The Scofield Bible correspondence school : course of study, vol. 3 : synthesis of Bible truth
Scofield, C. I. (Cyrus Ingerson), 1843-1921
ae Ss AHERN NNN ARN IRAN REN ARN CANAAN AREA NERS RUA NEARS LRA LE ts rene i patie et eH ASD) oe A a i I nL aE pina awe fab tll lg Ae eo AC 1S \ A < AX NX WS wy SX \ WAR \ < RY AG LY ‘ \ ‘i AAA « \ SY WN RRA \ NY \ \ \ A << RN ~ << < \ \ NAS ty WS \ CRAY << . \\\\ \\ SSAANAASARANAKS SW SAS RSS RRQQQNHH WW AAA ROA CD66 Seaf9s v. 3 Scofield, Cc. #8762 | The Scofield Bible | correspondence scheacal ae iii iY Cavett 7 itt } THE Se Odi 1D Bible Correspondence School COURSE OF STUDY. Vol. Il. SYNTHESIS OF BIBLE TRUTH. By C. I. SCOFIELD, D. D. BIBLE INSTITUTE OF LOS ANGELES Los Angeles, California NINTH EDITION Copyright 1907, by C. I. SCOFIELD GRACE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY WINONA LAKE, INDIANA Ee te) - AL ie a, ¥ aS al ee ea = Z at ste eka ty a ee ay Hi ’ SECTION IiIl. ‘THE GREAT WORDS OF SCRIPTURE. A412 ADOPTION. LESSON: L AM Adoption. I. Tue Worps. Adoption is the translation of one Greek word—huzothesta—- the literal meaning of which is ‘‘ placing as a son,” and occurs in Rom. viii. 15, 23; ix. 4; Gal. iv. 5; Eph. i. 5, in which the meaning is fully developed. II. ExpLtaNnAaTory REMARKS. A careful study of the passages with their context will make the meaning clear. Adoption is not a word of relation, but of position. The believer’s relation to God as a child results from the new birth (John i. 12, 13); whereas adoption is the act of God by which one already a child is placed in the position of an adult son. An illustration may be found in the Roman custom of conferring the god virilis upon male youth when they had attained a certain age. Up to that time they differed nothing from servants, though by birth “lords of all,” but were “under tutors or governors until the time appointed of the father.” Gal. iv. 1, 2. That was the Old Testament state of the godly Jew. Gal. iv. 3. But one of the distinctive differences between the Jewish and Christian dispensations is that in the latter the believer becomes in the moment of receiving Christ not only a child by the new birth, but also an adult son by adoption. This distinction is made effectual in the believer’s experience by the Holy Spirit. “And because ye were sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father; wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son.” Gal. iv. 6, 7%. III. Der Finishing. Adoption is the act of God whereby children of God redeemed by Christ are made adult sons, whose full manifestation as such awaits the resurrection. TUE. ADVOCACY. 413 Note. In Rom. ix. 4 huzothesza is used of Israel, and in Isa. lxiv. 8, and Jer. xxxi. 9, the explanation is found. Israel, the nation, had received the adoption: ‘‘I am a Father to Israel”—not to every Israelite. The Israelites were children in their nonage, literally, zefzoz (Gal. iv. 1-3) as Christians are zuzos—sons (Gal. iii. 26). No Israelite calls God ‘‘Father” in a personal sense. Lee SIN’ CX T. Advocacy. I. The Works. (z) One Greek word is, in 1 John ii. 1, translated ‘advocate.” It is the word parakletos. In John xiv. 16, 26; xv. 26; xvi. 7, our Lord applies this word to the Holy Spirit. In those passages it is translated ‘‘comfort” in the following passages: Acts ix. 31; xvi. 40; Rom. xv. 4; 2 Cor. i. 3, 4; vii. 4, 6, 18; Eph. vi. 22; Col. iv. 8; 1 Thess. ii. 11; iii. 2; iv. 18; v. 11; 2 Thess. ii. 17. II, GENERAL REMARKS, It will be seen by the above uses of the word that the be- (z) Never has two Paracletes—“Jesus Christ the righteous,” “with the Father,” and the Holy Spirit as indwelling. The expression of Christ is to be distinguished from His advocacy. As High Priest after the order of Melchisedek, He intercedes; as Paracletes, He advocates. Intercession has to do with our infirmity and need; advocacy with our sins. “If any (Christian) man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation (Azlasterton=mercy-seat) for our sins” (See “Propitiation”). His advocacy is not an appeal to the Father’s pity, but to the eternal efficacy of His own sacrifice. III. DeErfinion. Advocacy is that work of Jesus Christ for sinning saints which He carries on with the Father, whereby in virtue of the merit of His own sacrifice, He preserves them in grace. ASSURANCE. LESSON xxxii. Assurance. I. The Works. In the English Bible the word assurance occurs six times, namely, in Isa. xxxii. 17; Acts xvii. 31 (where it should be rendered ‘‘faith,” z. ¢., ground or reason for faith); Col. ii. 2; 1 Thess. i. 5; Heb. vi. 11; x. 22. In all of these passages the original words (Hebrew, detach; Greek, plerophoria) mean simply full confidence, or full conviction. The whole doctrine of assurance is stated briefly in Isa. xxxii. 17: ‘And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness, quietness and assurance forever.” The doctrine of assurance is Pacecitce in the New Testament in a threefold way: 1. The full assurance of faith. Heb. x. 22. This refers to the confidence which true faith gives. Faith is a matter of consciousness. If we are exercising faith in anything or anyone, we know it. If we have faith in the solvency of the bank in which we have deposited our money, that faith gives us confidence concerning the safety of our money. This is the sense in which Paul expresses his assurance in 2 Tim. i. 12: “I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him [literally, “guard my deposit”] against that day.” In this sense, Loofs speaks of the faith of Luther: “Luther believed in the compassion of God in Jesus Christ for him, and Luther knew that he believed in this compassion. This was the faith and this the knowledge that made the Reformation.” 2. The full assurance of understanding. Col. ii. 2. The word “understanding” is the same word (Greek, sometimes) so translated in Col. i. 9, and means an assurance which rests upon a spiritual understanding of the revealed facts upon which the believer’s safety rests. These facts are seven, namely:— (a) The finished work of Christ in the putting away of the believer’s sins, so that there is nothing remaining against him. Heb. ix. 26; 1 Pet. iii. 18; Acts xiii. 38, 39; Rom. viii. 31-34. (b) The specific promises of the Scriptures. John x. 28, 29; xi. 26; Phil. i. 6; Rom. vii. 29, 30. John x. 28, 29. Norre.—The shallow objection is sometimes made that while it is true that nothing can pluck us out of His hand, yet we may deliberately leave that refuge, the sufficient answer being that in that case we should ‘‘perish,’’ whereas the unconditional promise is, ‘‘They shall never perish.” (c) The high-priestly and shepherdly care of Christ. Heb. vii. 25; 1 John ii. 1; John x. 10-14. (d) The believer’s union with Christ. 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13; Eph. v. 29, 30. (e) The new covenant. Heb. viii. 10-13; x. 16-18. (f) The Father’s faithfulness to Christ. John xvii. 11; Jude i., R. V. (g) The sealing with the Spirit. Eph. i. 13; iv. 30. To enter into an understanding of these facts is to have the full assurance of understanding. 3. The “full assurance of hope.” Heb. vi. 11. Hope has to do with unseen things and with things of the future. Rom. viii. 24, 25. The full assurance of hope, therefore, fills all the future and is a confident expectation concerning heaven and all the great unseen verities. It is expressed in such passages as 2 Cor. i. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 8, 18. Nore. The comforting truth of assurance is attacked in three ways:— 1. By quoting supposed instances of apostasy, as, "Matt. vii. 22, 23 (but Christ says, "I never knew you"), etc. All such cases are sufficiently covered by John’s declaration (1 John ii. 19): "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us." 2. We are shaken in assurance by humbling views of our own sinfulness and failure. To meet these assaults we need but remind ourselves that assurance is not a result of sanctification, but of justification. We shall be perfect in the end. 1 John iii. 1, 2. 3. Passages in which professors, or others who are trifling with conviction and illumination, are warned, are mistakably applied to sincere believers; "g., Matt. xxv. 1-12 (professors) and Heb. vi. 4-8 (a moving picture of those who have come to the very threshold of true faith, but who, as verse 9 shows, have never been saved"). III.- DEFINITION. Assurance is the believer’s full conviction that he is in the present possession of a salvation in which he will be eternally kept; and this assurance is a result, or effect, of his perfect righteousness in Christ Jesus. Note. It follows, therefore, that the believer’s assurance does not rest upon sanctification, but justification—not upon works, but upon faith alone. LESSON LXXIII. — Atonement. See Salvation, Reconciliation, Propriety, Redemption, Forgiveness, Justification. I. The Works. In the English Bible, Authorized Version, the word atonement occurs seventy-seven times in the Old Testament, and but once, Rom. v. 11, in the New Testament. In the Revised Version the word is retained in all of the Old Testament passages in which it is used in the Authorized Version, but it disappears from the New Testament, the word in Rom. v. 11 being correctly rendered ‘reconciliation.’ It is to be regretted on every account that the revisers did not also eliminate the word from the Old Testament, where it invariably means ‘covering,’ ‘covering,’ or ‘to cover.’ Instrucive examples. Ex. xxix. 36, 37; xxx. 10, 15, 16; xxxii. 30; Lev. i. 4; iv. 20, 26, 31, 35; v. 6, 10, 13, 16, 18; vi. vite Toya B4s bs. %4 Roll pi xe yy Stheatv. 318,65 195,20, 21, 53; xv. 15, 30; xvi. 6, 11, 4: Ax viloG: 10pablgs1 6, 18, 24°27, 30, 32, 03. O45 XV. 11s Xixl 22) "Rx Oy MOR ey, OF Le = bh vr . Me i; cr vm 7 ri Se 12, 19, 21; xv., 25, 28; xv., 46, 47; xxv., 13; xxviii., 22, 30; xxix., 11; 2 Sam. xxi., 3; 1-Chr. vi., 49; 2 Chr. xxix., 24; Neh. x., 33. II. Expranatory REMARKS. In common English usage, at the time the Authorized Version was made, the word signified reconciliation merely, at-one-ment, the making two estranged persons at-one, and not in any sense expiation or satisfaction. So Shakespeare:— ‘He and Aufidius can no more atone Than violentest contrarieties.’—Corzolanus iv. 6. Fuller: “His first essay succeeded so well, Moses would adventure on a second design to atone two Israelites at variance.” It thus appears that in using the word “atonement” to translate “to cover,” the Authorized Version translators gave not a translation, but an interpretation—not what the Hebrew writer said was done to the sacrificer’s sins, but what the translators conceived to be the effect of the sinner’s sacrifices upon his relations with God. To illustrate: In Lev. v. 10, Moses wrote: “And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the ordinance; and the priest shall make a cover for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.” The Authorized Version and Revised Version render, “And the priest shall make atonement” (at-one-ment). The Scripture gives as the effect of the offering, a cover for the sin and forgiveness for the sinner; the translators affirm that the effect of the offering was to make the sinner “at-one” with God. In other words, they substitute for Scripture a theological concept; instead of translating they interpret. This is serious enough, but not the worst. For, as a matter of fact, the sacrifices under the covenant of law did not atone the sinner and God. The seventy times repeated statement of the Old Testament Scriptures is that the sacrifice “covered” the offerer’s sin; and, as his offering implied confession alike of sin and Of its due desert, death, it also secured his forgiveness. It was the sacrifice of Christ, “slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. xiii. 8), foreseen by God (though not necessarily by the sacrificer), which was efficacious. This is the precise point in Rom. iii. 25, 26, where it is said of Christ:— ‘Whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God, for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season; that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus.’ With his invariable lucidity, Professor Stifler states (The Epistle to the Romans) the force of this passage: ‘These are not the sins committed by the believer before he came to Christ, but the sins done under the old economy, before Christ came. Heb. ix. 15. It is not said with the King James Version, that He ‘remitted’ them. To all appearances, in all past time He paid no attention to sins, He overlooked them (‘winked at’, Acts xvii. 30), without meeting out adequate punishment (Ps. Ixxviii. 38). Sometimes in the history of the race He sent judgments, now against the Jews and now against the Gentiles. The Jews were driven more than once into captivity, and more than one heathen nation had been overthrown; but as judgment for man’s sin this was nothing. Inspiration’s just estimate, in spite of these severe visitations, cries that there was on God’s part a ‘passing over of the sins done aforetime,’ as if the just Judge had not rightly weighed their guilt. There was a thick veil over His righteousness. But the cross removed it and demonstrated His judgment of sin. The terrible tragedy of the cross, on which God set forth His Son in His blood, is His measure of man's demerit. The punishment that man so long escaped fell at last on the Son of man. That is to say, the Old Testament sacrifices "covered" sins, merely, pending the setting forth of Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice. This is precisely the argument of Heb. ix. 11-15, R. V.:— "But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption." As this course is a study, not of theology, nor of philosophy, but of the Bible, it is sufficient to say that it would be vastly to the advantage of the truth of God if theologians would give up the attempt to compress into one word the saving work of Jesus Christ. That work is too various in its aspects Godward, manward, and creationward to be gathered into one word. If one word must be used, sa/vatzon would be preferable as includ- ing all the redemptive acts and processes. ‘The ground usually included ir atonement will be fully covered in studies of the really 626/zcal words—pro. pitiation, reconciliation, redemption, forgiveness, and justification. III. Derinition. Atonement (at-one-ment) is a word used in the Authorized and Revised Versionsof the English Old Testament as the trans- lation of the Hebrew words signifying ‘‘cover,’’ ‘‘ to cover,” and ‘‘coverings,” in relation to the effect of the Levitical offerings upon the sins of the offerers. PAO ON NPN EE Church. ee I. THe Worps. With the exception of Acts xix. 387, where ‘‘ churches” should be ‘‘ temples,” church is the English rendering of one Greek word, ekklesia (from ek, ‘‘out from among,” and kaleo, ‘‘to call,” but from a very early date having the meaning of ‘“‘a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place; an assembly,” Zhayer). In Acts xix. 32, 39, 41, ekklesia is translated ‘‘assembly.”” In Acts vii. 38 the word is 420 CHURCH. used of the Israelites called out of Egypt and assembled in the wilderness. In that position they were a true eklesza, or called-out assembly; but the use of that word to designate Israel in the wilderness affords no more warrant for confusing Israel with the church of the New Testament than does the use of the same word to designate the town meeting in Acts xix. 39 for confusing that Sais with the New Testament church. Israel in the wilderness was a true eklesza, the town meeting at Ephesus was a true eklesza, and the New Testament church is a true eklesza. But in the New Testament the word is used one hundred and eleven times of the New Testament church, and in this sense only is it now to be considered. The Ho church (eklesia) is used in four ways: First. To designate the whole body of the redeemed during the present dispensation, that is, from the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to the descent of the Lord into “the air,” according to 1 Thess. iv. 13-18. Matt. xvi. 18; Acts ii. 47; v. 11; 1 Cor. x. 32; xii. 28; Eph.ii. 2230 ii1-°10, 21; v. 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32; Phil. ii. 6; Col. i. 18, 24; 1 Tim. iii. 5, 15; Heb. ii. 12; xii. 23. II. Exp. The truth of the above definition appears from the following Scriptures: “For as the body [the human body] is one, and hath many members [head, hands, feet, eyes, etc.,], and all the members of that one [human] body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into-one Spirit.” 1 Cor. xii 21: It will be observed:— (2) That this body is not an organism, like a legislative body, but an organism, like a human body. Every believer of this dispensation is as vitally, really, a part or “member” of Christ as his own hand is a part or “member” of himself. This vital fact is worked out in the verses which follow the above quotation (1 Cor. xii. 14-27). The teaching, briefly, is that the believer’s place in the body of Christ is not self-chosen, but is fixed in the sovereign wisdom of God (verses 18, 24); that all the members, even the feeblest, are “necessary” (verse 22) both to all the other members and to the Head (verse 21); and that so intimate is this union of each to the Head that if “one member suffer, all the members suffer with it” (verse 26). This is beautifully shown in the words of the Head of the body (Col. i. 18) to Saul of Tarsus: “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.” Acts ix. 5. So actual is this oneness of the body that Jesus felt the pain of the stones which smote Stephen, and that not by sympathy, but actually. One does not speak of sympathizing with the pain caused by injury to one’s hand or eye; one feels that injury. Doubtless the joint suffering relates chiefly to spiritual maladies; and it is beyond question that the spiritual healthfulness of any part of the body is dependent largely upon the well-being of the whole. (2) That this body could not begin to exist before the exaltation of Christ and the descent of the Holy Spirit. This appears from the collation of all the passages. The first mention of the ekylea is in Matt. xvi. 18, “Upon this rock I will build my church.” These words are the declaration of a purpose in the future. Christ did not say, I have been building my church; nor, I am building my church; but, “I will build my church.” Eph. i. 20-23, where the order is, first, the exaltation of Christ to the right hand of the Father that all things might be beneath Him (verses 20, 21); and, secondly, the giving of Him to be “head over all things to the church, which is his body” (verses 22, 23). A church before the death of Christ would have been an unredeemed church; a church before His resurrection would have been a church without the indwelling Spirit (John xx. 22); and a church before His exaltation would have been a headless body. Our Lord indeed gathered a precious company of disciples and prepared them to become the first members of His body; but, since the church is formed by the baptism with the Spirit, there could have been no church before Pentecost. This further appears from a careful study of Eph. iv. 8-16. In this passage the order is again clear. First, the Lord “ascended” upon high; secondly, He “gave gifts unto men”—apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (verses 8, 10, 11): thirdly, these “gifts” (see also 1 Cor. xii. 4-11, 28) are “for the building up of the body of Christ” (verse 12); fourthly, this work of building up the body looks toward a definite end—toward completeness: “Till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” Let it be noted that the consummation here spoken of is not personal, but corporate; not till each believer attains, but till “we all attain,” etc. The time will come, in other words, when this body of Christ will be complete, lacking no “member,” and that of necessity will mark the end of the present dispensation and the beginning of the next. This consummation is called (Rom. xi. 25) “the fullness of the Gentiles” and is marked, prophetically, by the great passage, Thess. iv. 14-18. It is this church against which the gates of Hades shall never prevail. Matt. xvi. 18. It remains to consider “the church which is His body” in its varied relationships and mission. (1) The church is a part of the kingdom of God, but is not the kingdom of God—of it, but not the whole of it, precisely as the kingdom of Saxony is in the German Empire, or as Pennsylvania is in the United States. It would be inexact to speak of the kingdom of Saxony and the German Empire as equivalent expressions, though both of those bodies politic have much in common—language, literature, laws, supreme head, etc. So the church is in the kingdom of God, but not coextensive with the kingdom. The kingdom of God includes all moral intelligences in every age and every sphere which are willingly subject to the divine authority. This appears sufficiently from Heb. xii. 22, 23: “But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.” CHURCH. 423 (2) The “church which is His body” is not before the mind of the Spirit in the parables and other teachings of our Lord concerning “the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.” Matt. xiii. 11. See “Kingdom.” The sphere of profession in the widest sense, during the present age, is the subject of those parables. Doubtless the “children of the kingdom” (Matt. xiii. 38) are the individuals who, by baptism with the Spirit, are Formed into the body of Christ; but the body, as such, is in no way the subject of the “mystery” of the kingdom of heaven. For the body is itself a distinct “mystery” (Eph. iii. 1-11), the unfolding of which was committed to the Apostle Paul. It is a striking fact that while the church is mentioned but three times in the Gospels, and but nineteen times in the Acts, the word occurs sixty-two times in Paul’s Epistles. Notre. A “mystery” in Scripture is the first revelation of something previously hidden in the divine counsels and never before revealed. ‘The Old Testament, for example, contains the revelation of a kingdom to be set up on earth under the kingship of ‘Immanuel,’ God’s Son and David’s Son, which is described as both visible and spiritual—of the earth by locality, of the heavens by spirit. But the Old Testament Scriptures did not reveal what form that kingdom would take during the period to intervene between the first and second advents of the King. Our Lord Himself delivered that revelation in Matt. xiii. and speaks of it as the ‘mysteries of the kingdom of heaven,’ so the ‘mystery” of the ‘one body’ was ‘not made known unto the sons of men’ in other ages, but ‘is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.” Eph. iii. 5. (8) The “church which is his body” is related to the kingdom of heaven as it will be set up at the second coming of Christ, as the late Queen of Great Britain is related to that kingdom, namely, as being the bride of the King (Eph. v. 29-32; 2 Tim. ii. 12; Rev. v. 10), and so associated with Him in tule. It cannot be too clearly held that the work of God in this dispensation is not the gathering of subjects of the coming kingdom, but the out-calling of the eelestes, the co-ruler with Christ of the coming kingdom. Individually the “many members” are by birth both royal and priestly, but the millennial authority is corporate rather than personal. Eph. v. 30, 31 (“For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh” is quoted from Gen. ii. 23, 24, and connects therefore with Gen. i. 26-28, the central idea of which is joint dominion. But the church is related to the coming kingdom in that “the bride, the Lamb’s wife,” is also the “new” or “holy” Jerusalem. Rev. xxi. 2, 3, 9-27. The distinctive glory of the ancient Jerusalem was that it was “the city (or capital) of the great king” (Matt. v. 35; P sa. cxxxv. 21; Isa. ii. 3), and that it contained the Temple (Psa. xviii. 29; cxxii. 6, 9). Both these distinctions meet in the church, the heavenly Jerusalem. It is “the tabernacle of God” (Rev. xxi. 2, 3), and the “Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.” It is not at all that the earthly Jerusalem is done away during the kingdom age, but that the church, the Lamb’s wife, the heavenly Jerusalem, is over it, as both the place and the means of the manifestation of God who dwells in it. The “church which is his body” is related to God as temple and habitation. Eph. ii. 19-21; 1 Pet. ii. 4-7; 2 Cor. vi. 16. Here we are brought into the most intimate connection with Old Testament type and prophecy concerning Christ. For, while the Old Testament vision does not see the church, it does see Christ as the fulfiller of all the great types—the association of the church with His sufferings and glories, and with the mystery of His person, being reserved for the New Testament revelation. The Tabernacle (and afterward the Temple, which was but the Tabernacle made permanent) was primarily the place of Jehovah’s abode among His people. Ex. xxv. 8; xxix. 43-46; Lev. xxvi. 11, 12; 2 Kings xi. 13; Eph. ii. 22. Secondly, the Tabernacle, or Temple, was a house of worship. Eph. ii. 21; 1 Pet. ii. 5; Heb. xiii. 15, 16. Here the figure changes. Seen as one body with Christ the church is a habitation of God, and also His temple, spiritual house. Seen as “many members” (1 Cor. xii. 20), the church is “an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. In other words, the “many members” of the one body are an hierarchy of priests, of which Jesus Christ is the High Priest. The stones of the “spiritual house” are “living stones” and utter the praises of the God who abides in that house. It is as if every stone of Solomon’s Temple had broken out with praise and prayer. The manner of God’s possession of the “spiritual house” which is His temple and habitation is “through the Spirit.” The Spirit builds the house (1 Cor. xii. 12, 13) and then takes up His abode in it (Eph. ii. 22) as the manifestation of God. The Spirit is the holy cementer of the living stones to each other and to the “head of the corner,” Christ; and the Spirit animates each stone with praise and prayer. The relationships of the church to Christ have already, of necessity, been indicated, but may be briefly repeated. Corporately, the church is “his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” Eph. i. 23. A body is for service and for manifestation. Every “member” is united to the body in a specific and not in an indefinite way. 1 Cor. xii. 12-27. That is to say, each “member” is assigned in the divine will to the exercise of a specific function in the service of the Head. Cor. xii. 4-11. These functions are called ‘gifts”; and with such designation to specific function goes, as part of the ‘‘off,’ an enablement or ‘manifestation of the Spirit.” Cor. In true Christian service, therefore, nothing is left to self-pleasing or self-will. We serve the Head, whose members we are, when we take joyfully the place assigned us, ministering there as He may direct. The foot must not try to do the work of the hand. The body is also for manifestation. By His incarnation the Word, who had previously been invisible to men, became visible by His human body. John i. 14; 1 John i. 1. 2. precisely so, in the divine will and intent, “the church which is his body” is charged with the marvelous privilege of making Him still visible to men. 1 Pet. ii. 9, R. V.; Gal. ii. 20; Phil. i. 21; John ix. 5, with Matt. v. 14. The church is the bride of Christ. Eph. v. 29-32; 2 Cor. xi. 2; Rev. xix. 6-9. Since the divine thought of marriage is absolute identification, absolute oneness, it is obvious that the eternal state of the church is that of Christ Himself. Eph. v. 30; i. 6; John xvii. 10, 16, 21-24. Upon the relation of “the church which is his body” to the world, Scripture is absolutely silent. It may, therefore, be said that the church, corporately, has no relations to the world. (See “World.”) It should be needless to add that a large and most important body of teaching has to do with the individual Christian and the world. This will be shown elsewhere. Note. Since the gift of evangelist is one of the gifts for the upbuilding of the body of Christ, and since that body can grow only by winning “members” from the world, it may be said differently that the relation of “the church which is His body” to the world of mankind is a missionary relation — to save men out of the world. But this mission is, in a purely biblical sense, the mission not of the body, corporately considered, but of each individual Christian. (7) The relation of “the church which is his body” to the heavenly inhabitants is, in grace, so exalted as almost to stagger faith. Not until we see that this dispensation is distinguished from all past and all future dispensations by the reign of grace (Rom. v. 21) (see “Grace”), is it possible to receive this truth. (a) The church is related to the Old Testament saints as a bride is related to the “friends” of her bridegroom. This is clearly stated by John the Baptist, the last of the Old Testament saints: “He that hath the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.” John iii. 29. Abraham was called “the friend of God.” Jas. ii. 23; Isa. xli. 8. (6) No passage speaks of the relation of the church corporation. Recently to the angels, but it may be surely derived by inference from Heb. ii. 12, where eklesza is the inspired rendering of the Hebrew gahal in Psa. xxii. 22. This quotation from Psa. xxii. indicates how the Old Testament, while not mentioning the church, yet leaves room for it. For certainly the church, and not Israel, is meant in Ps. xxii. 22, for this part of the psalm is not only messianic, but unmistakably post-resurrectional. Furthermore, the passage is quoted in Heb. ii. 12 to show Christ’s oneness with the church. It follows that not only individual Christians, but the church corporately is brought into the position of the Son Himself as described in the first and second chapters of Hebrews. These chapters have been called by Dr. A. T. Pierson ‘the inspired philosophy of the plan of salvation.’ Briefly, the doctrine is that the Son of God was ‘‘better than the angels” as being Himself ‘‘God” and ‘‘Lord.” i. 8, 10. In incarnation He entered humanity, which was ‘‘made a little lower than the angels” (ii. 7), that He might save men. Having saved them, He brings them into His own primal position, ‘‘for both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one” (ii. 11); whereupon follows His triumph ‘‘in the midst of the church” (ii. 12), which is thus associated with Him above the angels. (c) The relation of the church to future judgments is still measured by her identification with Christ. 1 Cor. vi. 2, 3. So far, then, from becoming the subjects of future judgments, the ‘‘ “Many members” of Christ’s body are associated with Him in judgment. III. DEFINITION. In this sense, the church is formed of regenerate persons, vitally united to Christ and to one another by the baptism with the Spirit, so that a new body is forming of which the risen and glorified Christ is the Head, and all true believers of this dispensation are the members of which the human body is the figure and type. Secondly, the second sense in which the word church is used in Scripture is to designate a local church. Matt. xviii. 17; Acts viii. 1, 35; Acts viii. 1, 22; Acts viii. 1, 22; Acts viii. 1, 22; Rom. xviii. 1; Acts 1, 1; 2 Cor. i. 2; Phil. iv. 15; Col. iv. 15, 16; 1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. i. 1; 1 Tim. v. 16; Phil. 2; Jas. v. 14; 3 John 6, 9, 10; Rev. ii. 1, 8, 12, 18; assistant bd | I. The Word. In this sense, the word church stands commonly for all the professed believers in a place, as “the church which was at Jerusalem” (Acts viii. 1); “the church which is at Cenchroea” (Rom. xvi. 1); “the church of the Thessalonian” (1 Thess. In the church in Thyatira (Rev. ii. 18). But even in the early apostolic period this custom was not invariable, for Paul, writing to the Corinthians, sends the greetings of “Aquila and Priscilla.... with the church that is in their house.” 1 Cor. xvi. 19. Explanatory Remarks. The development of church order. The story of the development of the local church is gathered by inference from the Acts and Epistles. So gathered, two errors of men concerning church order are at once refuted. The first is the notion that the apostolic local churches were modeled in organization upon the synagogue. Doubtless resemblances may be traced, as the synagogue itself has shadowy resemblances to things in ancient Israel. But the synagogue organization was perfectly familiar to the church at Jerusalem, and yet that church consisted of thousands of believers before there was even the most rudimentary organization; when, at last, the work of administering the charity of the church became a burden beyond reason to the apostles, they based the direction to “choose seven men of good report,” etc., not upon synagogue analogy, but upon the reason of the matter. Acts vi. 1-4. The second error is that the Acts and Epistles contain such a doctrine concerning church organization as constitutes a binding rule, a new and rigid Leviticus. One body of believers, for example, erect the statement that the disciples at Troas came together on the first day of the week to break bread, into a law that all disciples everywhere should meet every Lord’s day for that purpose. Surely a broad generalization from one instance! What seems clear from a consideration of all the passages is that gradually the normal local church organization included elders and deacons. “Bishops” and elders seem: identical. Titus i. 5; compare verse 7. It should be added that both the elders and deacons. ate in the apostolic churches were plural. There is no instance of one elder in a local church. The functions of the elders were (1) to rule (1 Tim. iii. 4, 5; v. 17); (2) to guard the body of revealed truth from perversion and error (Titus i. 9); (3) to “ oversee” the church as a shepherd his flock (Acts xx. 28, where “feed” is literally to “tend as a shepherd”; John xxi. 16; Heb. xiii. 17; 1 Pet. v. 2). Elders were: (1) ordained (Greek, chetrotoneo, which may mean either “to create or appoint by vote,” or “to elect, appoint, create,” Thayer) by the apostles (Acts xiv. 23); or (2) they were so “ordained” by men appointed by an apostle (Titus i. 5); or (3) were made overseers by the Holy Spirit (Acts xx. 28), an expression which is not explained unless that explanation is in Peter’s phrase (1 Pet. v. 2), “Taking the oversight thereof”; in which case it might mean that the Ephesian elders were so evidently in possession of the gift of government (1 Cor. xii. 28), and of the qualifications afterward defined in the Epistles to Timothy and to Titus, that without note or apostolical appointment they “took” The oversight, etc. This seems far-fetched as interpretation, and is open to the objection that such a practice would fill the eldership with the most pushing, conceited, and self-seeking persons in the churches. The deacons seem to have been concerned with the offices of comfort and charity rather than with those of oversight, and to have been chosen by the people. Acts vi. 1-6; 1 Tim. iii. 8-13. It should be added that appointment to office in the apostolic church was with the laying on of the hands of the apostles (Acts vi. 6; xiii. 3; 2 Tim. i. 6) or of the presbytery or eldership (1 Tim. iv. 14). But a distinction of first importance to a correct understanding of the New Testament local church is that between office and ministry. Office was by appointment, ministry was by gift of the Spirit. Philip, one of the seven first deacons of the church in Jerusalem, is a sufficient illustration of this distinction. By office he was a deacon; by gift, an evangelist. Acts vi. 5; xxi. 8. No doubt the appointment to office was, so long as the churches were spiritual, the recognition of spiritual gifts and graces in the men appointed, but nothing is more outstanding than that in the New Testament churches ministry was absolutely free. The abiding ministry gifts are enumerated in Eph. iv. 11: “And he gave some apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.” These, it should be observed, are not gifts of the Spirit to men, as in 1 Cor. xii., but gifts of Spirit-gifted men for the church. “They belong to the whole “church which is his body.” No instance is found of the ordination of a prophet, or of an evangelist, or of a pastor and teacher “over” any local church, though local churches were ministered to by them (Acts xi. 19-28), and often for Years continuously. The laying on of hands was either for the impartation of spiritual gift (2 Tim. i. 6; 1 Tim. iv. 14), or for setting apart to office (Acts vi. 6). It should also be noted that, as ministry was by the Spirit and was free, so the ordering of place, time, and method in service was poor under the free authority of the Spirit. Acts xiii. 1-4; xvi. 6-10. It remains to add that the New Testament knows nothing of a priesthood other than the priesthood of all believers under the High-priesthood of Christ; nothing of a “clergy” as forming a body distinct from the “laity”; nor anything of certain men set apart to baptize and to administer the Lord’s supper, though doubtless it would be within New Testament liberty to designate one or more for these purposes. Ili. Derision. A local church is a body of professed believers on the Lord Jesus Christ, living usually in one locality, who assemble themselves together, especially on the Lord’s day, in His name, for the breaking of bread, worship, prayer, testimony, and discipline. Thirdly. The word church is used in the plural to designate a group, or groups, of local churches. Acts ix. 31; xv. 41; xvi. 5; Rom. xvi. 4; 1 Cor. xi. 16; xiv. 34; xvi. 1, 19; 2 Cor. viii. 1, 18, 19, 23, 24; xii. 13; Gal. i. 2, 22; 1 Thess. ii. 14; Rev. i. 7. This use of the word can require neither definition nor explanatory remarks. These Groups, as “the churches of Galatia,” “the churches of the Gentiles,” etc., had no form of — organization by which they were united together within territorial or doctrinal limitations. All such arrangements are post-apostolical. In the Acts and Epistles such groupings are merely colloquial and for convenience of reference. Note. It would be wholly apart from the scope of these studies to inquire how far it is within New Testament liberty to form local churches into associations, conferences, presbyteries, etc. Such discussions are legitimate, no doubt, but have no connection with biblical word studies. The Scriptures know nothing of a “church” made up of many local churches united by peculiarities of doctrine, ecclesiastical order, or territorial convenience. Fourthly. The word church is used to designate the visible church or body of professed believers without reference to locality or number. Acts xii. 1; Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. iv. 17; vii. 17; xi. 16; xiv. 33, 34; xvi. 9; 2 Cor. xi, 28; xi. 13; Gal. i, 13; Phil. iii. 6; 2 Thess. i. 4; Rev. ii. 13. I, Expianatory Remarks. The visibility of the church in the sense now under consideration is evident from the fact that Paul “persuaded” and “wasted” it. It is this visible church which is the subject of much of the prophetic portions of the Epistles. The history of this visible and outward “church” is told prophetically in the message to the seven churches in Asia, in Rev. ii. and iii. Seven phases of that history are presented. The message to Ephesus gives the average state of the “church” at the close of the apostolic period. This is followed by the “Smyrna” period. Covering the great persecutions and ending with the conversion of Constantine. Then follows the “Pergamos” phase, marked by settling down in the world, “where Satan’s throne is” (Rev. ii. 13), incipient priestly assumption; and all this along with much creed making. The Pergamos phase develops into “Thyatira,” which is the papacy of the dark ages. “Sardis” stands for the Protestant reformation, which at the last exists in two aspects, “Philadelphia” or faithfulness, and “Laodicea” or self-satisfaction and lukewarmness. Rev. ii. 1-29; iii. 1-22; 2 Pet. ii., iii.; 2 Tim. iii. 1-8; iv. 3, 4; 1 Tim. iv. 1-3; 2 Thess. ii. 3; Luke xvii. 26-30; Matt. xxiv. 37-42. Notr. Much is said concerning the “mission of the church.” The “church which is his body” has for its mission to build itself up until the body is complete (Eph. iv. 11-16; Col. ii. 19), but the visible church, as such, is charged with no mission. “The commission to evangelize the world” is personal, and not corporate. Matt. xxviii. 16-20; Mark xvi. 14-16; Luke xxiv. 47, 48; Acts i. 8. So far as the Scripture story goes, the work of evangelization was done by individuals called directly of the Spirit to that work. Acts viii. 5, 26, 27, 39; xiii. 2, etc. Churches (Phil. iv. 15) and individuals (Acts xvi. 14, 15; Rom. xvi. 6, 23; 2 Tim. i. 16, 17) helped on the work of these men, but there is no trace of any corporate responsibility attaching to ‘the church.’’ Doubtless the local church may be called upon by the Spirit to ‘separate’ individuals to that work, as at Ephesus. Acts xiii, I-3. 