James. With your permission, John, before I state my difficulties, may it not be well to see first if we are agreed as to who are meant in scripture by believers? The words of the Lord Jesus you often quote to me, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation”—do not these words teach that a believer is born again—Hath everlasting life? That he has not merely assented with his mind: but receives the words of Christ into his heart, believing God who sent Him.
John. Certainly, James: and as said elsewhere righteousness is imputed, or reckoned unto us “if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord, from the dead; who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification. Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom. 4:24; 5:1.) Such then is the believer. He hath eternal, life, as Jesus says, “I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish.” And, believing God, he is accounted righteous. He sees his Sin-bearer once delivered to bear his sins, now in the presence of God his righteousness, raised from among the dead: sins all gone forever, and never to be remembered any more. And, being accounted righteous, being justified on the principle of faith, he has peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: and therefore always the same peace.
James. Very well; now, then, bearing in mind that we have—for, through the mercy of God, we have believed God, and our ears have been opened to hear the words of Jesus—yes, we have these two things, eternal life, and unchanging peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. I will now state my difficulties.
John. Stay a moment first, James. You might have named much more. Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?
James. I have been much struck with that question lately. It is a very solemn one. Most Christians seem to go no further than our having life: but I see a great distinction in Acts 8:16; 19:2. It would be a very important question to examine fully, and I should like on another occasion to do so; especially the difference between holding the Holy Spirit to be an influence, and, as scripture reveals Him, the very person of God the Holy Ghost. And, oh, to think that our bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost!
John. Then do I understand you to say that you have since you believed, received the Holy Ghost?
James. It is a very solemn question, through grace I trust I can say so, though very young in the faith, and greatly desiring, in dependence on the Holy Spirit, to inquire more fully the meaning of the word of God.
The first scripture then I would name is Hebrews vi. If we have eternal life, and peace with God, what can this mean, “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, &c.... If they shall fall away to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame?” There are many who feel this is a very difficult statement.
John. If this meant, that should a Christian in an unwatchful moment commit a sin, and thereby fall from Christ, that then there is no possibility of restoration, then indeed the difficulty would be insurmountable. Indeed plainly Christianity would be far worse than Judaism. A Jew could bring a sin-offering and his sin would be forgiven him, as is stated in Lev. 4 And this was true whether of the whole congregation, or of an individual. Now surely this cannot be the meaning.
James. That certainly is clear: but then what does it mean?
John. It is important to notice that this epistle was addressed or written to the whole of the Hebrews who professed to be Christians, who were also zealous of the law, as James said: “Thou seest brother, how many thousands of the Jews there are who believe; and they are all zealous of the law.” They were in a transitionary state. The law was not the perfect or complete truth. It contained the first, or elementary principles, of the oracles of God. The effect of their remaining in this state was, that they could scarcely distinguish between Judaism and Christianity: they were dull of hearing. “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God.” (Heb. 5:12.)
James. Then is that what is meant, “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ” (or the word of the beginning of Christ) as in margin, “let us go on unto perfection”? Does this mean leaving the elementary principles of truth as known to a Jew, and going on to the complete truth, that is as revealed in Christ?
John. Exactly so: and that makes all that follows very simple. Let us take up each clause. “Not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God.” They had done this once if Christians, they had judged themselves as guilty of rejecting the Lord Jesus, and putting Him to death; yet faith toward God had owned Him, in raising up Jesus from the dead. This change of mind in utter self-judgment had accepted forgiveness of sins in His name, and thus the only foundation had been laid, which could not be repeated. But as they were zealous of the law, they were in great danger of going back when they failed, as of old, to repeated offerings and repentances. You observe, James, Christianity as set up of God the Holy Ghost, was such a contrast to Judaism. The Christian has no temple, no ritual, no sacrifices, nothing for the eye to rest upon. All heavenly: all spiritual worship: no wonder there was such a tendency to give up the spiritual, and go back altogether to earthly visible worship.
James. I had not thought of that: then do you think it was to meet that tendency to give up Christ, and go back altogether to the law that this Epistle was written? I mean to the washings of the law, the offerings, and shadows, and even truth as imperfectly revealed, or incompletely known by the Jews? Does not the next clause mean christian baptism?
John. If you look, it is not baptism, but “of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands.” The same word is translated washings in chapter 9, “Meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances,” &c.
That is, we must go on to Christ, the one offering leaving behind the doctrine of all the various washings, of pots and pans: lepers, and priests of the law. And also all the laying on of hands on the heads of goats and bullocks. We must go on from all that system of repetition, to the one sacrifice as brought out in chapters 9 and 10.
James. That is new to me; but when we think of the object of this Epistle it is clear enough. But tell me, how can we go on from the doctrine “of resurrection of the dead;” is there anything more complete than that doctrine?
John. The Jewish doctrine of resurrection of the dead is certainly true as far as it goes, and was held by the Pharisees, and all Jews, except the Sadducees, who, like the heathen philosophers, denied it. But the Lord Jesus taught a resurrection from the dead, or, plainly, from among the dead. (Luke 20:35.) And have you not noticed this was the very thing that so grieved the Jews: that the apostles preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead? The resurrection which is from the dead went beyond all their teaching, and greatly offended them. And was not this the mark at which Paul aimed—the resurrection from the dead (not of the dead), at which he longed to arrive? (Phil. 3:11-14.) And has not God been pleased to reveal that the rest of the dead live not again until the thousand years are fulfilled? (Rev. 20)
James. I had never thought of this important difference between the imperfect, or incomplete revelation to the Jews, and the complete christian truth in Christ.
John. I am glad to hear you put it that way: for though not explained in this Epistle, it is elsewhere. All this is linked with Christ the Head. We are conformed to Him in this, the first resurrection from the dead. It is the resurrection of them that are His. “But every man in his own order: Christ the first-fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming: then cometh the end,” &c. (1 Cor. 15:23.) I am sorry to say, James, instead of going on, the professing church for many centuries went back to Judaism, and merely held the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead; and quite lost the christian doctrine of resurrection from the dead.
James. |iI| will, the Lord helping me, give this subject a careful examination. But now the next clause, “and of eternal judgment.” Is not the doctrine of a general judgment as held by the Jews true? Will not all stand together before the judgment to be tried? Is not this the doctrine of creeds and councils? Does not scripture say somewhere that it is appointed to all men once to die, and after death the judgment? And does it not say that the wicked and the righteous will be raised from the grave together, and be separated as described, the sheep on the right, and the goats on the left? &c. I do not see how these things can be from what we see is said of the first resurrection. But, John, why I ask is this, so many speak in this way, it puzzles one very much.
John. If you examine these scriptures you will find they are very much misquoted. By adding even a word the whole meaning is altered. Thus if we add the word “all” to Heb. 9:27, it alters the sense entirely. If you heard a fearful explosion in a coal pit, where three hundred hands are employed, and fifty had just come out, you might say that explosion is certainly the death of the colliers; but would that mean the fifty who had been drawn out? Or if twenty men were under the sentence of death, and three received Her Majesty’s free pardon, would that mean that the whole twenty were still under the sentence of death? It is quite true that all have been found guilty: all under the sentence of death.
“And as it is appointed unto men [not all men] once to die, but after this the judgment; so Christ WAS once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time, without sin unto salvation.” (Heb. 9:27.) And now, James, if you will read that other scripture where the Lord Jesus describes the judgment of the living nations, there is not a thought of the resurrection of the good and bad together. There is not a word on that subject; it is simply the living nations; it is a judgment of the quick. Surely there must be a great difference between those still under judgment, and those already pardoned, and justified from all things? Her Majesty cannot pardon a man, and hang him at the same time. Then how can God both justify a man, whose sins Christ bore on the tree, and also bring him into judgment? This does not touch the blessedness of standing before the Bema of Christ, His judgment for reward.
Thus the apostle would go on from the elementary truth, as known to the Jews, to complete truth in Christ.
James. Then is all in contrast between the doctrine of a general judgment as held by the Jews, and Christ having once borne the sins of many, to them there is no judgment for sins but looking for Him without any question of sin unto salvation? All I can say is, if that is the case, it is just the opposite of what I have been taught.
John. The word of God says it, and it must be so.
James. Then what was the difference between those who had tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, tasted the good word of God, &c.; and the true believers who had eternal salvation?
John. They had been in the shower of Pentecost and afterward, they had tasted, but had not (like the earth in verse 7) drunk in the truth. Like the seed by the way-side, there was no root. The hard ground had not been broken. The heart had not been prepared by the Holy Ghost to receive the word.
James. Then what did they fall away from?
John. If they fell away from the profession of Christ, and went back to the washings and offerings of the law, (just the thing they would do naturally), it was simply impossible now for those washings, and offerings, and carnal ceremonies, to restore them to repentance. Yea, for Jews to give up Christianity as a profession, they would, even to this day, have to treat Christ as accursed, as an impostor, “to crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.” Will you read this chapter to the end, James? We must part now for a time.
James. I see now it is a question of a Jew who professed Christ going back to Judaism. I should like to look at Heb. 10:26, If we sin willfully, no more sacrifice, nothing but judgment, &c. When could you explain this?
John. If the Lord will, we will look at this scripture the next time we meet.