Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

For some reason I suspect “prolepsis” is a new term to many. Some might wonder if they had “prolepsis” for breakfast. Hardly! I was introduced to “prolepsis” as a means of revelation in Sermon Outlines On Acts, by C. C. Crawford, published in 1919. Webster defines “prolepsis” as “anticipation.” A failure to recognize this approach to revelation is the , explanation for the existence of a modern denomination we know as the Seventh Day Adventists. In this article I am seeking to show the presence of prolepsis in revelation, so that specific application of its force might be realized.

Some Examples

When Eve was created, “Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20). However, at that moment in time only Adam and Eve comprised the race. It would be some time before she mothered the first person in perpetuation of man upon the earth. So, in anticipation (prolepsis) of that fact, Moses reveals her relation to future descendants. There was a time differential involved.

Matthew 10:2-4 is another case of prolepsis. “And Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him . . . .” Matthew wrote his record of the Gospel over thirty years after the calling of the twelve apostles. In this passage, he connects the sending out of Judas and the betrayal of Christ by Judas in one passage, as if the two events happened at the same time. In reality, they happened three years apart. In anticipation (prolepsis) of his betrayal of Christ, Matthew tells us of the ultimate end of Judas’ acts (Crawford, p. 208).

Application

Now, here is the point I wish to make. In Gen. 2:2-3, Moses reveals that God ended His work of creation and rested on the seventh day. “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it . . .” The conclusion of the modern Sabbatarian is that the resting and the sanctifying occurred at the same time. This simply is not so! From the time of God’s rest day, to the sanctification of the Sabbath, centuries passed. If this were all we knew about the consecration of the Sabbath, people in 1976 would be bound by the Scriptures to faithfully observe that day, instead of the first day of the week. However, Moses, who gave us the Genesis 2 revelation (many years after the event, incidentally), also reveals to us when the Sabbath was sanctified and for whom.

Nehemiah, the prophet, said that God came down to Mt. Sinai and inadest known unto them thy holy Sabbath” (Neh. 9:13-14). It was on this occasion that the Ten Commandments were given, one of which is “Remember the Sabbath, to keep it holy.” When He said remember the Sabbath, it is apparent that they had some knowledge of the day. Where did that knowledge come from? Why would the Jews in Exodus 20 have occasion to remember this day? Is that remembrance traceable to Genesis 2?

The first introduction the Jews had to the Sabbath was only a few weeks earlier (Exod. 16). When they murmured for food, God sent manna from Heaven to provide their need. At that time, He also gave exact instructions concerning gathering of the manna in anticipation of “the holy sabbath” (Exod. 16:23). In this context, we see at a glance that they knew nothing about the Sabbath, for with the explanation Moses gave them, some still did not understand how God intended it as a Jewish day of rest. When finally reaching Mt. Sinai, God gave them the law of the Sabbath, written on tables of stone. This positive, written law was their guide throughout their generations. It was needed because they knew nothing about the day till then!

In Deuteronomy, the restatement of the Law, Moses pointed out that this law was not given to their fathers, but to those to whom he was then speaking (Deut. 5:13). The purpose of the Sabbath was that they might remember their Egyptian bondage and their deliverance therefrom “through the mighty hand and stretched out arm” of God. Hence, as it was to commemorate the deliverance of the Jews from bondage, it has no meaning whatsoever to those of us who are Gentiles (Dent. 5:15). Thus, Moses assures them that the Sabbath was a sign between the Lord and one nation-the Jews (Exod. 31:12-17).

In Hosea 2:11, God said that He would cause Israel’s Sabbath to cease. There would come a time when men would not be bound by the Sabbath Law. But when was this done? Quite simply, the Sabbath and all the rest of the Jewish law came to its conclusion when Jesus Christ died and nailed the law to the cross (Col. 2:13-17).

Conclusion

Therefore, when Moses revealed that the creation ended, and that God rested on the seventh day, and sanctified it, he referred to the time lapse between creation and the events of Mt. Sinai. He anticipated the conclusion of the matter. This is an example of prolepsis. It is precisely the same as when God announced, in driving man from the Garden of Eden, that the seed of woman would bruise the serpent’s head. It was four thousand years later before Christ overthrew the power of Satan in His resurrection from the dead (Gen. 3:15; Matt. 28:lff). “Prolepsis” has been used by the Divine Writers throughout the giving of the Biblical record.

Truth Magazine XXI; 29, p. 461
July 28, 1977

By Irvin Himmel

It was the love of money that caused Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus. Seeing that the Jewish leaders had blood in their eyes, Judas went to the chief priests and asked, “What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you?” The agreement was that he would be given thirty pieces of silver (Matt. 26:14-16).

After Judas had served as guide to them that took Jesus (Acts 1:16), and following the realization that Jesus was condemned to die, the glitter of the money vanished. Knowing that-he had betrayed innocent blood. He returned the money to the chief priests and elders in the bitterness of remorse and regret. They were totally without sympathy. The wicked Judas, an apostate apostle, hanged himself (Matt. 27: 1-5).

It was the love of money that prompted Gehazi to run after Naaman with an evil scheme. After being healed of leprosy, Naaman wanted to give a present to the prophet Elisha. The prophet would accept nothing and urged Naaman to “Go in peace.” Gehazi was the servant of Elisha. Seeing an opportunity to get gain through deceit, Gehazi followed when Naaman started home. Naaman saw him running behind his chariot, so he stopped. Gehazi said the situation had suddenly changed just as Naaman was leaving his master’s house. Two young men of the sons of the prophets had come in from Mt. Ephraim. They needed a talent of silver and two changes of garments. Gehazi declared that Elisha had sent him to overtake Naaman and let him know that a present for these young men would be accepted. Excitedly, Naaman gave Gehazi

twice the amount of silver requested and the two changes of garments. Gehazi hid the silver and the garments.

Upon his return, Gehazi was questioned by his wise master about where he had been. Gehazi denied that he had gone anywhere. Elisha informed his lying servant that he was aware of his crooked scheme. This was no time to be taking money or other gifts from Naaman. “The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever.” Gehazi went out from his master’s presence a leper (2 Kings 5:15-27).

It is the love of money that motivates some preachers to teach falsely. Paul remarked in writing to Titus, “For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake” (Tit. 1:10-11).

Some will teach most anything if the price is right. And the threat of being fired if he dares to speak on certain subjects has silenced the preacher who loved money more than truth.

It is the love of money that makes some people miss many of the services of the church. They take the job that offers the highest pay even if they know in advance that they will be required to work when they ought to be in the assemblies of the saints. In some cases people miss services by working on Sunday when it is not a necessity at all. They work as a matter of choice. They choose work over worship because they prefer financial gain over spiritual communion and praise.

Some day we are going to learn that we can be rich and increased with temporal goods, yet in God’s sight appear “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked” (Rev. 3:17). The problem is, it may be too late when we finally learn that lesson!

It is the love of money that causes a lot of parental neglect. Mothers and fathers have no time to spend with their children. Both parents are working to bring home more dollars. It is assumed that if there is enough money, all the family problems will be solved. In the meantime, where is love? Where is the mother when daughter has a problem to discuss? Where is father when son needs special guidance and fatherly advice?

Many young people have become runaways. Others have become lawless. In a lot of cases, the lack of money did not influence them to do wrong. To the contrary, it may nave been too much in material things and not enough in true values that drove them.

It is the love of money that is behind much of what now works to destroy America. The pushers make dope addicts out of children because they want money. The liquor industry makes alcoholics by the thousands to build fatter profits. Pornography, prostitution, gambling, and organized crime have become big business in America because of the money involved. Corruption in government usually connects with payoffs.

The Bible is right when it declares that “the love of money is the root of all evil” (1 Tim. 6:10). No nation is demonstrating this Biblical truth more vividly than twentieth-century America.

Truth Magazine XXI: 29, p. 460
July 28, 1977

By Wm. B. Murrell

There has been much misunderstanding between brethren in England and brethren from the United States over the Christian and camel warfare. The purpose of this article is not to argue the right or wrong of any issue but simply to shed some light on the different attitudes in the two nations. Most brethren in England do not understand the options in America.

The citizen of the United States has now and has always had three choices. He can enter the armed services and bear arms, or he can declare himself a conscientious objector and be exempt from military service, or he can enter the armed services in a noncombatant role. The Englishman does not have this third choice; there is no middle ground. During World War I many a Christian man went to prison rather than fight in the war. Most of those who went to service either did not come back or were not faithful to the church when they returned. In World War II they were allowed to work “on the farm” or other similar work. I am told that just recently there is non-combat service offered in the British services but that it is in name only; that the noncom’s are trained in weaponry. Consequently most British Christians do not understand why so many members of the church from the States are in the armed services.

The World Book Encyclopedia, 1973 edition, page 777, says “The history of conscientious objection in the United States dates back to colonial times, when men had to serve in their colony’s militia …. In 1661, Massachusetts became the first colony to exempt conscientious objectors from service in its militia. Congress passed the first federal draft law during the Civil War. This law recognized conscientious objectors …. The 1940 draft law required religious training and belief’ . . . The 1948 draft law defined religious belief as belief in a ‘Supreme Being’ . . . . But Congress removed the term ‘Supreme Being’ in the 1967 law because the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted the term to include vaguely religious philosophies …. In 1970, the Supreme Court ruled that men may qualify for conscientious objector exemptions if they oppose war on strong ethical or moral grounds, even if such opposition is not based on religious belief.”

I suppose that among members of the church in the States there are not more than five per cent who believe that a Christian should bear arms in conflict; probably about ten or fifteen per cent who are opposed to any form of military service; and over eighty percent who believe in a Christian engaging in non-combat service. In England these last two percentages would be added together and ninety-five percent would be opposed to any form of military service. Why? Because the middle ground is not offered to them! For this reason, they do not understand the American viewpoint.

Among people who are not members of the church in the States there are few conscientious objectors, although their number has been rapidly growing in the past decade. This is not the case in England where many a man on the street is a conscientious objector and proud of it. In another quote from World Book, “Pacifist groups were most active between World War I and World War II, especially in Great Britain.” There is then a cultural difference that contributes to the lack of understanding of the English Christian toward the American Christian who is in the armed services.

The late Bennie Lee Fudge on the last page of his book ‘Can A Christian Kill For His Government?’ said, “God in his goodness has blessed us in America with the most considerate government known to man in its respect for the conscience of its citizens. It would make no difference in our duty to God, no matter what laws the civil power passed, but our Congress has provided for non-combatant service for the conscientious objector.” Oh how much you and I need to see and appreciate the many blessings we have. Most of us are too close to “home” to really appreciate them.

Truth Magazine XXI: 29, pp.459-460
July 28, 1977

By Larry Ray Hafley

One of the constant themes of W. Carl Ketcherside is that the New Testament is not a legal treatise, but that it is a series of love letters. The truth is not to be found in an “either-or” selection. The New Testament is a message of love, for God is love. The work of God is also a legal document, for God is, by His very nature, the God of authority. The confusion as to whether or not the New Testament is legality or love exists because of a prominent and prevalent misconception of the essence of love.

Love between man and God and God and man is based on the relationship of authority. The creature and His Creator-that is our status before God. God’s love for men is not syrupy sweet sentimentalism. It is not divorced from law. Christ’s death, the necessity of it, shows that God’s love was combined with His authority. It is no wonder, therefore, that we should find the word of God, “law and love combining,” as the old, beloved hymn says.

Paul wrote very authoritatively to the Corinthians. He wrote and called upon the name of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 5:4). His ultimate purpose was that they “might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you” (2 Cor. 2:4). His appeal to lawful action was not devoid of love. It was the very expression of it. So, to say that the New Testament documents are “love letters” is to beg the question of authority. Even in the area of discipline of children, the word of the Lord entwines law and love. Make your child obey the law, the rule of righteousness, because you love him, that is the consistent teaching regarding the instruction of children. It is the same with respect to our love for the Lord and for one another. Insist upon respect for Divine authority, “For this is the love of God that we keep his commandments” (1 Jn. 5:3).

Yes, it is agreed that the Scriptures are love letters. But those love letters are founded and grounded in the authority of God. “The faith that saves is the faith that obeys” (Gal. 5:6; 1 Cor. 7:19). And the obedient faith is motivated by love; it “worketh by love.” Let us hear none of the idle prattle and idiotic babble that tries to separate God’s word of law from his law of love.

You can mark this down. It is almost axiomatic. When you find someone who wants to talk about God’s love as though it were somehow on a peak above His authority, you have found someone who wants to work and worship in some area or another without Divine authority. All of this love talk is a ruse; it is a guise to hide the fact that some want to go beyond the word of God. The end in view will vary from person to person, but whoever tells you that he is in love with God’s love and tries to play down God’s law, that man is trying to get by with something for which he has no scriptural authority.

Truth Magazine XXI: 29, p. 459
July 28, 1977