Letter from bro J.J. Andrew to his Adverse Critics

Twelve months have elapsed since commencing to write my letter to the Editor of the Christadelphian on the Inspiration controversy. If I had been actuated by a desire for human approbation, I should regret having written it; for the expressions of disapproval, both public and private, have been more voluminous than those of the opposite class. From one point of view—a personal one—it is well that it is so. A faithful vindication of God’s works and ways is sure to be attended with more or less contumely.

Some of your criticisms have been anticipated, or already replied to, and it is not necessary again to refer to them. There are a few others, however, on which it may be advisable to make some brief observations.

Your criticisms are, for the most part, of a negative character, and illustrate the process by which all that is vital in the Bible has been frittered away during the present generation. Your positive arguments are unsound; they are either based upon an assumption or they ignore an essential element.

A great outcry has been made about the last paragraph but two concerning Divine help. I have been charged with claiming inspiration. This is a misconception. The expression, “hand of God,” does not necessarily involve inspiration; neither is Inspiration always the result of the Spirit operating on man. If it were so, we should not read of the Philistines having disease through the hand of God being upon them (1 Sam. 5:6–9); nor would it be recorded that the Israelites were helped by God in their physical conflicts. As there are diversities of Spirit gifts, so are there diversities of Divine workings (1 Cor. 12:4–6). Inspiration is a Spirit gift of a very high order—perhaps the highest. It means literally a breathing, and breathing being essential to speech, it fittingly represents the action of the vocal organs. Those who are the subjects of it are, for the time being, the Deity’s mouthpiece, as Aaron was the mouthpiece of the inspired Moses. Since the completion of the Apostolic writings, there is no evidence of anyone possessing this gift. But are we to conclude that no one has received Divine aid since then? If so, how are we to account for some answers to the prayers of God’s children? Moreover, how have the weak ones chosen by God for His work been strengthened (1 Cor. 1:27–29)? And how have the angels fulfilled their functions as ministering spirits on behalf of the heirs of salvation (Heb. 1:14)? Probably, if the truth were known, others in the present generation have received Divine aid in their labours for the Deity.

You have, in effect, said that the Divine help which I acknowledged is impossible; for, with no opportunity of judging as to whether I was mistaken or not, you have ridiculed it and pronounced it a delusion. This is in marked contrast to the way in which a similar statement from Nehemiah was received by the Jews in Jerusalem (Neh. 2:12–18). The suggestions as to its real cause are at variance with certain facts, though it is not necessary to mention them; for I have asked no one to accept my statement, neither have I made it the basis of any claims or obligation. Why then did I mention the matter? On the same principle as that which is involved in the Inspiration controversy—viz., not to attribute to the flesh that which is of God. I have, therefore, nothing to withdraw and nothing to be “ashamed of.”
The argument put forth that if I was right my effort would have been infallible in effecting its object, is a fallacious one. Where a “heart of unbelief” exists, the most positive demonstration will be futile. Of this, the history of Israel and of contemporary Gentile intellect furnish abundant illustrations. The Prophets and Apostles gave ocular proof of their mission, and yet their utterances were rejected by unbelieving Jews; the miracles of Christ could not be denied, but they were attributed to a false god; and though the Divine character of the Bible has been infallibly proved in innumerable ways, it is rejected by many intelligent and well-meaning men of the present generation.

I have been charged with attributing to one brother a divine commission. My reply is, that I have simply applied to the present operations of the truth the principles of divine action necessary to the development of the One Body. If dealing with the subject comprehensively I should recognise God’s working in the varied circumstances which have led to the revival and promulgation of the truth in the present century. Every brother when putting on Christ has a divine commission to work for his Father in heaven; but all are not adapted for the same kind of labour. Each one is used, therefore, according to his capacity, and his position is attended with a corresponding responsibility. “God hath set the members everyone of them in the body, as it hath pleased him” (1 Cor. 12:18). His continued use of them is necessarily influenced by the way in which they severally fulfil their stewardship.

Surprise has been expressed that I should appeal to conscientious doubters; for it is considered that when positive evidence is adduced, the conscientious will at once perceive and accept it. This is a popular fallacy. Conscience has no perception whatever as to what is true or untrue. It is a blind faculty, which simply produces a desire to do what is right, without any power to weigh evidence, or determine which is the true course. It may lead a man to sin against God as well as to obey Him. Of this the Scriptures furnish evidence. Did all who crucified Christ violate their consciences? The petition on the Cross—“Father forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34)—supplies a negative answer, and the Apostle Paul confirms it when he says, “Had they known it they (the princes of this world) would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8). Was not Saul of Tarsus as conscientious in persecuting Christians, as he was after conversion, in preaching Christ? Let his inspired declaration reply? “Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor and injurious; but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly, in unbelief” (1 Tim. 1:13). And were not the apostles cruelly treated by conscientious, but mistaken Jews? Christ’s own words set the matter at rest—“They shall put you out of the synagogues; yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service” (Jno. 16:2).

These testimonies are practical warnings against an exclusive reliance on conscientious conduct. Fldelity to conscience is necessary to Divine approval, but it is not the only requisite. If it were, a revelation of God’s will would be superfluous. A “conscience void of offence toward God and toward men” (Acts 24:16), involves a knowledge of God and His ways, and a hearty compliance with His injunctions.

While admitting, like Unitarians, that the Bible contains the Word of God, you contend that it comprises something more, and that consequently the Bible is not wholly the Word of God. The principal reason assigned is that it includes history as well as prophecy, narrative as well as revelation, men’s oracles as well as God’s. This contention puts the issue between us into a very concise form, viz., is the Bible wholly or partially the Word of God? If you be right, we ought to find in the Scriptures no instance of man’s actions or utterances being included in the designation, Word of God, or Word of the Lord. The following quotations show that you are wrong:—

1. —“Hear ye the Word of the Lord, all ye of Judah, that enter into these gates to worship the Lord. Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place. Trust ye not in lying words, saying the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the tem le of the Lord are these, ” &c.(Jer 7:2–4).
2. —“Hear ye the word of the Lord, O house of David, thus saith the Lord, execute judgment in the morning, and deliver him that is spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor lest my fury go out like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings. Behold I am against thee. O inhabitant of the valley, and rock of the plain, saith the Lord, which say, who shall come down against us? or who shall enter into our habitations?” &c. (Jer. 21:11–13).
3. —“Then the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah . . . saying, Take again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim, the king of Judah, hath burned. And thou shalt say to Jehoiakim, king of Judah, Thus saith the Lord; Thou hast burned this roll saying, Why hast thou written therein, saying, The king of Babylon shall certainly come and destroy this land, and shall cause to cease from thence man and beast?” (Jer. 36:27, 29).
4. —“Hear the word of the Lord, all Judah, that are in the land of Egypt: Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, saying, Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her” (Jer. 44:24, 25).
5. —“Hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have mate lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves” (Isa. 28:14, 15).

The words in italics are the actions and utterances of men as described by the Spirit of God; they formed part of the divine message which, in each case, commences with the phrase, “The word of the Lord;” they are included for the purpose of explaining Jehovah’s condemnation. They are an average representation of the evil deeds and words recorded throughout the Bible. The argument which these facts supply is a very simple one:—God includes human sayings in a communication which the prophet is instructed to entitle Jehovah’s word; therefore we are justified in applying the term “Word of God” to all inspired writings, whatever be their contents.

The distinction drawn between history and prophecy, and between narrative and revelation, though necessary on some occasions, is misleading, when considering what composes the Word of God. The only question necessary to be answered is, “What has God spoken or written?” Whatever that be, it is a part of His Word To Him with whom the past, present, and future are all the same, there is no difference between history and prophecy; in the one He declares what He will do, and in the other what He has done. The doctrinal and prophetic parts are not the only writings containing revelation; it is to be found also in narrative and history. The following quotations from the Books of Chronicles illustrate this:—

I. CHRONICLES.

1. —“God granted him [Jabez] that which he requested” (Ch. 4:10).
2. —“They [the Reubenites, &c.,] were helped against them, and the Hagarites were delivered into their hand, and all that were with them: for they cried to God in the battle, and he was entreated of them, because they put their trust in him” (Ch. 5:20).
3. —“The Lord blessed the house of Obed-Edom, and all that he had” (Ch. 13:14).

II. CHRONICLES.

4. —“So the King (Jeroboam) hearkened not unto the people; for the cause was of God, that the Lord might perform His word, which he spake by the hand of Abijah” (Ch 10:15).
5. —“As the men of Judah shouted, it came to pass, that God smote Jeroboam and all Israel before Abijah and Judah” (Ch. 13:15).
6. —“So the Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah” (Ch. 14:12).
7. —“The Lord was with Jehoshaphat because he walked in the first ways of his father David” (Ch. 17:3).
8. —“Jehoshaphat cried out, and the Lord helped him, and God moved them to depart from him” (Ch. 18:31).
9. —“So the realm of Jehoshaphat was quiet: for his God gave him rest round about” (Ch. 20:30.
10. —“The Lord stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines, and of the Arabians” (Ch. 21:16).
11. —“The Lord smote him in this bowels with an incurable disease” (Ch. 21:18)
12. —The destruction of Abaziah was of God by coming to Joram” (Ch. 22:7).
13. —“Amaziah would not hear, for it came of God, that he might deliver them into the hand of their enemies, because they sought after the gods of Edom” (Ch. 25:20).
14. —“As long as he sought the Lord God made him to prosper” (Ch. 26:5).
15. —“God helped him against the Philistines and against thc Arabians” (Ch 26:7).
16. —Wherefore the Lord his God delivered him into the hand of the King of Syria” (Ch. 28:5).
17. —“The Lord brought Judah low because of Ahaz, King of Israel” (Ch. 28:19).
18. —“The Lord sent an angel which cut off all the mighty men of valour, and the leaders and captains in the camp of the King of Assyria” (Ch. 32:21).
19. —“God left him (Hezekiah) to try him that he might know all that was in his heart” (Ch. 32:31).
20. —“Wherefore the Lord brought upon them the captains of the host of the King of Assyria” (Ch. 33:11).
    It will be observed that in each of these instances Divine action is described; in many of them it is of such a character as to be imperceptible to the human eye. The record is therefore a revelation of what God did on these occasions, and consequently is entitled to the designation, Word of God. These brief statements would be unintelligible without further details; hence the complete history with which we are furnished. It is sacred history not simply because it pertains to a holy nation, but because given by the Holy Spirit. In its production, God selects those human actions which are necessary for His purpose, and He records them in His own way; occasionally introducing a statement as to what He did to assist or thwart human endeavours. History such as this is impossible without Divine inspiration; it is as much, therefore, the inspired Word as is any other part of the Bible; and, if it be the inspired Word, it is therefore God’s Word. What practical difference is there between God recording that, by an angel, He slew the Assyrians, and predicting through Zechariah that He will “fight against those nations” that gather against Jerusalem” (Zech. 14:3)?
    The first and second of the foregoing quotations from Chronicles are taken from the Genealogies, the infallible inspiration of which has, more than any other part of the Bible been questioned in the recent controversy. The position in which they are found is more than suggestive of the Divine Authorship of the lists of names which surround them; and if the former are without error, it is but a logical conclusion that the latter are equally accurate.

The New Testament narratives contain statements similar to those already quoted from Chronicles, though not so numerous. Taking the two books which have been most disputed, viz.:—Luke and Acts—we find the following:—

1. —“This saying was hid from them” (Luke 18:34).
2. —“Their eyes were holden that they should not know him” (Luke 24:16).
3. —”And the hand of the Lord was with them” (Acts 11:21).
4. —“And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory; and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost” (Acts 12:23).

The hiding of a saying from the minds of the Apostles, and the holding of two disciples’ eyes, implies Divine action. The probability is, that it would be imperceptible to the subjects thereof at the time, and it certainly could not be visible to any observer, assuming the existence of such. On what authority then is the statement made? Human judgment only? If so, it may be mistaken. But if on the spirit’s authority, there can be no such danger. And if inspiration be admitted for these two statements, it cannot logically be rejected for the whole Gospel.

The quotations from the Acts are similar. To say that “the hand of the Lord was with them” is equivalent to the statements in Chronicles about God helping certain Israelites, and the announcement of an angel smiting Herod with disease is parallel to that which tells us how the Assyrians were slain. The angelic action would be unseen by human eye in both cases. Hence the need for recognising in the statements a revelation by the spirit.

What has been written on the divine action in the inspiration controversy has been in the nature of an argument, and to the judgment of some it has commended itself; but by others it has been scornfully rejected. This fact alone shows the necessity for inspiration in regard to all that is recorded in the Scriptures concerning God’s invisible action toward Israel after the flesh and Israel after the spirit. When uninspired man writes of such matters, he has to reason from certain facts: not so with the spirit; the statement is made in simple and concise language with a tone of authority which cannot be questioned.

The forcible character of Psalm 138:2 (“Thou hast magnified Thy Word above all Thy name,”) has led to various attempts to evade its force. One critic has endeavoured to show that the word translated “above” should not be so rendered; but the reasons given are not of a character to demonstrate the need of change; he admits indeed that “above” is included in the Lexicographical meaning of the original word. The question, therefore, to be determined, is as to its propriety in this particular place. On this point, it is worthy of note that neither Dr. Thomas nor the authors of the Revised Version thought it necessary to make any change.

The name of Jehovah, it is contended, is identical with Himself, and therefore the Psalmist’s statement according to our version, affirms what is impossible and absurd, viz.; that Jehovah has magnified His Word above Himself. This has the appearance of being logical, but it ignores an important consideration. From one point of view, Jehovah and His name are identical, but from other aspects, there is a difference between them. The name of God is the designation He has chosen by which to be known among men; that name is expressive of His purpose and power. Its selection was an exercise of divine wisdom; it was within Deity’s power to have selected another name. But in reference to His own personality or character, no such exercise of choice can be admitted. In this respect, then there is an absence of perfect identity.

Jehovah’s name exists first in an abstract, and then in a concrete, form. The latter consists of the multitudinous Christ in spirit perfection, who in one sense are identical with God, for by these glorified sons, He will reign over and dwell with men. But from another aspect, they are so far from being identical with God that they occupy a subordinate position. “When all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him that God may be all in all” (I Cor. 15:28).

It is by means of the word of God that Jehovah’s name is developed from an abstract into a concrete form. In other words, it is by that word operating on human minds that they enter the name of salvation now (Prov. 18:10), and by the same word they attain to the “great reward” (Ps. 19:7–11) of having the “name of God” written on their forehead (Rev. 3:12). Is there not then both propriety and beauty in the word being magnified above the multitudinous name?

Dr. Thomas quotes Ps. 138:2, in a manner which shows that he understood it as referring to the inspired Word:—“There is a characteristic of wickedness which no sect, party, name, or denomination, regarded as ‘orthodox’ can repudiate as inapplicable to itself. That characteristic is, ‘THOU CASTEST MY WORDS BEHIND THEE, ’ saith God. No man, sect, or party, can offer a greater insult to Jehovah than this; for it is testified that He hath magnified his Word above all the attributes of his name (Ps. 138:2); and it was foretold in commendation of Messiah, that when he should be revealed, he would ‘magnify the law and make it honourable’ (Isa. 42:21). ‘I came not,’ said he, ‘to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil; for the heaven and earth may pass away, but not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.’ He continually impressed upon his hearers the necessity of believing the Words of God, and of doing his commands: and never ceased to make the ‘obedience of faith’ the test of men’s devotion and affection for him.” (Eureka, Vol. I., p. 16.)

It is not surprising that a critic who affirms that the Bible is not wholly the word of God, should also deny that any part of the Bible has been magnified above God’s name. If the Bible is not the magnified word, what is? Is not the Bible the only divine writing with which we are acquainted? Is it not the only book which reveals God’s mind and purpose? And is it not the only means by which man can become like the glorified Christ? If then, it is not the subject of divine magnification, where else is the “word” to which the Psalmist’s statement applies? That statement sets forth a principle, and it is for us to rightly apply the principle. It is for want of such right application that the same critic has been led to charge me with teaching inferentially the pre-existence of Christ. The charge is based upon my statement that the declaration of Christ—“Thy word is truth” (Jno. 17:17)—embraces the Old Testament Scriptures. If they do, it is argued, Christ must have been in existence when those Scriptures were given, for he says in ver. 14 “I have given to them thy word.” The fallacy in this reasoning lies in the narrow application of Christ’s words. When he says, “Thy word is truth,” there is no ground whatever for limiting the statement to that portion of God’s word which had been received by the Son and given to his brethren. It is a general declaration applicable to the word of God, whether spoken or written, past, present, or to come. So likewise with the Psalmist’s statement concerning the magnified word.

The argument which measures the infallibilty of the written Word of God by the infallibility of the personal word is rejected as defective, because it is analogical. On this principle, much that is in the Bible would be described as unsatisfactory, for it contains no small amount of analogical evidence. Thus, when Paul says, “know ye not that ye are the temple of God” (1 Cor. 3:16), he states, in effect, that the Church of Christ is the antitype of the Mosaic tabernacle, and therefore contains similar characteristics. The Book of Revelation is full of such kind of evidence. When Christ wished to confound the Sadducees, he did so by inferential reasoning, a process which some would describe as being as defective as the analogical. “When Moses calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” he gave proof of the resurrection of the dead (Luke 20:37). The lesson to be learned from this incident is, that we are not justified in rejecting an argument on Scriptural evidence simply because it does not conform to a standard of our own. The question to be determined is simply this, Does the evidence warrant the conclusion drawn? If it does, we can only reject it at the cost of refusing the light.

In attributing to the personal word of God the qualities of the written word, I have been accused of imputing evil to Christ. The charge is based upon misconception. The written word certainly contains a record of evil actions, but only for the purpose of exposing them. In like manner Christ, as judge, will describe misdeeds, but only to condemn them. The principles of the written word, which have been embodied in the personal word are divine principles, and comprise love, mercy, justice, wisdom, righteousness, incorruptibility and infallibility.

Doubt has been expressed as to the Ark typifying Christ—a circumstance which illustrates the danger of taking up an unsound position. I venture to say that but for the exigencies of the present controversy, such a doubt would not have been published. Since the completion of Eureka I have never heard it even mooted. Are those who entertain the doubt prepared to give a definition of the Ark of the Covenant different from that which is set forth in the following pages:—Eureka, Vol. II., pp. 360, 536, and 732–3?

In these passages, Dr. Thomas clearly shows that the anti-typical ark, in the opened nave, is Deity manifested by Spirit in Jesus and his brethren. He first identifies the Ark of the Covenant with the occupant of the throne seen through the door opened in the heaven (Rev. 4:1–2), even the Son of the Deity, and upon this basis applies the ark, when seen, to the whole of the glorified Sons of God. While the ark is unseen, it symbolises only him who is within the veil (Heb. 10:20); but when it is “seen in the nave” (Rev. 11:19), it will comprise all who have been conformed to the body of Christ’s glory (Phil. 3:21). To doubt or deny that the ark typifies Christ is to raise a barrier to his brethren becoming part thereof; for without him they can “do nothing” (Jno. 15:5) and be nothing. What Christ is, they will be, excepting in rank (Eph. 1:22).

Longing for the complete “casting down of imaginations (or reasonings, margin), and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God,” and the “bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5), who is “The Word of God” (Rev. 19:13).

I am, His servant and brother,

J. J. ANDREW