Notes on the Book of Deuteronomy, Volume I

9

The rendering of Romans vii. 6 in our authorized version is manifestly erroneous, inasmuch as it teaches that the law is dead, which is not true. "The law is good, if a man use it lawfully." (1 Tim. i.) And again, "The law is holy." (Rom. vii.) Scripture never teaches that the law is dead, but it teaches that the believer is dead to the law—a totally different thing.

But further, ἀποθανοντες cannot possibly apply to the law, as any well-taught school-boy can see at a glance; it applies to us—believers. Were it the law, the word would be ἀποθανοντος.

10

It may be that the reader feels a little jealous of any interference with our excellent English Bible. He may, like many others, feel disposed to say, "How is an uneducated man to know what is Scripture and what is not? Must he depend upon scholars and critics to give him certainty on so grave and important a question? If so, is it not the same old story of looking to human authority to confirm the Word of God?" By no means. It is a totally different thing. We all know that all copies and translations must be, in some points, imperfect, as being human; but we believe that the same grace which gave the Word in the original Hebrew and Greek languages, has most marvelously watched over our English translation, so that a poor man, at the back of a mountain, may rest assured that he possesses in his common English Bible the revelation of the mind of God. It is wonderful, after all the labors of scholars and critics, how few passages, comparatively, have had to be touched; and not one affecting any foundation-doctrine of Christianity. God, who graciously gave us the holy Scriptures at the first, has watched over them and preserved them to His Church in a most wonderful manner. Moreover, He has seen fit to make use of the labors of scholars and critics, from age to age, to clear the sacred text of errors which, through the infirmity attaching to all human agency, had crept into it. Should these corrections shake our confidence in the integrity of Scripture as a whole? or lead us to doubt that we possess, in very deed, the Word of God? Nay, rather should they lead us to bless God for His goodness in watching over His Word in order to preserve it in its integrity for His Church.

11

Jonah, of course, is an exception; his mission was to Nineveh. He is the only prophet whose commission had exclusive reference to the Gentiles.

12

The reader must seize the difference between "the fullness of the Gentiles" in Romans xi, and "the times of the Gentiles" in Luke xxi. The former refers to those who are now being gathered into the Church: the latter, on the contrary, refers to the times of Gentile supremacy which began with Nebuchadnezzar, and runs on to the time when "the stone cut out without hands" shall fall, in crushing power, upon the great image of Daniel ii.

13

We must accurately distinguish between "nature" and "flesh." The former is recognized in Scripture; the latter is condemned and set aside. "Doth not even nature itself teach you?" says the apostle. (1 Cor. xi. 14.) Jesus beholding the young ruler in Mark x, "loved him" although there was nothing but nature. To be without natural affection is one of the marks of the apostasy. Scripture teaches that we are dead to sin, not to nature, else what becomes of our natural relationships?

14

The reader will do well to ponder the fact that there is no such thing in the New Testament as human appointment to preach the gospel, teach in the assembly of God, or feed the flock of Christ. Elders and deacons were ordained by the apostles or their delegates, Timothy and Titus; but evangelists, pastors, and teachers were never so ordained. We must distinguish between gift and local charge. Elders and deacons might possess a special gift or not; it had nothing to do with their local charge. If the reader would understand the subject of ministry, let him study 1 Corinthians xii.-xiv. and Ephesians iv. 8-13. In the former we have, first, the basis of all true ministry in the Church of God, namely, divine appointment—"God hath set the members," etc.; secondly, the motive-spring—"love;" thirdly, the object—"that the Church may receive edifying." In Ephesians iv. we have the source of all ministry—a risen and ascended Lord; the design—"to perfect the saints for the work of the ministry;" the duration—"till we all come unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ."

In a word, ministry, in all its departments, is entirely a divine institution. It is not of man or by man, but of God. The Master must, in every case, fit, fill, and appoint the vessel. There is no authority in Scripture for the notion that every man has a right to minister in the Church of God. Liberty for men is radicalism and not Scripture. Liberty for the Holy Ghost to minister by whom He will is what we are taught in the New Testament. May we learn it.

15

The reader may perhaps feel disposed to inquire, On what ground will the Gentile be judged if he is not under the law? Romans i. 20 teaches us distinctly that the testimony of creation leaves him without excuse. Then, in chapter ii. 15, he is taken up on the ground of conscience.—"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves; which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness," etc. Finally, as regards those nations that have become professedly Christian, they will be judged on the ground of their profession.

16

The omission of the article adds immensely to the force, fullness, and clearness of the passage. It is διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἁπέθανον. A wonderful clause, surely. Would that it were better understood! It demolishes a vast mass of human theology. It leaves the law in its own proper sphere; but takes the believer completely from under its power, and out of its range, by death. "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God" (which we never could do if under the law). "For when we were in the flesh"—a correlative term with being under the law—"the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death." Mark the melancholy combination—"under the law"—"in the flesh"—"motions of sins"—"fruit unto death"! Can any thing be more strongly marked? But there is another side, thank God, to this question—His own bright and blessed side. Here it is: "But now we are delivered from the law." How? Is it by another's having fulfilled it for us? Nay; but, "Having died to that [ἀποθανόντες ἐν ῷ] wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." How perfect and how lovely is the harmony of Romans vii. and Galatians ii.! "I through law am dead to law, that I might live unto God."

17

It is needful to bear in mind that although the Gentile was never, by the dispensational dealings of God, put under the law, yet, in point of fact, all baptized professors take that ground. Hence there is a vast difference between christendom and the heathen in reference to the question of the law. Thousands of unconverted people, every week, ask God to incline their hearts to keep the law. Surely, such persons stand on very different ground from the heathen who never heard of the law, and never heard of the Bible.

18

Some are of opinion that the expression, "on the Lord's day" ought to be rendered, "on the day of the Lord," meaning that the apostle was in the spirit of that day when our Lord Christ shall take to Himself His great power and reign. But to this view there are two grave objections. In the first place, the words τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρα, rendered, in Revelation i. 10, "The Lord's day," are quite distinct from ὴ ἡμέρα κυρίον, in 1 Thessalonians v. 2; 2 Thessalonians ii. 2; 2 Peter iii. 10, properly rendered, "The day of the Lord."

This we consider a very weighty objection, and one quite sufficient to settle the question. But in addition to this, we have the argument based on the fact that by far the greater portion of the book of Revelation is occupied, not with "the day of the Lord," but with events prior thereto.

Hence, therefore, we feel persuaded that "the Lord's day" and "the first day of the week" are identical; and this we deem a very important fact, as proving that that day has a very special place in the Word of God—a place which every intelligent Christian will thankfully own.

19

We would commend to the reader's attention psalm lxvii. It is one of a large class of passages which prove that the blessing of the nations is consequent upon Israel's restoration. "God be merciful unto us [Israel], and bless us; and cause His face to shine upon us, that Thy way may be known upon earth, Thy saving health among all nations.... God shall bless us; and all the ends of the earth shall fear Him." There could not be a more lovely or forcible proof of the fact that it is Israel, and not the Church, that will be used for the blessing of the nations.

20

The application of John xvi. 8-11 to the Spirit's work in the individual is, in our judgment, a serious mistake. It refers to the effect of His presence on earth, in reference to the world as a whole. His work in the soul is a precious truth, we need hardly say, but it is not the truth taught in this passage.

21

The word ἐρευνᾶτε maybe either imperative or indicative; but the context, we judge, demands the latter. They had the Scriptures; they were read in their synagogues every Sabbath day; they professed to believe that in them they had eternal life; they testified of Him; and yet they would not come to Him. Here was the flagrant inconsistency. Now, if ἐρευνᾶτε be taken as a command, the whole force of the passage is lost.

Need we remind the reader that there are plenty of arguments and inducements leading us to search the Scriptures, without appealing to what we believe to be an inaccurate rendering of John v. 39?

22

The expression, "Cutting off the members of Christ's body" is generally applied in cases of discipline; but it is quite a misapplication. The discipline of the assembly can never touch the unity of the body. A member of the body may so fail in morals or err in doctrine as to call for the action of the assembly in putting him away from the table, but that has nothing to do with his place in the body. The two things are perfectly distinct.

23

The unity of the Church may be compared to a chain thrown across a river; we see it at each side, but it dips in the middle. But though it dips, it is not broken; though we do not see the union in the middle, we believe it is there all the same. The Church was seen in its unity on the day of Pentecost, and it will be seen in its unity in the glory; and although we do not see it now, we nevertheless believe it most surely.

And be it remembered that the unity of the body is a great practical, formative truth; and one very weighty practical deduction from it is that the state and walk of each member affect the whole body. "If one member suffer, all the members suffer with it." A member of what? Some local assembly? Nay; but a member of the body. We must not make the body of Christ a matter of geography.

But, we may be asked, are we affected by what we do not see or know? Assuredly. Are we to limit the grand truth of the unity of the body, with all its practical consequences, to the measure of our personal knowledge and experience? Far be the thought. It is the presence of the Holy Ghost that unites the members of the body to the Head and to one another; and hence it is that the walk and ways of each affect all. Even in Israel's case, where it was not a corporate but a national unity, when Achan sinned, it was said, "Israel hath sinned;" and the whole congregation suffered a humiliating defeat on account of a sin of which they were ignorant.

It is perfectly marvelous how little the Lord's people seem to understand the glorious truth of the unity of the body, and the practical consequences flowing from it.

24

The reader must distinguish between the Gog and Magog of Revelation xx. and those of Ezekiel xxxviii. and xxxix. The former are post-millennial; the latter, pre-millennial.