The Christadelphian Bible Journal
May 2003 Volume 1 Number 5
In Psalm 34:7-8, the Lord teaches of the deliverance that is available for saints through His encamping Angel: "The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them. O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him." The following account is, we believe, one such case wherein this activity is revealed. It should move all of us to better appreciate the ways of Providence.
The workday commenced like most any other for our brother. Much of it was simple daily routine he had become all too familiar with over the years. He saw a few clients, and performed service functions on their equipment. Little did he know that this day would be different. It would turn out to be a very sobering day in the Divine Classroom.
Our brother had been servicing equipment atop a platform. As he was seated on a bench, all of a sudden the right rear leg cleared the edge of the stage. He immediately fell backwards. Falling about four feet, he landed first on his upper right shoulder, then neck, and tumbled down a short flight of stairs. The rather heavy bench followed landing on top of him. Lesser falls have killed many, especially at his age. Facing imminent peril and with absolutely no way to break the fall, he was not thinking of the encamping Angel. No, the events were unfolding too rapidly. Instead, his mind flashed upon the likelihood that this would be it for him, and that spiritually he was not prepared for the resurrection to judgment.
To his utter amazement, he survived the fall. For a few minutes he sat on the floor, dazed and aching terribly. As he slowly got up he wondered why the Lord had not terminated his probation. Sure would have been an opportune time. Could it be there was unfinished business? Must have been. Not only had the Elohim wrought deliverance that was nothing short of miraculous, but our brother also learned a vital lesson in the process.
Indeed, he now understood that there was much more work to be done in order to make his calling and election sure. In order to provide for this, the Deity had mercifully afforded him another day to work out his salvation with renewed dedication. One more day in the Divine Classroom. -Bob Widding
SELECTED LETTERS
("Resurrectional Responsibility" 1/03)
Dear Bible Journal:
Another question for you about your resurrectional responsibility article. Some have suggested that the word "commandeth" in Acts 17:30-31, should be rendered, "invite," or "invitation," and conclude that since, therefore, no command is present for Gentiles to obey the call of the Gospel these enlightened people are not under any law or command whatsoever to be judged by, as you have claimed from Romans 2:12, 16. This appears to take some of the force out of your argument. Any thoughts? - A.B.
[COMMENT: The KJV translation of both "command," and "judge," in Acts 17:30-31, is supported by several versions including: the Diaglott, NIV, Moffatt, Rotherham, RV, RSV, NEB, NKJV, JB, MJV, and WNT. We would add to this the following remarks from an elder brother.
"We are still in [the] dispensation, when this command [of Acts 17:30-31] is going forth. God, through His people and His Word, is commanding all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day -- now very soon to come -- when He will judge the world. And, like Paul, 'knowing the terror of the Lord (when He is mocked), we persuade men.' When this command of his sovereign Lord reached a man and is comprehended as such, he is 'under law,' and will be called to account. When analyzed, the way this Scripture is treated by those who deny the resurrectional responsibility of enlightened rejecters very much strengthens its power and truth. Two words are attacked: 'command' and 'judge.' 'Command' is changed to 'invite,' and 'judge' is changed to 'rule.' But this is not faithful interpretation. The word here translated 'command' does mean command and nothing else. It occurs 34 other times. In 33 of them it is translated 'command' and in most if not all of them, it would make an absurdity to substitute 'invite,' as when the rulers of the Jews said to the disciples: 'Did we not straightly COMMAND you not to teach in this name?' In the one other occurrence, the AV translates it 'declare,' but the RV rightly corrects this to 'charge'...(1 Cor. 11:17.) Consider all the 35 passages where this word occurs, and it will be clearly perceived that if we destroy the meaning of this vital word, 'command' just to bolster an unscriptural theory, we shall have destroyed much of the New Testament's authority as a divine rule of life. If we deny it means 'command' here, we deny it mean 'command' everywhere. That is why this theory is so harmful in its consequences. It changes solemn, authoritative, divine commands to mere watered-down invitations, pleasing to the flesh truly, but fearfully dishonoring to the majesty and authority of God.
"And 'judge' (krino) does means 'judge' --and nothing else -- no matter how much the flesh dislikes, and squirms under the idea of being called into account. It occurs 113 times, and is always -- always -- translated by the word 'judge,' or a similar meaning, as: condemn, damn, determine, call in question, etc. -- never by 'rule' or any such word. And there are four other derived words: krima, krisis, kriterion, krites, that together occur 95 more times, and they are without exception rendered judge, judgment, damnation, condemnation, accusation, etc. Again, destroy the meaning of this word 'judge,' and you destroy from the New Testament the entire teaching about the judgment seat of Christ, or the judgment of God on sin at all." -ED] SELECTED LETTERS ("Providential Presence" 3/03) Dear Bible Journal:
"Another excellent article and when taken together with the previous month's one provides a lot of room for thought." -P.M. SELECTED LETTERS ("Contending for the Faith" 4/03) Dear Bible Journal:
"Yes, but what particular false teaching is being described in Jude 3 and has any Christadelphian ever espoused those ideas?" -S.C.
[COMMENT: The Deity and His Word are inseparable (Jn 1:1). Therefore, to deny any of His truths (as would be the case with grievous wolves) is to, in effect, deny Him. Perhaps we could consider Titus 1:16 and 1 Tim. 5:8 (among others texts) as having some application here? 2 Pet 2:1-22 may also provide some elaboration as to how one can deny the Lord in both conviction and conduct. -ED] Dear Bible Journal:
"I loved this: 'It has been observed that our historical perspective begins the day we are born. Thus, the reluctance upon the part of some in considering prior events to be of any current importance. However, an enlightening contrast has also been noted: To never learn of that which has transpired before our birth, is to forever remain a child. History is a great teacher. But she does not tap us on the shoulder when she wishes to tell us of her great wisdom and weighty admonitions. We have to make the effort. Sadly, for some today this is too much to expect. But its never too late to start.'
"We really enjoyed the recent Journal." -K.P. Dear Bible Journal:
"Bravo! Well done... I thoroughly enjoyed your article." -S.H.
[COMMENT: Notes of encouragement are genuinely appreciated. -ED]
Dear Bible Journal:
"Somehow I don't think you would consider me a Brother, but I will pray for you anyhow. I think you may need to reflect on the Perfect Law of Liberty, as well as the Gospel of peace. Perhaps you have forgotten who and what you are. I pray that God helps you find your way -- you sound very angry. -D.E.
[COMMENT: Thank you for your concerns expressed. Contending is not a popular subject, and one who attempts to address it even from the Biblical standpoint can, and often is, misunderstood with respect to motivation. At least this has been the experience of some. No, I am not angry, just concerned that certain quarters of Christadelphia have lost their way at some point since the Truth's revival. I can only hope and pray that brethren and sisters will consider whether or not my thoughts have any relevance to current conditions. Each person must decide for himself.-ED]