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.
I have followed with a sustained interest all that happens in the Ardèche and la Drôme, but my part in this sorrowful story has been rather before God than to occupy myself with men. I have read the account by G; F has written to me, besides C, to whom I have replied but only in a general way. I have known most of the actors too well, not to have an idea of the part each one has taken, but unless called by God to be there, I will not enter directly into assembly difficulties. I believe that this is done too often, while it is a matter rather of awakening the conscience of a troubled assembly. I recognise that an assembly can draw profit from the counsels of a brother more exercised than it in God’s things; I also recognise fully that we are all one, and that if one suffer all suffer with it. What I fear is the substitution of individual influence for the awakening of the conscience of the assembly. I have full confidence that this sorrowful gust of wind will turn to profit for the brethren. The hand of God will be seen, and it will become more severe. Truths which have been a little neglected will come to mind, worldliness will be judged, and thus everything by which the Holy Spirit has been grieved; it will be felt more as one depends on the grace in which one is found. What must be sought is that souls are not led astray altogether in the conflict, and do not abandon the way of the Lord. I have understood that there has been schism at O. Grace will be needed, and patience and firmness to face it; firmness in the walk of those who have, I believe, left the place and not under the influence of G, firmness as to those who lead the thirteen who have kept the place, but a testimony of regret towards those who are led. The schism is an evil; this sin has been committed under the influence of those who were not of the assembly. Romans 16: 17 shows us our way in this case clearly, and 2 Thessalonians 3: 14, 15 the spirit in which we must act, so that all are brought back and so that none goes astray completely and in a permanent way. But all this is not yesterday, and there was too much weakness, too little spirituality in general; so that one is surprised that God chastens. That is why those who suffer have to be brought before God by acknowledging His hand, and the One who has smitten will recover. The Lord has not taken the cup which He had to drink for us, either from men, or from Satan, but from the hand of His Father. In our looking to this, it softens our pain and bitterness, and makes us humbler and more sincere; then we can pray for others. I trust in the Lord that He will restore order and peace; it is possible that for some it may not be very quickly, but with this objective it is necessary that those who are right should conduct themselves with grace, seeing the hand of God, but with firmness in rejecting the schism and making those who have caused it to feel it, that it is not a light thing to have done. I have already said that this must be done with a sorrow of heart well removed from pride and hatred.
May God Himself act by His grace in your midst …
[1] a different version of this letter also appears in JND’s published Letters – vol 3 p381
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.
You ask me for some words on the apostasy. I do not hold to the word apostasy. It expresses rather the public denial of Christianity, which abandons the principles by those who make profession of it. But fundamentally, the matter itself is of all importance for the heart and for the conscience. As long as this word is not applied to Romish sectarians, there would be no trouble in using it, but when it is realised that, if this decline of Christendom has come about, the consequence of it would be universal, one begins taking exception to the use of the word. The open apostasy has not yet come, but rather the abandonment of faith and the presence of the Holy Spirit, the substitution of the clergy’s authority over the immediate rights of the Lord over the conscience; the degeneration of justification by faith, the efficacy of sacraments in place of the work of the Holy Spirit. In a word, the full development of the mystery of lawlessness is preceded by an abandonment of the first estate of the church and the principles on which it is founded, which is a moral apostasy. John says, “ye have heard that antichrist comes, even now there have come many antichrists, whence we know that it is the last hour”[2]. Thus, the apostasy has not come in the sense of a public renunciation of Christianity, [but rather] of the Word, and of Christ Himself, which characterises the majority of the population of Western Europe. It is rationalism properly speaking, and the spirit of rebellion that accompanies it. Men’s minds have no place for the word of God, the authority of which is no longer accepted; the will of man no longer desires the authority of Christ. If the antichrist is not already there, antichrists have existed for a long time; if the apostasy is not there, the spirit of the apostasy has already taken over the minds of men a long time.
I say that the thing is serious. If the assembly – for the word church confounds us a lot, since it begs the question what the church is – if the assembly of God does not keep its first estate, if it has said: “My Lord delays to come”[3], and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and to drink and to be drunken; there has been a long time, centuries, when it has done this, and it will be cut in two and have its part with the hypocrites. It is said that Christ built His assembly on the rock, and that the gates of hades will not prevail against it. I believe it, thanks be to God, with all my heart. But that has nothing to do with our question. Certainly, what Christ built will not be overthrown by the enemy; but it is a matter of what man has built. It is not the same there. Paul says, “as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation, but another builds upon it. But let each see how he builds upon it”[4]. Here the responsibility of man comes in for something – in a certain sense for all – into the question of the building. It is indeed God’s building, as the apostle says, but put up under man’s responsibility; a present thing on the earth. It is not about the salvation of individuals, but of the state of the system in which these individuals are found. When the end of Judaism under the first covenant had come about, pious souls, believers, were transferred into the church – God had finished for ever with the first system. At the end of the Christian system, the faithful will be transported to heaven, and judgment will come finally on the system from which they have previously come; nothing is simpler. The old world has perished: Noah and his own were saved. The judgment of a system does not affect God’s faithfulness; it is only to put it into evidence in showing that He keeps His own, even if all that encircles them collapses under the weight of His judgment. But can there be anything more serious than the judgment of what God established on the earth, for it is a hard thing to His heart; if Jesus could weep over Jerusalem, how much should His own not be moved at the sight of the approaching judgment of what was even more precious than Jerusalem. It is thus that Jeremiah, instrument of the groaning of the Spirit of God under the old economy, shows in words of a touching beauty, his deep sorrow at the ruin of what belonged to God. “And he hath violently cast down his enclosure as a garden; he hath destroyed his place of assembly … The Lord hath cast off his altar, he hath rejected his sanctuary” (Lam 2: 6, 7). See the spirit in which the faithful had to think of the ruin of what is called by the Name of Christ. But it will be said to me: ‘Yes, that is understood, when it was a matter of Judaism, but this cannot happen to Christianity.’ This is exactly what the unbelieving Jews said in Jeremiah’s time: “for law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor word from the prophet” (Jer 18: 18): false confidence which brought ruin on the people and on the holy city. But there is more than this. It is precisely against this false confidence that Paul, in Romans 11, solemnly warns Christians among the Gentiles, that is to say ourselves, in establishing the parallel between the Jews and Christianity. “Behold then the goodness and severity of God: upon them who have fallen, severity; upon thee goodness of God, if thou shalt abide in goodness, since otherwise thou also wilt be cut away”, that is to say that the Christian system in the midst of the Gentiles is subject to the same judgment as the Jewish system. If the Gentiles who are only standing by faith alone, do not persevere in the goodness of God, they will fall away in the same way as the Jews. Is Romanism perseverance in the goodness of God? Are the “difficult times” the fruit of perseverance in the goodness of God, or indeed this form of piety which denies the power of it, and from which the Christian must separate? (2 Tim 3). If the apostle can say that all seek their own things, not the things of Jesus Christ[5], is that persevering in the goodness of God? If Paul foresaw that after his departure evil would come in straightaway[6], the powerful hand of the apostle not being there to hold the door shut against the adversary; if Jude had to say that already those who were the objects of judgment had slipped into the church; if John has said that they had forsaken the Christians, being gone out from among them[7], a step further than what Jude spoke of; if he has said again that there were many antichrists and that it was recognised from this that it was the last times; if Peter announces to us that the times were come for judgment to begin at the house of God[8]; does all this lead us to believe that the Gentiles have continued in God’s goodness, or rather that the Christian system, established among the Gentiles, will be terminated by judgment, the terrible judgment of God? – that, as outward profession, it will drink the cup of His wrath unmixed, or will be spewed out of His mouth like something nauseously lukewarm[9]? This is solemn for our consciences. Do we go as a system before the judgments of God? Assuredly, the faithful will enjoy a more excellent part; a heavenly glory, but the Christian system, as a system on the earth, will be cut off for ever.
As to the quotation made by Mr B, it is entirely false. The Scriptures speak of the assembly as being God’s habitation down here: the whole question lies here. In a house, it is not a matter of union, but of dwelling.
As to the body of Christ, there could be no dead members. One can deceive men, but he who is in fact united to the Lord is one Spirit with Him. The body is formed by the baptism of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12). Then Christ builds a house which will only be realised when the last stone is put there; it increases to be a holy temple in the Lord. But we have seen down here the building being confided to men, it may be that the building is ill-built and attract the judgment of God on what has been done. As the church has been established as the pillar and base of the truth, it will always be responsible to maintain this position; it is another thing to say that it has maintained it.
The first epistle to Timothy depicts for us the order of the house of God, and how man must conduct himself in this house. Does he conduct himself so? That is the question. If yes, whence comes Popery? The second epistle to Timothy regulates the conduct of the faithful when disorder has been introduced. Already, things in Christianity were no longer in the state in which they were found beforehand. At the beginning, the Lord added each day to the church those who were to be saved. They were manifested and added under the eyes of the world, a body well known. But when the apostle wrote to Timothy his second epistle, all was already changed. What he can say is that the Lord knows those who are His; it could well be that they remained hidden to man, as the 7,000 faithful to Elijah. But with this there is a rule for the faithful, that is, whosoever names the name of the Lord withdraws from iniquity[10]. Then comes the thought of the great house. One must expect to find in a great house vessels to dishonour as well as vessels to honour. But here again is a rule for the faithful: it is necessary to purify oneself from vessels to dishonour, and not only that, but one must pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. In this state of disorder, I cannot know as at the beginning all those who are God’s; but as to my personal walk, I must associate myself with those who have a pure heart. Moreover, in chapter 3, the apostle teaches us that, in the last days, difficult times will be there, where there will be a form of piety while the power of it is denied. Not avowed apostasy, for there is the form of piety, but real, moral apostasy since the power of it is denied. Mr B says that I must stay there and content myself. The apostle tells me: “From such turn away”. Who must I obey? When Mr B tells me that it is impossible to distinguish the true faithful from those who make profession of Christianity, while the apostle says that he who invokes the name of the Lord should withdraw from iniquity, that I must purify myself from vessels to dishonour, to seek the Christian graces with those who invoke the name of the Lord, out of a pure heart; how can I listen to him who tells me that it is impossible to distinguish one from the other? If he tells me that there may be many souls that the Lord knows that we do not recognise, I answer, ‘Without doubt, the Lord knows those that are His, but I have directions for my conduct in this state of things, which contradict yours’. I must recognise those who invoke the name of the Lord out of a pure heart and associate myself with them, and thus to distinguish them; to purify myself from vessels to dishonour, and thus to distinguish them, and to avoid those who have the form of piety while denying the power of it. It is therefore very necessary to distinguish them. However, it is a frightful principle to say that one cannot distinguish between the children of God and the people of the world. It is not true that it cannot be done. I have said, ‘a frightful principle’ for it is said: “By this shall all know that ye are disciples of mine, if ye have love amongst yourselves”[11]. For if I cannot discern them, I can no more love them, and the testimony that God wants is lost; then, it is not true in practice that one cannot discern them, for one enjoys brotherly fellowship, and every faithful Christian makes the distinction between a child of God and those who are not so. That there are others that are not discerned, but whom God knows, is not denied; but the passages that I have cited in 2 Timothy direct us as to this … What would become of a family’s affections if a father said to his children: You cannot know who are your brothers and who are not; you must associate yourselves with everybody without any distinction whatsoever? I do not look in the dictionaries, as we are told to do, but into the consciences and hearts of those who love the Lord, in taking the word of God to see what the state of the church is at the beginning, and what it is now. What does this Word say to us to make us know what the church has become in the last times? The word could not be clearer on the decadence of the church, on the character of these last times, and on the setting aside of the Christian system. The word is clear enough on the unity which must subsist as testimony rendered to the world that He lives (John 17). If a letter was addressed by the apostle to the church of God which is in Turin, who would collect the letter from the post, unless those of the Romish system? The church as it was at the beginning no longer exists. Call it what name you want, provided that the heart feels it and provided that they take to heart the glory of the Lord trodden underfoot by men. If the church, in its present state, is not yet the harlot sat on the beast, of which the Revelation speaks, the indifference of conscience which can make a squabble about the use of a word is the most sensitive proof of lukewarmness which results, at the end, in Christ spewing the church out of his mouth.
… Besides, there is nothing in this ruin of the assembly which is not in accordance with the history of man since the beginning. As soon as man has been left to himself, he has fallen; unfaithful in his ways; he has cast off his primitive state and never returned to it. God does not re-establish it, but He gives salvation by redemption, and brings man into an infinitely more glorious state, in the second Man, Jesus Christ. When Noah had been saved in the ruin of the whole world, the first thing that we read after his sacrifice is that he got drunk; when the law was given, before Moses had descended from the mountain, Israel had made the golden calf; the first day after the consecration of Aaron, his sons offered strange fire, and entry into the holiest of all was forbidden to Aaron, save on the day of atonement; he never wore his garments of glory and beauty. The first son of David, Solomon, type of the Lord, fell into idolatry, and the kingdom was immediately divided. In all these cases, the patience of God has been gloriously manifested, but the system that God had set up as a system in relation with Himself has been set aside. This is least evident in the case of Noah because a formal relationship did not exist in the same sense. The confusion of Babel having terminated the order of the world, the tyranny and wars came about, but for what concerns man, Israel, the priesthood, the kingdom, whatever had been God’s patience, man has fallen immediately, and the system has never been re-established on its old footing. It is not surprising that this is found again in the history of the church, as being placed under man’s responsibility. It has said: My Lord delays His coming, and has begun to beat the servants and unite itself with the world. It will be cut off. The great principle of Romanism and other systems which are like it more or less, and which makes them essentially false, is that they attribute to Christianity, to the assembly organised by means of ordinances, the stability and the immutable privileges which only belong to what Christ builds, and what is wrought by the Holy Spirit. All sorts of false doctrines are the result of this error. One is born of God, member of the body of Christ, this is what an article says in The Christian Look-out[12]; this is what the passage cited by Mr B says. He forgets one of two principal characters of the church according to the Word, precisely that where man’s responsibility comes in, that of being the habitation of God on the earth. He presents us the state in which the church is presently found, and certainly it is not composed of true members of Christ, without giving us an account, without giving us any particulars whatever on this subject, so that we may know if this state is good or bad, where it comes from or where it will end, and how the Word judges it. The expressions which he makes us of are equivalent to those of the unbelieving Jews in the times of Jeremiah. We are free of all these abominations. Nobody can say that the state of the church, of Christendom, resembles in any way what characterised it at the beginning according to the Word; there was not in any way either Romanism, or the National church, or dissidents. There was the church of God and nothing else. It corrupted itself very quickly, one will say; very well, but was this a good thing? There was then a church to corrupt, an assembly where certain men had slipped in. Was this corruption a good thing, or does it lead to judgment? Has there not been frightful progress since then? Is the church of God re-established on the earth? Must I suffer its state? Must I not seek in the Word how this will end, and take care with it? We have cited the Word, may each judge before God what it says. If we find ourselves in difficult times, does not the Word give us some rules so that we can trace the way in which we must walk?
If someone has the conviction that we are in these times, let him read 2 Timothy 2 and 3, and place himself before God who has given these instructions, with an entire confidence in Christ. The result as to these instructions is not doubtful. May he know to walk with God. Let us remember that, in every position in which the first Adam has failed, man is gloriously re-established in the second. But that is a subject, very interesting though it be, into which I cannot enter here.
Make use, dear brother, as you see fit of these pages; I have written them in haste. From 7 o’clock in the morning to midnight, I have always to work; I have meetings every day, then other work of every kind, I have still the correction of the new edition of the English New Testament, and often the French also at the same time.
The brethren are well.
I did not know who had sent me the Look-out until the arrival of your letter. My response came a bit late, but that has not mattered much; the subject remains important. Only present the gospel more than the controversy.
I have written on the epistle to the Romans, you will find something there perhaps; this is not yet prepared.
Yours very affectionately
[1] a different version of this letter also appears in JND’s published Letters – vol 3 p94
[12] JND gives the Italian title – laVedetta Cristiana – a Christian publication commenced in 1870 by Teodorico Pietrocola Rossetti, a preacher and a patriot of the Italian Risorgimento – a 19th-century movement for Italian unification that culminated in the establishment of the Kingdom of Italy in 1861
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 so glad of news which you give me of Italy. I hope to be able to go there, but God alone knows if and when this will be possible. I very much feared having perhaps to go back to America; however I counted on God and He has put His good hand where the enemy had sought to put things in disarray; and had for a short time.
I propose to go to France, but I also have Germany in view where they complain a little about my prolonged absence. For the moment, I am occupied with the new edition of my New Testament. I am waited on to this end and that holds me back for now. Others can do the corrections at the press, but the verification of all my new notes and little corrections that I have had to do require my care. It could well be that next year, if God preserves my strength, I will go again to Canada and the United States.
Things are good in the West Indies, and they have been encouraged by our visit. I will return to my Italian. F writes to me in this language and I have no difficulty at all in understanding his letters, but to speak is something else. I bless God with all my heart for these meetings in Italy, which I know by repute by means of L F.
As to your journey, dear brother, often a brother who has something is less well-placed than he who has nothing. It is supposed that perhaps he has enough, while another has to be sent. I know of such cases. If I remember well, Mr E sent something that you returned him for a motive that I could perfectly appreciate. I hope that this will not happen a second time. There are very humbling cases of discipline in Switzerland, better this than covert sin, but it is sad, and it must humble those who are not there. However, God is always good and faithful and full of patience towards us, although we are such a poor expression of the life of Jesus. There are two principles of Christian life: that of the Philippians and that of the Ephesians, according to the point of view from which one views the Christian. [In Philippians] he goes through the wilderness, looking towards the glory and pursues it, or rather desires to gain Christ[2]. [In Ephesians] he is seated in the heavenlies[3] and must manifest the character of God as His dear children. What a position! This requires us to do as Paul has done, that one always bears about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus[4]. This is Christ, God manifested in flesh, who is the perfect expression of it. The first principle gives the grounds which deliver you from what is of this world and of the flesh; the second the communion with the sources of those ways of God in which we must walk, communion with God Himself. Truly, when one sees what the prize of our privileges is, we are small indeed, but while judging ourselves as we must, one must look to Jesus, not to oneself.
I hope that my letter will find your wife perfectly recovered. I will write a word when I get going.
My affectionate salutations to all the brethren
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.
[1] a different version of this letter also appears in JND’s published Letters – vol 3 p26
