[A copious analysis of a paper bearing the above title, and printed originally in the Quarterly Journal of Prophecy for July, 1849, (vol. 1., pp. 412-424) was sent some time since to beloved and honored brother, at present laboring in the South of France. Hence the following remarks, extracted from two letters, which communicate the writer's judgment of its false and dangerous doctrine. Of this the reader can judge for himself by the ample quotations, in the shape of notes, presented below. If the statements were merely ignorant, and withal faulty, as pretending to accuracy with the greatest confusion, one might have passed them by in silence; but where fundamental principles, are wanting, unknown, and virtually denied, it is surely worthwhile to rouse those who value the truth of the Gospel, and to put simple, unsuspecting souls on their guard, even though some who see not beneath the surface may be quick to charge us with a lack of charity.—ED.]
MY DEAR K—, PAU, March, 1850.
I SEND you some lines on the paper you refer to. It has a character far more important than mere error, as to a dispensational arrangement. The writer, whoever he may be, is evidently one of the semi-Irvingite school, who retain the foundation error which led to all poor Irving's heresies and wanderings; namely, making an incarnate Christ head, instead of a Christ who had accomplished redemption, and thus excluding redemption as the ground-work of the new, accepted creation of God. It is quite true that the glorious person of the Lord Jesus gave Him the title and competency to hold all things, but then it was not His being a man that did so. That is expressly based, in Colossians, on His divine competency. He is the first-born of every creature, for by Him were all things created. It is quite true that His being a man entered in the marvelous wisdom of God into the place of headship, but this was not His personal title de jure, but by the counsels of God. “Thou hast set Him,"—and then His death, and redemption accomplished by it, and His resurrection, enter necessarily into these counsels, as in Ps. 8. and Heb. 2. Further, when we take up the question of the elements of a dispensation, the principles on which it is carried on form part of the elements, as well as the person to whom it is confided.
But, having touched on the spring of deep-laid and deadly error which is the basis of this system, I will now speak of the statements it contains. First, where οἰκονομίαis spoken of, what is said seems to me to be a dispute about words. I admit fully that there were two grand headships—as do all Christians, with different degrees of light—the first and Second Adam's, whether as heads of families or lords of the spheres put under them of God. The primary title of Christ, let us only remember, is paramount to that of having things put under Him. That refers to the Son of man. His primary title is His being Creator as Son: all things created by Him and for Him. But I am not aware that the first, or Adamic, state is ever called a dispensation, or οἰκονομία, or anything like it.
But there is another word which is employed in Scripture, which does give distinct periods entirely overlooked in the paper, and which altogether overthrows its denial of divisional periods, which Christians in general call dispensations, when the principles on which they are carried on are distinct; namely, the word αἰὼν, and αἰὼν.Of these, Scripture does speak, but it never speaks of οἰκονομίαas a period at all.
This latter word is employed, says the writer, "only once in the New Testament, to denominate a distinct period of the world's history;" and, again, "'the dispensation of the fullness of times' is just, in other terms, the delegated administration, or government, of the fullness of times; or, by an obvious and easy transition, the period during which that administration, or government, exists." But this is out of place in insisting on the accurate force of a word. The Scripture, the Lord Himself there does speak of periods carried on under God on different principles, (which are very justly called dispensations,) whereas, one of the writer's periods is never called οἰκονομία,nor is this word ever applied to, nor does it mean, a period at all. “So shall it be in the end of this age," (υοῦαἰῶνοςτούτου)says the Lord. (Matt. 13.) So He appeared girl ἐπὶσυντελείᾳτῶναἰώνων.(Heb. 9.) Now, αἰὼνclearly signifies, in such passages, a period or course of time in which certain principles have sway on God's part. Thus, until the end of the age, judgment, which plucks up out of this world, is not to be exercised by the Lord's servants; whereas, in the end of, it, judgment will gather out of the kingdom of the Son of man all scandals. And hence it is also that this present time is called (not I judge a dispensation, but) a parenthesis, because the Lord Jesus speaks of " this age," when He was upon earth, as the same as that which will close by judgment at the end; but this was a period connected with his relationship with Jews, and which will not be closed till He again is present in person; whereas, in the interval, the Church of the first-born has been gathered for heaven. Another reason why it has been called so, and proof that it is so, is, that sixty-nine of Daniel's weeks are run out, and then there is an interval of ages, and the last week begins again to run on and be counted.
I need not say that I admit the headship of Christ, but I have shown briefly that Scripture speaks of periods, and that in reference to the most important subjects possible, by words very justly, Pa substance, translated dispensations, and I am not here to discuss language but things. But I add, on the other hand, that οἰκονομία does not mean headship of creation at all, but administration; and that it cannot mean it in the passage referred to, because there is another word. (ἀνακεφαλαίσασθαι) which does precisely mean it, and which states that that is the particular form of the οἰκονομία,or administration, here ordained of God. Nor does it mean, by any transition, a period, for another word (καιρῶν) is used to express that also. I give the passage literally: "Having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He bath purposed in Himself for the administration of the fullness of times, [namely] to head up all things in Christ, the things in heaven and the things on earth, in Him in whom also we have an inheritance," &c. Now, here οἰκονομία,administration, is as simple a word as possible. The particular kind of administration is heading up all things in Christ. The importance of this remark is this, that it overthrows absolutely all the reasoning on οἰκονομία,which seeks to identify the headship of Christ and the term οἰκονομία,and thereby exclude all other periods, this being in terms the only one. The whole reasoning is based on this, which is a total mistake.
But there are other grave errors in things, not in words. The writer has confounded the right flowing from the person of Christ with the state in which he exercises the right, and this with increase of error, because he has misstated the ground of the title, declaring it to be the incarnation, and hence fixing the period at the time of that event; whereas, Scripture in terms founds it on The Divine Creatorship, which is clearly wholly independent of that. Hence the argument founded on incarnation wholly fails, because it is not at all the epoch of de jure title. That, is His being Creator. His incarnation gives us the person who is to hold this power, and we have to search from the Word when it is that God is pleased to set Christ over all things. The incarnation is the formation or manifestation of the person who is to possess, but is neither the epoch nor state in which the right begins, or possession is had, for, as man, Christ receives the headship. It is a matter of divine counsel, not inherent right, though this man, as Creator, had the right. So Scripture always speaks, and we cannot depart from Scripture. “Thou didst set Him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under His feet." (Heb. 2.) “Whom He hath appointed heir of all things." (Heb. 1.) “God hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in earth," &c. (Phil. 2.) Again: "he raised Him from the dead, and set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality," "and hath put all things under his feet," &c. (Eph. 1.)
But this brings out another and fatal error in the system. Though incarnation manifested the person who was to be set over all things, it was not in incarnation at all that He was set over all things. This very grave error excludes redemption all altogether, than which nothing can be more grave. But let us see what Scripture says. On earth, Christ is sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matt. 15:2424But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 15:24).) In John you will find His divine person brought out, but never supremacy or the time of glory: “My time is not yet come;” and, again: “The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone, but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." (John 12.)
Further, how is man to be set over all things? Being made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, then crowned with glory and honor.
We see not yet all things put under Him but we see the person, and the work accomplished necessary for it, and the personal glory in which He is to take it, which is consequent on death. And the Lord Himself is most positive and explicit: "All power is given unto one in heaven and in earth." (Matt. 28:1818And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (Matthew 28:18).) But it is only after His resurrection that He says so. Previously, He had forbidden to go to the Gentiles. (Matt. 10.) Now, as a consequence of that exaltation, he sends them to all nations. For He had a baptism to be baptized with, and how was He straitened till it was accomplished! (Luke 12.) For indeed it became Him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. And note, that this is in immediate connection (Heb. 2.) with putting all things under His feet. The passages I have already cited are positive on the subject that it is Christ as risen, and not before, who is set over all things. Philippians 2 gives further the contract of His life here with His exaltation over all things, and the reason why it is so, in contrast with the first Adam. "Being in the form of God, He thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant," (not of headship,) "and was made in the likeness of men; " (this is incarnation, then, the opposite of what the writer makes it;) “and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. WHEREFORE, GOD ALSO hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." The meritorious title of Christ is set aside by the imaginatory system of the writer. The first Adam exalted Himself and was abased; the second humbled Himself and was exalted. It is not, remark further, that this is necessary to obtain the recognition of the government by man; it is the "wherefore" of His being there on the part of God.
But it is said, Christ was born a King. King of what? Is that His headship as Son of man? In no wise, but in contrast with it. He was born King of the Jews. On this footing He was presented to the Jews, as the prophets had been on the footing of the then dispensation, (for dispensation it was,) and if received would have crowned and glorified it. But that could not be; for, after sending many messengers to have the fruit of the vineyard, 'He said, I have yet one Son; it may be they will reverence my Son. That is, Christ was sent as having right there in God's name, and was presented as a stone to the builders, but in vain. As He says, “then have I labored in vain." Hence we find that, instead of Messianic being the same thing, (though He be always the Christ,) it is said, that He commanded them straightly not to tell any man that He was the Christ, for the Son of man must suffer many things, &c. And then He shows the glory. (Matt. 16. Mark 8. Luke 9.) So even in the Psalms: we have Psalms 1. and 2. the righteous man and anointed King in Sion, and then, in the intervening Psalms, His rejection, resulting (Ps. 8.) in the fuller glory of Son of man—the Psalm quoted to show the testimony of infants when rejected as Messiah, and His exaltation to the headship of all things. (Hob. 2. Ephes. 1. 1 Cor. 15.)
That God had always in purpose to set man in Christ over all things, I freely admit, and that God never swerved; from it, nor suspended it. The question is, What were His dealings with man in respect of it? Adam forfeited by the fall, as to conferred title, his headship of man; so that a second and other Man needed to be introduced, and Christ was another Head set up in resurrection. The judgment to be executed was finally executory on Christ's rejection, not because Adam had not forfeited, but because it was proved there was no remedy for the forfeiture in the first Adam—not even by the presence of the incarnate Son of God,—and a new man must be set up, in resurrection, who had triumphed over all the consequences of the failure of the first man, and over the power of him who had brought it in, both in living temptation and in his power of death, and had borne also the consequences on the part of God, according to His holy counsels and righteous nature, in expiation and for reconciliation. Such a new man, I say, set up in resurrection, as Head, as so risen, of the new creation, was to be established Heir of all things. And hence Paul does not hesitate to say that, though he had known Christ after the flesh, he knew Him henceforth no more. Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God. (2 Cor. 5.)
But supposing, then, Adam's forfeiture, but that it was not, as to God's public dealings with man, held irreparable till he had rejected Christ, was all chaos? Did God do nothing meanwhile? He employed all the means which would prove whether it was reparable. He would leave man without law, though not without testimony, and then be obliged to destroy creation; He would place him under government in Noah; He would call him by promise in Abraham, make him a peculiar people, and put him under law, apart from all others in privilege. And as to this, with whatever discernment in detail, Christians speak of dispensations. But I deny entirely that the Adamic state is called an οἰκονομία,or that οἰκονομία signifies period anywhere. On the other hand, when Adam had forfeited his title and was driven out from the place where God had set him, he then became, and not before, the head of a sinful race, and God did deal in new ways with man, as “do these things, and thou shalt live," to prove what his state was. And Christ becomes head of a new race when risen; for the grain of wheat otherwise remains alone. (John 12.)
Next, though Christ has now all power in heaven and on earth, and faith is to be exercised on that, Ire does not, as regards the government of the earth, exercise His power in judgment. He does not act in its public government, as He will act when He takes to Him His great power and reigns. HE IS HID IN GOD, and hence He forbids his servants to root up the tares; whereas, He will root them up hereafter; that is, contrary to what is stated by the writer, the principles of action are distinct. What is forbidden now, is executed then; and unless grace and judgment be the same, the present time and the future are different. We suffer with Him while He is hidden in God; we reign with Him when manifested. Present things remain in this sense, that that by which I am called, that which I enjoy as a Christian will remain. Now I have it in hope, and by the Spirit then actually in an incorruptible body. But the state of things does not remain; nor is the grace in which all is carried on now in the government of the world, so that judgment of the tares is forbidden, the same thing as judgment and righteousness according to which Christ will reign as Melchisedek in that day. The things that remain are in contrast with the Mosaic dispensation, but the things which remain are my heavenly portion in Christ, and as to this we are already in union with Christ, sitting in heavenly places.
Further, the writer says: “We ought to consider the Mosaic age, or system, not as a dispensation at all, but merely as a shadow of the dispensation that was approaching." The figures which accompanied it were types of various parts, or of the whole of what was to come, but in no sense was the Jewish order itself. There was no delegated head at all; and, as to its principle, was law the same as grace, or a figure of it? Was the ministry of death and condemnation a shadow of that of righteousness and of life? The Aaronic service (for the law had a shadow of good things to come in the parts of it) was a figure of what is now, but not of the millennial time. Melchisedek is that. The person of Christ is like his title to priesthood; but the figure of Aaron refers to Christ hid in heaven, not manifest on earth.
The economy of the fullness of times, then, was in no sense put in movement by the incarnation; nor could it be, because death, and resurrection, and redemption came in, and a new creation, which changed everything IN THE VERY GROUNDWORK OF OUR RELATION, AND THE RELATION OF ALL THINGS, WITH GOD. It is not in detail merely the writer is wrong, but in the foundations of truth. The incarnation manifested the person of the Head in the midst of the old creation; the resurrection and glorification set Him, according to the counsels of God, in the place of the Head of the new. Only that, as it was part of the counsels of God that He should have coheirs, He does not take the power and reign until they are gathered; and all is spoiled, consequently, again here below.
Further, the writer is entirely ignorant of what the principle is which others have spoken of, when saying that what now is was hid. It is not the sufferings and glory of Christ which were hid: no absurdity could be greater than such an assertion. It is the Church—the union of Jews and Gentiles in one body, and the union of this one body to Christ—which was, according to the apostle, “hid in God." A member of Messiah would have been the most incongruous and absurd of expressions and ideas to an ancient saint. Messiah was a person. The whole doctrine of the body of Christ, and even its existence, was a hidden mystery revealed now to apostles and prophets, and manifested now to angels.
(Eph. 3)Many truths, which render its reception easy to a Jew, were revealed in the prophets, but never the mystery itself. Some types perhaps can now be understood, but revealed nothing then. [It is true that the Church is not the whole of the mystery of God's will, but it is certain that what Paul specially preached (and this he identifies with the doctrine of the Church) was from the beginning of the world hid in God. Here is his statement of the mystery "That He might gather together in one (head up) all things in Christ," &c.; "in Him in whom we also," &c., which he develops in the same chapter as being "head over all things to the Church, which is His body, the fullness of Him which filleth all in all." The mystery thus includes Christ's administrative headship over all things, and the union of the Church to Him as such, as His body. This mystery was made known to Paul by revelation. It had been hidden in God before Do we not find the apostle quoting passages constantly from the Old Testament prophets, to vindicate, and prove, and make known what was not at all revealed there, but what maintained certain truths when they were revealed? as " He hath stretched out His hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people; " " Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with His people; " " Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved; " and "Lo, we turn to the Gentiles, for thus it is written, I have set thee for a light to the Gentiles." But surely they did not reveal the mystery. They were found accomplished in the mystery when it was revealed, and so used in making it known; but by themselves never would have revealed it. And this was just the wisdom of God, to provide, while leaving the Jews to their own proper responsibility, for a system to be set up when they should fail in it; (and which was yet shown to be according to the previous purpose of God, when once it was revealed in its time;) a system which was set up when they failed in that responsibility: established in fact, but suspended in revelation, till they had rejected the testimony of the Holy Ghost to the exalted Messiah, as well as crucified the humbled One; and thereon fully revealed, and their whole system and existence for awhile replaced by it. For I avow unequivocally here, that all the objections and difficulties raised against it have only confirmed me in the distinctive character of St. Paul's ministry, set up consequent upon the rejection of the testimony of the Holy Ghost by Jerusalem in the martyrdom of St. Stephen. It was the turning point of the whole present position of the Church. No one denies that the Church was then in Jerusalem. But no passage can be adduced to show the revelation of its position as one heavenly body with Christ, all difference between Jew and Gentile being lost therein. The case of Cornelius had shown that God would visit them on earth, and take out of them a people, (little as it was understood, the nation having been preached to by the Holy Ghost as still God's people, and the disciples still holding their place as Jews,) but its proper place, as sitting in heavenly places, was not brought out; nor does Paul ever refer to the case of Cornelius, as establishing the views he taught.
In fine, Christ did not formally claim as His own the government of the world at His incarnation. His government and headship over creation are not to be confounded. The government laid on His shoulder is not His headship over creation. His being born a King is not His headship over creation either. And, though it be the Messiah who is set over all things, it is not as Messiah, but as Son of man; and as Son of man, it is not till after His death that all power in heaven and in earth is, by God's act of devolution, laid on Him. Till then, though the person was there who was to have it, man and the Jews were put to the test; and until Christ was rejected, the time was not come for Him to take this place. The first born son of a king is designated heir; but, till his father's death, the government is not in his hands. First, says the Lord, He must suffer many things and be rejected of this generation.
I have thus rapidly given you some words in reply to your analysis. You will see that I have taken, as I necessarily must take, your statements as accurate, and founded my arguments on them in reply, though the doctrine of the writer be evident, so that my reasoning is, at any rate, just. Still, its form necessarily refers to the actual statements you have given.