλεια – epiphaleia, φαυερόω – phaueroa, άποκάλυψις – apokalupsis, with some attention. I have gone over your second chart on the gospels, and I seize a moment to say a word to you. But first, I will communicate to you my critical remarks on the words; I have made these after having examined all the passages anew.
… έπιφάλεια – epiphaleia (cf 1 Tim 6: 14; 2 Tim 1: 10; 2 Thess 2: 8) means appearing to me, not revelation, as if one went out of a place where one had been hidden beforehand. Without doubt, appearing is necessarily opposed to the idea of being hidden, but it is the fact of being seen or visible, of appearing, as the sun shines. He has appeared; He will appear anew. That is to say that there will be a state of things in which He will not be hidden, or as non-existent (save for faith), but where He will be apparent. It is not the act of coming out as [….Ω….][1]. But the state of shining so that He is visible. Without doubt, the thing will be true, as soon as His [….Ω….] and His [….Ω….] but it remains true afterwards.
… φαυερόω – phaueroo is in contrast with what He has been beforehand, to be hidden although existing, and of a known existence. This term only applies to us when our life has been presented as hidden with Christ in God (Col 3: 4[2]).
… άποκάλυψις – apokalupsi (cf Rom 8: 19; 1 Cor 1: 7; 1 Pet 1: 7[3]) is said more often of someone who has the right to appear in glory and who appears thus, to the confusion, indeed, of those who have not wanted to recognise the glory. And this term is applied either to judgment or to glory; it is something glorious which shines out.
… φαυερόω – phaueroo signifies putting on the record and is applied to sin (Eph 5: 13; 1 Cor 4: 5; Luke 8: 17; Mark 4: 22, etc.).
… αρουσία – arousia signifies presence in contrast with absence, and also the fact of becoming present after having been absent. (1 Cor 16: 17; 2 Cor 7: 6 present this latter sense, and Phil 2: 12; 2 Cor 10: 10 the former). This word evidently gives us the idea of His presence in the midst of the scene in which are our affections, our fears, our hopes, our joys, our sorrows, and where His presence or His absence can act on these things. So that the presence of Christ in the creation answers to the hopes and affections of the person who speaks of it. In a general way, it is His coming into the scene from which He is currently absent. If my soul is occupied with heavenly thoughts, it will meet Him in heaven; if on earthly things, it hails His coming into this world, so that this word applies to one and the other to His coming to receive the church in the air, and to His coming on the earth to accomplish the designs and the judgment of God there.
These remarks may bring some modification to the expression of someone with your ideas, but they are in general in accord with your chart and perhaps resolve some difficulties which remain on the word [….Ω….].
As to the marriage of the Lamb, it seems to me that it would be better not to put anything else, but to leave aside what concerns the Jews and the parables. I am totally in agreement with what you say on the marriage itself, but your interpretation of the parable of the virgins presents difficulties which, for me, are insurmountable. It would be necessary first that a remnant of the Jews should be with the Lord, as His friends, before the marriage. There is no bride here, because, in this case, Jerusalem on the earth will be the bride. I do not believe that it is a question of the marriage of the Lamb in Luke 12: 36; it is only a similitude of what the disciples would have to be as to their moral state.
As to Daniel 11, my present conviction is that from v 21 to 35 is history. The named person in these verses is not the last king, for historically it is not the case, but the last here (save at v 40) because it is him who has been the type of the Antichrist. At verses 36-39, it is the Antichrist himself. I have said, thinking of Daniel, that certain brethren considered verses 21-35 as speaking of the Antichrist, but that my conviction was what I have just said to you.
Having made these remarks in all liberty, so that you can use them as you wish, I can tell you that in general your chart has given me great pleasure and, if you put aside the explanation of the parables, I believe it would be profitable to the brethren. I do not impose all my thoughts on the parables but, in such a summary, this will lend more to controversy than to edification because the chart is presented to be consulted as a whole, and not as a treatise where the question would be debated. If you like to publish your thoughts under the form of a treatise, I do not see anything wrong at all, only I urge you to reconsider it first.
Greet all the brethren affectionately. May the peace of our God, His grace and mercy, be in abundance with you and all His dear children. In haste.
Your affectionate brother
Letter originally written in French, translated by Sosthenes, 2013
Click here for original – If you have any comments on the translation, feel free to let me know.
I am happy that the end of my labour on Matthew should be more pleasurable than the beginning, and I bless God for it. It will thus be evidently useful. I believe that, in the present state of the church, it is necessary to act according to the reasoning in Hebrews 5 and 6. However, it is a blessing that this is suited to the simple.
As to Matthew 25: 31-46, I do not understand how you apply this to the Jews, and that for the very simple reason that He speaks of Gentiles. Perhaps you will tell me that καὶ άφοριεί αὐτοὺς άπ’ άλλήλων – kai aphoriei autous ap allelon, “And He will separate them”[1] does not agree with πάντα τά έθνη – panta ta ethne “All the nations”; but I agree, as to the sense, there is nothing else with which it agrees. Look therefore at the passage: “But when the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit down upon his throne of glory, and all the nations shall be gathered before him; and he shall separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats”. This is not here an allusion to a prophetic testimony, but to an act of the job of a shepherd. Earlier, he uses the expression: “he will set the sheep on his right hand, and the goats on his left”, but he abandons it at once in saying: “Then shall the King say to those on his right hand …”. The sheep are no longer named; He is speaking of people without using an image. Finally, I do not see here any other subject than the Gentiles (as the nations); they will be gathered and He will separate them; there is no other antecedent. You are right when you say that, according to my division, the “brethren” of verse 40 are not “the blessed of my Father” of v 34. I do not doubt that, if a sheep had done good to another sheep, this would have been recognised by Jesus, but in fact the sheep or those who are at his right are the righteous and the blessed of the Father. This is the division –
King
Sheep Goats
The “brethren” of whom He speaks do not find their place in this parable. The Lord leaves it to the spiritual intelligence of these servants to discern who they are. As to myself, I do not doubt that they are the Jews, messengers of the kingdom, according to the whole education of the Lord in these passages, but I am very willing to accept new light.
You would be wrong to insist on Ezekiel 34: 17, 22, because the Hebrew word translated ‘sheep’ indicates rather the race of goats than those of sheep (see for example Deut 14: 4). I do not understand either why you say that, in verses 4, 6 and 8 ‘the goats they have led astray’ are the bad shepherds. I also believe that you will find that in this passage, v 22, the rams and the goats are not put in contrast one with the other, but the weak animals in contrast with those they have defiled, called rams and goats. God will make the difference between sheep and sheep, between rams and goats (v 17).
The energy which goes forward to seek the truth is very precious. May it be tempered with the prudence which thinks of the result; this is a grace given to you. Charity thinks of souls and not only of ideas, although it remains true that God’s ideas are the only means of blessing for souls; but it must be “food in season[2]” …
As to the sympathy of Christ, it is a very important subject. It is evident to me that when Paul speaks of filling up what was lacking of the sufferings of Christ[3], he speaks of the sufferings which remain to be fulfilled, after those that Christ has accomplished on the earth. Paul is charged in turn with suffering. If he spoke of a Christ who still suffered, I do not see that he could say “what was lacking of the sufferings of Christ” These words seem to me to be in contrast with what Christ has already suffered; Paul took his place to continue. Do not think that I thereby deny the sufferings of Christ as Head of the body, for I do believe it, and it is for me the sweetest possible thought. I believe only that it is important that the idea should be thought through to become a subject of edification and not of controversy. It is for me too precious and too near to the affections for this. There are subjects which have to be touched delicately. I do not therefore deny the sufferings of Christ in sympathy: I believe in them fully, only I doubt that one can apply Colossians 1: 24 to what Christ may suffer in heaven. (To sympathise is not, as you seem to believe, to suffer in the same way as you do. I could be called, as you say, to cut your arms; certainly, I would weep more than you, but my arms are not cut. I would sympathise, but I would not suffer in myself the thing done; I would suffer to see another suffer. I do not say at all that one would suffer less, but one suffers differently.)
As to your article, it has interested me much, and I believe that it could yield blessing for souls. The editing would need to be reviewed; there are passages which do not read well. I would like very much that it should be published, but it seems to me that you will do well to weigh and to develop the expression of your thoughts. It is a question for us of manoeuvring in the presence of the enemy and of not lending a flank to his attacks.
I repeat that I do not believe that this passage: “that which remains to be suffered of the afflictions of the Christ” can speak of a Christ suffering with Paul, although other passages prove (and I believe) his sufferings in sympathy with Him. I only express the principles here; for the details, I would have to re-read your article.
Your affectionate brother
[1] JND uses various Greek words in this letter (and the following letter) which are marked with spaces in the French version from which this translation is taken. Evidently, however, in some cases, the following words in inverted commas or the scriptural references supply the French translation of the Greek (translated here into English); in which case, the sense is complete, and the Greek word has been supplied accordingly from a Concordance. Otherwise, the space for the unknown Greek word is marked [….Ω….].
[3] See Col 1: 24 – ‘ce qui manque aux souffrances de Christ’, ie ‘what was lacking of the sufferings of Christ’, is as translated by some, but not by JND (or Martin/Osterheld or KJV) in either French – ‘ce qui reste encore à souffrir des afflictions du Christ’ (‘that which still remains to suffer of the afflictions of the Christ’); or English (‘that which is behind of the tribulations of Christ’). But the French Roman Catholic version is exactly the wording of the former, whilst the NIV uses the same as the literal English translation of JND’s letter. Strong also uses ‘lacking’.
Letter originally written in French, translated by Sosthenes, 2013 Click here for original – If you have any comments on the translation, feel free to let me know.
