|
(Use your Browser's "Find" or "Search" option to search within this page)
KINGDOM--Outcast Children of the Kingdom. ::Q421:1:: QUESTION
(1906)--1--Please explain `1 Mat. 8:12`? How shall the children of the
kingdom be cast out into outer darkness where there shall be weeping
and gnashing of teeth, while many from the East, and West and South,
sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom?
ANSWER.--I
answer that the Lord was here discussing the matter of the earthly
kingdom with the earthly children of the kingdom, and He was telling
them that because they were rejecting Him, the time would come when
they would be rejected. He was explaining to them spiritual things, and
did not try to explain the difference between the heavenly and the
earthly parts of the new kingdom; it was not proper that He should do
so; they were not yet begotten of the holy spirit and could not have
appreciated spiritual things, if he had taught them spiritual things.
Therefore our Lord, in all His teachings of the people during His three
and one-half years of ministry, did not attempt to teach them spiritual
things; he merely taught them natural things. Anything beyond the
natural was stated in parables and dark sayings, and He told the
disciples, who were able to receive those messages that the time would
come by and by, as a result of this going to the Father, that the Holy
Spirit would come, and bring these things to their knowledge--not to
the knowledge of the others. Therefore those who are addressed, and who
were rejecting Him, were not intended to understand in its fulness and
clearness the earthly and heavenly phase of the kingdom. From their
standpoint the best way He could talk to them was on their level: that
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would be in the kingdom, not saying whether
the earthly or heavenly phase. We know from other scriptures that they
will be in the earthly phase of the kingdom, but the Lord did not
undertake to explain matters or dilate on that feature of the subject,
but merely that they would be in the kingdom, and that these others
when they come forth will find that, instead of being companions to
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom as they hoped to be, being the
chosen nation of God, will find themselves in the outcast condition.
When do they get the weeping and gnashing of teeth? We answer they went
into weeping and gnashing of teeth at the end of their Age. Those who
rejected the Lord found a great time of trouble coming on their nation.
That fits that part of the statement very well. By and by when they
come forth, in awaking, they will find what a great mistake they made,
and the prophet speaking of them and respecting them says that they
shall look upon Him whom they pierced, and shall mourn because of Him.
KINGDOM--Spiritual or Earthly. ::Q421:2:: QUESTION (1909)--2--When our Lord in His parables spoke of the Kingdom, did He always refer to the spiritual phase?
ANSWER.--Apparently
in one case He was speaking of the earthly when He said, "Ye shall see
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," etc. I do not remember any other parable
referring to the earthly phase except the parable of the sheep and
::Page Q422::
goats, when all mankind as sheep and
goats will be gathered before the Millennial throne, the earthly phase
of the kingdom, but in general the kingdom referred to by our Lord is
the spiritual kingdom, from which proceeds the power and authority.
KINGDOM--Concerning Messiah's. ::Q422:1:: QUESTION (1910-Z)--l--Please give briefly your understanding of the expression, Messiah's Kingdom, and the work of that Kingdom.
ANSWER.--Our
understanding is that Messiah's Kingdom will be a spiritual one,
invisible to mortals, yet all- powerful, for the accomplishment of the
great things promised in the Law and in the Prophets. The Empire which
he will establish, invisible to men, will take the place of the Empire
of Satan, likewise invisible. The King of Glory will replace the Prince
of Darkness. Principal amongst Messiah's earthly agents and
representatives will be Abraham, Isaac and all the Prophets,
resurrected in full human perfection. Instead of their being, as
heretofore, the fathers, they shall be the children of Messiah, whom he
will make princes in all the earth. (Psalm 45:16  .) With this Kingdom
the nation of Israel will speedily unite, and eventually every nation
will come into harmony with Messiah, and all people will be privileged
to come in under Israel's New Covenant, then established by the great
"Messenger of the Covenant, whom ye delight in."-- `Jer. 31:31-34 `;
`Mal 3:1-3 `.
The glorious Messiah, whom the Jews
identify with "Michael, the great Prince, which standeth for the
children of the people" (`Dan. 12:1 `), the Mohammedans also expect and
identify with Mahomet of the past. The Free Masons also expect the same
glorious personage and, in their traditions, identify him with Hiram
Abiff, the great Master-Mason. This same great Messiah, Michael, the
archangel, the anti-typical Melchisedec, Priest as well as King, we
identify as "The Man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a Ransom for all,
to be testified in due time." (`1 Tim. 2:5 ,6`.) But when the great King
shall appear in his glory and establish his Kingdom with Israel he will
be, as promised by the Prophets, "the desire of all nations." (`Hag.
2:7`.) Then all the blinded eyes will be opened and all the deaf ears
will be unstopped. Then who he is and how he should be identified with
Abraham's Seed and David's line, will be clearly known to all, in
heaven and in earth. Not now, but when the King shall reign in
righteousness, all shall fully understand the significance of
Zechariah's prophecy (`Zec. 12:7-10`) and `Psalm 22:16 `. Content that
Messiah shall show the Truth in his day of revealment, we are glad to
point Jews, Mohammedans, Christians, all, to the glorious Messiah and
the great work of blessing for all the nations which he will accomplish
through the Seed of Abraham, according to God's Covenant and his Oath.
KINGDOM--Breaking Least Commandment. ::Q422:2:: QUESTION
(1911)--2--Please tell us to what party and people Christ was referring
in the nineteenth verse of the fifth chapter of Matthew, when he said,
"Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least of these
commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in
the kingdom
::Page Q423::
of Heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven?"
ANSWER.--The
kingdom of Heaven is spoken of in two different senses of the word. In
one sense the kingdom of Heaven is not at hand. We are waiting for that
kingdom of Heaven when the Elect shall all have been completed, and
shall all have experienced the change to glory. But in another sense
you and I are the kingdom of Heaven now. We are the ones who represent
the kingdom in the world, and we are spoken of by the Apostle Peter as
a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, now; even though
it is not certain you will be one of these, and it is not certain that
I will be; still we are spoken of in this way. In this sense, all the
church is spoken of as the kingdom of Heaven. So, Jesus said, you
remember. The kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence; the violent taketh
it by force. Now, the heavenly Kingdom of the future was not suffering
violence then? No, but Jesus represented that kingdom and he was
suffering violence, and his disciples represented this kingdom, and
they were suffering, for the violent ones were taking them by force,
and they caused the Lord's death, and the scattering of the church,
etc. So then, in this scripture also; whosoever in the church class
will make little of any command of God, he will make himself less, or
should be considered that much less amongst the Lord's people; if
anyone would do or teach anything contrary to the Lord's commandments,
no matter which they are, anything we believe to be of divine
institution--whoever would go contrary to God's arrangement or will in
any respect, we should consider him thereby less on that account. He
that breaks the commandments and teachers others to do so, and sets a
had example, count him least in the kingdom and those who teach the
will of God, and strive to do the will of God, consider those amongst
the greatest; and so that is the advice of the Apostle to the church.
Look out amongst you those who are walking the most in the footsteps of
Jesus if you want to elect elder brothers and deacons in the church.
Look out amongst you those who are copying the most closely the divine
arrangements, and choose of this kind. And those who have these
qualifiations for service, let them be the servants of the church. They
will be the least and the greatest in proportion as they are doing the
divine will. That is the proper standard for you and me to recognize.
KINGDOM--Turning Over to Father. ::Q423:1:: QUESTION
(1911)--1--When we read in first Corinthians, the fifteenth chapter,
that Christ shall deliver all things over to the Father who put all
things under him, will this turning over of everything to the Father be
before or after the little season mentioned in Revelation, the
twentieth chapter, where we read that Satan shall be loosed for a
little season that he might tempt the world?
ANSWER.--We
answer that it will be before. When the thousand years are finished
Christ will deliver the kingdom up to the Father and Satan will he
bound for a thousand years. So during all of that thousand years evil
will be restrained, Satan shall be bound and Christ will do his work
completely of restoring; and then having finished his work, he will
turn it over to the Father, and then all mankind, being perfect, will
be under the control of the Father. Then
::Page Q424::
you say, "What is the difference between
the control of the Father and the control of the Son? Do they have
different laws?" No, there is no difference in the law. The law which
Jesus will enforce, during the thousand years, will be exactly the same
law that God will enforce after the thousand years, but Jesus stands
for, or represents, divine mercy; as the Mediator, he stands between
divine justice and the sinner; he stands as Mediator by virtue of
having redeemed the sinner. And so in this position he represents the
Father's mercy. Now if God were to establish a precedent and he himself
were to exercise mercy, he would have to set aside his justice, and God
does not propose to do that. If every now and then he would set aside
justice, he would be destroying the order of things, would be rather
cultivating the spirit of error. For illustration, suppose one angel
should say, "Now, heavenly Father, I have sinned; please overlook this
matter." Suppose the Father would say, "Very well, I will overlook it."
Then another one would say, bye and bye, "Well, heavenly Father, I have
sinned; please overlook this matter." Bye and bye it would be
fashionable among the angels to say, "I have not had my turn yet at
forgiveness." God does not propose to have any such operation as that.
He makes all his creatures perfect; as we read, his work is perfect.
And having made them perfect, he expects them to maintain that
perfection, and therefore he makes no allowances for imperfection. And
in the case of man, he allowed this course of sin, and arranged in
advance that Jesus would redeem man, so that thus he might illustrate
the glorious qualities of his nature in condemning man to death, and
allowing this reign of sin and death, his justice in not forgiving,
then the justice that would require a ransom for them, and would send
forth his Son to be the Redeemer--all of that was a great lesson to the
angels, and it is a great lesson to us, and will be a great lesson to
mankind, that God is not trifling; that God's word, "Thou shalt not be
disobedient," is something that is to be recognized; there is no
trifling with our God. You cannot say, "Well, he will forgive me, and
it won't matter." Sin would be common amongst a great many people if
God in that manner--in carelessness, so to speak--in dealing with them,
and in following out his own will, would be careless with the sinner;
it would be very common to sin; and it would really be an invitation.
But God sets a ban on sin. He says it is injurious to every person,
that righteousness will be a blessing, and that he will not allow a
single case of sin. And then he illustrates that in man's case and
allows it to go on, then provides a Redeemer, and allows the Redeemer
to stand as the Mediator for a thousand years, dealing with mankind and
helping them up. He does not take any part in this, they are all under
the care of the Mediator during that thousand years, until the Mediator
shall bring them up to full perfection. But at the end of the thousand
years they are perfect and do not need a Mediator any longer. A perfect
man does not need a Mediator, any more than a perfect angel needs a
Mediator, or any more than Adam needed a Mediator--and not as much,
because Adam did not have the experience that these perfect men at the
end of the thousand years of Christ's reign will have had with the
reign of sin and death and the reign of righteousness, and having seen
the goodness of
::Page Q425::
God, and now then they ought to be
thoroughly fixed in their character. No doubt about it. So then the
Mediator steps out from between. What does it signify? It means that
mankind will be turned over to simple, pure justice--nothing more,
nothing less; and God will require them to do right, exactly right in
every case; no allowances whatever; no way of making good if they go
wrong. If they infract the divine law a little bit, it will mean that
they do so with knowledge, and it will mean that they will die the
second death. However, we are not to understand that the Son will have
nothing to do with the matter. While Revelation says that fire will
come down from God out of heaven and destroy Satan and those who go
with him in the error of that time, and that indicates that it comes
from justice, nevertheless we understand that in all these things the
Lord Jesus, and the church, his body, associated with him, will be the
Father's agent; but in the one case, as Mediator, he is acting upon his
own initiative, upon that which he bought with his own precious blood,
this right which he has to rule the world having come to him through
his redemption of the world, but that work being finished, he will
resume active operations in the universe as the representative of
Jehovah, just as he was before he came into the world. He was God's
representative in the creation of the world, in the creation of the
angels--all things were made by him; and just so after the thousand
years, when he shall resume his relationship to the Father, he will be
the Father's agent in all things that shall be done. So I presume it
will be the Lord Jesus who will have the supervision of this matter,
and the destruction of Satan and the others, and that seems to be the
picture given us in the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew, where the
parable of the sheep and the goats carries us down and shows us that
Satan and those associated with him will be cast into the lake of fire,
which is the second death.
KINGDOM--Messiah's Kingdom Will be Spiritual ::Q425:1:: QUESTION (1912-Z)--1--What is meant by Messiah's Kingdom?
ANSWER.--Our
understanding is that Messiah's Kingdom will be a spiritual one,
invisible to mortals, yet all- powerful for the accomplishment of the
great things promised in the Law and the Prophets. The Empire which He
will establish, invisible to men, will take the place of the Empire of
Satan, likewise invisible. The King of Glory will replace the Prince of
Darkness. Principal amongst Messiah's earthly agents and
representatives will be Abraham, Isaac and all the Prophets, raised to
full, human perfection. Instead of their being, as heretofore, the fathers, they shall be the children
of Messiah, whom He will make "Princes in all the earth." (`Psa.
45:16`.) To this Kingdom the nation of Israel will speedily unite.
Eventually every nation will come into harmony with Messiah, and all
people will be privileged to come in under Israel's New Covenant, then
established by the great "Messenger of the Covenant, whom ye delight
in."-- `Jer. 31:31-34 `; `Mal. 3:1-3 `.
The glorious Messiah, whom the Jews
identify with "Michael, the great Prince, which standeth for thy
people" (`Dan. 12:1 `), the Mohammedans also expect, and identify Him
with Mohammed of the past. The Free Masons also expect the same
glorious personage and, in their traditions,
::Page Q426::
identify Him with Hiram Abiff, the great
Master Mason. This same great Messiah, Michael, the Archangel, the
anti-typical Melchizedek, Priest as well as King, we identify as "the Man Jesus Christ ,who gave Himself a Ransom-Price for all, to be testified in due time." --`1 Tim. 2:6 `.
But when the Great King shall appear in
His Glory and establish His Kingdom with Israel, He will be, as
promised by the Prophets, "The desire of all nations." (`Hag. 2:7 `.)
Then all the blinded eyes shall be opened and all the deaf ears shall
be unstopped. (`Isa. 35:5 `.) Then, who He is, and how He should be
identified with Abraham's Seed and David's line, will be clearly known
to all in Heaven and all on earth. Not now, but when the King shall
reign in righteousness, all
shall fully understand the significance of Zechariah's prophecy (`Zec.
12:7-10`) and of `Psa. 22:16 `. Content that Messiah shall show the
Truth in His Day of revealment, we are glad to point Jews, Mohammedans,
Christians, all,
to the glorious Messiah, and the great work of blessing for all the
nations, which God will accomplish, through the Seed of Abraham,
according to His Covenant and His Oath.
KINGDOM--Bringing Forth Fruit for. ::Q426:1:: QUESTION
(1912)--l--When the Lord said in the parable that the seed would being
forth some thirty, some sixty and some a hundred fold, are all these
classes belonging to the Church or to the Great Company?
ANSWER.--He
does not say, and I would suppose it would represent all that are
fruitful, that would bring forth the fruits of the spirit. One hundred
fold might be those who came up to the very highest standard, and those
who would bring forth sixty might refer to that same class, but not to
shine quite as highly in the Kingdom, as we read that "Star differeth
from star in glory." And the thirty fold might mean those who perhaps
will be of the Great Company class, who will develop the spirit of the
Lord, but not in such an abundant measure. They will all bring forth
fruits of the spirit, in any event; just the same as those who are of
the two classes, the wise and the foolish virgins. They are all
virgins--all pure, all acceptable to God.
KINGDOM--Will Children Be Born in the Millennium? ::Q426:2:: QUESTION
(1913)--2--To whom do you understand `Isa. 65:23 ` to refer, especially
the last clause, "They shall not labor in vain nor bring forth for
trouble, for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their
offspring with them"?
ANSWER.--Apparently,
it would refer to a human class and under the administration of the
Kingdom. If we inquire, would they be having offspring there, the
answer would be that in all probability the cutting off of the matter
of human families will be a gradual one and not an instantaneous one.
For some time there may be sexual lines, but this condition of things
will be gradually eliminated as they attain nearer to the perfection in
which "there will be neither marrying nor giving in marriage." So I
believe this text would refer to an early stage in the Millennium.
KINGDOM--A Point Yet in Doubt. ::Q426:3:: QUESTION (1915)--3--How are we to know when the Kingdom is set up?
::Page Q427::
Well, dear friends, I am sure I will know
when I get set up! (Laughter.) When I get set up, it will be when I
receive my "change;" it will be when you receive your "change" to the
spirit nature that each of you will be set up, passing through the door
into the Most Holy, beyond the veil. We believe that the majority of
the Kingdom class have already passed beyond the veil. To our
understanding of the Bible all the sleeping saints of this Gospel Age
were resurrected and passed beyond the veil in the spring of 1878. Of
course it is by faith that we understand this. We think there are
reasonable evidences for so believing, but we do not believe that the
Kingdom was fully set up then. These saints are glorified in that they
have now their glorious spirit bodies; but their spirit bodies do not
constitute the Kingdom. The kingdom is the reigning power. The Bible
intimates that Jesus is to take to Himself His great power and reign
before the great destruction of the present Order comes about. This
destruction means "Armageddon," and probably all of the Bible class
will he with their Lord in glory by the time that Armageddon, the final
phase of the great Time of Trouble, is on. Yet we are not wise enough
to surely know.
We have pointed out in the Watch Tower
the possibility of the last members of the Body of Christ remaining yet
for a little time. You remember the words of the Psalmist: "Let the
saints be joyful in glory; let them sing aloud upon their beds. Let the
high praises of God be in their mouth and a two-edged sword in their
hand," etc. (`Psa. 149:5-9 `.) This intimates a rejoicing, and it
appears to be on this side of the veil, and seems to imply that there
might be some of the saints during this time of smiting the nations who
would he exercising power while still in the flesh. But we do not know.
It looks that way. Some of us might be set up in that sense before our
"change" takes place; for the Prophet goes on to say that they shall
"execute vengeance upon the heathen [the nations] and punishments upon
the people; to bind their kings with chains and their nobles with
fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgments written. This honor
have all His saints." This honor has not come to us yet. You have not
bound any kings; neither have I. We are looking to see what this means.
We are not to expect the prophecy to be clearly understood until the
fulfilment.
Look back at the First Advent. The
prophecies relating to that time were not understood until after they
had been fulfilled. It was so with the disciples after the Lord was
risen from the dead. When He explained the prophecies to them after His
resurrection they understood. When He told them before what would take
place, they did not understand. It was not then due time for them to
understand these things. So it may he with us, that we will not
understand until we are in the midst of the fulfilment. We had better
leave it for the present with an interrogation point.
KINGDOM--The "Pearl of Great Price." ::Q427:1:: QUESTION
(1915)--1--The kingdom of Heaven is like unto a merchantman seeking
goodly pearls, who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went
and sold all that he had and bought it." (`Matt. 13:45 ,46`.) What is
this pearl?
ANSWER.--We
might very properly understand the pearl of this parable to represent
the Kingdom of God. You and I and all persons have intelligence or
something to sell, some
::Page Q428::
thing to give away, something to
exchange. What are you giving? What kind of exchanges are you making?
Well, as children we were taught to exchange our time for knowledge; so
we began our trading early. We traded off our hours, our minutes, our
attention, to get instruction and knowledge. As we grew older we said,
"Now we must do something in the way of business." So we went into
business, some as bakers, some as clerks, others as dressmaker or
milliners, others as wash women, to which we gave our time in exchange
for money. One says, "I will be a lawyer, and I will make money and
then become able to have an automobile"--an automobile comes first, you
know (laughter)--and I will get a house of my own and become prominent
and have a good name. Then when I go out with my family people will say
"There comes Mr. So-and-So--well thought of!" That is the prize that
many set before them. That is the pearl they intend to buy. That is
what they are living for. That prize they spend their days and hours
and minutes in attaining, planning how they will work their business so
as to make money.
Others set before them a different prize.
One says, "I would like to be a great physician." So he goes to medical
college. He works hard to get his education, thinking, "I will be one
of the greatest surgeons in America. That is my ambition." Therefore he
spends his time along that line, bending every energy to its
attainment. Another man says, "I would love to be a great musician. I
love music best of all." This one spends his time and strength and
money in mastering this great art. Everything goes for music, because
that is his one ideal. And so each person, properly, has some ideal in
life toward which he labors.
A child should be early taught to have
some ideal in life; and according to the wisdom of the parents will the
ideal be more or less reasonable, more or less valuable to the child.
Every child should have a good ideal, something worthy for which to
work. Children not blessed with good parents or teachers who are able
to guide them aright do not get the proper blessing out of life,
because the child's mind is feeling out and wishing for something to
exercise itself upon.
A young girl in her early teens may say,
"I would like to be the wife of some great orator or musician." The
youth may say, "I would like to marry an intelligent and accomplished
lady." Then is the time for parents to carefully impress the proper and
noble ideal, so that the children will early begin to get a real
blessing out of life.
Before we come to the Lord, we have one
or more of these different ideals or aspirations, some having more
valuable ideals and some less valuable. Any of these ideals are better
than having no ideal in life. The person who has no ideal and is not
aiming at any particular attainment is not doing the best he or she can
do for himself or herself. But when we come into Christ, we come to
know about the Gospel, about the wonderful High Calling now open, and
we have the grandest ideal of all. We have heard about this "pearl of
great price," of great value, and have given all we had to purchase it.
All the other pearls--the pearl of being a great doctor, a great
artist, a great musician, or a model housekeeper, or something
else--all these are trifling and insignificant in comparison with this
great Pearl, so large, so wonderful, so priceless!
::Page Q429::
What is this great Pearl, this great High
Calling? This Pearl, my dear brethren, is what the Gospel sets before
us. The "Pearl of great price" is the Kingdom of God, in which you and
I are offered a share. Is it possible for us to get such a Pearl as
that? What does it mean? It means glory, honor and immortality, the
Divine nature, sitting with Christ in His Throne! We do not get merely
a part of these glories. We get all or none. To get into the Kingdom
means to have a share with Jesus in blessing "all the families of the
earth," and to have a share in all His future glory and honor. This is
the Pearl of great price.
Our Lord very forcefully pictured this
matter in this parable of the merchantman seeking goodly pearls. You
and I and everybody else seek something valuable for which to exchange
time and influence. But when we come to see this one thing,
this choicest of all pearls, we are so enraptured with it that we are
only too glad to sell everything else we have to obtain it. You say, "I
will give everything I possess for this!" Then the Lord says, "That
will be just the amount required to obtain this great Pearl." If you
say, "I would like to keep just a little," the Lord will say, "Then you
cannot have it. It will take all you have." Jesus gave all He had, and
He had far more than any of us. So we must give our all, whether we
have much or little according to worldly estimates. We are getting a
Pearl worth a great deal more than thousands of millions of dollars,
and all for a few paltry pennies, so to speak! You haven't much to
give; none of us have! But our God says, "This great Pearl is for sale.
Anybody who has the disposition to appreciate it may have it." So, dear
brethren, it is our blessed privilege to obtain this wonderful Pearl if
we will.
KINGDOM--Heirs of the Kingdom. ::Q429:1:: QUESTION (1916)--l--What great lessons will be required of those who will be heirs of the Kingdom?
ANSWER.--(1) A proper, thorough appreciation of Justice, and a manifestation
of that appreciation of justice by an endeavor to comply with the
requirements of the Golden Rule--to love our neighbor as ourselves. (2)
A further lesson is that of Love, sympathy, compassion, mercy. However exacting we may be respecting ourselves, our own thoughts, words, and deeds, we are not to exact from others, but be willing to take from them whatever they are pleased to give--as did our Savior. This will mean (3), suffering with Christ, having fellowship in His Suffering.
It will mean the learning of valuable lessons to fit and qualify us for
the work of being kings, priests and judges with our Lord in His coming
Kingdom.
St. Paul emphasized the importance of
having the Christ- character engraved on our hearts when he wrote that
God's predestination is that all who will be of the Church in glory
must be copies of his dear Son--must have the Epistle of Christ written
in their hearts. (`Rom. 8:28-30 `.) No matter how imperfect their bodies, how imperfect their attainment of their ideals, those ideals must be according to the Divine standard. And they must be so in sympathy with those ideals as to be glad to suffer for their attainment.
KISSING--Re Promiscuous Kissing ::Q429:2:: QUESTION (1909)--2--Is promiscuous kissing advisable among the sisters in the truth?
::Page Q430::
ANSWER.--Well,
I might be entrenching upon somebody's rights if I were to give some
law on the subject, but I am not a law-giver, merely a law interpreter,
that is all. Some people might like it, and some sisters might not; so,
love in the matter should be the rule, and it should lead us to be very
careful and considerate, and if I were one of the sisters that liked to
be kissed, I should not take offense if they did not. Besides,
scientists tell us that kissing is a means of communicating diseases,
and therefore, not a very wise proceeding. I should think that as a
rule a good, hearty handshake would be quite sufficient, but if any
like to kiss, I do not know of anything in the Scriptures to hinder,
and the law of love is the only thing between the sisters kissing each
other and the brothers kissing the brothers.
LANGUAGE--What is the Pure Language? ::Q430:1:: QUESTION (1909)--1--What does the Scripture mean which says, "I will turn unto them a pure language?" (`Zeph. 3:8 ,9`.)
ANSWER.--We understand this "pure language" to mean a pure method--the
pure method of God's plan. The world doesn't know this method now. Only
we know what is the pure method. It has brought us life and joy and
blessing, and the promise is that in due time He will turn into them
all a new method-- they will not hear the babble that is now going on.
One says: I believe you must get into the water--another says it is
free grace, etc., etc. The people have no pure method. Each has a
different method. After this great time of trouble, when the whole
world will be humbled, then He will turn to the people a pure method.
They will not be serving Methodism or some other ism, but will serve
the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
LAST DAYS--Conclusion of This Age. ::Q430:2:: QUESTION (1916)--2--Are we in our last days?
ANSWER.--I
don't know. This may be my last day for ought I know. If so, I am in
the last day for me. The questioner may mean, Are we in the last days
as that expression is used in the Bible? If that is what he means, I
think that is the right thought. The Bible uses this term "last days"
to refer to the conclusion of this age and the inauguration of the new
because this one is to pass away with great commotion and the new order
brought in. So the one is represented as being burned up, or destroyed,
while the other as the new heavens and new earth will be brought in.
The new heavens will be the church in glory and the new earth will be
the new social order or condition of things. We are in the last days of
the old order, and in the dawning time of the new dispensation.
LAW--Abstain from Things Strangled. ::Q430:3:: QUESTION (1909)--3--Why does St. Paul command us to abstain from things strangled and from meats offered to Idols?
ANSWER.--This
was not Paul's command, for he did not so command. Paul had been
teaching the Gentiles that all the regulations of the Law were given to
the Jews, and were not upon the Gentiles, but that the Jews were bound
by them until they came into Christ. Then there arose a discussion as
some came down from Jerusalem and said that they had to be circumcised
and keep the law. Then some said Paul tells us
::Page Q431::
this, and another tells us something
else; so they had a general conference to ascertain to what extent the
law of the Jews was upon the Gentiles. You remember James was the
Chairman, noting God's providential leadings, and then Peter told how
the Gospel was first preached to the Gentiles. Then the Conference of
the Apostles concluded that there were no mandatory laws upon the
Gentiles, and that they should not put any upon them. But they said,
let us enjoin this upon them rather as a recommendation, that they
abstain from things strangled, from fornication, and from meats offered
to idols. Why did they make that recommendation? Because they believed
that at that time it would be a wiser matter to advise. We would
suppose that abstaining from fornication would always be in harmony
with God's will. But about meat offered to idols, Paul explains that
the idol is nothing but a block of wood or of stone; it had not hurt
the meat at all, but if any man would think that it had been hurt, if
he had thought that something had happened to the meat, and that he
would be dishonoring God if he ate of it, then Paul said: If there be
any among you that are weak, and think that it is wrong to eat it,
those that are strong should condescend to such an one.
Then as to things strangled. That was a
custom among the Jews because blood was a type or symbol of life, and
God commanded the Jews not to eat anything strangled. They do not state
why they advised it, but they did advise it and they advised it after
they had stated there was nothing in the law that was binding on the
Gentiles.
LAW--Eating Thing that Dieth of Itself. ::Q431:1:: QUESTION
(1912)--1--"Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself; thou
shalt give it unto the stranger that is within thy gate, that he may
eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art a holy
people unto the Lord thy God." Please explain this.
ANSWER.--It
seems to me that it means what it says. It was said to the Jews, not to
us. An animal might die of itself without being put to death and yet
not be unfit for food except to those forbidden to eat animal food not
specially killed. For instance, an animal might get caught and strangle
itself or might fall over a precipice and die without being killed in
the manner prescribed to the Jews. That meat might be just as good; it
would not produce sickness or death; and, therefore, giving it or
selling it to a person not under the Law would not mean injury to him.
LAW--When Put At An End. ::Q431:2:: QUESTION (1916)--2--When did Jesus put an end to the law? At Jordan, or at Calvary?
ANSWER.--This
expression "Putting an end to the law" is one that is apt to be
misunderstood. The question might be viewed from various viewpoints.
Jesus never put an end to the law in a very important sense of the
word. The law is the Father's law. It existed before Jesus came. It
still exists. It will always be in existence. Jesus did not put it to
an end and never will put it to an end. It is God's law briefly summed
up in this: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with
all thy soul, mind and strength and thy neighbor as thyself." When will
that law be put an end to? Never! Never! We get a little nearer to an
::Page Q432::
appreciation of it every day. Neither at
the Jordan or at Calvary, nor at any time will He ever put an end to
that law. What, then, is meant by this expression? Upon the basis of
that law as God gave it through Moses to the Israelites was made a
covenant, and that covenant was often called the law because it was the
law--covenant and consequently this word covenant, because the covenant
and the law were so closely associated and vitally connected, was
sometimes used when the law was meant, and the word law was used to
include the covenant based upon it. It was in this sense that Jesus
made an end of the law, that is, the law-covenant or the covenant based
upon that law. He made an end of this covenant, and yet, He did not
make a full end of the law--covenant even, for, to my understanding,
the Jews are still under that law- covenant, and certain blessings are
to come to them in consequence. They are now under the condemnation
part of that law-covenant, but, if it were dead, they would not be
under its condemnation phase. They could not be under the condemnation
of a dead covenant. Jesus therefore made an end simply of the favors,
privileges, opportunities granted to the Jews under that covenant. How?
By Himself fulfilling all its obligations and Himself thus becoming the
Heir of God to the things which the law had promised to the One who
would keep it. The whole Jewish nation had an opportunity of becoming
heirs of these blessings if they had kept the law, but they failed to
keep the law; but Jesus coming in, He kept all its requirements and
thereby became Heir and inheritor of all the blessings which that law
had promised, and thus He made an end of those blessings, so far as
others were concerned; and from that time on no Jew can come in. Jesus
got all the blessings. The Jews can get the curse, but not the
blessings. Jesus is dividing these blessings with all those who become
His disciples. We became joint-heirs with Him to all that inheritance
which He inherited by keeping the law. We are unable to keep the law,
and these Jews were not able to keep the law, but Jesus kept it and won
its blessings, so that we may now become (both Jews and Gentiles)
joint-heirs of all the promises made to natural Israel, through faith
in the Lord Jesus and becoming members of His body. We come in and we
get possession of all these things. What Jesus made an end of then,
was, such requirements upon the Jews except certain obligations they
had. Then coming under the new arrangement they are liberated from the
requirements of the old. For instance, the Apostles coming in, the
requirements of the law covenant were no longer binding upon them, when
Jesus made the new provision whereby they might enter in. The new
provision was to enable them to come in under the new arrangement. The
Apostles became dead to the old things of the old arrangement in order
that they might become alive to the better things--to God--by choosing
to become the disciples of Jesus.
LAW COVENANT--Testator of. ::Q432:1:: QUESTION
(1909)--1--Who was the testator of the (old) Law Covenant? "For where a
testament (covenant) is, there must also of necessity be the death of
the testator. For a testament (covenant) is of force after men are
dead; otherwise it is of no strength while the testator liveth."
(`Heb.9:16,17`.)
::Page Q433::
ANSWER.--The
Apostle's argument here in using these words was particularly
respecting our Lord Jesus, and he does not say anything about the Law
Covenant. We may not improperly suppose that Moses, as mediator of the
Law Covenant was its testator to some extent, and his death was
represented in the bulls and goats that were offered back there under
the Law Covenant. It was only a typical covenant, and the sacrifices
were only typical sacrifices. Our thought would be that if it were
applicable at all to Moses, it would be in the sense that these
sacrifices represented Moses.
But the force of the Apostle's words in
speaking of Jesus as being the testator of the New Covenant is one that
it is well to note very closely. While it is not the question here, if
you please, I will add a few words on this line which may be helpful to
some. Get the thought that under the Law Covenant, God had offered to
any Israelite who would keep the Law, all the blessings, and rights,
and privileges that belong to a perfect man, so that if any Jew had
lived at any time from the institution of the Law Covenant down to the
time of Christ, and could have kept the Law, he would have had the
right to all that Adam had lost; he would have proved himself to have
been a perfect man, and, therefore, would have had the right to
everything under that covenant, of everything that Adam had; he would
have been worthy to have taken Adam's place. But, we know, as a matter
of fact, for over sixteen centuries the Law Covenant was in force, but
not a Jew was able to keep the Law, and so Paul said that "through the
deeds of the Law, no flesh should be justified." But our Lord Jesus,
coming into the world with a special body, a body having been prepared,
and that being holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners,
was able and did keep the Law, and thus by keeping the Law, He proved
Himself to be perfect, and was able to be the ruler of mankind. Did He
do this? No. Why not? Because God had a broader and deeper plan. What
was it? It was this, that the Lord Jesus should not only demonstrate
His worthiness to be a perfect man, but having demonstrated that, He
should sacrifice that perfect life, that He should lay all down in
death, and this He did. Then, the Scriptures tell us, "God raised him
from the dead," as a reward for His obedience. Then He had, so to
speak, all the merit, all the virtue, all the value of a perfect human
nature at His disposal. All the perfect rights of a perfect man were in
His hands, to do with just as He pleased. What did He do with it? He
could have applied it for all of the human race, or He could apply it
for Adam or for any number of the human race. What did he do? Well, we
naturally would have expected Him to have applied it in favor of the
Jewish nation--you see He had something to give away. He was going to
die, and He was going to give these earthly rights away; He was the
testator and He was going to make a will, which represented His earthly
life laid down in sacrifice. To whom has He given them? Not to the
Jews, as we might have expected, Jesus did not seal the New Covenant
with His blood. What did He do with it? He ascended up on High and
appeared in the presence of God for us, whosoever would respect Him and
come under the conditions and terms of justification and
sanctification. He applied the whole of that merit to the Church; He
did not seal the covenant at all.
::Page Q434::
How was He going to use it in the Church?
The Scriptures show in the type that the bullock represented the Lord
Jesus, and that the High Priest took the blood of the bullock and
sprinkled it upon the mercy seat for Himself and His household of
faith, all who belong to Him in the true and proper sense of the word.
To these, then, He gave the merit of His earthly life. He did not give
them a spirit life; He did not give them immortality, but only that
which He had to bestow. He had no spirit life to bestow, because it was
not spirit life that He had secured by keeping the Law--only earthly
rights, and therefore, He had only earthly rights that He could bestow
upon anyone. So, when He ascended up on high, He bestowed those rights
upon believers who took a certain stand in harmony with His teachings,
that, if any would be His disciple, let him take up his cross and
follow him--only to such would the full benefit of justification come.
Others who failed to make their consecration would fail of receiving
the full benefits that had been offered, but those who would come into
the right attitude, would have imputed to them the merit of Christ's
sacrifice, on condition that they would lay down their lives.
In other words, He gives us the full restitution rights and blessings
of perfect manhood, the only thing that He had to give away. So what He
gives to you and me as a free gift is justification, on condition that
we lay down our lives with Him in sacrifice. Any who will not do that
is not included in this class.
The faith comes first, and that is a
certain introduction to other blessings and opportunities, but they do
not become a fixed matter until the consecration which follows. It is
then unchangeable; neither angels nor God can change it after giving
His recognition of His spirit. All who receive justification and then
the impartation of Holy Spirit at their consecration, which seals them
as the lord's people, all such are counted in with Christ in His death.
Those are the conditions, those are the terms. Whether members of the
Little Flock, they must go into death with Him or if members of the
Great Company, they must also go into death--there is nothing else for
these, but not all who make the consecration go on and follow in His
footsteps, and hence they do not get the same reward. Some hold back
and the Scriptures tell us that they will be the Great Company who come
up through great tribulation; their flesh will be destroyed that their
spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. The restitution blessing
that God is giving the Church is not to stay; no, not one particle, but
having received it, it is passed through the Church and passed on for
further use. It is the same precious blood that He shed and applied to
the Church, which the Church passes on, so at the end of this age there
is just as much to dispense as there was at the beginning. It was the
whole merit which was given to the Church, and when the Church shall
have passed beyond the vail, and shall have laid down these justified
lives and earth rights, then the New Covenant will be sealed and its
benefits applied to the whole world.
So, then, Jesus is the testator of the
New Covenant, and when He laid down His life, it was with a view of
mediating that covenant, but, instead of doing it at once, He first of
all, in harmony with the Father's Plan, gathered out His Church, that
we might be members of His Body, participators
::Page Q435::
with Him in the work of laying down our lives and sharing in this testament.
Paul, in the 11th chapter of Romans,
tells us that they shall obtain mercy through your mercy; it will be
the mercy of the Father and of the Lord Jesus, but it will be the
Father's mercy through Christ, and through the Church. His mercy will
proceed until all the families of the earth have received His blessing.
LAZARUS--Parable, Its Foundation. ::Q435:1:: QUESTION
(1909)--1--It is generally accepted that all of our Lord's parables
were suggested by certain facts. How about that of the "Rich man and
Lazarus?" It is the only one founded upon imagination?
ANSWER.--I
had never thought of the matter that way before, and I do not know.
But, what are you going to do? It is there. If any one takes it as a
fact, be has a tough brain. Brother Russell then went on to show how
ridiculous the whole parable would be if each item in it were a fact,
how that the rich man would be sent to torment simply because he had
enough to eat, wore linen and purple, so Brother Russell said according
to that, many of us here would have to go to torment, simply because we
had enough to eat, had on a clean shirt and wore some purple. Also, in
the case of Lazarus, he went to heaven simply because he was full of
sores, laid at the king's gate, and had the dogs lick his sores. He
then showed that if taken as literal facts, Abraham's arms would soon
be full of people full of sores, for he could not hold very many.
LEVITES--Represented in Great Company. ::Q435:2:: QUESTION (1910)--2--In what way do the Levites represent the Great Company?
ANSWER.--Well,
now, I thought that I answered this yesterday. I will repeat. Those who
were separated on the night of the Passover, when the destroying angel
destroyed all except the first-born that were under the blood, all of
these first-born that were separated represented the Church of the
First-born whose names are written in heaven, and these first- borns of
Israel, according to God's direction, were subsequently exchanged for
the whole tribe of Levi; so that the whole tribe of Levi represents the
household of faith, or the Church of the First-born. In that tribe of
Levi there was a certain special family, or class, selected that were
the priestly family, and were representative of that portion of the
household of faith, the Church of the First-born, who are to be the
Bride, the Lamb's wife, and it leaves all the remainder of the Church
of the First-born corresponding to the Levites and antitypical Levites
to be the Great Company that follow with the Little Flock of priests
and constitute the servants on the spiritual plane.
LEVITES--Theirs Will Be a Heavenly Inheritance. ::Q435:3:: QUESTION (1912-Z)--3--If the antitypical Levites have no inheritance in the land, as shown in the type, what will be their reward?
ANSWER.--
The typical Levites were the whole tribe of Levi, a part of which was
selected for a little company of priests. In the wilderness of Sinai,
the Lord set the Levites apart for His service. (`Num. 3:11-16 `.)
Thenceforth, that one tribe represented the first-borns of Israel, who,
the
::Page Q436::
Apostle says, were typical of the Church of the First-born (`Heb. 12:23 `)--typical of the spiritual class.
In the type, the entire tribe of Levi was
cut off from having any possession in the land. No title to land was
given them; no field was given them. The land was divided amongst the
other tribes, but not amongst the Levites. God thus typified the fact
that the antitypical Levites would not have an earthly inheritance. All
the Gospel Church are called to heavenly conditions; and therefore they
are cut off from their earthly rights as men, that they may have the
heavenly rights as New Creatures. The Apostle says God has "called us
with a holy calling," a "heavenly calling," a "high calling."--`2 Tim.
1:9`; `Heb. 3:1 `; `Phil. 3:14 `.
The tribe of Levi was divided into two
classes, a priestly class and a Levitical or servant class. In the
antitype are two classes on the spirit plane--the Royal Priesthood,
composed of Christ and the Church, His Bride; and also the servant
class, "the virgins, her companions, who follow her," and who are to
enter into the King's Palace with rejoicing. As these do not come up to
the high standard required for admission into the Bride class, they are
not counted worthy of being in this class who are presented unto the
King "in raiment of needlework." Nevertheless, they must all be grand
characters, worthy to receive palm branches, indicating their victory
over sin and all evil.--`Psa. 45:13-15 `; `Rev. 7:9-17 `.
LEVITES--In Court on Atonement Day. ::Q436:1:: QUESTION
(1913)--1--Did the Levites have access to the court on the Day of
Atonement? Are the Levites represented in the camp or court?
ANSWER.--I
do not remember anything particularly stated about the Levites being in
the court on the Day of Atonement. I should think quite probably they
were. I do not remember any prohibition of their being in the court.
The Levites we see represent two pictures. We are keeping a Levitical
attitude toward God when approaching Him and willing to do any kind of
service, and we say, Yes, if you have something to do I would like to
have a share. Are you consecrated, brother? No, not consecrated, this
brother might say, but I am sympathetic with what you are doing. Well,
in a figurative way he stands related to those who are consecrated and
who are sacrificing. He is not one of those necessarily who will
ultimately be of the Levite class. Those ultimately of the Levite
class, have the future advantage also, such as have made a covenant
with the Lord and they have failed to fully keep it, but in the present
time all of those who will make the covenant at all are called priests.
There is no Levite class recognized in this distinction at the present
time, and anybody who is sympathetic with the Lord's work and comes in
and does a kind of sympathetic work, tentatively or temporarily,
occupies the place of the Levites. So in this sense of the word we may
be said to be in the position of Levites up to the time that we accept
the Lord's arrangement and make our full consecration.
LEVITES--Antitypical Levites and their Work. ::Q436:2:: QUESTION (1915)--2--What is the antitype of the Levites?
ANSWER.--We understand, first, that the antitype of the Jewish priests is Jesus, the High Priest, and the Church, the
::Page Q437::
"little flock," the under priests. The
Great Company class, as it will eventually be, is the antitype of the
Levites. Their relationship to the Bride class is that of "the virgins
her companions that follow her" (`Psa. 45:14 `). The work of the Great
High Priest will be that of teaching and healing. The high priest's
work in olden times, after his work of atonement, was to heal diseases
and give instructions to the people; and the under priests were
associated with the high priest and under his direction. Then came in
the Levites, to do a less important part of that great work. So we
understand that during the Millennial Age the Great Company class will
have a great work--not so important as that of the Church, but a
secondary work, more of a servant work, though honorable.
Our idea of their work is this: The high
priests, you know, will be small in number in comparison--only 144,000.
When we compare that number with the world's population since
Adam--twenty thousand millions--it would be a good many for each one of
the Bride class to care for. Apparently many more than that number will
be necessary. Every individual of the Royal Priesthood is to have the
honor of managing and instructing, and we understand that the Great
Company will be their instruments and assistants in connection with all
this work.
Let us illustrate: There are vast numbers
of people in a large city to be governed. There is a mayor at the head
of the city. Then there are the police judges coming next. In New York
City there are a great many police judges. Then there are many
thousands of policeman. The police judges do not go out and try to
attend to everything throughout the city. But the policemen are on the
street corners and along their beat. They are on the street-crossings,
attending to the traffic, on congested streets guarding pedestrians
from being run over, seeing that the law is not infracted, making
necessary arrests, etc. These policemen report to the police judges.
Thus the city's government is carried on. Certain important matters
might come directly to the mayor, and not be dealt with by any others.
Now all this, to our mind, furnishes a
sort of illustration of how Christ will be the great Ruler, or King,
corresponding to the Mayor in our figure. All the saints, the Bride
class, will be under kings, corresponding to the police judges. They
will be rulers and priests, having authority--ruling over two cities or
five cities or ten cities, as Jesus parabolically represented the
matter (`Luke 19:17 `). But ruling over these would mean that they would
have individual inspection of every case. Suppose some one were about
to shoot another. The ruling judges would not take personal cognizance
of each offender, because there might be many trying to do wrong at the
same time. Therefore it would be necessary to have somebody to look out
for each of these.
It is so now with the saints. You know
that each one of the Church is guarded by holy angels. "Are they not
ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs
of salvation?" (`Heb. 1:14 `.) They are looking out for our interests,
and are reporting us if we are not in the right way. They give us
blessings and assistances according to our need, shielding us from
harm; or if the report be for wrong-doing, we are given certain stripes
and punishments.
::Page Q438::
So "the angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear Him, and delivereth them" (`Psa. 34:7 `).
With the world in the next age, the
Lord's power will be represented through the Great Company class, under
the Bride. They will be a great police force, looking out for the whole
people. They will have a big job; for God has guaranteed that "nothing
shall hurt or offend in all His holy Mountain"--Kingdom (`Isa. 11:9 `).
That will mean a careful supervision. Yes, indeed! How will they hinder
wrong- doing? If a person were about to speak blasphemy or slander, the
tongue might be instantly paralyzed. Very easy! A policeman right on
the spot!--not waiting until the offender had done the mischief and
then punishing him, but fixing him so that he will not get the chance
to do it, and punishing him for trying to do so.
You may ask, "Brother Russell, what about
those who try to do good?" There will be a great blessing for every one
doing a good deed, a kind deed. They will get a blessing at once. All
who come into harmony with the laws of the Kingdom will be rising up
and rising up all through the Millennial Age, until all the willing and
obedient will be restored. This will come through the agencies God is
now preparing--Christ the High Priest, and the Church, the under
priests, under kings, under judges, of the world. The Great Company
class will be the instructors of the world under the Bride class. Then
on the earthly plane, will be the Ancient Worthies, to do a certain
work of judging and directing, making known to mankind the conditions
of the Kingdom. These will be human, visible to men, serving under the
invisible, spiritual guides.
All this great provision to handle the
twenty thousand millions of mankind! Won't it all be fine! There will
be a host when all are awakened from the tomb! "But how do you know
this? Is there Scripture for it?" Someone will ask. Yes, right to the
point. It reads like this: "When Thy judgments are in the earth, the
inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness" (`Isa. 26:9 `). The
judgments of the Lord will then be everywhere. Just as soon as anything
wrong is intended--not committed, but intended--the punishment will
follow prompt and sure. There might be a temptation to do wrong, but if
resisted it will not be sin. But any evil planned and purposed will
meet swift retribution. This, we understand, will he the rule that will
obtain all over the earth, bringing blessings to every well-doer and
punishment to every intentional evil-doer.
As the number of the Bride of Christ is
to be 144,000, it would be reasonable to think that each member of this
class may have 144,000 to look after, as 144,000 x 144,000 equals
20,736,000,000 (twenty billion, seven hundred and thirty six millions).
Evidently just about the right number to be cared for--couldn't fix it
better myself. Now 144,000 would he quite a host for each individual of
the Bride class to look after. So we can see the necessity for the work
of the Great Company and the Ancient Worthies.
LIFE--How Attain Perfect. ::Q438:1:: QUESTION (1909)--1--How can an imperfect being attain perfect life?
ANSWER.--If
any fail to attain perfect life, they will attain to second death. This
is my understanding. I understand this is God's law and nobody will
ever be acceptable
::Page Q439::
to the Father except they come up to the
standard of that law. "Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart, and
with all thy soul, and with all thy mind and with all thy strength, and
thy neighbor as thyself." That is the simplest and slightest obedience
that the Lord will accept. If you and I do not come up to that standard
you and I will not get perfect life. How can we do that? Will all the
world in the Millennial Age attain to that standard? Yes. That will be
the work of the Millennial Age. Every one who will be worthy of eternal
life will be worthy of that perfection. God does not have different
standards. This is the standard of all creation. No angel will be
granted eternal life with the Lord unless they have this perfection. As
for the world of mankind, they will all have to reach that standard,
full love for God and for their neighbor. But, you say, here we are
with our misshapen heads--how can we
get there? You are not on trial according to your flesh. You are on
trial as a new creature. If we do not learn our lessons as new
creatures we will not be fit for graduation when the time comes. If we
do not let the Lord develop this character in us we will not be fit for
life on any plane. There are certain principles the Lord lays down, and
if we are to have eternal life at all we have to get it on these
principles. He is not dealing with us after the, flesh, but after the
spirit. Our hearts, our wills, our intentions, our endeavors, will be
to manifest that perfect love for God and for our fellow creatures.
Suppose in my imperfection I do something unkind. Just as soon as the
New Creature finds this out as a new creature I must go and make it
right. But, you say, "Suppose pride in my heart will not enable me?"
Then you are not the kind He is looking for. If you have done something
amiss and have been angry with a brother or sister, go to the Lord and
confess your fault. If you are solely His you will want to do those
things that are pleasing to Him. Get the principle fixed; to what
extent is my heart loyal to God, to the Word of God and to
righteousness? While we are natural men we cannot help having these
imperfections. One time in Allegheny after I had been preaching about
speaking no evil, showing how contrary it is to the Lord's will and to
the admonitions of His Word, a certain sister said, as she shook my
hand, "Brother Russell, I am so glad you preached that, for it is just
what is needed," and before she let go of my hand she began to speak
evil. The poor sister was doing the best she could and I thought the
poor sister will gradually learn. She approved of the things she had
heard and she thought she was applying them most thoroughly. If
sometimes you find some of the brothers and sisters do not appreciate
some of the higher principles, remember the Apostle says God hath
chosen the mean things of the world. They are not all mean-- some of
the Lord's people are the noblest people in the world, but "Not many
mighty not many noble are called," but chiefly the mean things. And do
not be too sure that you have not some of the meanness yourself. Be
very sympathetic and glad if you see your brothers and sisters are
getting the advantage over the old creature. It is the old creature
that He accepted that is mean. The transforming grace of the heart, the
new creature, is proving more and more what is that good and acceptable
will of God. I sometimes give the example of a scale, beginning with
zero. Some have 40, some 50, some 20, some
::Page Q440::
30, and some only a tenth of the
perfection belonging to a perfect human being. Now when these
consecrate, whatever they may be, the Lord agrees to take them and He
gives them sufficient grace. Suppose a man is only rated at fifty, or
seventy, or here is one with only thirty marks. The Lord makes up the
other 70 per cent. His grace is sufficient-- sufficient for the needs
of each one that He receives. The Lord's grace is sufficient and makes
up for every deficiency. He is going to judge you at what your heart or
intention is. Your will must never be at the 90 or 50 mark. Your
intention must be at the hundred mark, and if you are doing his will to
the best of your ability it is counted to you for a hundred and you are
His and in full fellowship with Him. That 100 mark means a perfect
heart. But the Lord requires more of us than He will require of the
world. He requires that we love him with all our mind and strength and
our neighbor as ourself, but He will require this of the world also.
You say how can He ask more? He is asking more of you and of me. How?
Jesus said, "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one
another as I have loved you." You are to deal with your neighbor as
with yourself. You are not to give all that you have or sacrifice your
own interest and go without yourself. But when it comes to the Lord's
disciples it is a different matter. It meant the sacrifice of our
Lord's life. We have got to love one another as He loved us. You have
bound yourself by that arrangement and you cannot be one of the little
flock unless you are a sacrificer. Every one who is of that little
flock is a sacrificing priest, so if you belong to the Royal Priesthood
you will be sacrificers.
LIFE--At End of Millennial Age. ::Q440:1:: QUESTION ( 1910)--1--Will the purified humanity at the end of the Millennial age have eternal life or everlasting life?
ANSWER.--I
answer that these terms "everlasting" and "eternal," as used in the
Scriptures, are not used with that same exactness that the writer here
seems to infer. The general thought of the Scriptures would seem to be
not eternal life, but everlasting life, if you are going to make a
distinction between them. But the majority of people do not make a
distinction between them, and consider that if they say eternal life,
they mean life that lasts forever; and if they say everlasting life
they also mean that life which lasts forever; so with that definition
they are right anyway. But if you are going to add to the word
"eternal" life something that means immortal life, then it is a
mistake. It would not be proper to use it with that thought in mind;
the world is not to have immortality, but the world is to have
everlasting life, or, in that sense of the word, eternal or unending
life.
LIFE--That Possessed by The Man Jesus and by Jesus Christ. ::Q440:2:: QUESTION (1916)--2--Does Jesus Christ our Lord have the same life that the man Jesus had?
ANSWER.--Again
we are not sure what the questioner had in mind. We have said in volume
one that all life is the same. Life is life. God has life. Angels have
life. Man has life. Beasts have life. Birds and fishes have life. So,
of course, Jesus had the same life as He had before. The nature is
different, and so God has life on the divine plane
::Page Q441::
or nature. The cherubim have life on
their own plane, angels on theirs, man on his, and beasts, etc., on
theirs. Each has life according to its nature. Suppose the questioner
meant, Does Jesus have the same nature and life on the same plane as
before? Our answer would be, No. "He was put to death in the flesh and
was quickened, or made alive, in the spirit." He was a spirit being
with a spirit nature and therefore had a spirit life after his
resurrection; on the other hand he had human nature with human power
and with human life when He was the man Jesus. As the Logos or
mouthpiece of God, He had a spirit life. After this He came into the
world to sacrifice Himself. When He had sacrificed Himself He had
finished the work the Father had given Him to do. The Father then
raised Him up from the dead, and He showed this change in appearing in
various forms, manifesting that He was a spirit being with a different
nature. He did not manifest Himself as a man, but after His
resurrection manifested Himself as a spirit being and at the same time
showed the change from human to divine nature.
LIFE EVERLASTING--The Final Testing Will Determine It. ::Q441:1:: QUESTION
(1912-Z)--1--Will restitution include the right to everlasting life, or
will the right to everlasting life be determined by the final testing
that will come at the end of the Millennial Age?
ANSWER.--Perfection
was given to Adam originally; and by virtue of his perfection he had a
right to continue to live, if he were obedient. But as God saw fit to
test Father Adam, so He will test the human family. And the final test,
after the Kingdom shall have been turned over to the Father, will be by
way of testing their worthiness to attain these life- rights and to
keep them everlastingly. The thousand years of Christ's reign will be
for bringing mankind to perfection. At the end of that reign those who
have reached perfection will be delivered over to the Father. The New
Covenant will have accomplished for them all that it was intended to
accomplish. But before God determines them worthy of the fulness of His
everlasting life, He will see that all are tried individually and
without any Mediator between. We may be sure that the test will be a
crucial and a just one.
LIFE-GIVER--Spiritual Father and Mother with Earthly Children. ::Q441:2:: QUESTION
(1905)--2--If Christ is to be the life-giver and the Church the mother,
how can the children of the restitution class be of the human nature?
ANSWER.--This
is a case of adoption as far as the earth is concerned. They were
children of Adam and Christ proposes to give them a life in place of
the one they lost through Adam. They are not begotten in the sense that
we are begotten; their promise is of restitution to that which they
lost through Adam. The second Adam is to take the place of the first
Adam. They get the life Christ laid down for the world, otherwise there
would not have been any for them.
LIFE-RIGHTS--When Given Up? ::Q441:3:: QUESTION (1911)--3--When do we give our life rights, at consecration, or at death?
::Page Q442::
ANSWER.--We
give up our life rights at consecration. That is the principal thing
that you give up. You give what you have, and what you have is very
little--what anybody has is very little. But God has provided in Christ
for every member of the race earthly life-rights through Jesus, and
these belong to you in a reckoned sense from the time you believe in
Jesus and understand that God has a restitution plan for mankind. You
might say to yourself, and I might say to myself, "Oh, I have a little
life now, very little indeed, but God's provision through the Redeemer
is that I shall have a future human life. This will he imputed to me
now through God's mercy, that I may give up all that I have. I give up
what I have a right to now, and all of these rights of mine that would
belong to me if I had maintained my human nature, and claimed my rights
as a human being, under the general merit of Christ's sacrifice." So we
give up all our life rights the moment we consecrate--the present life
and that which is to come. When did Jesus give up his life rights, at
Jordan, at Calvary, or at Pentecost? Jesus gave up his life rights at
Jordan. He gave everything into the Father's hands. "Lo, I come to do
thy will, everything written in the book." He held nothing back,
everything was given up.
LIFE-RIGHTS--Are they Sacrificed. ::Q442:1:: QUESTION
(l9l1-Z)--1--What rights did our Lord possess when He was a
spirit-being, before He become a man, and what became of those rights
when He became a man?
ANSWER.--Our Lord was rich and for our sakes became poor (`2 Cor. 8:9 `) by exchanging the heavenly rights and perfection for the earthly rights and perfection. This exchange was not a sacrifice [not an offering]; for it was the man Christ Jesus who became a ransom. There is no statement in the Scriptures that He sacrificed any pre-human rights. He did, however, resign these for the "joy that was set before Him."--`Heb. 12:2 `.
The rights that man needs are earthly rights, human rights; and it is those rights that Jesus redeems through giving His earthly life sacrificially. As a spirit being He could not have sacrificed the rights of a spirit being; for there were no spirit beings condemned to death. It was the man Adam whom He was to redeem. "Since by man came death, by man comes also the resurrection of the dead. For as all in Adam die, even so all in Christ shall be made alive."--`1 Cor. 15:21 ,22`.
LIFE-RIGHTS--Vs. Merit. ::Q442:2:: QUESTION
(191l-Z)--2--How shall we distinguish between the merit of Christ which
He will appropriate for the sins of the world, and the life-right of
Christ which He will give for the sins of the world?
ANSWER.--Our Lord's righteousness on the human plane of course appertained to Him while He was a man. He has no righteousness as a man now. He has merely the credit of that righteousness in the Father's sight, in the sight of Justice, constituting a merit which is to be appropriated to the world in due time, but which is loaned to the Church during the Gospel Age.
The human life-rights Jesus had need for up to the moment, He died. In dying He committed them to the
::Page Q443::
Father, according to the Father's
arrangement. He said, "The cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I
not drink it?" (`John 18:11 `.) When a man, those life-rights were His
to use; but He does not need them now; for He has better rights. But He
has a right to human life, which He does not need personally--but which He needs in order to give for the world of mankind, that they may have life everlasting if they will.
The Lord is to be viewed from the
standpoint of His own personality. First of all, He was a spirit-being;
secondly, He was made flesh--holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from
sinners; third, for permitting the earthly life to be taken from Him, God rewarded Him personally with a high exaltation.--`Phil. 2:9 `.
God has arranged that this glorious Personage shall do certain things for the world of mankind. The power to do these things lies in the fact that He still has a right to earthly life, which He does not need. He holds it over to give to the world in the Millennial Age,
gradually, as they will come into harmony with the terms of the New
Covenant. He imputes now a share of that value to such as desire to
become his members--to cover their blemishes and make their sacrifices
acceptable to the Father.
Christ's merit was in doing the will of the Father. That merit the Father rewarded with the new nature on the other side of the veil. And, of course, that merit still persists; and He will always have, in God's sight, a personal merit, irrespective of anything that He may do for mankind. Therefore we cannot suppose that He would give away His Merit;
in that case He would be left without merit. But having obtained His
reward, He has a right to human life, which is so recognized by God.
And this constitutes a thing of merit in God's sight--a value for the
redemption of Adam and his children--his purchase-price, so to speak. This He is to use for the world shortly and this He is now imputing to us.
LIFE-RIGHTS--Do We Actually Sacrifice them. ::Q443:1:: QUESTION (1911-Z)--1--Do the under-priests sacrifice their earthly life-rights?
ANSWER.--Since
God purposes to give eternal life only to those who are perfect, and
since we of Adam's race are all imperfect, therefore, we had no
life-rights to sacrifice. But Jesus appeared as our Advocate and
purposes to help us if we are desirous of becoming followers in His
steps, and thus of being sharers with Him in His sacrifice and
afterwards in the glories of His Kingdom.
To enable us to do this, He purposes to
make up for us a sufficiency of His merit to compensate for all of our
blemishes and defects. But we do not present this merit imputed to us
by our Lord. Our whole part is faith that our great Advocate is able to
make up for our shortcomings. He makes up that which is imperfect, and
then offers us in sacrifice; and the Father accepts the sacrifice. Really, we never had any life-rights to sacrifice.
LIFE-RIGHTS--Represented in New Covenant. ::Q443:2:: QUESTION (1911-Z)--2--During the Millennial Age where will be the life-rights that Jesus laid down at Calvary?
::Page Q444::
ANSWER.--That
which we speak of as the life-right of the great Redeemer is, we
understand, that which is typified by the blood of Atonement. According
to the type, in the end of this antitypical Day of Atonement, that
blood of Atonement will be applied to Justice on behalf of the whole
world of mankind and will be accepted on their behalf--that is to say,
as the Apostle expresses it, "to make reconciliation for the sins of
the people." (`Heb. 2:17 `.) As soon as the people shall have been
released from their death-condemnation they will be in a position to
begin to receive blessings, but not before. As the great High Priest,
our Lord undertakes, at the close of the Gospel Age, to seal with the
Blood of Atonement a New Covenant between God and the seed of Abraham,
natural Israel; and He, together with the "Church, which is His Body,"
undertakes to stand as the Mediator of that Covenant. All who come into
full accord with that Law will have eternal life. Through all those
years the Mediator will merely carry out the provisions of that
Covenant, which promises that they shall have the privileges of
Restitution. If they avail themselves of the opportunity they shall
have eternal life.
At that time, the right to human life
will have passed out of the hands of our Lord as Redeemer, and will
all, thenceforth, be represented in the Covenant itself, which
guarantees all the things that God declared man should have. The stony
heart of mankind will give place to a heart of flesh; and all who will
live up to the terms of this Covenant shall have eternal life. During
the Millennial Age the New Covenant will represent the life-rights laid
down by our Lord. Whoever fails to observe that Law will receive
chastisements. By this arrangement Christ, as Mediator of the New
Covenant, will for a thousand years dispense the blessings. During this
Gospel Age our Lord keeps the right to life under His own control in
order to give it to Justice as the ransom-price for the world's sins,
for the redemption of the world. As soon as He sums up this right at
the end of this Age, Justice relinquishes it, and mankind receives it,
as shown foregoing.
LIFE-RIGHTS--Necessity for. ::Q444:1:: QUESTION (1911-Z)--1--Could Christ become the Everlasting Father to the world if He did not have earthly life-rights at His disposal?
ANSWER.--If
our Lord Jesus did not possess the right to earthly life as an asset,
in order to give that right to Adam and his race during the Millennial
reign, then He could not properly be spoken of as the Father of that
race. He could not regenerate the race unless He had a life to give, an
earthly life.
LIFE-RIGHTS--Compare with Merit. ::Q444:2:: QUESTION (1912)--2--What is the difference between the life-rights of Jesus and the merit of Jesus?
ANSWER.--The
answer all depends on the mind and viewpoint of the writer of this
question. Jesus has this merit already spoken of, but He is never to
give His merit to anybody. He is not to give His merit as the Son of
God. If he were to give away His merit in this sense He would have none
for Himself. The thought underlying this question may be all right,
however. That sacrifice which He made and finished at Calvary was a
special offering to Himself,
::Page Q445::
and on account of that He received this
higher nature. He laid down His earthly nature and this is counted to
Him as an asset in His favor. It all depends on the use of the word
"nature." This earthly nature or life he laid down and it is intended
to be given as the Ransom Price for the whole world as soon as Jesus
gets ready to take over the world, but this is not just yet. "The world
lieth in the Wicked One" still. The world would not still be lying in
the wicked one if it is the case, as some tell us, that Jesus has
applied His merit. When the proper time comes He will take His great
power, and when He is ready to bless He will then make the application
of His merit or the merit of His earthly life-rights on behalf of all
mankind, all flesh. Then the blessings will begin to "all flesh" as the
Kingdom will be the source of the channel of all the blessings. This is
not yet applied to the world. They are still the children of wrath, but
they will not be the children of wrath after the application of His
merit. Afterwards, they will all be turned over to Christ, and then
Justice will merely look at Jesus and not at mankind at all. Then at
the close of one thousand years Jesus will step aside and lay all the
people in the hands of His Father, for when He has done that they will
be able to stand in the presence of God at that time.
LIFE-RIGHTS--Are Jesus' Imputed to the Church? ::Q445:1:: QUESTION (1912)--1--Do we understand you to teach that the life-rights of Jesus are imputed to the Church?
ANSWER.--Substantially
so! Jesus has two life-rights. He has a life-right as a man. He laid
down his earthly life; it was not taken from Him. He laid it down in
harmony with the Divine arrangement: "Even unto Death." That which He
laid down is still His. Suppose I lay down my book here on the table
and let it remain there for a time, it is still mine and I am at
perfect liberty to come and take up my book again. Am I not? Jesus did
not forfeit His life. He merely laid it down of Himself. "I have the
authority to lay it down and to receive it again." When the time came
for His resurrection from the dead, He received life on the highest
plane, as a Son of God on the Divine Plane. That was the reward for the
laying down of His life. This was a "reward life." This was the Gift of
God to Him. This was the reward of His obedience even unto death. He
still had the right to earthly life, but He was given the Divine life
as a reward. While He has this Divine life He has also this earthly
right to an earthly life, and He has this to dispose of as He wills. It
is in the hand of God. "Father, into Thy hands I commend My Spirit."
Did He apply it to anyone? No! Jesus has His earthly rights still, as
also has He the Divine Life. His earthly life-rights He intends to give
to the world. The very object of God making this arrangement was that
He might give these earthly life-rights to Adam and his children. Not
now though! He is now selecting the Church, the Lamb's Bride. With
regard to the others, Jesus becomes the "Guarantor" of all of us who
come to the Father by Him. He is so to all who have presented their
bodies "Living Sacrifices." He accepts and presents these as His
Members through His own merit. There is a difference between the
imputation and the giving of the merit. If you were to ask me for some
money and I endorsed a check for you, you could present
::Page Q446::
that check at the bank and receive the
money for it. So then, it might be said, that has been done with regard
to the merit of Jesus. He endorses or imputes the merit of His perfect
ability to us, and thus we can present ourselves holy and acceptable
before God.
LIFE-RIGHTS--Has Adam Any? ::Q446:1:: QUESTION (1912)--1--Has Adam any life- rights at present?
ANSWER.--No,
Adam has no life-rights at present, neither has anyone of his children
except those few who have accepted Christ in the real sense of the
word. "He who hath the Son hath Life." There are no life-rights except
for those who have accepted Christ and have come under His conditions.
Even the Ancient Worthies have no life-rights yet, and when the due
time comes they will be the first to receive the blessings and come
into harmony with God, and they will not get their life-rights until
the end of the thousand years. All will get their life-rights at the
end of these thousand years. The Lord Jesus had His part in making us
ready, but it is God, the Judge, who is the one who gives the eternal
life. He is the Father of all who will he His children. Therefore,
there are no life-rights for Adam or his children at present. Provision
is only in the course of being made, and the Great Plan is being surely
unfolded and developed and finished. The time will come when the words
"Come ye blessed of My Father" will sound forth, and then those in
harmony will get their life-rights. Again I say that Adam has no
life-rights at present, but the time is coming for him and his children.
LIFE-RIGHTS--Are Adam's Imputed to the Church? ::Q446:2:: QUESTION (1912)--2--Is it correct in any sense to say that the life-rights of Adam are imputed to the Church?
ANSWER.--Not
at all! Adam had no life-rights to impute. All were forfeited. Not a
particle of life-right was left to Adam and, therefore, there was
nothing for him to impute or impart to anyone. Not having them for
himself it is a moral certainty that he could not impute them to any
other one.
LIFE-RIGHTS--Vs. Life. ::Q446:3:: QUESTION
(1913)--3--Is it correct to say that our Lord will lift the
condemnation from off the human race, that the life and life-rights
lost in Adam might be restored to them, or is it more, correct to say
that these were lost forever through Adam's sin and that the Christ, as
the second Adam, will give life and life-rights to the race?
ANSWER.--I
think it would make very little difference either way. We may speak of
the matter as a resurrection or as a new creation. In one sense it is
really a new creation, and in another sense it is a raising up of
things that were formerly there. In one sense it is to give back that
which Adam lost, and in another sense Adam lost his forever. So it is
very much tweedledeedee, tweedledeedum.
LIFE-RIGHTS--Right to Life. ::Q446:4:: QUESTION (1916-Z)--4--What is meant by the terms "right to live" and "life-rights?" And what is the difference between these terms?
ANSWER.--A person might have a right to live by being in harmony with God; for God has ordained that all of
::Page Q447::
His intelligent creatures may continue to
live if they live in harmony with His Divine Law and its requirements.
A right to live, therefore, was the privilege of Father Adam in the
beginning. He had a right to life and he would not have forfeited that
right had he not sinned. He came into the world, but also after He
became the Man Jesus, He had a right to life. It was because of this
right that He would be able to lay down His life sacrificially on
behalf of Adam and his race. After He had made His consecration at
baptism, He no longer had the right to live as a man;
for He had given up that right to live. But having been begotten by the
Holy Spirit, He had a right to life as a New Creature, spiritually
begotten, unless He should make failure by violating some Divine Law or
by violating His own contract, or covenant. The world of mankind will
have the right to live after the Millennial Age, after they shall have
reached perfection, shall have been delivered over to the Father and He
shall have accepted them. They will then have the same right to life
that Father Adam had at first, before he sinned.
"Life-rights."
This term we may use in different ways. Applying it to the Lord Jesus
Christ as having life-rights, for instance, we may say, while He had
consecrated His life as a man, He had done nothing really to forfeit that life. He had agreed to lay it down; it was rightfully His; else He would not have had the right to use it again for others. He maintained the right
because of His personal righteousness. Therefore He still possessed a
right to human life, because this life which He was permitting to be
taken, He had not forfeited. He still has the life-rights of a human
being, although He has no need
of human life or life-rights now for Himself; since He has something so
much better, and since He could not use two lives at the same time. He
has Divine life-rights; but He still maintains his human life- rights;
and these He is about to dispose of, to give as a Ransom-price, as a
full offset for Adam and all that was lost through him.
LOGOS--Nature of the Logos. ::Q447:1:: QUESTION (1906)--l--What Scripture have we to prove that Jesus had not the divine nature before He came in the flesh?
ANSWER.--I
answer that the proof would be on the other side. What Scriptures have
we to prove that Jesus had the divine nature before He became flesh? We
answer there are no Scriptures to prove that He had the divine nature
before he came in the flesh, but we have logic to prove that He did not
have the divine nature. The logic of the matter is this: That the
divine nature is the very highest of all natures, is immortal, cannot
suffer and cannot die; that it needs no support, no sustenance of any
kind. Now if our Lord Jesus had had what we understand to be the divine
nature, immortality, then He could not have died, and what would have
been the use of coming into the world to die if He could not die? So
you see the logic of the matter says that He was not possessed of the
divine nature, and there is nothing in the Scriptures to show that He
was possessed of the divine nature. Therefore it is proper for us to
understand that this nature was the great blessing and reward the
Father gave Him, as the Scriptures particularly say. He humbled
Himself, took upon Himself a bondman's
::Page Q448::
form, was made in fashion a man, humbled
Himself unto the death of the cross, wherefore,--on this account,--God
has highly exalted Him. Now, if our Lord had the divine nature before,
which is the very highest of all natures, how could the Father have
highly exalted Him after His obedience even unto death? It would be
merely bringing Him back to what He had before. It would be no superior
exaltation. And the Scriptures practically say that it was because He
was obedient that God highly exalted Him and gave Him a name that is
above every other name.
LOINS--"Gird up the Loins of Your Mind." ::Q448:1:: QUESTION (1910-Z)--l--What does this text signify?
ANSWER.--In
olden times when they wore flowing garments, girdles were constantly
worn for two purposes; one was to gird up their garments--as, for
instance, we sometimes sing, "Gird thy bridal robes around thee." The
girdle, therefore, was useful in keeping the garments in their proper
place, or position, so that they would not be disordered in appearance,
nor cause one to trip and fall. Then, secondly, the girdle was used for
its effect upon the loins during active labor. For instance, when one
was engaged in a strenuous occupation, such as lifting a heavy weight
or carrying a heavy burden or running a race, the muscles of the
abdomen would play an important part.
Even in speaking we find the muscles of
the abdomen contract, and thus give us the more force and strength of
voice. In any kind of manual labor this is found to be the case, and
these muscles become comparatively rigid. It is the custom, therefore,
among workmen, even today, to wear a belt. When they have particularly
severe tasks they take another "hitch" in their belt--that is, they
pull it up a few notches more, making it a little tighter around the
waist, the object being to support the muscles of the abdomen and to
enable them to accomplish more labor with less fatigue; and when they
are at rest they slacken the belt.
This seems to be the special thought of
the Apostle here-- "Gird up the loins of your mind." As there are loins
in the body and they have their important part to perform and we
strengthen them in time of exercise, or necessity, so with our minds.
We who have devoted ourselves to be the Lord's people, to do this
service, realize that our minds need to be strengthened. We need to be
of good courage. We need to be fortified against all disposition to
lassitude.
When we undertake to gird up the loins of
our minds it signifies that we have determined upon a course of
activity; that rest and ease are put aside and that we are now engaging
in an important work which we realize requires all the strength that we
possess. The Christian has a great task before him, to lay down his life
in the Lord's service, to accomplish all that he may be able to
accomplish in respect to the use of opportunities which the Lord has
provided us as his servants, his followers, that we may have a good
report to give when he calls us to render our account; that we may say,
Thou gavest me two talents and I have gained, two; or, thou gavest me
five talents and I have gained beside, other five.
LOVE--Agape vs. Philadelphia. ::Q448:2:: QUESTION (1909)--2--When we are told to add agape to
::Page Q449::
Philadelphia, does it mean that we are to get a higher form of love for the brethren than Philadelphia?
ANSWER.--I
understand that agape love refers to love of the broadest kind. We love
the brethren with the Philadelphia love because they are brethren. We
may not love their peculiarities, we may not love all their features,
but we love them as brethren, whether black or white, bond or free,
because they are brethren, comrades in the same race. But as we get
agape love, it means that we love all the others.
LOVE--Reaching Mark of Perfect Love. ::Q449:1:: QUESTION (1909)--1--Is it possible for all who are called to the high calling to reach the perfect mark of love, and how?
ANSWER.--It
is possible for every human being to reach that mark, and more than
that, every individual who will ever get eternal life, either as a
member of the little flock, or great company, or of the restitution
class, whoever will receive eternal life on any plane will have to come
to that place or mark of perfect love; because God will not give
eternal life to any others. The law of love is the least thing that God
will recognize. According to the spirit, you are under the law, and you
are obliged to live up to everything in the spirit that the Jew was
commanded to do in the flesh. You remember how it reads that, "Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and soul, and mind, and
strength." Won't a little less than that do? No. Oh, but I have
weaknesses of the flesh and cannot do the things that I would. Well,
the Apostle said that the Lord is not judging us now according to the
flesh, but according to the sentiments of our hearts. If it is full of
love for the Lord, all your soul, mind, and strength, then you are up
to that feature of the perfect mark. You cannot do more if you like,
and you cannot do less. If your heart is not all of that you will not
be of the Little Flock or Great Company, but such will go into the
second death. All must come up to this standard in their hearts, or
they will all die the second death.
What about the second commandment, "Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself?" It relates to mankind. How? Get
the best of him in a trade or take advantage of him? No. You must treat
him as you would want him to treat you. That would not mean, however,
that you must exercise your judgment for him. If he thinks his farm is
better than yours and you make a trade, you both go into it with your
eyes open, but to take advantage of another would not be loving as you
should. The Church must do more than that. How? This way, my dear
brother: The law never requires sacrifice on your part, simply love
your neighbor as yourself, but what the Father requires of those who
will be Members of the Body of Christ requires more than that; namely,
that you sacrifice your earthly rights and lay them down. Jesus did it
and it was more than the law required. He laid down in sacrifice His
earthly rights, His interests. Oh, well, you say, we sacrifice our
earthly interests, but we do not think them worth much. That is right,
but you must sacrifice them.
LOVE--How to Manifest Love. ::Q449:2:: QUESTION
(1913)--2--Do you know the dear brethren in Great Britain, and
especially London, love you, and is there any way we can more
effectively show it to you?
::Page Q450::
ANSWER.--The
Lord, you remember, said, "If ye love Me keep My commandments," and if
we are thus abiding in His love now, my dear friends, that tells us
that if we abide in His love we will abide in the Father's love.
I love you and I wish you to know that. I
love you and think this love is mutual in all the members of the Bride
of Christ. It could not be otherwise. How could we love Him who begat
and love not also those who are begotten of Him? (`1 John 5:1 `.) As
each one loves more and more the spirit of the Master, we will be bound
to more and more love each one; until we all get perfected beyond the
vail when our love for each other will be absolutely complete.
LOVE--Proof of What? ::Q450:1:: QUESTION (1913)--1--What is the most potent proof that we have passed from death unto life and that we are sons of God?
ANSWER.--The Apostle tells us right in that same connection saying, "we know that we have passed from death unto life because we love the brethren.
That is a very essential test, dear brethren, and it is one that we do
well to keep in mind. If we lose love for the brethren it is not a
favorable sign; if we never have love for the brethren it is not a
favorable sign. The best sign is that you love all other children of
God, no matter what their color or sex or position in life, rich or
poor, bond or free; if you love the Lord you must love all those whom
He loves and has chosen. We all belong to the Lord and every member of
the Lord's family must be loyal to every other member of His family. We
must have the Spirit of the Master, and to have this we must love all
those who are begotten of God. Everyone that loveth Him who begat
loveth him also that is begotten of Him. (`John 5:1 `.)
LOVE--Perfect, Casteth Out Fear. ::Q450:2:: QUESTION
(1913-Z)--2--What kind of fear is referred to in the text, "There is no
fear in love, but perfect love casteth out fear."--`1 John 4:18 `.
ANSWER.--Fear
is a mental condition which is begotten of uncertainty. There are some
things which we ought to fear, and some which we need not fear. The
Adversary seems to take advantage of the fallen condition of the race,
and to cause them to fear. Mankind realize instinctively that they are
sinners by nature and that there is a penalty for sin. Taking advantage
of this fear of the consequences of sin, the Adversary tries to instill
in them a dread of God. He pictures before their imperfect minds a God
who is unjust, over severe in His dealings with sin and the sinner, for
whom He has prepared a place of everlasting torture.
As we gradually come to a clear knowledge
of God and of the principles by which He regulates the universe, we
lose this improper fear; and in its stead comes a love for God and a
realization that He has love for us. Our love for Him grows in
proportion as we perceive that He loves mankind, and has made provision
for them whereby they may have an opportunity for everlasting life.
After we have come to love Him perfectly, all fear in the sense of
dread is cast out.
Our knowledge and love should not, however, cast out the fear of displeasing God for proper fear
(reverence) must never be cast out. The more we have of reverential
love, the more of the proper fear we shall have. Who would not fear
::Page Q451::
to offend a brother or a neighbor whom he
loved and appreciated? Much more should we dread offending our just,
wise, loving God.
The principle that "perfect love casteth
out fear" should operate between husband and wife, between parents and
children. The wife who fears her husband cannot be as happy as she
would be if there were perfect love; and so also children who are in
dread of either, or both, of their parents cannot love them with true
filial affection. Each should fear to wound or offend the other, and
should strive to have that perfect love which God is pleased to have
all of His intelligent creatures exercise.
LUCIFER--His Previous Job. ::Q451:1:: QUESTION
(1913)--1--Is there any intimation in the Scriptures that Lucifer was
given the oversight or made the overseer of God's earthly creation or
Kingdom at Creation?
ANSWER.--We
know of nothing in the Scriptures to indicate that Satan was given
jurisdiction or authority respecting humanity or the earth.
LUST--Meaning Changed. ::Q451:2:: QUESTION (1905)--2--What is meant by the word "lust"--"Having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust?"
ANSWER.--Our
word lust has changed its meaning a great deal. In the Greek it has a
much wider meaning. Today it is generally restricted to mean immoral
desires, fleshly desires. In the original it means any earthly desires,
for instance, the lust for power.
MAN--Re Man Christ Jesus. ::Q451:3:: QUESTION (l9l0)--3--Who are we to understand is meant in `1 Tim. 2:5 ,6`, by the words, "man Christ Jesus"?
ANSWER.--I
answer that the man Christ Jesus does not to my understanding mean the
Church. The man Christ Jesus who gave himself, to my understanding,
points back directly to Jesus our Lord when he was a man, and at his
baptism he there gave himself up and God accepted him there as the
Mediator between God and the world. Not that he did the mediating work
there; no, not at all. But he there became the Mediator. It is true
that he was born to be Mediator when a babe, but he was not so
recognized then. Only after consecration was he recognized of God as a
Mediator. This is the one whom I delight in. Why? He is to be the great
King, the great Priest. What will he do as King and Priest? He will
mediate between God and the world. Will he make a successful mediation?
O, yes; "Times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord
and he shall send Jesus Christ who before was preached unto you, whom
the heavens must retain until the times of restitution of all things
which God hath spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets." Will he
always maintain this position of being the man Christ Jesus, or will he
in some sense of the word share this with the Church? I answer that
according to the Word of God a Body is being gathered from amongst the
world, which is the Church, and it is to share with him his Kingship
and his anointing descends on his Body members who are anointed to be
kings on his throne. As his Body they share also in his anointing as
the great High Priest, as pictured in `Psalm 133 `, where
::Page Q452::
we read that the oil was poured upon the
head of Aaron, the high priest, and it ran down even to the hem of his
garment. This represents that all the Body of Christ is anointed, and
they are the Christ, or the Messiah, because they were anointed,
because the word "anoint" means "Christ." So if, as the Apostle says,
"Ye have received the anointing," it is because you are a member of the
anointed one. If anointed to be the Mediator, then you are anointed
also as Kings and Priests that you may participate with him as members
of that great Mediator which will do his great work between God and men
during the Millennial Age.
MANIFESTATIONS--God Manifest in Flesh. ::Q452:1:: QUESTION (1915)--1--Are the spirit- begotten class a manifestation of God in the flesh?
ANSWER.--God
was manifested in the flesh of Father Adam, because He made man after
His own image (`Gen. 1:26`; `Gen. 5:1`; `Gen. 9:6`). Man was not made
to sin. The Bible explains that sin came to mankind through the fall.
Sin and selfishness coming in warped and twisted our judgments, so that
now, the Bible declares, "There is none righteous, no, not one" (`Rom.
3:10`). Though God is not a fleshly being, yet when He made man in the
flesh, in His own image, Adam was a manifestation of God in the flesh.
And so Jesus, when He came into the world, leaving the heavenly,
spiritual glory which He had with the Father and becoming a man, was a
manifestation of God in the flesh.
God is, of course, manifested in all
human flesh to some extent; but in proportion as the original likeness
of God has een lost, men are not in God's image--not a manifestation of
God in the flesh. But if we become New Creatures, by the begetting of
the Holy Spirit, we have a new mind, as the Apostle declares. Our minds
are given up to the Lord, our wills given up to His will; and by reason
of this submission of our will to God's will, the Apostle tells us, we
gradually acquire the spirit of a sound mind. We have not sound bodies,
but our minds become more and more sound by reason of their harmony
with God's mind. God's mind is a sound mind, and as ours become
submissive to His we become sound-minded. Whoever is guided by the
Lord's Spirit has the mind of the Lord, and God will be much more
manifest in his flesh than before such a one became begotten of the
Spirit and this new mind had taken control.
So we see that it is a very reasonable
statement to say that each Christian, in proportion as he receives the
Spirit of the Lord, and grows therein, becomes more and more sound in
his mind. He becomes gradually a copy of God's dear Son, and therefore
a copy of the Father; for Jesus is the Father's express image. The
Christian who is growing in the likeness of Christ becomes, therefore,
more and more a manifestation of God in the flesh (`2 Tim. 1:7 `; `Heb.
1:3`.)
MANSION--Prepare Place or Disciple for. ::Q452:2:: QUESTION
(1909)--2--(`John 14:2 `), "In my Father's house are many mansions: if
it were not so I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you."
Did Christ mean that He would prepare a place for the disciples, or
that He would prepare them for the place?
ANSWER.--The picture before my mind is this, that our Heavenly Father has many different arrangements or parts
::Page Q453::
to His plan. There was one order or
department of cherubims, another of seraphims, and another order or
arrangement for the angels. As for the earthly arrangement of man, this
was made for him, but there was no place yet provided in God's universe
for this New Creation that He intended to develop, so our Lord said, "I
will go and prepare a place for you." He has made it possible for us to
enter in with Him, as we read, "If we suffer with him we shall also
reign with him." If He had applied His merit to the Jews under the New
Covenant then, the blessing would have gone that way, and there would
have been no place for us at all, but He went to apply same on our
behalf, and gives us the opportunity of sacrificing with Him and of
sharing in His high nature. It is true also that he is preparing them
for the place.
MANSIONS--Many in Father's House. ::Q453:1:: QUESTION (1911)--1--"In my Father's house are many mansions." What does this mean?
ANSWER.--Our
Father's house, in a large sense of the word, signifies the Universe,
and the different members of his great family. He has one part of his
great family on the angelic plane, we do not know how many; he has
another part of his family that are seraphim and cherubim, and we do
not know much about them. He has other parts of the spiritual family
that the apostle Paul seems to refer to, but we do not know what these
distinctions are; it is not revealed; but merely that there are
different orders or grades of our heavenly Father's family on the
spirit plane. Besides the church is to be on the spirit plane. Then he
has also another part of his family of the human kind. Now he has made
provision for all of these different families. He had already made
provision for the angels; they have their plane, their status, their
condition, assigned to them. So God has provided for mankind; the earth
was made for man. But now was a new thing; the Lord Jesus came and
called a church, and that church with himself is to constitute a new
creation, and there was no place for a new creation; it was to be an
entirely new creation. So our Master, who was the first-born of this
new creation, when he ascended up on high left us word that if we would
be faithful as his members he would go before us and prepare a place
for us, and he tells us what place it will be, that it will be a place
in the divine nature. Saint Peter says God has given us exceeding great
and precious promises, that by these--by these promises working in us
to will and to do God's good pleasure--we might become partakers of the
divine nature. All who become partakers of the divine nature will have
that place in the Father's mansion that is next to the Father's
abode--the Father, the Son, the Bride, the Lamb's wife, and then all
other orders under those.
MARAH--Sweetening of the Waters of Marah. ::Q453:2:: QUESTION
(1910-Z)--2--What typical significance is there in the fact that when
the waters of Marah were found to be bitter, and the Children of Israel
had no water to drink, Moses caused a certain tree to be cut down and
thrust into the stream, and thus sweetened the waters?
ANSWER.--As a result of Adam's sin there was nothing permanently refreshing for God's people to partake of. Those
::Page Q454::
who desired to be his people, those who
left the world behind them, found a great deal of unsatisfaction, if we
may so express it, from the provisions of the law, which brought only
condemnation. In due time, however, God caused the death of our Lord
Jesus, and through or by means of his death-- through the message of
the ransom sacrifice--those who drink of this fact, this water, will
not find that brackish taste.
We might say that it would not be
unreasonable to consider that there is a correspondency of this at the
present time. During the Dark Ages the water of life became very much
polluted, and, as a consequence, undesirable. When we came to the
waters of the Lord's Word and found that they were brackish and impure,
nauseating, not wholesome, the Lord in his providence showed us more
clearly than we have seen in the past the great doctrine of the Ransom,
the reason for the cutting off of our Lord Jesus in death. Here was the
manifestation of Divine Love and Mercy. And since we have realized this
truth; since the truth has come in contact with and purified the
message of the Dark Ages, we can partake of it with refreshment and joy.
We may not know if this was intended to
be a correspondency, but we can at least draw some lessons from it, the
lessons being true whether the matter was intended to be thus applied
or not.
MARK--Re Great Company and Little Flock. ::Q454:1:: QUESTION (1910)--1--Is there a difference between the mark attained by the Great Company and the mark attained by the Little Flock?
ANSWER.--The
Little Flock has consecrated not only to be obedient to all the demands
of righteousness and justice, but they have agreed with God that they
will do his will at any cost to themselves, whether justice should
demand it of them or not. What you must sacrifice is something beyond
what justice does or could demand. Just so with our Lord Jesus. Justice
could demand that he keep the law, but Justice could not demand that he
sacrifice his life. God demands that every man keep the law, but never
demands that we should present our bodies a living sacrifice; it is an
invitation. God does not invite you to keep His law; he says that if
you do not keep the law, thus and so will be the result; there is my
standard. So God sets before you and me this standard, that we should
love the Lord our God with all our heart, and mind, and soul, and
strength, and our neighbor as ourselves. But you say, We cannot keep
the law. No, we cannot, so far as the flesh is concerned, but we can
keep it in our minds and hearts. We must do so. Anything short of that
is to come short of the law of God and to find ourselves unworthy of
having any eternal life. So it must be with the Great Company. They
cannot come short of this standard of the law of God. They have agreed
to do more, but they must come up to the standard of love. That is the
standard for the world in general during the next age, which they will
be obliged to come to. If they do not attain to that during a thousand
years, they will not attain eternal life at the end of the thousand
years. Now then, dear friends, don't you think the world will be a
pretty nice set of people? I think they will be fine. When Jesus gets
through with the work I tell you it will be well done, and humanity
will be a
::Page Q455::
fine representation of the power of God, and godliness in humanity.
MARK--Falling from and into Great Company. ::Q455:1:: QUESTION
(1910)--1--Have any of the Truth people who have reached the mark of
perfect love and allowed themselves to be blinded by error any chance
of coming into the Great Company?
ANSWER.--To
my understanding, any of God's people, not merely those who are in
present truth, but any of God's people, who may reach the mark of
character development that we sometimes designate as the mark of
perfect love, it is required of them that they shall maintain their
standing at that mark of perfect love, and not be moved away from it by
the trials and difficulties that will assault them after they have
reached that mark; and I would understand some of them might
temporarily be moved away from the mark, and might by the grace of God
recover themselves, and still be of those characters that the Lord
would count worthy of a share in the prize. But I could see that some
might be so thoroughly driven away from the mark into such a wrong
condition of mind or conduct that they would sin the sin unto death,
and never have any future. And I could see that some others might,
after being at the mark of perfect love, fail to have the proper zeal,
and, without especially leaving the mark, find that they might fail to
maintain their standing as zealous followers of the Lord, and be
counted worthy of the Great Company class.
MARK OR RACE COURSE--Finished Before Fighting. ::Q455:2:: QUESTION
(1908)--2--Do the Scriptures teach that the Church must finish its
course before they begin to fight as soldiers, or are we not to fight
while we are running the race to the end, so we may finish with joy?
ANSWER.--There
are different Scriptures which seem to present different thoughts to
our mind. The subject has many sides. Just the same as if we were to
take a picture of this building. We would say, What does that
Auditorium at Nashville look like? One picture would be from here, and
it would take in the Confederate Gallery; another from there, and
another from here. They would be different pictures, but all would be
pictures of the Auditorium. Then you go out and take a front view, and
then to the side and take a side view, and to the rear and take a rear
view. So the Lord and the Apostles have given us--God has given us by
His Holy Spirit through these various channels--various pictures of
truth, and of our experiences in life. One of them represents us as
running the race. Now you have got to run for something. You do not
keep on running forever and then just die the very moment you have
gotten to the end of the race. While it is true the Scriptures do set
forth in some places that we keep running, and our Christian race in
some respects is like a race course all the time, in that we must never
stop in our endeavor to do right, there is another picture, which seems
to be a very proper one, that we run for a mark. Suppose that table is
the mark. What do you mean by the mark? Why it is a mark in the sense
of being something that we must reach. I run for that mark. I stop
here, half way to the table; suppose I never went farther than this; I
never reach the mark at all. Now there are a good many people I think
never reach the mark
::Page Q456::
at all. It is important for us to see
what the mark is, so that when we run we may run wisely and not merely
as beating the air. It is not how much effort you can put forth, but
you want to do it for a purpose; there is something to be gained; there
is something to be grasped. The person running aimlessly is like the
person running around some road. "Where are you going?" "I don't know."
He could not run very long that way with energy, but if he knew he was
to take a certain course, and wanted to get back to a certain starting
point which was fixed, and wanted to see how many minutes he could do
it in, then he has an object in view, a motive in mind, and he can run
better. So God sets before us a certain mark, and we are to run to that
mark. Now when we have gotten to the mark, what do we do? Why, having
done all, stand--stand at the mark; do not run away from it. Is it
going to be hard to stay there? Yes. There will be a good deal of
endeavor to put you away from the mark after you get there. The
Adversary will try harder to put you away from the mark than he did in
preventing you from getting to it. There is an intense fight coming
after you get to the mark. There is a certain amount of shielding done
before you get to the mark, but after you get to the mark, that is
where you have our severest test. Another picture is, "Put on the whole
armor of God." Where do you get the armor? God's Word. You put on this
armor, put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand.
Now while I am putting on the armor, the Lord grants me a measure of
grace and protection that I shall not be assailed before I have had
time to put it on; He gives me a reasonable time in which to put it on.
He will not allow me to be attacked beyond that I am able to bear; so I
have a certain measure of time in which to put it on. Now I have on the
armor--and what? Now fight. You say, what is the mark for which we run?
Why this, dear friends. There is a certain mark of character which God
will accept, and nothing short of that character, and if you do not
have that character you can never be in the kingdom. It is not just
anything that God is going to take into the kingdom; He has set a
certain standard and made it favorable for you and me to reach that
standard; He has promised every assistance, but He expects you and I
will manifest interest and strive and labor that we may get to that
standard. What standard is set before us? How little will do? No, that
is not the thought. We ought to have the desire of doing all that we
can, and then more; never be satisfied with our attainments. But you
can readily see that there is one standard you cannot be short of and
get into the kingdom, because God has determined this. You remember
that positive statement of the Apostle Paul in the eighth chapter of
Romans that, "God has predestinated"--that is a strong word. What did
God predestinate? That all of those who will be in the little flock
must be copies of His Son; if they are not copies of His Son, they
cannot be in the kingdom. That mark, you see, is a copy of God's dear
Son. Until you are at that mark of being a copy of God's dear Son,
God's predestination is that you cannot be of the elect; and if you do
reach there and maintain that stand that you may be one. Now the mark
is a very important thing, is it not? In our hazy way of reading the
Bible at one time we did
::Page Q457::
not see the mark or anything else; it was
a kind of blind way of doing. We did not know what God had said. We had
not paid enough attention to what God had said. We had read the
catechism and were confused. Now we have come to a time where we will
see what God says in His Word, and He gives us Christ as a pattern, and
as an example. Do you mean to say that we must all be like Christ? Yes,
we must all be like Christ. But Christ was perfect; must we all be
perfect? I did not say like Christ according to the flesh, my dear
brother; I did not say in what way like Christ, but this is the way:
Our Lord Jesus was perfect, and you are imperfect, and I am imperfect;
we can never be like Christ in the flesh; but that is not the way in
which the Lord is testing us. He says, Ye are not in the flesh, but in
the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of Christ dwelleth in you. He is
not judging you according to the flesh, but according to the spirit.
What about our flesh? Why, your flesh is reckoned justified, the merit
of Christ has been appropriated to you according to the flesh, covering
all those blemishes and conditions; as between Christ and perfection in
the flesh and your imperfection in the flesh, the merit of His
sacrifice is imputed to you and to me to cover these blemishes. Don't
you see then that reckonedly your flesh is perfected, while actually
your flesh is imperfect. But now then the object of God reckoning us
perfect is that we may present ourselves living sacrifices. According
to the divine will no sacrifice might come to the Lord's altar except
it was without spot and without blemish. Our Lord Jesus was the Lamb of
God without spot and without blemish, and He was the acceptable One.
You and I have spots and blemishes according to the flesh, and the Lord
says you cannot come to the altar with those. What must we do? We must
get rid of them. How? They must all be covered. What will cover them
for us? The merit of Christ's sacrifice, imputed and applied by faith.
This covers all those blemishes. Why, Brother Russell, are we
acceptable to God's altar after that? That is exactly the point, dear
brethren. That is what the Apostle says: "I beseech you, brethren, by
the mercies of God (He having forgiven your sins and provided this
covering for you) that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy,
acceptable to God, your reasonable service." Holy? Yes, holy. What have
we done to make us holy? Christ did the thing which makes you holy. The
word "holy" means "whole or complete." Christ's imputed righteousness
makes us reckonedly whole, complete from sin, and from blemish. So
then, according to the flesh you are no more, says the Apostle, but you
are in the spirit, you have ceased to be from a human standpoint, you
sacrificed that humanity as your reasonable service to the Lord; you
count yourself henceforth as a new creature, begotten through the Holy
Spirit. Now this newly begotten new creature in Christ Jesus, a member
of the body of Christ, you see, is a different person from the old, and
so the Apostle from this standpoint could speak of himself as the old
"I" and the new "I." He says, I, and yet he says, not I. Here is the
old and the new. Here is the new Paul and the old Paul. The old Paul,
according to the flesh, is reckoned dead; the new Paul, according to
the spirit, is reckoned alive. So then, this is our glorious position
that we as new creatures
::Page Q458::
may offer our sacrifice, and as new
creatures are acceptable to the Lord, and may fight the good fight and
may win the victory, the Lord helping us all the way through. But as
new creatures we must get to this stand, we must not stop; as new
creatures, God tells us there is a mark, a copy of God's dear Son. Are
you up to the mark? Oh, says someone, I never expect to be up to the
mark until my dying moment. What makes you think you will be any nearer
the mark at your dying moment than the day before? There is no reason
whatever. You see, this mark is a mark of character, and you and I
ought to get to that place in character. How do you mean? In this way:
What was the character of Christ? In what way did He offer a sacrifice?
In this way: Lo, I come in the volume of the book it is written of me,
to do thy will, O God. Thy law is written in my heart. That is his
standpoint-- full consecration to the Father's will, nothing short of
it. And must you and I come to that? Yes. Well, what is the Father's
will? The Father's will is that we should conform, according to heart,
not according to the flesh necessarily, but the best you can do
according to the flesh, but according to the heart you must keep His
will, and His will is, that you shalt love the Lord thy God with all
thy heart, and with all thy mind, and with all thy being, and with all
thy strength. Can we come to that? I think so. The Lord says so. We can
in our minds. With my mind I serve the law of God, says the Apostle,
and with my flesh, to some extent I serve the law of sin; but the flesh
is reckoned as dead, and the Lord is not judging according to the
flesh. If we have the mind of Christ we will do the best of our ability
in the flesh, endeavoring to keep it under in harmony with the Lord's
will. But we are not being judged according to the flesh, but according
to the spirit, according to the mind, according to the new creature. So
here we have it, dear friends: With your mind you serve the law of
God--all your heart, all your mind, all your being, and all your
strength. If so, you are at the mark. Do you love your neighbor as
yourself? Yes, you say. I love everybody and like to do good to
everybody, and glad of it. Then you have really come to love the
brethren? Yes. And you love God? Yes. And you love all mankind? Yes.
Don't want to do harm to anybody? No. You don't want to do any wrong or
see any wrong? You love them and would like to see good done to them?
Yes. Well, I guess you must be at the mark. That is what the Lord puts
as the mark. That is what Christ did. He loved the world and gave
Himself for it. He loved the Father and laid down His life to do the
Father's will. He loved the disciples; thus having loved his own, He
loved them to the end. So that must be our spirit, and as soon as you
get there, so that you love everybody, and love your enemies, you are
at the mark. It is harder to love your enemies, but you must love your
enemies; the Lord said so: "Do good to them that despitefully use you."
If you have not reached the point of loving your enemies, you are not
at the mark of the prize, because none having a less standard can be of
the elect class at all. They must be copies of God's dear Son, and that
is the copy; that is the mark. If you have not gotten there, run and
get there as quick as you can. Let everything else go in life and get
to that point. Someone may say, there is just one person
::Page Q459::
that I cannot love; he is an enemy, and
he has spoken such and such a thing. Never mind what he said or did;
you are not living for yourself, are you? You are living for the Lord.
Now the Lord says, Put away all that evil, and envy, and everything
else that is wrong in your heart, and get your heart to that condition
where you will love them, and would like to do good to them. That is
getting to the mark. After getting there, then what shall you do? Then
stand. Why, that is nothing to stand there, that is easy enough. But
wait a little while; stand there a little while and see. You will find
that the Adversary will get at you in various ways, and the Lord will
allow him to get at you in various ways. He will do various things to
make you do otherwise than love your enemies, and love the Lord, and
love the brethren, and the world. He will do everything he can to turn
your mind from the glorious standard of Christ. You will be assaulted
in a thousand ways, more than you were on the way to the mark, because
on the way the Lord protected you and said, I will not permit you to be
tempted more than you are able; but when you get up to the mark you
were able to stand. Then I will allow you to be tempted as much more as
you are able. He knows how much you are able, and He wants to test you
as much as you are able because all of those who will be of that elect,
glorified class must be thoroughly tested and proved, and it must be
demonstrated that they have loyalty to God and to the brethren, and
love in all of these high and noble respects.
MARRIAGE--Re Spending Husband's Money. ::Q459:1:: QUESTION (1909)--1--Is a wife privileged to use money which is her own, against the wishes of her husband?
ANSWER.--If
the husband were perfect and fully in relationship with the Lord, and
the wife the same, then there would be no difficulty, and there would
be no such question here. But that is not the case, and my thought
would be this: that, according to the laws, and according to the
general usage, a husband in marrying a wife undertakes to treat her as
his partner, and he does this without any respect to the property which
she may have in her own right, unless there be some specific
declaration or contract to that effect. But if there be none, the
understanding would be that the man has taken the woman to be his
companion and become responsible for her care, without any respect to
property she may have. This would mean also that there would be
reasonable conditions between the husband and wife, and if the husband
were sick that the wife would not only use means if she had any to
provide for the family; also if she had no family and he as the natural
protector was not in condition physically, it would be her privilege to
lay down her life in serving him in any kind of work that was necessary.
But suppose the question of necessity was
out of the way, and the husband is abundantly able to provide for both
and does not need what she may have in her own right. My thought is
this, that she should consider that she is a steward of that money that
has come to her individually and personally, and that she has a
responsibility to the Lord, and her husband should co-operate with her.
MARRIAGE--Propriety of in Believers. ::Q459:2:: QUESTION (1909)--2--What is your view in regard to the
::Page Q460::
propriety of believers in Millennial Dawn assuming the marriage relation?
ANSWER.--We
have no position to take, dear friends. That matter is not for anyone
to decide but the individuals themselves. I would have no right to say
that you should marry, nor that you should not marry; that is your
business, not mine, nor anybody else's business. Millennial Dawn merely
said what the Apostle Paul said eighteen hundred years ago: "He that
marries does well, but he who marries not does better." Now, if I
should talk all night, I do not think I could add to what the Apostle
said, neither would I have the right or the inclination to change it.
You and I have no right to meddle with their affairs. If they are our
children, then we have a right to advise. If they are underage, then we
have a right to tell them that we will guide them until they are of
age, but when they are of age the parents must not interfere further
than to advise. Whoever tries to be officious in this matter only
brings trouble upon himself. Let us leave the matter where God leaves
it, namely, with themselves.
MARRIAGE--Does it Constitute the Man a Tyrant? ::Q460:1:: QUESTION
(1909)--1--Why is the idea so prevalent and so inconsistently acted
upon by the brethren, as well as among the world of mankind, that
because a man is the head of his house he is necessarily a petty
tyrant, especially in the matter of the marriage relation?
ANSWER.--I
presume that the reason it is frequent is because it is frequent; that
is all I can say. I think, however, that all those who are in Christ
have the mind of Christ, which seeks to avoid anything like tyranny. Of
course, something might he called tyranny which is not tyranny. One
should learn that the power the Lord would have him exercise is the
power of love. We give you the best advice we can in the 6th Volume of
Scripture Studies. We disapprove of anything like tyranny. There is
generally a more excellent way, and that way is not tyranny.
MARRIAGE--Honorable in All. ::Q460:2:: QUESTION
(1910-Z)--2--At this late date what do you think about marriage by
those who claim to be fully consecrated? I think a timely piece in The
Watch Tower treating the propriety of marriage would do much good. It
seems that many do not understand their privilege in sacrificing their
little all.
I have certainly enjoyed The Watch Tower,
especially of late. The expositions on the Great Company and what is
meant by a full consecration have caused me to make some careful
self-examinations and more earnest prayers, inquiring of the Lord
whether or not I have made a full consecration of my little all, and am
I being faithful in my stewardship.
Yours in the Lord.
ANSWER.--We
quite agree with your sentiments, dear brother, that the time is short,
that all the consecrated need every talent and every moment for the
service of the King, to demonstrate to him their love and loyalty. We
quite agree that many marriages have proved disadvantageous
spiritually. We do not know that all have done so.
Anyway, we have no option in the matter.
The Lord's Word clearly declares that marriage is honorable in all. It
is not, therefore, the province of anybody to forbid marriage, directly
or indirectly. The most we are privileged to do is
::Page Q461::
to call attention to the words of St.
Paul, a Divinely inspired instructor for the Church, whose admonitions
have brought blessing to us all many times. He says, "He that marrieth
doeth well. He that marrieth not doeth better."
For our part, therefore, we leave the
matter in the hands of the dear friends, content to point out the
Apostle's advice, not forgetting that there might be instances in which
this general rule might not apply. It is for each of the Lord's people
to decide this matter in harmony with his or her own judgment and
convictions. "Let us not judge one another, but judge this rather, that
no man put a stumbling block in his brother's way."--`Rom. 14:13 `.
MARRIAGE--In the Resurrection. ::Q461:1:: QUESTION
(1911-Z)--1--Do you gather from God's Plan that the present reciprocal
love of man and woman is to be confirmed by the Lord so as to continue
forever, both on earth and in heaven?
ANSWER.--We
answer, No! Marriage is an arrangement that God instituted for a very
special purpose, and with the human family only. The object of the
separation of Mother Eve from Father Adam [she was formed from one of
his ribs] was, the Scriptures tell us, that a race might be produced.
Marriage means merely the union of these two recognizing each other as
one; and so the Apostle says, "I would have you know that the head of
every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the Head
of Christ is God."
There is no arrangement in God's Plan to have any of those on the spirit plane male and female. According to the productions of Art, there are no male angels; but according to the Scriptures, there are no female
angels. Possibly the reason why so many artists have supposed that
angels are females is that there are more women in the Church than men.
But the entire idea is erroneous; for angels are an entirely separate
order of beings from mankind. Man never was an angel and never was
intended to be an angel. Man is of the earth, earthly. He fell from the
position of king of the earth and became a degraded being; and the
Divine intention and promise is that when Messiah shall reign humanity
shall be lifted up from sin and degradation and brought back to human
perfection.--`Acts 3:19-21 `.
The only ones who will become
spirit-beings, as are the angels, are the Church class--those begotten
of the Spirit, those who in the resurrection will be given a change of
nature. As the Apostle states, "We shall all be changed," for "Flesh
and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God." (`1 Cor. 15:51 ,50`.)
Therefore the First Resurrection, in which the Bride only has part with
her Lord, is different from the resurrection of the world. Of those who
will have part in the First Resurrection we read that "they shall be
priests unto God and shall reign with Christ a thousand years." (`Rev.
20:6`.) Flesh and blood cannot be a part of that Kingdom. Therefore
they must all be changed. We do not expect that Jesus will be changed
from spirit to human nature; but that the Church must be changed from
human to spirit nature, for they "shall be like Him and see Him as He
is" (`1 John 3:2 `) and share His glory and be His Bride. When the
Church shall thus be changed, all the peculiarities of male and female will be obliterated, for there
::Page Q462::
is neither male nor female amongst the
angels; and the Scriptures tell us there will not be in the glorified
Church. The perfection of spirit being will be one. All will be alike,
sexless.
As for mankind: We think the Scriptures
clearly indicate that Divine provision for mankind will be that they
will all be sexless when perfection shall have been reached. That is to
say, at the close of the Millennial Age, all having been gradually
perfected, each sex will, in their development, have taken on more of
the qualities of the other; during that Age the woman will gradually
add to her womanly graces the qualities that belong to man; and man
will likewise gradually take on with his manly qualities the finer
sentiments and qualities of mind and body that belong to the female.
Thus man will receive again that which was taken from him originally,
represented by the rib. So all will then be perfect; and they will
neither marry nor give in marriage; for all will in this respect be
"like unto the angels."--`Luke 20:34-36 `.
MARRIAGE--In the Millennium. ::Q462:1:: QUESTION (1911)--1--Will there be marrying and giving in marriage during the Millennium?
ANSWER.--During
the time of the Millennium, during that thousand years, the angels will
not marry or be given in marriage. They never have been married, and
they will not be then, and the church will not marry or be given in
marriage, because they will be like unto the angels in that respect,
being without the sex peculiarity. And as for mankind, the Scriptures
do not clearly indicate that. They do tell us that whosoever shall
attain to that age, or to the resurrection from the dead, will neither
marry or be given in marriage. To attain to the resurrection seems to
mean progressing until they reach the full resurrection. In other
words, the resurrection does not take place the moment the person is
awakened from the tomb, but his resurrection is only begun, and every
step he would take in progress toward full perfection he would be
having more of a resurrection, until he would be fully perfected, and
then his resurrection would be complete; he would be raised clear up
out of sin, imperfection and death. Now when they reach that full
development, being fully raised up, they will neither marry nor be
given in marriage. And as to what will take place during the
Millennium, I could only give you a guess, because there is no
Scripture on the subject. My guess would be that this matter would be
gradually getting less and less. That is only a guess, and I make a
distinction between my guess and what the Scriptures say.
MARRIAGE SUPPER--When and What is it? ::Q462:2:: QUESTION
(1906)--2--What will constitute the marriage supper or nuptial feast of
the Lamb, to which the virgins, the Bride's companions will be invited,
and when will it take place?
ANSWER.--We
answer, this is a picture. There is the invitation, the bridegroom
coming and going into the marriage, the door shut, and the marriage
taking place. The union between Christ and the Church is thus
represented. When will it take place? When the last member of the body
shall have finished his course and has been changed into the
::Page Q463::
glory of the Lord, then the marriage will
be consummated; that is, the union will be consummated. Will they have
a supper, and sit down with knives and forks and chairs and have
something to eat? No, not that kind of a supper. We are having a feast
here at this convention, dear friends, without knives or forks. We are
having a feast on God's Word and truth. Our Lord represents it as a
great feast, a great time of blessing; we don't know what it is. He
gives us some pictures drawn from earthly things to give us a
suggestion merely that there is something grand beyond power to
describe. Who will be there? We answer the bride of Christ will be
there, the bridegroom will be there, and the virgins, the bride's
companions, that follow her, will be there. They are represented as a
great company. They also, says the Prophet, shall be brought near to
the presence of the King.
Thank God the great company is going to
be invited to share in the marriage supper of the Lamb, to share in the
glorious blessings and favors of God, which will make their hearts
rejoice, and compensate them for all their trials and difficulties in
the present time.
MARRYING--Forbidding to, and Abstaining from Meats ::Q463:1:: QUESTION
(1911)--1--"Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats
which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which
believe and know the truth." Please comment.
ANSWER.--I
think it is very nice. Every word of God is good. No objection. I never
forbid to marry, and if anyone thought I did, it is a mistake. I would
merely say with the Apostle that he that marries does well, and he that
marries not, does better. And as to the abstaining from meat--judge for
yourself how much is good for you, and the kind that agrees with you
best.
MARY--Why More Honor not Shown Her. ::Q463:2:: QUESTION
(191l)--2--Why in the meetings of your classes do not the members show
more honor to the mother of our Lord? A woman whom God honored so
highly?
ANSWER.--It
would seem to me that none of God's people would wish to show any
indignity toward Mary, the mother of Jesus. If they did, I would think
they were making a very great mistake. It might be, however, that some
unconsciously would seem to cast discredit--not that they mean to do
so--but seeing that our Catholic friends make Mary out to be nearly as
great as her Son, therefore the natural revulsion comes in, and the
natural inclination to take the other side of the matter, and to say
that she was not, and that she was not immaculate, etc. So that is the
only way I could account for anything that would seem like a lack of
proper honor to Mary, the mother of Jesus. I believe that all
Christians should honor Mary very highly. I am sure I honor her very
highly. I think that God honors her very highly, and everyone whom God
honors I wish to honor, be it man or woman. So in the case of Mary, I
am very glad to honor her. She must have been a very fine, noble woman,
else the Lord never would have used her. But we would not subscribe to
the Catholic theory that she was born immaculate, that she was born
without sin. If so she would have been a perfect woman. I suppose the
Catholics claim this in order to account for Jesus being born perfect;
they think
::Page Q464::
his mother would need be perfect. In that
they have overlooked a principle of nature. In the first place she
could not be born perfect because she did not have the perfect life to
begin with, for her father was not perfect. Secondly she could not be
immaculate. In the case of Jesus, he could be born perfect, because his
Father, the one from whom his life came, was pure. This Holy power of
God that came upon her was the means by which the child was given life,
personality, soul. Here we have sharply defined before our minds, then,
the fact that the father is the life-giver, and the mother is the
life-nourisher. All that Mary had to do with our Lord was to provide
the necessary nutriment by which he would be sustained and brought to
birth; that was her part, and God chose a good woman, no doubt.
MATERIALIZATION--Evil Spirits Re Saints. ::Q464:1:: QUESTION
(1909)--1--Devils being evil spirits, is it possible for them to appear
in the Church in flesh as teachers and deceive the Saints?
ANSWER.--We
answer that the tract on this subject will be better than we can give
in a few minutes. However, we will say briefly that the evil spirits
which were condemned at the time of the flood, of whom Peter refers
when he speaks of the "spirits in prison," in the sense that they are
restrained of the privileges they once enjoyed--they have not been
permitted to materialize since the flood. The Scriptures say that they
were restrained in chains of darkness UNTIL the judgment of the great
day. That word "until" seems to imply that when we reach that time,
then the restrictions are broken.
Our thought is not that God will release
them from their restraints, but that God will permit them to deceive
themselves in that they have found a different way of materializing
aside from Him, and this is what the spiritualists claim. I don't know
anything about it, however, and I leave them alone--I would not go to
one of their seances for any amount of money.
Are you afraid?
No, I am not afraid of them, but I am
afraid of the Lord. My reverence for the Lord would say that I should
have nothing to do with them. I believe that those who put themselves
in the way of their seances, materializations and manifestations, are
running a great risk.
I want to say that I am not accusing the
mediums of being in league with the spirits, because some, so far as I
know, are genuine mediums, doing a genuine work and think they are communicating with the spirits of dead human beings. I mean that to them
their work seems to be genuine. The evil spirits palm themselves off
for the spirits of dead ones and thus deceive mankind, and so it is
that the theory is kept alive that, when a man is dead he is more alive
than ever. The whole heathen world is under their dominion. So Paul
says that they that worship these worship demons and not God. Then he
spoke of some of the doctrines of devils. All of these are pernicious
to the Church, and they take pleasure in deceiving God's people. Our
expectation is that they will think they have broken over the
restraints that God put upon them in the days of the flood, and then
with this thought that they have found a way of getting around God,
they will materialize as they did in the days of the flood. Our
spiritualistic friends, not that I am
::Page Q465::
friendly with them, but the people who
are deluded by spiritualists are all my friends, and all who are under
the delusion are my friends, and those that are not under the delusion
are still more my friends--our spiritualistic friends expect this power
to grow and that they will materialize and walk the streets, and it
will not surprise me if they get that power. They are bound by the
chains of darkness until that time, then God will wink at this, partly
to test them to see whether all these centuries of experience, in which
they have seen the origin of sin, and have had a glimpse of God and
righteousness, have
taught them the needed lesson. He will allow them to do this, to think
that they are circumventing His plan, also that they may have a part in
bringing the great time of trouble in with which this world or age will
end.
Will they appear in fleshly bodies in the
Church as teachers to deceive the saints? The Lord said--and it is so
much better to have what the Lord said than anything that Brother
Russell might say--if it were possible, they would deceive the very
elect, the Saints. That would imply that it will not be possible, but
that it will be possible to deceive everybody else than the Saints; hence the importance of being Saints and of keeping very near to the Lord.
MEDIATOR--For Sheep or Goats? ::Q465:1:: QUESTION (1909)--1--It has been said that the sheep class in the Millennial age will need no mediator--only the goats.
ANSWER.--I
would not agree to that proposition. The Scriptures put the whole world
under the Mediator. Every person except the Body of the Mediator
himself is included in this. The Mediator comes to stand between these.
During all the Millennial age they will all be under that Mediator.
There will be no communication between God and the world until the end
of the Millennial age. The world will be justified by their
works--actually. The Church is in a different condition. When Christ's
Millennial Kingdom is established He will deal with all the world and
bring them up, up by resurrection and restitution--up to all that Adam
had--to all that Adam lost, and in that perfect condition they will be
prepared to be delivered over to the Father. During the Millennial age
He will not deliver them over to the Father for the Father appointed
Him to be their Judge, to be their King, to be their Mediator--and
everything centers in this, for Christ and the Church are one. It will
mean to the world justification. Justification means to make right--to
make just. What was Adam at the beginning? He was a just man. When he
sinned he became unjust, he became imperfect, he became fallen.
Justification means to be lifted up to that place of perfection where
all will be obedient. This is what Christ will do for all the world.
They will be justified every man according to his works. So then the
whole world at the end of the Millennial age will be in that condition
where they may be delivered to the Father. If any man now would be
delivered to the Father it would mean his destruction, but when the
world shall be brought up by the Mediator and turned over to the Father
perfect they will need no Mediator because they will be actually
just--not merely reckonedly. So you see that during the Millennial age
not only the goats will need a mediator, the sheep will need
::Page Q466::
a mediator also. It was because God saw
that some of the world would be sheep that He made this arrangement.
The goat class that will be destroyed will be the ones that will not
profit by the arrangement. As we have been taught, the world, neither
sheep nor goats, will have any dealings with the Father--only at the
end of the age will they have any dealings with the Father.
MEDIATOR--Vs. Advocate. ::Q466:1:: QUESTION (1909)--1--Mediator and Advocate--In what way are they alike--in what ways do they differ?
ANSWER.--The
word "mediator" in our English language might be used and often is used
in our common conversation in a different way from what it is used in
the Bible. That is, you might sometimes say, "I occupy a position as a
kind of mediator in our home. That is, all difficulties are settled
through me." This is one way of using the word but it is not the
scriptural way. In the Scriptures every use of the word "mediator", is
in connection with a covenant. I have not always used it so in the
past. I have used it in a loose way not noticing that the Bible always
uses the word in connection with a covenant. Christ is the mediator of
the New Covenant. So hereafter I will use it in that restricted sense.
If you find I have written anything else you will know it is a slip and
not intentional. A mediator stands between two parties to see that
justice is done to both parties. Suppose you and I were to build a
house. You agree to build it for $15,000, terms and conditions laid
down. It is usual in such a case to have a "mediator," and the
"mediator" in such a contract is usually termed an architect. Then we
have an architect--a mediator-- who draws up the plans and the terms
and you agree to take these specifications. Again, in any business
transaction, if you make a note for some reason, there is a contract
given. You agree to bind yourself by that. Now that is a covenant or
contract between us. Where is the mediator? The law. In every such case
where two parties are concerned the mediator sees that everything is
right. Christ has redeemed the world and He is to be a Mediator in the
matter of dispensing certain blessings. Jehovah agrees to take and
accept these people of the world through this Mediator. Christ agrees
to bring the world up to perfection--He stands between God and them. He
represents them to God. He can stand between them and Jehovah and give
them all the assistance by virtue of the sacrifice He has already made.
He carries out the provisions of the New Covenant to the world,
assuring the world and giving God assurance, and in the end of the age
will turn them over to the Father perfect--restored to the perfection
lost in Adam. An advocate is your
attorney--he is not the other man's attorney--he is never for any side
but your side. He has the right to go into court because he is a member
of the court. You cannot go in any time to court, but you must have an
attorney to appear there for you. You are at liberty and in good
standing--you are not condemned by the court, but you must get a lawyer
thoroughly conversant with our laws--you must have an attorney. An
attorney is not a mediator, but your representative before the court.
So the Church has an advocate with the Father. "If any man sin we have
an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."
::Page Q467::
What will he say for us? He will
represent to the Father that we have imperfections but He knows our
hearts are right and this would be a proper case for leniency. We have
forgiveness of sin through faith in His blood.
MEDIATOR--Re Glorified Christ. ::Q467:1:: QUESTION
(1909)--1--Upon what Scripture do you claim that the glorified Christ
with all power in His hands will be the "man" the Mediator?
ANSWER.--We
do not claim that ever a man was the mediator; we claim that the
Mediator is the New Creature, the glorified Christ, that Jesus as a man
could not be the Mediator, He had to lay down His manhood as a
sacrifice for sin, before He would have a right to use His blood or
merit, to seal the New Covenant, and there could not be a New Covenant
without this sealing, neither could there be a Mediator, and so
necessarily the Mediator must be the risen Lord. So the Church in the
flesh is not the Mediator of the New Covenant. After both the Head and
the Body shall have passed beyond the vail, then on the spirit plane,
all the merit of course centralizing in the Head, they with him will be
the Mediator. Just the same as when I am looking at your face, I am not
addressing your hands, and I am not looking at your feet and I am not
addressing them, neither your head without a body, but I address your
head, and when I do, I include your body. So, the Lord Jesus is the
Head and He will have a body, which He is now preparing during this
gospel age, and that whole body will be with Him as Mediator during the
Millennial Age, and then will be the mediatorial kingdom. There can be
no mediatorial work between God and men until the Body of the Christ is
complete and the mediatorial kingdom begins, and it will last through
all of the thousand years, then the mediatorial kingdom will be at an
end, because then Christ, not merely Jesus the Head, but also the
Church His Body, will deliver up the Kingdom to the Father.
MEDIATOR--Re the Man Christ Jesus. ::Q467:2:: QUESTION
(1913)--2--"One Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus."
Please explain further your thought expressed of Christ the New
Creature in connection with this statement, the man Christ Jesus,
mediator.
ANSWER.--The
Apostle's words were, There is one mediator between God and man, the
man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in
due time. Jesus is this mediator; not that He has yet done the
mediating work; He is the one who purposes to do the work, just the
same as if, for instance, President Wilson were here, but the time had
not yet come for his inauguration, and if he were known to be elected,
then we could speak of him and say, Mr. Wilson, who is the president.
Some one might say he is not yet inaugurated, he is not president, but
he is president-elect; he is the one already voted for; there is no
question about it, he is the president-to-be. So in the case of Jesus,
the Apostle points back to Jesus and says the man Christ Jesus gave
Himself, He is the one who is to be the Mediator, He is the Mediator,
He has begun His work as Mediator, because His first work as Mediator
is to kill His sacrifices, and there He had already done this work as
respects His own sacrifice, and for 1,800 years He has been killing the
sacrifices of the goat which represented His
::Page Q468::
Church; and this work of killing the goat
class, the members of His Body, he has been doing for all these 1,800
years, and He is all of this time a Mediator, the Mediator who is
killing His sacrifices, and it is not until He shall have finished all
of this work of killing the "better sacrifices" that He will have the
blood of atonement which will be used as the sealing power for that New
Covenant. It is the New Creature that is attending to all of these
sacrifices, Jesus and the Body of Jesus in the flesh. When He shall
have finished the work of sacrifice, then He will take off the robes of
sacrifice and will put on His glorious garments as the priest did the
garments of glory and beauty. Then He shall have accomplished the whole
work and be ready to bless the whole people, and all the families of
the earth will be blessed by that great Mediator standing between God
and men.
MEDIATOR--Who? ::Q468:1:: QUESTION (1916)--1--Please explain `1 Tim. 2:5-6 `, Who is the mediator?
ANSWER.--I
presume, dear friends, it is not the thought that I should take this
text up in detail, for that would take all the remainder of our time
for this one text. It is very thoroughly treated in the 5th Vol. We
must therefore be brief to give proper share to the other questions.
"There is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who
gave himself." This points out Jesus, the individual, and at the time
he gave himself he was the only one. There were no members of his body.
He gave himself a ransom for all. That ransom work is the foundation of
everything. That first work Jesus did alone, and you and I have nothing
whatever to do with giving this ransom price, because this was a
perfect man's life given in exchange for a perfect man and you and I
are all members of the first man and condemned because of him, and
could not give a ransom for our brother in any sense of the word. Jesus
has not yet become the mediator. He will not be the mediator till the
time the New Covenant is ushered in. Yet in another sense he is the
mediator, just as when he was born a child at Bethlehem, "For this
purpose came I into the world" but he had not taken a kingdom as a
child and had not a right to become a king till he came to maturity and
gave himself in consecration, and not then till fulfilling his
consecration at death. Yet prophetically he is spoken of as king as a
child, and just so as the mediator. He is to be the mediator of the New
Covenant. Before Jesus came God said He would make a new Covenant:
`Jer. 31:31 `. The Lord said to the Jews, "Behold the days come when I
will make a New Covenant with the house of Israel and the house of
Judah--I will put in them a new heart and take away the stony heart.
All that is to be the work of the New Covenant and it is to have the
beginning with the house of Israel and the house of Judah and extending
to all the families of the earth. The house of Israel and the house of
Judah are out of favor with God at the present time.
The special New Covenant referred to by
the Lord, "Gather together my saints unto me saith the Lord, those who
have made a covenant with me by sacrifice," this Covenant of sacrifice
is what is counting now. Jesus was the first one of these saints to
consecrate and deliver up His life in obedience to the Father's will.
He opened up the way so you and I might offer our bodies sacrifices
acceptable to
::Page Q469::
Him. This is the work of the present
time, and all this company will be members of the great mediator--one
mediator. The body is not complete yet. Only Jesus had passed beyond
the veil. He was the head. God raised up Jesus first and He is raising
up us also by Jesus; so the whole Church of Christ is being raised up.
"A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren,
like unto me; Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say
unto you. And it shall come to pass that every soul which will not hear
that prophet shall be destroyed from among the people." That great
prophet we see to be the great mediator of the Millennial Age. The New
Covenant between God and man, the world of mankind. Jesus was the first
raised up. At the time the Apostle wrote those words Jesus was the only
one. Now the members of the body of Christ Jesus are being raised up to
the head. We hope to be members of the Christ in glory; then the
mediator will be complete and the work of the mediator will begin.
MEEKNESS--Vs. Humility. ::Q469:1:: QUESTION (1913)--1--What is the difference between meekness and humility?
ANSWER.--To
be meek is to be teachable. To be humble is to be not proud. Now a man
might be a great teacher, might be learned, might be very meek; so that
any person might be able to come to him and say, Here is a matter I
have, look at this, and if he is sufficiently meek he would say, I
would be pleased to look at it, and if he was not he would say, The
idea of you coming to me! I am Professor So- and-So. You have met such
people sometimes, noble characters, that were very meek and teachable,
ready to learn, always after the truth; they say, I don't know
everything, and I may learn from a child. Any wise man may learn
something from a child. But anyone who is not meek finds it difficult
to learn anywhere. Therefore, Blessed are the meek; they will have more
of God's blessings; they are not too proud to learn. Now to be humble
is to take your honors, or your knowledge, or whatever it may be, and
to wear these in a humble manner, not boastful, not parading in some
way, not strutting about like a peacock, showing all your bright
feathers. A turkey gobbler is not humble; he is proud.
MEETINGS--Pilgrim Meetings, Advertising, etc. ::Q469:2:: QUESTION
(1907)--2--What would you advise in regard to the Pilgrim meetings?
Would it be advisable to spend much money for advertising and for hall
rent at this period of the harvest? Or would it be better to give the
service more especially to the interests of those already in the faith?
To what extent should the Pilgrim direct in this matter?
ANSWER.--I
would answer, dear friends, that my thought would be, answering the
last question first, the Pilgrim should not attempt to direct in the
matter at all. That is not the Pilgrim's business. We do most of the
directing of the matter from the Watch Tower office. Pilgrims are
supposed to be carrying out an outline of policy that is there laid
down, and their acceptance on the Pilgrim staff implies that they are
pleased to do so. It does not imply bondage, but implies the taking up
the staff under those conditions, and implies they are pleased with and
recognize the regulations there made as being under divine supervision.
So I
::Page Q470::
would say that the Pilgrim would have
nothing whatever to do with that matter. I am not aware that the
Pilgrims do, but if any of them have done so, I suppose it was done
inadvertently.
Now, as to what extent it is advisable to
advertise, I would say this: We prefer to leave that in the hands of
the friends themselves. Do as much advertising, or as little
advertising for these pilgrim visits as you choose. Consider that a
part of your
stewardship; that is what you are to attend to. The Society attends to
another part, that of sending the Pilgrim, seeing to his expenses,
etc., and the Pilgrim attends to another part. If each of these do
their part, everything will be done right. So you see that leaves the
responsibility with each party to do what he believes, according to his
own judgment, will be the Lord's will.
Our advice would be that there be not
very many public meetings, because the special object of these visits
of the Pilgrim is, to minister to the household of faith, and the
public ministrations are not always the most beneficial thing for the
household of faith itself. So we always urge that if there be both
public and private meetings, the public meetings be not allowed to take
all the time, but rather be at least half or more than half given to
the matters that are of special interest to the household of faith.
MEETINGS--Re Small Classes. ::Q470:1:: QUESTION (1909)--1--Would you advise that a class of three or four have Berean Studies or Dawn lessons?
ANSWER.--Well,
I think it proper to have both. We have many opportunities and need not
confine ourselves to one. The Berean lessons would, perhaps, be better
for the more public meetings, and might be a little more orderly, and
then you could have the Dawn Studies for the evenings.
I would advise in this connection that
none forget the prayer and testimony meetings, for they are amongst the
most profitable meetings that the Church enjoys. In the proportion that
they are prosperous, we can generally see that the spiritual condition
of that class is good, and therefore as far as possible, don't forget
the prayer and testimony meetings, but do not make the mistake of
having the testimonies along the line of things which occurred years
ago. We suggest that you have a subject for each week, and have the
testimonies as far as possible along the line of the subject. In some
places, they use the weekly sermons as a basis for the prayer and
testimony meetings, and they try to see that their testimonies bear
along the same line, and thus having it in mind during the week, they
will look for some experience in harmony with that subject. In the New
York church, they take for their weekly prayer and testimony subject,
the Sunday afternoon discourse, and then they watch their experiences,
Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday--four days--along that line. If
it is on patience, for instance, then they will note to what extent
they have cultivated patience, and they generally find that there has
been some experience during that time. Then after Wednesday meeting,
they have the same thought in mind until the next Sunday, thus always
having it fresh in their minds. There is an advantage in that, which is
to bring us all up to date, and I think you will all find this in your
experience that you drifted and hardly knew that you were drifting, so
far
::Page Q471::
as Christian experience is concerned, but
now today, we want to have some Christian experience, it is practically
a day lost. So, you see that, by looking for these experiences, we find
that for which we look. If you do not have something of the kind before
the mind, you will not have such an experience, and you will scarcely
know how the Lord has cared for you, or what experiences you have had. We have found these very profitable.
MEETINGS--Order of. ::Q471:1:: QUESTION
(19l0)--1--In what order would you suggest that a class which has two
meetings on Sunday and two during the rest of the week, making four
meetings in all in the seven days, hold the meetings, and what line of
studies and in what quantity would you suggest to them?
ANSWER.--My
advice would be that the middle of the week would be a good time to
have the testimony meeting,-- meeting for praise, Christian fellowship,
and getting near to each other. It is not merely testimony, but it is
the sympathetic union of hearts that is obtained at such meetings, it
should be remembered. Then I should think that such Berean studies as
we have suggested would be all right. Then it would depend on the
material in the class, and so forth, whether it would be best to have
an attempt at a public discourse or not. In some cases that would be
just the proper thing, and in other cases I think it would be very
unwise. I think we should recognize there is such a thing as natural
qualification for teaching, and that only those who are apt to teach
should be put to teaching; that any one who has not an aptitude for it
had best not attempt to teach, but to fall in line more with something
like a Berean study. Even there it requires a great deal of teaching
ability, and the leader needs to study how to bring out the class. I do
not think it would be proper for me to enter into and give advice with
any great particularity respecting the character of these meetings,
more than I should think a testimony meeting is good for one meeting a
week. Some of the Berean studies are also good in the way that the
classes find to be most to their spiritual advantage, and the class
should be invited to express themselves, and if necessary to test the
different ways so as to find which is to them the most interesting and
most profitable. And especially I advise the elders and deacons not to
try to run the class and to rule over it, but to assist the class and
to help it in the way in which the Spirit of the Lord seems to lead.
MEETINGS--Re Testimony Meetings. ::Q471:2:: QUESTION
(1910)--2--In reference to that first meeting you recommend. In going
from place to place, find that the brethren hardly understand it. They
take a subject and discuss that subject for a testimony meeting. Is
that the proper thought, or what is the thought?
ANSWER.--About
a testimony meeting--what is a testimony meeting? Our suggestion to the
friends at Allegheny, for instance, at that same meeting I referred to
before, was, that they would have in mind the Sunday afternoon
discourse as being kind of a seed thought for the week; that when they
would come together on Wednesday evening for the testimony meeting,
they might have as much experience as possible circulating round the
text of Sunday afternoon,
::Page Q472::
so as to get all the benefit of what they
heard on Sunday--all their own experiences interweaving with that
subject, so it would be very thoroughly before their minds by Wednesday
night. And when they would meet on Wednesday night, whatever incidents
or experiences of life they had, whether with the grocer or butcher, or
what not, in their business or in their private study, whatever would
be interesting along the lines of the subject of the Sunday afternoon
discourse, that would be the testimony they give as a part of their
Christian experience; and if they had no experience that interlaced
with the Sunday afternoon subject, then they could give whatever they
did have; but preferably if it were related to the Sunday afternoon
subject, so that subject might be impressed on the heart and stay there
forever. Then after the Wednesday evening meeting the same thoughts
could be continued in mind up to the next Sunday, thus getting the
benefit of the whole week's concentration of thought, and getting it
thoroughly masticated, and digested, as it were. And that is the way
they found it profitable. Not merely taking up the subject and
discussing it--that is not a testimony meeting at all. A testimony is
telling of one's own experiences in connection with some subject.
MEETINGS--Method of Conducting When Brothers Are Not Present. ::Q472:1:: QUESTION
(1910)--1--In case of a small class, where there is no brother to
officiate, what is the method to pursue in teaching the Berean studies
or Tabernacle studies--where there is no brother at the head of the
class?
ANSWER.--What do you mean by that, no brother at the head of the class?
The Brother.--That there is no brother in the class, just a class of sisters?
ANSWER.--I
think they should do without a brother. I have already suggested in the
sixth volume, brother, in answer to a question like this, that if they
like they can consider the author of the volume as being present with
them, as represented in that volume.
QUESTION --2--Would it be proper for some sister to ask the question?
ANSWER.--Surely.
The only point about the sisters is this: It does not say a sister
might not instruct sisters, but Paul said, "I suffer not a woman to
teach, or usurp authority over a man." It does not say she may not
teach children and sisters, but the Apostle is saying that when men and
women are in the Church of Christ, side by side, it is an impropriety
and out of harmony with the type and picture that Christ is the head,
represented in the men, and the Church is the body, represented in the
women; and that it would be improper for the woman to teach, as
implying the Church was teaching Christ. And so he has outlined this as
being the divine will and we are following that. But for the sister to
put the question and to open the meeting and engage in prayer, it
certainly is entirely proper.
MEETINGS--Re Visiting Brethren Addressing Them. ::Q472:2:: QUESTION (1910)--2--Should a visiting brother be asked to address a class when he comes?
ANSWER.--My
thought would be that it might not be best to invite a visiting brother
other than those accredited by the society as pilgrims, or specially
introduced to the class,
::Page Q473::
because it would establish a sort of a
precedent. And, secondly, that the elder is not put in that position to
determine who shall lead the class, but merely that he himself was
appointed to lead the class, unless he feels very sure that the
congregation would like to have such a brother; then he ought to sink
all personality and he should ask the class whether or not they would
like to hear from such a brother at such a time. I think that would put
the responsibility for the matter in the hands of the class and relieve
any strained relationship there might be, and save the class sometimes
from getting into trouble. Because if it were the custom that any
visiting brother should always have the preference, then it might be
disadvantageous, for the class has not elected that visiting brother,
but the one that was elected, therefore the class should be the one to
say whether or not any one else should be the one to address
it,--unless it has given some special liberty to the leader.
MEETINGS--Re Others Than Elders Leading Meetings. ::Q473:1:: QUESTION (1910)--1--Would you advise that different brethren of the class do some leading, aside from the elders?
ANSWER.--It
would be the class that should decide. That matter is to be left with
the class. Now, if the class only selects one elder, then that is the
class's responsibility; that means that the class did not find others
whom they thought were qualified to be elders. For that elder in turn
to say that he knew better than the class, and to appoint somebody
else, would be discounting the judgment of the class, for the class
said it did not find anybody else fit to be an elder. It said that when
only electing the one elder. But if the class said we will only elect
the one elder but we wish that elder to use his judgment and bring
forward some of the other brethren of the congregation and to use them
in different ways, or invite them to serve in a different capacity,
then the congregation has turned that much responsibility over upon the
elder and he may use just what the congregation gives him and no more.
It would be the proper thing, however, for the congregation in that
case to elect the others to be deacons and then say to the elder
brother of the congregation, please consider that these deacons are to
be brought forward as you are able, for in electing them as deacons we
thought we saw qualifications that are calculated to bring them
forward, perhaps by and by to some still more important service of the
Church. And Saint Paul says they that use the office of a deacon
faithfully purchase to themselves a good reward; that is to say, in
being faithful as deacons or as servants in watching out and serving,
whether it be the luncheon or something else, they are showing the
proper spirit for service in the Church, and thereby they are showing
that they might be trusted with some other service. But if any deacon
is ashamed to serve the congregation in passing fruit, or milk, or
something else at a luncheon, he is not suitable for a deacon, and he
would be unsafe to be an elder.
MEETINGS--Most Important for a Small Class. ::Q473:2:: QUESTION (1910)--2--May I ask you which you consider the most important meeting for a little ecclesia that is just starting?
ANSWER.--What would we consider the most important meeting for a little class of Bible students just beginning?
::Page Q474::
I would think, brethren, one of the most
important meetings would be a prayer and testimony meeting once a week.
I know that will not strike all the dear friends, but I will tell you
what our experience was at Pittsburgh, that you may have the benefit of
that. Some thirty years ago, or twenty years ago at least, I saw the
apparent need of the Church for more of spirituality and I saw that
there was a greater disposition to eat strong meat than to take some of
the nourishment of the other kind, and I suggested to them that I
thought it would be very advisable if they would set apart one night in
each week- -Wednesday evening I suggested--as being a proper night for
a praise, prayer, and especially a testimony, meeting; I suggested that
the testimony be not as we have been in the habit of having perhaps in
previous times when we were in the various denominations, but that the
testimony be fresh, up to date, the experiences of the week--not the
experiences of the past. What experiences have we had during this week?
What effect has the Sunday text had in our lives? To what extent have
we been able to put it into practice? What experiences that stand
related to it--either failures or successes--have we had? The dear
friends, I could see, were not very anxious for it; they doubted that
to be the best kind of a meeting; they were afraid it would be very
stale and monotonous, and they would say everything one week and would
have to repeat the same thing the next week. They did not see the point
you see--keeping it a fresh, up-to-date, testimony meeting, but through
appreciation of your servant, the speaker, they voted as I suggested,
that we would have it for a while, or for three months at least, and we
would have nothing else than the testimony meeting every Wednesday
night, and at the end of that time we would have a vote as to whether
we wished this continued. The result was this: When we came to take a
vote, they had come to love the meeting considerably but still they
were not any too enthusiastic, but when a year had gone by they were
very anxious, and now I am sure that very many of the dear friends of
the Pittsburgh class would tell you that if any meetings in the whole
week had to be dropped out, they would rather hold on to the testimony
meeting and lose all the others rather than that one, so helpful did
they find it. I believe that is the experience of many others, and I
know that it is contrary to what many of you would be inclined to think
at first. But I believe you will find it so; that there is a kind of
spiritual feast which we get through communications one with another in
testimony meetings, if they are up-to-date, and the leader may make it
interesting by bringing out the question and letting each one have his
turn--beginning at one end, for instance, and giving each one present
an opportunity to testify; that they all get to appreciate it and it
brings a great blessing to all of their hearts.
Now, secondly, my thought is that the
next most important meeting would be something in the nature of a
Berean study. Why? Because there we have questions brought out that if
there is a good leader will be very interesting to the class. Now that
is all a leader is for. The class might get along without a leader
unless he has some aptitude in the matter of bringing out things, and a
leader that does all the talking is not the successful leader, but it
is the
::Page Q475::
leader that can get the others to
talking; and there is the danger of his feeling he is not talking
enough, and that he must do more talking. Well, that is a little
ambition; a little pride perhaps is there; now he should sink all
individuality, and all pride and ambition, in his desire to do good to
the flock; and whoever succeeds in getting all of the Church enthused
and interested in the questions and getting them all brought out, so
they will get a thorough understanding of the questions and of the
answers, and after he has had the expressions on the question from the
class, then sum up the answers, or have them read from the book, or
whatever way is found to be the better one--that is the successful
leader, and that will be a successful class, because they will come to
understand the subjects and to appreciate them. But it is another
matter altogether if you do not have a proper leader. If he wants to
talk all the time, or does not know how to draw out the class, he is
not a proper leader for such a meeting. That is the part to be studied.
If any of us have been unsuccessful in the past, let us study how to
interest people, to put the question this way, and that way, and to get
them interested, and not to brow-beat them. I know there are some who
take the other way and say, "Well you do not understand your lesson at
all, you have not studied this lesson." They are not there as children
to be brow-beaten; they are there as brothers and sisters of the Lord;
they come there and want to he helped maybe; some of them have not had
a sufficiency of time to study. Let them feel that by the next meeting
they want to know something about the answers to the questions, so they
will be prepared, and not have to say "I don't know." You see there is
a different way of getting at the matter. Now it is for the leader of a
meeting to study as the Apostle says, "Study to show thyself
approved"--as a leader. Paul was not writing to all the class, he was
writing to a leader, Timothy. "Study to show thyself approved, a
workman that needeth not to be ashamed"--bring the matter out properly,
rightly divided, and not only rightly divide the word, but also in
respect to the lesson, bringing everything out. All of that goes in,
you see, as part of a leader's proper course. And it is for him to
study this and see how best he can get at it, how he can enter
sympathetically with all the class into the whole question, and not
stand aloof from them and treat them as if they were lower but as
brethren. You will find that those who go right in as one of the
brethren have the most influence with the flock. That is what you are.
Are we not all sheep? Certainly. We are not merely shepherds, doing a
shepherding work, but we also belong to the sheep. The fact that the
Lord has given us the privilege of speaking for him, as his
representatives in the flock, does not alter the fact that we are still
sheep. We are not lords over the flock, nor over the heritage. We are
still sheep and want to still continue to have the sheep-like nature,
and to manifest it. So then I would think that the second meeting in
importance would be a Berean study. Now the Berean studies, you know,
can be of different kinds. As, for instance, we are running a series of
Berean studies in the Watch Tower, a number of questions each Sunday. I
find that a good many of the classes are not keeping up with the
lesson. I think they are making a mistake. Some of them have said to
me, "Well, we are away back, Brother Russell,
::Page Q476::
in the fifth volume, we were back in some
other volume. Then we caught on and we have been going along keeping
about a mile behind." That is their business; I am not going to find
fault; it is not within my province to do so; it is for the class; if
that is what they want, God bless them, let them have it; but my advice
would be that they keep up with the procession. There is some advantage
in marching near the drum corps. You get the step better, and the whole
thing moves better. The band is at the head and you are going on all
together, and it is nice, you know, to think that all of the dear
Lord's people, wherever they are, are right along in the same lesson.
Now perhaps that is merely a matter of
sentiment, perhaps it is of no real importance, and yet every little
matter of sentiment has its weight and influence in the whole matter.
My advice would be not to skip lessons that are in between where you
are and where the published lesson is, but that on the contrary you
have that for another evening and get caught up with the other. Start
in on a lesson with the present subject and keep up with it, letting
the other one come along in another meeting until you have finished the
fifth volume. I believe you will find that good advice. But I say, it
is not for Brother Russell to dictate, nor for anybody else to dictate.
Do whatever you think is the Lord's will. If you think the Lord wants
you to do the other thing, do it. And in any event let us remember that
it is neither for Brother Russell to decide what the class shall do,
nor for anybody else of any class to decide what they shall do, but it
is for the class itself to decide.
And I think there is an important point
that some of the dear brethren overlook. They feel too much the
importance of the eldership, in the sense of ruling. That is natural,
you know; they cannot help it; but keep it down; it is the old man who
is trying to get up; keep him down; we are all on a level as New
Creatures; and we would say, "As New Creatures I want all the Lord's
flock here, all of this class, to have their say, just as much say as I
have; we all have a right." And you will find, again, that even if the
class would not rebel against what you do, yet they will appreciate it
if you watch out for their liberties and their rights, and if you
consult them they will appreciate it. Now I do not suppose there is a
class anywhere that will do more for any elder, or submit to more from
any elder, than the Brooklyn congregation would submit to if he tried
to over-ride them; but they have the first time to find, either at
Pittsburgh or at Brooklyn, where Brother Russell ever tried to
over-ride the congregation. He never did it, so far as he knows. He has
given them his advice, just as I am now giving it, but not attempting
in any manner to coerce, but simply to have the congregation, after
being informed, to vote according to their judgment, and to accept the
judgment of the congregation as being the Lord's judgment in the matter.
MEETINGS--Number of in Extension Work. ::Q476:1:: QUESTION
(1911)--1--It was recently intimated in the Watch Tower in regard to
the Bible Class extension work that not less than six meetings be held
in any one town. Would it be well to have six meetings in one place
when at
::Page Q477::
the second meeting only two or three interested ones come out to the meeting?
ANSWER.--No,
I answer, if no people come out, I would not continue the meetings.
Never hold a meeting if you are the only party there. You will have to
judge as to how many would constitute a proper meeting.
MEETINGS--Re Elders at Brooklyn Appointing Deacons to Lead Meetings. ::Q477:1:: QUESTION
(1911)--1--Do the elders of the Ecclesia at Brooklyn appoint deacons to
lead the classes without a congregation election as set forth, etc?
ANSWER.--This
is supposed to be a pastoral work and not a work for the elders. One of
the elders of the congregation at Brooklyn is charged with the
responsibility of looking over the meetings and being an assistant to
the pastor in that respect, and, with the pastor's consent, now and
then a deacon is selected for this work, and other work. That is
supposed to be the very object in electing a pastor, that he may have
that supervision of the needs of the congregation and fill in here and
there according as the need might be. But it would not be the thought
there, or elsewhere, that anyone would be appointed permanently to a
service which is the same as if he were chosen by the congregation an
elder. It would be merely a temporary matter to fill an emergency and
to give the deacon an opportunity of being tried out.
MEETING--Should Deacons Lead? ::Q477:2:: QUESTION (1912)--2--Would it be proper to ask Deacons to lead meetings, instead of Elders, when they are much more competent?
ANSWER.--Our
thought would be the contrary of that, that the Elders are the ones
chosen especially to be the leaders, and that Deacons would be
appointed to hold meetings only to fill needs, This is following the
Scriptural precedent. The Apostle says that a Deacon who serves in the
office of a Deacon, purchases to himself a good degree. That is to say,
that if he is faithful in temporal things in the Church, loyal and
faithful in looking after the welfare of the Church, manifesting
himself as a suitable person in that way, he purchases a good degree of the confidence of the class,
and they should consider him with a view of sometime appointing him
Elder. Meantime, however, there are times when an Elder might not be
available, and it furnishes a good opportunity to try the Deacons. I
think this should always be cultivated in all of the classes. Elders
are the elder brothers
in the Church, not necessarily in age, but especially in spirituality.
A spiritual eldership of character is their qualification, no matter
how old or young they may be. One part of the mission of the Elders in
looking after the welfare of the class would be to look out for the
younger brethren, who might be qualified to serve as Deacons, to coach
them, and if they have ability, to bring them forward in readiness for
Eldership. In some instances I have found apparently a jealous feeling
on the part of an Elder, lest someone else should have some ability and
share the service. Such a spirit would surely be displeasing to the
Master, and to the Elder's disadvantage; for he could not have a
self-seeking spirit without doing an injury to himself. His solemn
obligation is to look out for the welfare of the class and not
::Page Q478::
be self-seeking. Any brother having
ability to serve should be elected. Don't be afraid that the work will
run out. Everyone who has any ability to serve the Lord let him serve
faithfully; let the Lord look out for the others. If we see anyone more
competent to serve than ourselves, we ought to be glad of that better
service for God. There is no danger that there will not be enough work.
Class Extension and a hundred other ways of service are calling for
laborers. God will use us in proportion as we have the humble Spirit.
MEETINGS--Choice of Teacher. ::Q478:1:: QUESTION
(1913)--1--Is it a wrong condition of heart for one to have a choice of
a teacher for certain studies who would have ability for such studies,
not from the standpoint of personality?
ANSWER.--I
would not think that would be a wrong condition of heart. There are
some who might have a special talent as teacher. A person might have a
preference for that one who could impart the largest amount of
instruction. I see no wrong condition of heart necessarily implied in
that, but I do say this, that the class ought to seek in its elections
to find amongst the brethren those who have the special qualifications,
and are apt to teach, because that is one element of the qualifications
for an elder, as the Apostle says, and any one who is not apt to teach
should not be elected at all. However, there would still be the thought
that there would be a difference; therefore, our suggestion has been to
the friends, and our practice in Brooklyn is, that these different
leaders be more or less changed about; as, for instance, one who would
be leading a class for a certain length of time would be changed to
another class, then to another class, changing all around, so as to
give all the classes a chance to have the best and the worst.
MEETINGS--Should Deacons Lead Meetings? ::Q478:2:: QUESTION
(l9l4)--2--A majority of our class wishes some of our deacons to lead
the prayer meeting occasionally but some of our elders say it is
unscriptural to have deacons lead meetings and that no one but elders
should lead. Are they correct?
ANSWER.--Go
again to the Bible authority. In the Bible we find some of the deacons
of the early Church doing a good Christian work, Deacon Stephen and
Deacon Phillip and others. They were not Apostles.
So we would say that the class on this
occasion in our judgment, or rather the elders, erred in saying that
none but an elder could lead a meeting. We think a very good plan would
be that which the class suggested and the very fact that the class
suggested it made it right and proper. The deacons are chosen for a
service, and the Apostle said "those who use the office of deacon
purchase to themselves a good degree" of what? Liberty in connection
with the work. They are elected for a special kind of work but if they manifest that they have other talents they should be encouraged to use them, and the class should gradually come to know of them and might in time choose them as elders. If they never had any opportunity the class would never know.
I think what the class suggested was the very thing
::Page Q479::
they should do, and they might go even
further and say that approximately so often a deacon should be called
upon to lead the meeting or arrange it as the class sees fit, and the
elders should be glad to help these younger brethren to use all of
their talents and powers, and if they found that they had talents
fitting them for eldership it would be quite proper at the election to
say, I will nominate Brother So and So. He has been a very faithful
deacon, and now I will nominate him as an elder. This would be a very
nice thing for an elder brother to say. He should be helping his
younger brother forward.
There is always plenty of work. Don't be
afraid of getting too many elders. The "Harvest is great and the
laborers are few." Go out yourself and do all you can and when God sees
you are trying He will open up to you other doors.
MEETINGS--Elders in Court of Inquiry. ::Q479:1:: QUESTION
(1916)--1--Is it proper for the Elders to sit at a court of inquiry and
cite any supposed to be walking in a disorderly manner to appear before
then and explain their conduct? Or should the Lord's advice given in
`Mat. 18:15-18` be followed?
ANSWER.--I
agree with the suggestion of the question that it should be handled in
harmony with the Lord's direction in the passage cited. The Lord's word
does not authorize any court of the Elders, or anyone else, to become
busybodies. This would be going back to the practices of the Dark Ages
during the inquisition; and we would be showing the same spirit as did
the inquisitors. The Lord has put the matter in a simple way and we
could not improve upon it. The Bible says, "If thy Brother trespass
against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone; if
he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother." That should end the
matter. However, should it not be successful, the Scriptures give the
next step. We read: "But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee
one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every
word may be established." If the wrong-doer will give heed to the
admonition of the two or three and stop his wrong-doing, that would end
the matter. It would not be within our province to make any demand upon
him or to endeavor to administer any kind of punishment upon him. We
should remember the Word of the Lord, which says, "The Lord will judge
His people." If he should need any punishment, we may trust the Lord to
give it to him and not take the matter into our own hands. We should
have confidence in the Lord. If we stop the wrong that is as far as we
can go. But if the wrong-doer should persist in his wrong- doing and
not repent, and if the matter be of sufficient importance, then we are
to bring the matter to the attention of the Church for
correction.--`Mat. 18:15-18`.
We should not bring any small or trifling
matter before the Church. It is my judgment that three-fourths of the
things that are brought to my attention--matters of this kind--had
better be dropped; and nothing at all be done with them. However, there
might be an exception in case the matter had gone beyond the
individual, and had somehow involved the whole congregation. In such
event, it might be impossible to deal with the matter in an individual
way. Then the Elders might constitute themselves into a Board or
::Page Q480::
Committee, and get one of their number to
look into the case and see if the wrong could not be stopped, or
adjusted. When the matter gets beyond the individual, we have no advice
beyond the Word of God. Let us be careful not to become like Babylon,
and hold inquisition and mix ourselves up. The Word of God is our
sufficiency, and we should follow it closely and thereby avoid
confusion.
MEETINGS--Duties of Elders and Deacons. ::Q480:1:: QUESTION
(1916)--l--In a large Class, in case the Elders are fully occupied with
service and the Deacons are all serving to the fullest extent their
circumstances will permit, and there still remains a Class without a
leader, would it be proper for the Committee on Class
leaders--consisting of three Elders--to appoint as assistant a brother
from the Congregation, known to the members of the Committee to be
clear in the Truth and otherwise well qualified to act as leader?
ANSWER.--I
should think that would be the proper thing to do under the
circumstances. It is proper for the Congregation to decide upon the
number of Elders who are qualified to lead the meetings. However,
should there not be enough provided, the Committee could hardly act
otherwise than to select some one whom they thought qualified to meet
the situation. However, they could not go outside of the appointed
number by the congregation, except in the case of an emergency.
Ordinarily, the appointed Elders should lead all the meetings; but in
some cases a qualified Deacon might be appointed in an emergency, such
as was indicated above. But it should be kept well in mind, that the
number of qualified Elders should be designated to the Congregations,
and their voice should regulate the meetings under ordinary
circumstances. No departure therefrom should be made except in the case
of an emergency.
MEETINGS--Arrangements for. ::Q480:2:: QUESTION
(1916)--2--When a congregation is large in number and it is deemed
advisable to delegate to others a certain portion of the detail
work--such as arranging for meetings, fixing time and place of meeting,
and appointing the leaders for the various meetings--should such work
be delegated to and performed by the Elders alone, as the overseers of
the Ecclesia, or should the Deacons perform such duties with the Elders?
ANSWER.--The
Lord's Word gives us a great deal of latitude in such matters. It does
not specify particularly what shall be the work of the Elders and what
shall be the work of the Deacons. It leaves it largely to the
convenience, we may suppose. The Elders should have in charge the
spiritual work of the Church--the meetings and everything of that kind.
They should be brethren suitable for public speaking; as the Apostle
says, they should be "apt to teach." Now some are apt to teach in
public, and therefore should be appointed for such work, whereas others
are apt to teach in a private way, and should therefore be assigned to
Berean Studies and meetings in the homes. Aptness to teach should be
given a rather broad interpretation. It does not mean simply to give a
declamation from the platform, but it means to be apt to teach in any
way. Some think that if they are chosen to be Elders it means that they
must speak in public. But this is not the case. Aptness to teach should
include
::Page Q481::
both the public and private teaching; and
some should be given the private work, and some the public work,
whereas all should be apt to teach.
The Elders should lead all the meetings;
for all the meetings are spiritual. If a person is not suitable to be
an Elder, then he is not suitable to be a leader of meetings. Where,
then, would the Deacons come in? The word Deacon means servant, and
signifies one who can do any kind of service. As, for instance, he
might have charge of the house in the way of janitor work, or he might
have charge of the book department, or have charge of the volunteer
work. Very many things could properly be given to the Deacons, and in
many cases they can attend to these things better than any others can
attend to them. Give them, therefore, the specific work which they can
handle well. Sometimes business men can be used as Deacons, although
they are not apt to teach. Such a one might properly be put in charge
of the Volunteer work, being appointed Captain of that work, although
he might not be able to do it as well as the Elder. This work, however,
should not be given to the Elders; for the Elders will have enough work
of a spiritual kind to do to keep them busy.
Now in regard to whether the Deacons and
Elders should meet together. I would think it a very pleasant
arrangement if the Deacons should always be made very welcome by the
Elders at all their meetings; for a good Deacon is one who by his
faithfulness to the various duties assigned him, may become approved
and "purchase to himself a good degree." (`1 Tim. 3:13 `); that is, a
good degree of liberty. And he should be looking toward the possibility
of being made an Elder, provided he should show growth and development
for the work of an Elder. There is a work for the Deacons to do. Not
merely should they serve the Elders but they should serve the
congregation also. There are many branches of service in connection
with the congregational work, just as there is plenty of work to do in
connection with the Convention. There was much preparatory work
incidental to this Convention; such as securing rooms, the making
assignments of them, looking after interests of the Conventioneers, etc.
No doubt there was a committee appointed
in connection with the Convention, and on such committee it would be
well to have both an Elder and a business man. The Elders might do this
work themselves, or the Deacons might do it. It would rest upon those
who had the ability to perform the work. Some Brethren have a great
deal of ability and some have very little. Take for instance the
newspaper work. A Deacon might very well do that, if he were qualified.
The responsibility for spiritual things,
however, properly rests in the hands of the Elders. Even as the
inspired Apostle Paul, on the way to Jerusalem, stopped at Miletus and
sent for the Elders of the Church at Ephesus. He said to them, "Take
heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the Flock over which the
Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God, which
He hath purchased by the blood of His own (Son)." (`Acts 20:28 `). Their
work was that of feeding the Flock of God. The Deacons could do other
kinds of work. In all the Elders' and Deacons' meetings, the Elders
should take charge of all the spiritual matters; whereas the Deacons
might well have charge of the
::Page Q482::
temporal matters. They should give advice
one to another in temporal matters. They should give advice one to
another in such a combined meeting. One could give advice on business
matters, and another could give advice on spiritual matters. Although
the responsibility would be in the final vote be upon the Elders, yet
they should be glad to have any suggestions of the Deacons before them
at the time of voting. But while the temporal affairs of the Class
should be in the hands of qualified Deacons, the Elders should be those
well capable of giving them advice. The vote could be a mutual one,
although the Elders are responsible for the outcome.
I understand you have separated your
business meetings from all other meetings. This is well. Business
meetings should ordinarily be separated from others. Do not leave the
interests of the Church entirely in the hands of the Elders; for they
might run away with the meeting. Keep certain matters in the hands of
the congregation; for the responsibility of all the affairs of the
Church rests finally in the hands of the congregation, though there are
a great many things that may well be left the Elders and the Deacons.
MEETINGS--Deacons Voting. ::Q482:1:: QUESTION
(1916)--1--Is it proper for the Deacons to vote at such meetings on
such questions, or should this be left to the Elders as overseers? If
there should be a larger number of Deacons than of Elders and all
should vote, then might not the Deacons, instead of the Elders, control
the business affairs of the Church?
ANSWER.--The
Elders should have to do with the spiritual things and should cast the
vote; but the Class has to do with the number of meetings. Have as many
meetings as can be properly led and attended. Some may not have been
willing to give their consent to the addition of another meeting, but
it would be well to consider the convenience and the prosperity of
others. They might have need of another meeting, while you might have
no need of it. Therefore it would be well to consent to have as many
meetings as the congregation might think necessary for the development
of the individuals of the Class.
In Brooklyn, if another meeting is
desired, a report is made of it, sometimes to me and sometimes to
others. In considering the matter we try to find out how many would
attend the meeting. Unless there were enough to attend we would not
recommend the meeting. We would not think it well to recommend a new
meeting unless there were some seven or eight who could attend, and we
should hope that this number might increase to fifteen. But should the
number reach to thirty, we should then think it well to divide the
meeting into two, so that a better development of each individual might
be obtained. There are some of the Lord's people who are naturally
backward; and where too many are present these would be neglected;
whereas if there be few present, they receive more attention, and this
tends to their development.
MEETINGS--Use of By-Laws. ::Q482:2:: QUESTION (1916)--2--Would you advise the Class here at Los Angeles to formulate a set of by-laws to govern business meetings, etc.?
::Page Q483::
ANSWER.--Some
of the Brethren are very much given to by-laws, or rules. Now certain
rules are, of course, necessary; for without them we would be
anarchistic; and yet we must observe the law of love and justice. These
two laws especially observed will regulate almost everything. Justice,
however, must always come first. I am to be just toward you in
everything; yet I am not to exact justice from you in return. However,
you should not desire to do anything less than justice toward me, and
surely I should do nothing less toward you. But while I hold myself
to strict justice, yet I am not to require it of you. I may require
less. With these two by- laws, Justice and Love, operating, we shall
not need very many more laws. We could have too many by-laws; but these
two kept steadily in mind will help out in a great many cases.
MEETINGS--Kind of. ::Q483:1:: QUESTION (1916)--1--What kind of meetings would be most advantageous?
ANSWER.--That
would depend very much upon circumstances. We have found one of the
most useful meeting that we know anything about to be the Berean
Studies; and yet there might be some exceptional cases where that might
not be the most profitable. In some cases a preaching service on Sunday
night might be the most profitable; in some cases two preaching
services on Sunday. These, however, would be exceptional cases. As a
general thing I think the most benefit is derived from the Berean
Studies; for they require that each individual shall make his own
preparation and give his own answers. I am not intending to give specific advice, but general, and would leave it to each class represented here to apply what I say in his own way.
The Bible says nothing about how many or
what kind of meetings we should have. That is left to be decided by the
spirit of a sound mind. We should have in mind the profit and benefit
of each member of the Class. We should "consider one another." Some
might think they need more. If they should arrange for too many, they
will gradually find it out by the attendance becoming too small to
justify their continuance, being fewer than the number that had
originally been arranged for. My thought would be that about three
meetings on Sunday would be sufficient. But each must use his own
thought, and then grant the same liberty and privileges to others to
think and act for themselves. This is just and right. This idea of
justice should enter into all the affairs of life; for justice is the
foundation of God's Throne and should be the foundation of every
Christian's deportment; in fact, justice should be the foundation of
everything we do. If some in the Class want five meetings, then I would
say, "All right; but I can't attend them all. However, I will vote for
five meetings, if you want five, and think they will be fairly well
attended."
MEETINGS--Number of. ::Q483:2:: QUESTION
(1916)--2--The Los Angeles Ecclesia holds Sunday meetings as follows:
10:30 A.M., Sunday School Lesson in THE WATCH TOWER: 1:30 P. M., THE
WATCH TOWER Study Article; 3:00 P.M., Lecture; 7:00 P.M., Berean Study
Sixth Volume. Some say that we should have more meetings; some, that we
have too many now; some say that we should have two discourses instead
::Page Q484::
of one. What is your thought as to the best interests of the Class in this respect?
ANSWER.--In
every case each Class should decide for itself. As for me, I think
there is such a thing as having too many meetings. In this instance, I
should not be inclined to add to the number of meetings already being
held. If I were here and voting on the subject, unless I knew more than
I now know, I should be inclined to have three meetings rather than
five. Four are about as many as you could manage. While it might be
different, there are surely a goodly number of the Lord's people who
have earthly obligations toward their husbands, wives or children, who
are not in the Truth, and to whom they owe something on the one day set
apart for rest and change of occupation.
To a husband not in the Truth, and whose
only day at home is Sunday, to find that his wife would be away too
much on that day, it would appear as though she were neglecting him;
and I am not sure but that you would take the same view under similar
conditions; and a wife not in the Truth, seeing her husband very little
even on Sunday, if he were to be away at meetings most of the day,
would have almost nothing of his society. Surely this would not be
right. We have sundry obligations of an earthly kind to our husbands or
to our wives, as the case might be; and these ought not to be
overlooked.
Now if the Class should hold ever so many
meetings on Sunday, in some instances it would be wise for an
individual not to attend all of them. Even in the case of an individual
who might be able to give his entire day to the Lord, it would rest
with him as to how to spend his time. He might desire to give a portion
of it to the volunteer service, and another portion to some other part
of the work--some to the Berean study, some to preaching. He would have
to use his own best judgment in the matter. If the Class should have
more than four meetings it would hardly seem wise; and even if all
could get out to all these meetings, we should remember the Apostle's
words, "Let your moderation be known to all." Moderation in respect to
religious meetings, as well as in respect to other matters. We should
remember that our strength is limited; and we should therefore have
consideration for those who are dependent upon us--our husbands, our
wives, our children, our neighbors, our relatives. We may
have some obligations to all of them, but chiefly to the Household of
Faith, and to our families, of course, for they come first.
MELCHISEDEK--Biography Of. ::Q484:1:: QUESTION (1908)--1--Who was Melchisedek?
ANSWER.--The
Scriptures tell us that Melchisedek was a priest and king at the same
time. He was a character that lived in the days of Abraham. You will
remember the account of his being of a city called Salem, which, being
interpreted, signifies "peace." It was the city of peace and he was
king of that city. It is presumed that Salem was a city representative
of the kingdom of peace, and that the king was a type of our Lord Jesus
Christ in the glory of his kingdom, when he will be the Prince of
Peace, or the King of Peace. As a priest Melchisedek did not offer
sacrifices; he was a glorified priest, and therefore as Aaron, the
Jewish priest, represented our Lord in his sacrificial work;
Melchisedek,
::Page Q485::
as a type, represents our Lord as a
glorified priest, a reigning priest. In other words, here are two
types; one presenting the earthly ministry of Christ, the sufferings of
Christ, the sacrificing of Christ, and presenting the merit of his
sacrifice to the Father, all typified in Aaron; and then the Church
typified by the sons of Aaron, the under-priests, and their share in
the sacrificing, filling up that which is behind of the afflictions of
Christ; whereas the Meichisedek priesthood represents Christ and the
Church glorified in the kingdom of glory, able and willing to bless all
the world and to establish the kingdom of peace, the millennial
kingdom, in which all mankind will be blessed. There is very little
told us about Melchisedek. The Apostle tells us that he was without
beginning of days and without end of years. We do not understand him to
mean that Melchisedek never was born or that he never died, but rather
that as a priest he was typical, and that his priesthood did not come
to him from his parents, as did the priesthood of Aaron which descended
from one son to another, but that his priesthood was an original
priesthood; he had no parents in this Melchisedek priesthood, and he
had no children in this Melchisedek priesthood; his priesthood was
without any beginning of time and without any ending of time; and thus
he typified Christ whose priestly office as a priest of the new order
of the Millennial kingdom is not a limited one, and does not come to
him by heredity, nor pass from him to another. Thus Melchisedek was a
type.
Brother Harrison: May I ask one further
question? The question was put to me very recently. I appreciate very
much what you have said, but are we not safe also in recognizing the
fact that the Jewish people were very strict and particular in their
records, and that there was no record made of Melchisedek's birth, his
parentage or his priesthood? Would not that come in there as somewhat
explanatory of that Scripture which says that he was without beginning
of days or end of years? You remember the Jews were very correct in
their genealogical and chronological records? I just wanted information
on that point if you please.
Brother Russell: The Jews did not pretend
to keep a record of every person's birth, so far as we know. Perhaps
there were such records, but they formed no part of the Scripture
records. They were obliged to keep a record of all their priests, and
that is the reason our Hebrew friends today could have no priesthood,
because not a Jew on earth could prove he was of the seed of Abraham
through the line of Aaron. He might claim that he was of the line of
Abraham, but he could not prove that he was of Aaron. No Jew knows who
may be the sons of Aaron today; so if they got their land back, and
everything back, they could not re-establish their priesthood, because
it requires that every priest serving at the altar of the Lord must be
able to show his genealogy as a descendant of Aaron. This would not
apply, however, to Melchisedek, because he was a different order of
priesthood altogether. The Apostle is merely showing this in his
argument, in which he introduces Melchisedek, thus: "When I tell you
Jews that Christ was of a new order, you are inclined to be incredulous
(understand I am paraphrasing); you say, Where is his record? He could
not be a priest unless he could show himself to be of the tribe of
::Page Q486::
Levi, a son of Aaron. But I answer you
Hebrews, and tell you that God gave another type. Look back there at
Melchisedek; have you any proof that he was of the tribe of Levi? No,
Melchisedek lived before the tribe of Levi was inaugurated. Have you
any proof that Melchisedek had any relationship to Levi? No. Then there
was another priesthood, and I wish you to see that this other
priesthood of Melchisedek was of a higher order than the priesthood of
Aaron, because Abraham, who was the father of Aaron, according to the
flesh, paid tithes to this Melchisedek priest, and Aaron was in the
loins of Abraham when he paid tithes, and this shows from God's
standpoint that the Melchisedek order is a higher order than the
Aaronic priesthood. Here, then, I tell you that Christ is a priest
after the order of Melchisedek. That is the Apostle's argument. It is a
superior order. You Jews are asking that I shall prove to you that
Jesus to be a priest must come of the tribe of Aaron. The tribe of
Aaron has nothing to do with this high priesthood. Melchisedek was a
type of this, Christ is this one." I would not think the fact that
there was no record would have anything to do with it.
MEMORIAL SUPPER--Why We Partake. ::Q486:1:: QUESTION (1911)--1--Why do you Partake of the Lord's supper?
ANSWER.--Because
it is a memorial of our Lord's death. And when the Apostle says, "This
do until he come," we understand that the Lord's people are properly to
remember the Lord's death as the very foundation of all their faith and
obedience until the time when they shall be changed and shall
participate with him in the better things beyond the vail, sharing with
him in the first resurrection. We do it for another purpose. To our
understanding, the Lord's supper not only symbolizes our dear
Redeemer's body and blood, but it also symbolizes our participation;
for the Apostle says, "The loaf we break, is it not a participation
with the body of Christ? And the cup which we drink, is it not a
communion in the blood of Christ?" In other words, the Apostle suggests
that those who partake of the communion are showing that they are
sharers with Jesus in his sufferings and in his death. We belong to the
same body. So it is part of our present obligation, that we suffer with
him now, in order that we may also reign with him.
MEMORIAL SUPPER--Use of Wine at. ::Q486:2:: QUESTION (1911)--2--Where can the word "wine" be found in connection with the Lord's Supper in the New Testament?
ANSWER.--I
do not know that the word wine is used. The fruit of the vine is used,
and if anybody prefers to think of the fruit of the vine as being grape
juice, I have not a particle of objection; I think it will do for just
the same purpose, and perhaps better than wine.
MEMORY--Committing Scriptures Re Overcoming. ::Q486:3:: QUESTION
(1911)--3--Is it necessary for all to be able to commit to memory the
Scriptures that are needful to make us able to give to everyone a
reason for our hope, and in order to be of the overcoming class?
ANSWER.--No, my dear brother. I am afraid that if that were the test, many of us would fail; we have no thought
::Page Q487::
of that kind. What the Lord does expect
is, that if you are truly loyal to him and study his Word, whether by
repeating it from memory, or by turning to it in some way and telling
why you believe those things, you will be able to show the ground on
which you believe it. Not merely to say, "I think it is in our
catechism." That is not any proof; nor is it any proof to say you think
it is in the Bible; but find it, mark it, and make sure what you
believe.
MERIT--Re Sacrificed Life or Obedience. ::Q487:1:: QUESTION
(1910)--1--The merit which Christ applies on our behalf as our
advocate, is it the merit of his sacrificed life, or is it the merit of
his perfect obedience?
ANSWER.--Both
the same, my dear friends. Perfect obedience led him to sacrifice his
life, and therefore his sacrificed life was the evidence of his perfect
obedience to the Father's will. And it is the merit of that sacrifice
that is to his credit and is the thing which he eventually will give as
the ransom-price for the whole world, that the whole world may have
restitution; and it is the merit of that sacrifice which he now imputes
to your sacrifice and to mine when he accepts yours and accepts mine as
his own.
MERIT--Use of All. ::Q487:2:: QUESTION
(1911)--2--Why is it essential that all of Christ's merit must first be
used for the household of faith, and then all returned before any of it
can be applicable for the world of mankind? In other words, why would
not a part be used for each, the church and the world, at the same time?
ANSWER.--Well,
I do not know whether I can make it any plainer than I have already
tried to or not. If I have failed to make it plain in the past, I fear
I will always fail to do so. I do not know how I could make it plainer.
If the questioner is dissatisfied with having it this way, he would
have to take it to the Lord to find out why. I suppose those things are
fixed because God fixes them so, and if we want to know why God fixes
things differently from what we would imagine and think, we ought to go
to him in prayer and ask him to satisfy us. If we are too much
dissatisfied with his way, he will probably tell us to stand aside
until the Millennial Age and he will show us then all about it,
actually. Just answering the question briefly, I would say that these
are two distinct classes; the church is one class and the world is
another class, and the application of the merit is shown in the
atonement day as being separate and distinct in those two classes. Now
if a part of Christ's merit is given to the church to use so that the
church may be justified, so that the church may join with Christ in
sacrificing, then we might say that the whole sum is depleted by that
amount. It might be supposed there is a sum there of a million dollars,
and suppose you take out one hundred thousand of it, and use it for
something else. While that $100,000 is away, you could not call the
remainder a million dollars because it lacks one hundred thousand of
being a million dollars. Now what Christ is giving to the church is
enough to make up for the deficiencies of each one, and that takes a
portion of the merit; it does not require all of the merit; it takes a
certain portion of the merit that we might have this privilege of
having our weaknesses compensated
::Page Q488::
for; and until all of the church has
finished this work of using this imputed merit, the whole sum of the
merit will not be there. Now what is the difference? Why the Lord is
going to give, during the thousand years, during the great day of
mediation, all of these blessings of restitution; everything is to be
given to the world; he is not going to give them a part of it, but all
of it in a restitution sense. But he needs to have a full amount there
to satisfy justice on behalf of the world, that the world may get the
full benefit of restitution. It is just as though the church were a
separate class altogether. He is going to deal with the world and give
them restitution. He is not giving us restitution. We are not getting
restitution. He is merely making up to the church, imputing to you and
to me, enough to make us satisfactory in God's sight; but he will need
the whole of it when he makes application on behalf of the world
because he is to give all his life to the world, restitutionally--not
hold any of it back. Now if that is not plain, I know not how to make
it plainer.
MERIT--How Much Required for Adam? ::Q488:1:: QUESTION
(1911-Z)--l--Since Adam was a wilful and intelligent sinner, and was
individually sentenced, and since the sentence has been executed upon
him and he is now under that sentence, and now has nothing and is
nothing, how much of the merit of Christ will be necessary for his
release from his condemned condition?
ANSWER.--We
understand that Adam, having been tried and found guilty and sentenced
to death, and having gone down into death under that sentence, has done
nothing to liquidate his obligations in any sense of the word; and that
it will require the full satisfaction of a ransom-price
to set him free and permit him to have another trial. In a general way,
this is, of course, true of the entire human family. As Adam's children
we are dealt with as a race, instead of as individuals except in the case of the Church and of the Jewish Nation under their law.
During the Millennial Age there will be
no imputation of Christ's merit to anybody, as it is now imputed to the
Church. It is imputed to us for a special purpose--to enable us to
offer acceptable sacrifices. In the Millennial Age no one will need the
righteousness of another to make him acceptable. On the contrary, the
whole world counted in as one,
will be dealt with from that standpoint; and Christ, as the great
Mediator, Prophet and King, will make satisfaction to Justice for Adam
and all his children, dealing with them as one.
After making satisfaction to Justice, and thus purchasing the whole
world of mankind, the great Mediator of the New Covenant will put it
into effect, and under that New Covenant the blessing will begin with
Israel; but every member of the human race will have an opportunity of
coming to perfection, as heretofore shown.
To get at the real gist of the question,
we will put the matter in another form and say: If Adam had been living
during the Gospel Age, to our understanding, he would not have been
eligible to the offer of this Gospel Age--that it would not have been
consistent with the Divine arrangement to have dealt with Adam as the
Lord is dealing with the Church, because he as personally condemned,
would have had nothing that he could present as a sacrifice. We,
::Page Q489::
on the contrary, have something to
present--"Present your bodies living sacrifices." While our bodies are
blemished, we have, nevertheless, some powers, and these we are invited
to present. We have bodies which we are willing to coerce into
submission. This is our hope--that we may be permitted to suffer with
Christ, that we may be sharers in his glory.
The Apostle says, "Ye are not your own;
ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body." (`1
Cor. 6:20`.) This seems to imply that we had something. Having
recognized Christ as the center of God's Plan and as our Redeemer, we
are called upon to renounce sin--glorifying God by consecrating our
lives, our bodies, to his service. But if we had been the original
sinner, and had been originally sentenced, we see nothing that we
should have had that we could call our own that we could have given.
MERIT--Vs. Righteousness. ::Q489:1:: QUESTION (1911-Z)--1--What distinction would you make between the righteousness of our Lord and His merit?
ANSWER.--The
righteousness of our Lord was His right-doing, His right conduct, His
perfect character while He was the man, while He was on trial. The
merit is the Divine appreciation, the Divine estimation of that
character, of that right-doing. Since He ceased to be a man, our Lord
has, of course, no righteousness as a human being. That righteousness
which was His before His consecration and which He maintained,
constitutes a merit in the Divine sight, which is imputed to the Church
now, and which is to be utilized by Him in the blotting out of the sins
of the whole world, shortly. It is a sufficiency of merit; for one man
was sentenced to death, and, later, another man was passed upon as
worthy of life. This merit, therefore, this value of laying down a life
not worthy of death, is at His disposal in the Divine arrangement.
MERIT--Will Church Have All When Passing Under Veil? ::Q489:2:: QUESTION
(1912-Z)--2--Will not the Church when she shall have passed under the
veil have all the merit of Christ in her hand to put on the mercy-seat?
ANSWER.--No;
the Church has nothing whatever to do with atoning for sin, even as the
under-priests had nothing whatever to do with the presentations of the
Day of Atonement blood on the propitiatory.
A correct view of the matter, we believe
is this: The High Priest, Jesus, ascended on high and made imputation
of His merit to the Church. Those who waited in the "upper room" for
the Pentecostal blessing had presented themselves before God, desiring
to be accepted of Him as sacrifices. They did not sacrifice themselves,
they merely presented themselves for sacrifice. Thus we read: "I
beseech you, brethren, that you present
your bodies living sacrifices." The presentation matter is ours, not
the Lord's; the acceptance of the offering as a sacrifice is wholly the
Lord's--the High Priest's work. With the acceptance of our flesh as a
sacrifice we cease to be as men and henceforth in the sight of God and
of each other we are living members of the Anointed One--the High
Priest.
The High Priest accepted the Church as a whole through its presentation at Pentecost. And in harmony
::Page Q490::
with the Scriptures we come into this
favor or grace, which remains open until the last member of the Body of
Christ shall be perfected and pass beyond the veil. The work beyond the
veil will not be ours as under-priests. It will be the work of the High
Priest to sprinkle the blood of the Lord's goat as He sprinkled the
blood of the bullock. The figure of the "Bride" is to be distinctly
eliminated in any thought of sacrifice, and is to be merely associated
with the Redeemer and Bridegroom, as joint-heir in His Kingdom. The
figure of the under-priests is the one which applies to the Church in
respect to all sacrificial matters.
MERIT--Vs. Robe or Garment ::Q490:1:: QUESTION
(1912-Z)--1--Would it be correct to say that the merit of Christ cannot
be compared to a garment or robe until after consecration?
ANSWER.--A
robe is a covering. The wedding robe of the parable represents our
Lord's merit imputed to His people as a covering for their blemishes or
imperfections of the flesh. This robe takes cognizance of the Church as
the prospective Bride who acknowledges the Headship of Jesus her Lord.
Another figure represents the members of the Church as wearing white
robes and hoods or bonnets, the illustration of the under-priesthood.
In this figure the priests represent the brethren or Body members and
indicate that they are not independent, but under and subject to the
Headship of Jesus.
The robe of Christ's righteousness
imputed to the Church as a covering for her blemishes and to make her
acceptable gives place to or becomes transformed into a robe of her own
righteousness, in the resurrection. As our Lord Jesus is represented as
robed in white linen, so the Bride is pictured as arrayed in fine
linen, "the righteousness of the saints." The imputed robe merely
covers our fleshly blemishes and imperfections in the present time.
The new body which God will give us in
the resurrection will be perfect in itself and need no imputation of
the merit of Jesus. The spirit body of those who will attain to the
"first resurrection" will be absolute, complete, perfect, as was the
resurrection body of Jesus. The robe of Christ's righteousness was
imputed to cover our fleshly imperfections.
The new robe is to be embroidered. And
this figure carries with it our endeavors at the present time to
develop the character-likeness of Jesus--to perfection, in the spirit.
As we read, "It (the New Creature, the soul) is sown in weakness, it is
raised in power; it is sown in dishonor, raised in glory; it is sown an
animal body (needing the imputation of Jesus' merit); it is raised a
spirit body" (in full possession of a merit of its own).
MERIT--Is it Subdivided? ::Q490:2:: QUESTION
(1912-Z)--2--You have pointed out that no less than the full merit of
Christ would be sufficient for the sins of any individual of the human
family. How, then, shall we think of subdividing this merit amongst
these various individuals composing the Church of the First-borns and
amongst the individuals who will compose the restitution class of the
future?
::Page Q491::
ANSWER.--The
placing of the entire merit of Christ in the hands of Justice
guarantees to Justice a full satisfaction for all the Adamic weaknesses
of all mankind--even before that merit is specifically appropriated.
And since the Church was a part of the world, for whom the sacrificial
merit is a sufficient price, God could be just in imputing to each one
coming in the name and merit of Jesus a sufficiency of His merit to
make up for the imperfections and shortcomings; and so of this entire
class--"the Church of the First-borns." The imputation of this merit to
the Church as separate and apart from the world engages and obligates
that merit for awhile in making good the imperfections of the flesh of
the Church, so as to permit this class to offer to God a justified,
and, therefore, an acceptable sacrifice.
But this is merely imputed or loaned to
the Church, because the Church does not wish to keep the earthly rights
of Jesus. The Church wishes to sacrifice its all and thus to follow the
example of Jesus. And the great High Priest imputes to them enough of
His merit to make the Church's offering acceptable when offered by the
High Priest. When all of the Church of the First-borns shall have
attained to the rewards of the spirit nature, all of the merit of the
High Priest, Jesus, will he released, so far as they are concerned--the
whole amount will again be free in the hands of justice, as it was when
Jesus ascended up on high.
MILITARY DUTY--Our Position With Respect to. ::Q491:1:: QUESTION (1916)--1-- What position should we take in respect to military duty, and so forth?
ANSWER.--Well,
we have already answered that question that so far as we are followers
of the Lord Jesus Christ, in my judgment, we are not to have any
liberty at all for military duty. We are to be loyal to the principles
of peace, and not fight for any earthly government if we can get out of
it, and I think we can get out of it. We would rather suffer some and
not go into it. But suppose someone would ask as I was asked the other
day, What position should we take in respect to our neighbors and
friends? And we say, Do you think it is wrong to have military
organizations? Now some of our friends answered, "We think it is wrong.
There should not be any army or soldiers." My answer would be different.
I think this old world needs to have armies, needs to have trained men.
The world needs it for its own protection. And if I was governor of a
State I would think it my duty to protect that State, to protect the
law and everything pertaining to order. If it should be necessary to
call on the State or Nation to rise up and put down wrong, I think it
would be my duty to see it was done. I am not faulting any governor if
he should do that same thing. I am not faulting any man who takes up
his gun to defend the interests of his State. If he doesn't think the
Nation is worth fighting for he should go to some other nation. And if
he thinks it is as good as any other nation he should stay right there.
As for instance, you and I in these United States think we are in as
noble a nation as there is, that the principles of this government are
the very best and very wisest. And we might say pretty nearly the same
of our friends across the border in Canada, that their principles are
good and are well intentioned in a general way at
::Page Q492::
least. We are not therefore faulting
people who wish to fight for their country. The difference between our
position and theirs is this: We have ceased to be citizens of this
country. We have joined another nation, and we are loyal to that new
nation, and loyalty to the kingdom of God required that we take our
stand upon this position in harmony with the commands of our King. We
are aliens and strangers in this land and Canada, wherever we may be.
But the world doesn't understand this. They say you were born right
here. We say we have declared our intentions and joined a different
country. So if a Canadian were in this country he would not be subject
to draft as an American, and it should be sufficient to the courts of
any country that if these individuals have given full allegiance to the
heavenly country, that should be a sufficient answer to any government
not to have them participate in war, and in some places this is being
recognized.
MILLENNIUM--No Infant There. ::Q492:1:: QUESTION
(1910)--l--"There shall be no more thence an infant of days nor an old
man that hath not filled his days; for the child shall die a hundred
years old, but the shiner dying an hundred years old shall be
accursed." What does this statement of `Isa. 65:20 ` signify?
ANSWER.--I
understand it is describing the time in the Millennium when the present
brief span of life will be a thing of the past; there will no longer be
infants dying a few days old. A sinner dying a hundred years old,
accursed of God, dying the second death, would be but a child under
that new order of things; just the same as would have been the case
before the flood, when the average length of life was somewhere between
600 and 900 years; anyone dying there 100 years old would have been
dying practically in childhood, because as a rule they were not
recognized as being fully developed men and women until they were about
one hundred years old. Many of these patriarchs, you remember, had
their first child when they were from sixty to ninety and a hundred
years old. So that would be my thought as to the meaning of this
passage. It does not say none will die sooner than a hundred years. It
might be some would be so incorrigible, and so opposed to the divine
order of things, that they would die sooner than 100 years. But in a
general way it is my thought that it is intended to guarantee to us
that God purposes a hundred years of trial for every member of the
human race. However, some of those have perhaps had some degree of
trial in the present life, and if so it might make a difference in how
much trial time they may have there; we do not know; it will be time
enough to see when we get there. Let us not worry about the bridges
that are not completed until we get to the stream.
MIRACLES--In Name of Jesus. ::Q492:2:: QUESTION
(1908)--2--I am asked to explain `Mark 9:38 ,39,40`: "And John answered
him saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he
followeth not us; and we forbade him because he followeth not us, and
Jesus said, forbid him not: for there is no man that shall do a miracle
in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not
against us is on our side."
ANSWER.--I hardly know how to make it any plainer than it is. I think we have to believe it as it reads and not
::Page Q493::
explain it at all. If we explained it, we would have to explain it away, because it could not be made any plainer.
If any person is doing a miracle in the
name of Jesus, we are not to interfere with him nor to forbid him; we
are not to say, "Because you do not come with us, we will speak evil of
you, or forbid you, or stop you." We will leave that to the Lord. If
the Lord wants to stop him, He can stop him. It is not your business or
mine to stop him. It is our business to try to attend to ourselves and
keep as near to the Master as we can, and keep our own hearts as
clearly in the truth as we can, and avoid everything that would confuse
us; and if a brother or sister have something to which we cannot agree,
we let them alone; if they are doing something, either teaching or
anything else, that is doing a good work, and doing it in the name of
the Lord, then we had better keep our hands off and not say anything
against them. Let others say and do as they please. Then somebody may
say, Well, Brother Russell, how about Christian Scientists; they are
doing miracles, are they not?" Some of them. "And spiritualists, they
are doing miracles, are they not?" Some of them. "And Mormons do some
miracles, don't they?" Yes. "Well, don't these all do their miracles in
the name of Jesus?" No, we answer, they do not. "Why, they all claim to
acknowledge Christ; the Christian Scientists even put Christ right
foremost 'Christian
Scientists.'" I know they do, my dear brother, but it is one thing to
say Christian, and it is another thing to think Christian, and it is
another thing to mean Christian. Now whether anyone is going to examine
whether another is in harmony with the Lord or not, you and I want to
have before our minds a very simple rule that will help us every time
we use it, and every time we use it it will be clearer in our minds and
make us stronger and quicker to use it again. We are not to have some
little shibboleth that will say, because you do not sit down when you
pray, I cannot worship with you, or because you want to sing hymns and
I psalms, we cannot worship together. We are not to make distinctions
of that kind. If some say, We like to meet in a church with a cross on
it, and if others say, We like to meet in some other kind of a room,
that is not a ground for separation amongst Christians either. We could
not say they were not Christians because they wanted to meet in some
other kind of a building than we think proper. If somebody wants to
wear a different kind of clothing from what we think is most proper, we
are not finding fault with them for that; they might be true Christians
and have all these peculiarities. He even might go to some of the
things that are not so apparently unimportant. I might say, here is a
man for instance that uses tobacco, shall I say he is not a Christian
because he uses tobacco? By no means, if he is otherwise giving
evidence that he is a child of God. I shall expect that the Lord will
show him ultimately how all the cleansing work is to go on, not only
outwardly but inwardly and I will talk about the inward cleansing, and
I will make no remarks about the outward cleansing, and I will do as
little as I can to offend his sense and his ideas along the lines of
his apparent weakness or blindness. I will leave that to himself and to
the Lord's providence to teach him. You will notice in the Dawns for
instance that there is no attempt to go after a person's dietary
arrangements, as to what he shall eat and
::Page Q494::
drink, or what he shall wear, and yet we
have had many evidences that a great many have gotten the truth,
nevertheless, along these lines. I think of one brother who came to me
once and said: "Brother Russell I would like to have you explain to me
what there is in Millennial Dawn that has so affected my whole life. I
used to be an Episcopalian, and before that a Congregationalist: but as
an Episcopalian I had very rigid ideas on some points and not so on
others. I was very rigid as to the Episcopal Church being the
Church, and all others sects, and I could have no sympathy with them.
And I was very rigid on the matter of church fairs and festivals and
would not have anything to do with them, but when it came to my taking
wine, cigars and tobacco, or playing a game of cards with a friend, if
there was no amount of money up, I did not hesitate at that at all; I
thought that that was very proper; it never occurred to me to question
it at all. My friends used to tell me to read this about tobacco, and
this about wine, and this about other things, and I told them to keep
those things to themselves, that I knew what I was doing and to let me
alone; but when I read Millennial Dawn a change came all over me. First
of all I gave up the wine and the cards, and then by and by I found
myself with a cigar in my hand, and as I was just lighting the cigar,
as I had been in the habit of using at least ten a day--I traveled for
an insurance company and they supplied all expenses and cigars were
supposed to be part of the expenses and properly so understood--as I
was just lighting a ten cent cigar, I thought, now, William, are you
going to smoke that to the glory of God? And the match burned out
before I had time to decide the question; and I struck another match
and before that one had burned out I concluded that I could not smoke a
cigar to the glory of God, and therefore I dropped it in the cuspidor.
Then having a kind of hunger for a nerve stimulant, I was just about to
put some of my fine-cut tobacco in my mouth, and I said, you can do
that, of course, to the glory of God, it is different from a cigar! And
I just thought, now, can I? And I dropped that into the cuspidor and I
have not had either a cigar or tobacco in my mouth since. And so this
work has gone on in my whole body, and now what does it mean? I went to
Millennial Dawn afterwards and looked it over to see what I could find
there that said anything about tobacco, cigars, and wine, and cards,
and there was not a word in it. Now tell me how it came that that
affected me and the other things that were right on the point had no
impression at all." "Why," I said, "brother, the other things were like
the gardener who cuts out the branches in the spring of the year; he is
keeping an orchard, and he has these clippers to take off the dead
branches, and he clips off a branch here and a branch there and trims
up the tree. And that is what they were trying to do when they gave you
a little tract on tobacco, cards, liquors, etc. Now, then, Millennial
Dawn follows the Scriptural rule and it lays the axe to the root of the
tree and the whole tree comes down at once." And he said, "That is it;
I see it; it was consecration that made it." And so it is in harmony
with this question. When we come to our Christian Scientist friend, he
tells us that they do these miracles and do them in the name of Christ,
we have to get right down to
::Page Q495::
the matter and say, is it really in the name of Christ? We say, no, it is not in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
It may be some other Christ, for you know there are many false Christs.
We stated to you in a Tower recently some words of Mrs. Eddy's
respecting our Lord Jesus, that it would make very little difference to
her theory whether the man Jesus ever lived or not--her own words taken
from her own answer to an opposer. It makes all the difference in the
world to us whether He ever lived or not. If He had not lived and died
for our sins, according to the Scriptures, then we would never have a
future life by a resurrection through His power and through His death.
So it makes a great deal of difference which Christ it is, and the name
of which Christ the miracles are done in, whether we shall accept the
person as being a brother in the Lord. Those who claim things in the
name of A Christ, but who deny that Jesus Christ,
our Lord, tasted death for every man, and redeemed us by His own
precious blood, are not of us, and the sooner we recognize that the
better. They have not our Christ at all, but on the contrary all of
those, whether they are with us or not on other questions, if they
recognize Jesus and the value of His death for our sins and if they are
trusting in Him for eternal life and seeking to walk in His steps, they
are our brethren, whether they follow with us or whether they do not;
if they follow with us, we think they are going in the right way and we
are all the more pleased; they are going in the way we think is proper.
Just as this man mentioned here in this illustration, if he had been
glad and willing to follow the disciples, it would have been all the
better evidence as respects his standing in the Lord, still they were
not to oppose him if he was doing good work in the name of Jesus; they
were not to hinder or put a straw in his way. If you get an opportunity
of explaining to him and of helping into a still better way, all right,
but do not oppose him. But mind you, the word "Jesus" in the text means
"Saviour from our sins," and Mrs. Eddy does not believe there are any
sins and says there is no penalty for sin. Death, the Scriptures
declare, is the penalty for sin, but they say there is no sin and no
death. So how then could our Jesus be their Saviour? They do not need
any saviour; they have not lost anything, they say, and they are not
going to get anything, they say--and we believe that is pretty nearly
correct so far as those who may have a real knowledge of the matter.
But we have this to say, that a great many of the Christian Scientists
and Mormons and Spiritualists are blinded by the god of this world,
just as the heathen are blinded, and we believe there is an opportunity
for them just as much as an opportunity for the heathen in the future.
This is our hope and belief according to the Word of the Lord.
MIRACLES--Source of Christ's Power. ::Q495:1:: QUESTION
(1911)--1--Do you believe Christ performed the miracle of feeding the
five thousand, by reason of having dominion over the elements of the
earth, as a perfect human being?
ANSWER.--No,
I do not. I do not think a perfect being could make one loaf feed five
thousand. I do not consider that is a human power at all. I would
consider that was a power Jesus had by reason of having received the
Holy
::Page Q496::
Spirit, to do anything that might be
necessary in God's service, and in the establishment of the church, and
the instruction of the people at that time. It was not therefore an
illustration of human power, but as Jesus said at another time, "If I
by the finger of God do thus and so"--in other words, God's power in
small portion. You see hand represents power, and so the little finger
would represent a little bit of power. So Jesus said, if I by the
finger of God do so and so, God is able to do more, these are little
things in comparison to God's power.
MISTAKES--Correcting Trivial Ones. ::Q496:1:: QUESTION (1913)--l--Are we morally bound to correct trivial mistakes and errors which are unimportant in themselves?
ANSWER.--It
depends on the character of the mistake and error. There are some very
trivial errors that ought to be corrected; there are some things that
seem to be trivial, and yet might mean a great deal to some brother or
sister if not corrected. Therefore I would rather incline in a general
way to correct everything, and rather go to the extreme and say, "Did I
offend you? Upon my word, brother, I hadn't any thought of offending
you at all, not a bit." Make it positive. Be sure you make it plain. No
matter how trivial the matter is, we want to keep all the stumbling
blocks out of the way. On the other hand, there have been cases brought
to me in which sometimes the matter has been a very grievous one--no
slight thing at all. I think, for instance, of a sister who wrote me
about a matter that was very grievous in her own conception, a very
grievous thing in itself, and she said, "Now, Brother Russell, what
shall I do? Shall I tell my husband about that?" And I told her no, do
not tell your husband about that. It would be doing him a great deal of
harm to know what you have written me; it would not do him good. If it
were something it would be to his advantage to know, then I would
advise you to tell him; but in this case my advice is that you do not
tell your husband a thing about that matter, because it would be to his
injury and might be to your own unhappiness the remainder of life. I
said, Now, you may keep this letter and seal it up, and if ever the
time comes when he should say, You didn't tell me about that matter,
you can say you wrote me, and tell him I advised you, and let him read
the letter. So I am just mentioning that. It does not mean that you
should simply tell all you know. To give you an illustration: I think
of a brother who came to the meeting one time; I knew he was coming: I
knew he had been a prisoner in the penitentiary in Ohio; there have
been quite a number who have been prisoners in the penitentiary who
have come out and been grand characters for God; this was one of them.
He got the Truth in the penitentiary. I knew to expect him but never
thought for a minute he would tell anybody he had been a prisoner. By
the time I got to the meeting there were half a dozen who had met him,
and he told them, "I am just out of the penitentiary." I said to him at
once, "Why, brother, that is wrong; do not say another word about
that," and then sent someone else around to tell the others not to
mention that about the brother. Why? So far as he was concerned, it was
quite honorable in him to make a free statement about
::Page Q497::
himself, and to say, I was in error, I
was a sinner; but knowing human nature as I do, I knew that more than
half the people would never have confidence in that brother again; they
couldn't help it. There is a streak of that kind that runs through
people, but would not be true with me. I trust that brother just as
much as any New Creature in Christ, notwithstanding his having been in
the penitentiary. He is the elder of a class now, a very honorable,
fine brother; there is nothing against him at all; but it would have
been against him somehow, not for any real reason, but because of
people's crooked heads which they cannot help.
MONEY--Bank Security. ::Q497:1:: QUESTION (1910)--1--How long do you think money will be safe in the bank?
ANSWER.--Until
you draw it out, or until the bank "busts." I do not think I can answer
any more definitely on that subject. And some banks are likely to break
sooner than others--to that I guess all will agree; it is a pretty hard
question; I think I will have to leave it.
MONEY--How Invest It. ::Q497:2:: QUESTION
(1912)--2--Recognizing that in the near future the banks must fail,
also realizing our responsibility to provide decently for ourselves and
those dependent on us, what would you consider a wise course regarding
money invested, which could not be withdrawn, say within three months,
and could you give any idea as to how this money might be used so that
we might be good stewards of what we possess?
ANSWER.--Could
I tell you how to use all the money that you possess? Is that the
question. I could tell you what to do with more than all the money you
possess or ever will possess, but I am not going to. There is a good
point in this question, though. Suppose that the father of the family
or the mother of the family were not in the Truth, what should be his
obligations and his course in respect to these obligations to the
family? I would advise anybody who has a little bit of money to see
that he keeps the coal bunker full of coal now and onward. You may ask
if that is not a display of weak faith, but I would maintain that it is
not, for we have to do our part. Under the present conditions it would
not be amiss to lay in a reasonable supply of certain kinds of food and
such as is not of a corruptible nature. I would suggest a supply of
tinned beef, tinned fruits, and others of that kind. We might also put
away something in the nature of beans. Whatever you feel inclined to
do, see that you have a surplus laid by. This laying aside of a
reasonable provision does not in any way cast doubt or fear that God
will forget us at any time. With regard to money and property, I would
say that if I owned a little cottage in a favorable neighborhood,
favorable to the keeping of it, for the wife and family who were not in
the Truth, I would keep that cottage so that I might show to those who
were left after my death that my intentions at any rate were good. Have
a small house rather than a large house which might be sacked in the
coming Time of Trouble. We merely throw out this as a hint to you for
your guidance if you care.
MOSES--Reason for Choosing Serpent Form. ::Q497:3:: QUESTION (19l1)--3--Why did Moses choose the form of
::Page Q498::
a serpent in lifting up a serpent to the children of Israel in the wilderness?
ANSWER.--He chose it because he was obedient to God, and God said for him to do it.
MOSES--Term of Office as Mediator. ::Q498:1:: QUESTION (1911)--1--How long was Moses a mediator?
ANSWER.--Moses
is mediator of the law covenant as long as the law covenant is in
effect. Moses is mediator of the law covenant today. It had no other
mediator. That mediation which he accomplished has stood good all the
way down. Just the same as if the Secretary of State should enter into
a treaty between the United States and Great Britain, how long would he
be the one who executed that treaty? Just as long as that treaty stood,
he would be the one who executed that treaty. And so Moses is still the
mediator, or the one who brought into effect that law covenant between
God and Israel. The law covenant is still in force, and Moses is,
therefore, still the mediator of that law covenant, even though he is
dead. This is the same thought that our Lord gave, you remember, when
he said, "Even to this day when Moses is dead," etc. Then again you
remember he said that the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
Moses still had his seat as mediator of the law covenant, and he was
represented by those who came afterwards and who stood for and
represented that order of things.
MOSES--Type of Jehovah. ::Q498:2:: QUESTION (1913)--2--In what respect was Moses a type of God?
ANSWER.--God
said that Moses should be His mouthpiece, or His representative, and
that Aaron should be Moses' mouthpiece or representative. "I have made
thee a God unto Aaron." That is, Moses was to be like God unto Aaron,
that he would tell Aaron what he should say and do. In that sense of
the word Moses is like God as he said he would be.
MOURN--For Aaron's Two Sons. ::Q498:3:: QUESTION (1908)--3--Why were the priests of Israel instructed to mourn for Aaron's two sons, who offered strange fire before the Lord?
ANSWER.--I
answer that the writer has evidently made a mistake. They were
instructed NOT to mourn, and that, I think, signifies that we, as the
Lord's people, are to be so fully in accord with God's arrangement that
we will not be disturbed or distressed by the fact that some will go
into the great company, and others go into the second death. We are to
have that confidence in God that a fair judgment will be had from His
standpoint, that He who knows the heart and tries the reins of the sons
of men, will make no mistake in the matter. We are also to be so fully
in accord with the Lord that we would feel that if we or any other
person were not fully acceptable to the Lord and to His standard, we
would not want them to have the blessings God has provided for them
that love Him. I would feel that way for myself. If God would find in
His wisdom and decide that I might not have a blessing either in the
little flock, nor yet in the great company, but must go into the second
death, I would feel like saying, "the Lord's will be done, the Lord
knows best." I would make no complaint. I would not mourn
::Page Q499::
over the matter. I earnestly strive to be
accounted worthy of a share in the Little Flock, and I think we should
all strive to have that attitude of mind that would be fully submissive
to the divine decree in the matter. It is very different you see, from
Brother Jonathan Edward's statement when he said that in the future the
Saints would be looking over the battlements of heaven and see parents
and children and brothers and sisters, etc., in awful torture, eternal,
and then turn around and praise God. We could not praise God for
tormenting any creature; we would not appreciate that. But if God in
His wisdom should see fit that someone whom we love very dearly
according to the flesh should not get into the Little Flock, our
appreciation of the divine will should be such that we would say, "Let
the Lord do what seemeth to him good; we know his way is perfect." And
that is the reason, I think, why, in the type, Aaron and his loyal sons
were not allowed to mourn for those whom the Lord destroyed--separated
from the priesthood.
MOURN--Re Aaron and Eliezer. ::Q499:1:: QUESTION
(1911)--1--"Moses said unto Aaron and unto Eliezer and Zimri, his sons,
'Uncover not ye your heads, neither rend your clothes lest ye die, and
lest wrath come upon all the people, but let your brethren, the whole
house of Israel bewail the burning which the Lord hath kindled.'" Why
were they to bewail the burning which the Lord had kindled? What would
this represent?
ANSWER.--The
burning which the Lord had kindled was the burning of the Lord's anger,
as we might say, represented in the destruction of these priests who
had been disobedient to the divine arrangement. The whole people of
Israel might bewail this matter and might very properly say, "How sorry
we are, how grieved we are, that it has been necessary for God to thus
manifest his displeasure with any of the priestly family." But Aaron
and his sons were not to bewail, because they were especially
consecrated to the Lord's service, they were especially separated from
the remainder of the people; they were to have such full harmony with
God that they would not even in an outward manner signify anything that
might be misunderstood to be a depreciation of God's decree in the
matter that their brethren had been killed, and if Aaron and his sons
were to make a wailing it would seem as though they were rebelling
against God, and it was not the thought to be entertained; it would not
have been proper. They were there as servants of righteousness, and if
God had called upon them to kill their brethren, it would have been
part of their duty to have done so; they were not to make any
lamentation therefore over what the Lord had justly brought upon the
evil doers.
MURDERER--Law for Re Cain. ::Q499:2:: QUESTION
(1916)--2--`Gen. 9:6` reads: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall
his blood be shed, for in the image of God made He man." Why was not
this general law executed against Cain, who slew his brother Abel?
ANSWER.--There
were not many men to shed Cain's blood. It would have been very hard
for his own father and mother to do it. They had sorrow enough in one
death in the family. I do not understand this text to mean that it was
obligatory to shed the blood of one who had committed
::Page Q500::
murder, but that such a course was justifiable. God would approve of the execution of the death sentence upon the murderer.
MURMURING--Who in Parable? ::Q500:1:: QUESTION
(1909)--1--(`Matt. 20:11 `) "And when they had received it (the penny),
they murmured against the good man of the house." Question: Who do
those represent who murmured? What is the reward that every man
received?
ANSWER.--It
is a parable, dear friends, and no explanation is given, and neither
you nor I can say that this or that is absolutely the way of it. The
best we can do with any parable to which the Lord has not given an
explanation is to make as close an application as our judgment will
permit, and then tentatively hold that as our view of its meaning. That
is as much as any have a right to do.
In this parable, what does the "penny"
signify? It is the reward of those laborers who labored throughout the
whole day or only an hour; it was the promised reward. What reward has
God promised all those who are His throughout this whole Gospel Age? I
know He has promised us eternal life. I would be inclined to think that
the penny would represent the reward the Lord would give those who are
His, not only those who are of the Little Flock, but also of the Great
Company. There are other things that will be given to His followers
that are not the same, as the Apostle said, "Star differeth from star
in glory, so will be the resurrection of the dead," implying that some
of the Lord's followers will have more than others.
Another of our Lord's parables represents
where one had used his ten pounds faithfully, had increased them by
gaining ten more pounds, and the Master said: "Give him to have
dominion over ten cities," etc., and so with the five and the two, and
yet He said to them all, "Good and faithful servants." But they got
different rewards. So in putting these matters together, I think that
the Lord in the future will make discriminations as to the reward you
and I will have. We will be perfectly satisfied, however, for we will
get more than we are worthy of or than we could have asked for.
The "penny," you see, represents
something common to all, and not glory, honor and immortality, but
rather would seem to represent eternal life.
As to why they murmured, I am unable to
explain that satisfactorily. I have not murmured myself, but I have not
gotten my penny yet. I cannot imagine why one who gets eternal life
should murmur. I only suggest that perhaps it was not to be understood
that all were to receive alike. When it is fulfilled we will then be
able to see it. You know no prophecy is to be understood until it is
fulfilled. Just so; it was stated of our Lord that He would be born in
Bethlehem, but it was not understood then, but when it was
accomplished, then we could look back and see clearly. Prophecy is not
given merely to satisfy curiosity, but it shows that God foreknows the
things that are to take place. Known unto God are all His works and
they are all being done according to the counsel of His will.
|
