• About this site

 Baptism

• About this site

 Sketches of Jewish Social Life

• About this site

The Moral Glories of Our Lord

• About this site

• About this site

John Dennison

• About this site

PETER’S CONVERSION AND CALL

When was Peter saved? Was it when Andrew brought him to the Lord Jesus, or was it when the Lord called him on the shores of the sea of Galilee to become a fisher of men?

The mission of John the Baptist was, amongst other things, to “make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:15)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:15), and, no doubt, Peter, Andrew and the rest of the apostles were all disciples of John, having been baptized by him with the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, waiting for the One that was to come. Accordingly, when these prepared ones came in contact with the Lord, they were ready to receive Him as Messiah. In John i, when Andrew brought Peter to the Lord, He did not call him to repentance or faith, for he did already in a manner believe on Him, but gave Him his new name, anticipating the moment when He would build him as a living stone into His Church. This was only the prelude to the scene on the sea of Galilee.

Thus Peter was called by John to repentance and faith in the one coming after him; then by the Lord to a place in His Church, and later to His service. We apply the word “saved” to everyone who has received Christ as personal Saviour, though the word carries with it more than forgiveness, namely, deliverance to and from. Peter could not receive Christ in above sense till the Lord was revealed to Israel, but no doubt all the true disciples of John, though they did not form part of the Church till Pentecost, were saved persons; they were of the people of God, His own, in a very real sense. In this sense Peter was a saved person before he was introduced to the Lord by Andrew, for he had been already introduced to Him by John the Baptist and had doubtless believed on Him as the One “who should come after him” (Acts 19:4)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 19:4), as indeed did the Old Testament saints in a minor degree. The Lord knew him by name and was now calling him out of the Jewish fold, to belong to His flock.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Joshua 7:21." TARGET="_blank">Joshua 7:21. What would the “Babylonish garment and two hundred shekels of silver and the wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight” represent? What is the teaching in this verse?

I think they would stand for what most attracts the eye and fills the heart of the natural man; for what is more desirable to the flesh than fine clothes to deck oneself withal, and gold and silver, which will purchase “everything except peace of mind, and entrance anywhere except to heaven”! “Babylonish garment” is literally “a garment of Shinar,” the locality where Babylon was built, renowned, it is said, for its beautiful robes. The word for “garment,” is from a root meaning, “wide,” hence an ample covering, a cloak. It is used of Elijah’s mantle and also of the royal robe the King of Nineveh doffed in sign of repentance (Jonah 3: 6)." TARGET="_blank">Jonah 3: 6). Gesenius says these “cloaks of Shinar” were “variegated with figures, or interwoven with various colours, having the figures of men and beasts,” reminding one of the great copes worn by ecclesiastics to-day at their religious ceremonials—true “cloaks of Shinar” those! Let all see to it, lest fine clothes, ministering to the pride of life, or silver and gold, ministering to its “many foolish and hurtful lusts,” occupy our hearts! “But thou, 0 man of God, flee these things, and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.”

W.H.

• About this site

As regards our Lord’s burial, is it right to say that, “Burial is a necessary part of our Lord’s vicarious work”?

“The Gospel includes it as we see 1 Corinthians 15: 3, 4." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15: 3, 4. Adam being guilty, the judgment of God required that he should return to the earth whence he came. The burning outside the camp of the sin- offering when its blood was taken inside the veil, points to this”

It is important to distinguish between the penal and governmental consequences of sin. The former are defined in the words of the Lord God, “In the day that thou eatest therefore thou shalt surely die.” There is no mention till later of dust returning to dust, if we must take that as the equivalent of burial, though it is more a putting out of sight, than physical dissolution. Nor indeed was physical death the death primarily referred to in the above warning: additional precautions had to be taken to ensure that, namely the prevention of access to the Tree of Life—”Now lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live forever (i.e., exist in a sin-haunted body), therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden.” Nothing of an outward physical change seems to have taken place at the Fall, but a mysterious moral gulf had appeared between the creature and his Creator; he was afraid of God and hid himself. This was spiritual death.

In verses 16 to 19, the governmental consequences of the Fall are detailed quite distinct from death. The Christian is saved from the penal consequences of sin whereas he often has to know its governmental consequences. I believe the former were exhausted at the cross as the words, “It is finished,” declare, and as the rending of the veil proves. The Lord before breathing out His spirit was now no longer forsaken of His God for He commends it to His Father.

But as the writer Mr. J. T. well says, “The forsaking would not have been a public matter, had not our Lord uttered the cry.” So the death of the body was the outward and visible sign of that other death which had the much deeper significance of separation from God. I am surprised that Mr. J. T. should understand the meaning of the burning of the sin-offering outside the camp in Lev 4" TARGET="_blank">Lev 4 as burial. The word for “burning” is “araph,” representing Divine judgment; it is Christ’s suffering under God’s righteous judgment, outside the camp.

It is difficult to conceive our Lord Jesus as under Divine judgment when with reverent and loving hands He was laid in Joseph’s tomb. We may remark that His grave with the rich man was not a penalty for sin, but, “because he had done no violence neither was there any deceit in His mouth.” It is perfectly true that Christ’s burial is an eloquent testimony to the complete setting aside of the old man; but could it be said that our Lord was buried vicariously? I trow not. It is part of “the truth of the Gospel,” but as far as I remember, is only once referred to by an apostle in any public address in the Acts, which seems to show that it is not a significant part of the Gospel for the unsaved. But the Gospel is very great and extended, and has a close application to the believer. Perhaps we would be right in saying that the cross is the refuge for sinners, the sepulchre, the receptacle for the old man— Signified by baptism; and “in Christ” risen, the residence of the new man.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

In Isaiah 53:12," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53:12, who are the “great” and the “strong”, and in what way does God “divide” to the Messiah a portion with them?

Is it not probable that we place overmuch emphasis on these three words, and that we seek to get more out of them than perhaps they are meant to convey? “Divide” seems to suggest to our minds a cutting up into so many definite shares, of which Christ gets His, and certain others get theirs. But what if we use the word “assign” as is done in Darby’s Translation, or render the clause, “I will allot to Him a portion among the mighty”, as Gesenius does in his Lexicon! Either of these is quite correct as a rendering, and at the same time does not tie up our thoughts to an actual division of something into two or more parts. This should make it clear to us that the meaning may be no more than as follows: “I will assign to Him such a spoil as is usually that obtained by the great and the strong; and I will do so in recompense for (“Therefore”) His having suffered in littleness and weakness (as pictured in v. 7, etc.), and for (“because”) His having poured out His soul unto death (middle of v. 12).
Viewed in this way, the words “great” and “strong”, which are both plurals, need not refer to any particular individuals, but to the great and strong in general. Compare how the same two words are coupled together in such passages as Isaiah 8:7;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 8:7; Joel 2:2" TARGET="_blank">Joel 2:2 and Zecheriah 8:22; the word “many” in the first and last of these being the same Hebrew word as “great” in our verse.
The translators of the Septuagint, when turning the passage into Greek, rendered the second clause. “He shall divide the spoils OF the mighty”, and left out the “with” of the first clause also; thus suggesting the meaning to be a complete triumph over all His foes, however “many” or “mighty” they were. Various commentators agree with this view of the passage. But whether we take it thus, and think of the great and mighty ones as His enemies, amongst whom He stands out pre-eminent; the basic idea in the statement is much the same—that the One who stooped so low and who suffered so much, has been given a place and an honour beyond all others.

W.R.

• About this site

What should be the attitude of those in oversight with regard to new converts who continue to attend worldly amusements, and whose manner of life shows no change?

If what the questioner means is that these so-called converts have already been received into the fellowship of the assembly, then the only fitting attitude for the leaders and others, who in such circumstances allowed them to come in, is one of humiliation before God for their negligence and sin. If, on the other hand, they are still outside the assembly, this is the place to keep them, until they show some satisfactory sign that they have become “a new creature,” in Christ, with the “old things passed away,” and “all things become new.” 2 Corinthians 5" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:

There is a regrettable lack, amongst both Gospel preachers and assemblies, of giving due emphasis to the truth that there can be no real conversion to God, without changed interests and changed conduct.

W.R.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site