I may notice one passage, as it makes a difficulty of some, John 14:17. It does not touch the question, if we take it as Mr. G. and others do, namely, that the Holy Ghost had come down on Jesus as man after His baptism, and dwelt with them in that sense, but was not in them. This only confirms what I have insisted on. The Holy Ghost coming and being in them was future: “and shall be in you.” That was not yet. But the truth is, I do not believe this to be the sense of “dwelling” with them. The translators had an avowed and unhappy practice of translating the same word differently in the same sentence, as in John 5 “judgment,” “condemnation,” “damnation,” are one identical word. in Greek. So here “dwell” in ver. 17 is the same as “abide” in ver. 16. The Father was to give another Comforter who was to abide forever with them. Christ could not; He was to go away to the Father. When sent, He was to abide with them, and be in them. Christ was there with them, but He could not abide with them; was with them, but not in them. This other Comforter would abide, and be in them. The “cannot receive” of the world is as much the present time as “abide.” It is when sent. And the truth is, abides or dwells, is just as much future as present. It depends on an accent (μενέι or μενεἴ) and in the early MSS. there were no accents. But taking it in Mr. G.’s sense, the Spirit was there in Christ as man, and so with them, but in them was, on the contrary, future.
The word of God, therefore, testifies positively that the Comforter did not, and could not come, till Christ went away and was glorified. There is nothing about any previous pouring out, but a promise of doing it in the future. Nor does even shaphak mean giving in abundance, particularly, but simply pouring out. Further, in speaking of less and more, His personal coming is denied; a very weighty point. “When He shall come.” He is sent, comes, wills, distributes, works, and, I repeat, Christianity is distinguished by that presence of the Holy Ghost the Comforter. I repeat here the immensely important truth that God’s dwelling with man is the consequence of accomplished redemption. He did not with Adam, nor Abraham, nor other saints. When He had redeemed Israel out of Egypt He did. “He dwelleth between the cherubim” (See Ex. 29:45,46). So the Holy Ghost could not come, till man sat at the right hand of God, the glorified witness that an eternal redemption was accomplished. Of this we have seen in John 7, Acts 2, John 16:7, the positive testimony. The whole character of Christianity depends on it. We are not yet in the Christian state and standing if we have not the Spirit (Rom. 8:9-11).
Mr. G. says that the work of instituting the church is nowhere ascribed to the Spirit in scripture. That the church was not yet built or building when Christ was on earth is certain, for He says, on this rock I will build my church. Till Christ died the foundation was not laid. Here only is the church spoken of in His lifetime and as a future thing. But He died to gather together in one the children of God which were scattered abroad, and the two characters in which the church is spoken of, body and house, are both attributed to the Spirit, baptized by one Spirit into one body, and the habitation of God by the Spirit (Eph. 2:22). “In whom ye are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit (εν πνυηατι) There is one Spirit and one body. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, Jews or Gentiles, &c.” (1 Cor. 12:12, 13). Even if we come down to the low ground of external organization, Mr. G. says, “Christ instituted the Lord’s supper, Christ instituted baptism.” Well then, they did not exist before Christ, as so organized. But when Mr. G. says, “Christ gave the organization of the New Testament to the disciples,” though the expression “the organization of the New Testament” be somewhat unintelligible, will He tell us when He did so? I read in 1 Tim. of such organization, and historical facts elsewhere connected with it, but for saying that any such were given by Christ, there is not a shadow of ground.
If by organization he means baptism and the Lord’s supper, it is a proof that as He instituted them, such organization did not exist before, and it was when the Holy Ghost came they were carried out. Baptism to Christ’s death could not be till He had died, and the Lord’s supper is a symbol of the unity of the body of which an exalted Christ (Eph. 1:19-23) is the head.
As to Christ not loving the church till it existed, it is false doctrine. In its fullness and completeness in God’s purpose it does not exist yet, at least we trust that souls will yet be brought in. “Yet to be made and defiled,” says Mr. G. Did He not love the souls He saves now, before they existed? They were defiled in their own nature, and of these the church is made up, loved before they existed, defiled as sinners, and Christ died long ago for their purification, and they constitute the church when sealed. Christ did love the church before it existed. Did He only give Himself for what existed then? This is very sad. He gave Himself for it that He might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself, a glorious church without spot. What He will present to Himself certainly did not exist when He gave Himself for it. There could be no church but by His giving Himself for it. Its cleansing, in time, comes after this. He loved the church that He will present, glorious, to Himself.
This only shows how if one truth be given up, others, if touched, will crumble with it. If Mr. G. had given himself the trouble of examining the Greek in Eph. 3:4-11, he would have found that as the English proves nothing of the kind, in Greek there is no ground for what he says as to the Jews being the body (a monstrous assertion, really) at all. The word is σύσσωμα, which could not exist till both were formed in one, according to chapter 2, to make of both one new man.
The concluding remarks scarcely require any on my part. There is not a word in scripture about any people using Melchisedec, not even Abraham, though he owned his greatness. Abraham acted as priest for himself confirm any setting up his altar, as did Isaac and Jacob, and the family altar has been generally recognized by Christians. There is not a shadow of any assembly of believers, or professed believers, before the exodus. Melchisedec is introduced as a mysterious personage whose priesthood and life were coincident, not what priests were, or the great high priest is now, to intercede for the ignorant or out of the way, or to offer gifts and sacrifices for sin as the apostle insists; but to give, and to bless the Most High God, and Abraham from the Most High God, when through His power he was already wholly victorious. And if Mr. G. had taken the pains to read that one of the songs of Zion (Ps. 110) to which he alludes, he would have found that it was setting Christ at God’s right hand till His enemies should be His footstool; and that the sending the rod of His power out of Zion is future. Then His enemies will be made His footstool. Hence when the apostle shows that there arises another priest not of the order of Aaron, Christ being that priest, he makes the present exercise of His priesthood exclusively according to the analogy of Aaron’s, though He be not of his order (Heb. 8:9), because Christ is yet sitting at the right hand of God, and His enemies, if scripture is to be believed, not yet made His footstool. A priest is not the priest of a church*, unless in popery, that I know of. The essential character of the present time is that Christ is not sitting on His own throne, but on His Father’s, at God’s right hand, till His enemies be made His footstool, and the Holy Ghost sent down while He is there “expecting,” having by one offering perfected forever them that are sanctified through it.
I do not admit that there was an order known as elders when Moses returned to Israel in Egypt. There were elders, but no order known as elders. If there were, let the institution be shown. There was one established when Jethro came (Ex. 18, Deut. 1.), but this was subsequent; and a special one of seventy (Num. 11:17). But as to this I am quite indifferent. The congregation was not formed, but they were a separated people, and if there be no testimony of it, for aught I know there may have been some known elders, but no such order is spoken of. Nor even in the New Testament is any appointment of elders spoken of amongst the Jews.
But if there were a congregation connected with Melchisedec, of which there is not the slightest trace, or that there were elders in Israel organized as an order among the people, which is not said either, what has that to do with union with Christ by the Holy Ghost, with the glorious head of the body, or even with the habitation of God through the Spirit, formed consequent on Christ having broken down the middle wall of partition, and set aside Judaism? Were Melchisedec’s fancied congregation members of Melchisedec’s body? Yet that is what constitutes the church in its truest character: “the body of Christ.”
How the habit of mere human arrangement blots out of the mind the divinely given revelations of a glorified Christ at God’s right hand, and a body united to Him by the Holy Ghost. A priest must have a church, an utterly unscriptural thought, instead of a glorified Christ and union with Him by the Holy Ghost; Christ, too, fancied to be exercising His power as King now, instead of sitting at God’s right hand expecting till His enemies be made His footstool.
I trust no harsh word has escaped me. I do not deny it is an exercise of patience to go over and over again what constitutes the characteristic existence of the church, and Christianity itself commencing from Pentecost. My only consolation is that it brings out, clearer and clearer, for Christians, great fundamental truths of their own standing. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of His. J. N. D.