In This Issue

• "ELI, ELI, LAMA SABCHTHANI"
• "LITERAL" COMPARED AND CONTRASTED WITH "BY MEANS"
• UPCOMING GOSPEL MEETING SCHEDULE
• MORE INFORMATION...

"ELI, ELI, LAMA SABCHTHANI"

The day Jesus was crucified, "from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabchthani?’ that is, ‘My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?’ Some of those who stood there, when they heard that, said, ‘This man is calling for Elijah!’ Immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and gave it to Him to drink. The rest said, ‘Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to save Him.’ Jesus, when He had cried out again with a loud voice, yielded up His spirit" (Matt. 27:45-50).

With these brief words, Matthew sums up his account of the death of Jesus, the Son of God. The other three accounts of the death of Jesus add several details that Matthew omitted. There was a total of seven different utterances Jesus made as He hung upon the cross. Matthew records only one those utterances.

Jesus spoke Hebrew -- literally, the Aramaic dialect, the language commonly spoken by most Jews in the area of Palestine at that time. Matthew translated the Lord’s words into Greek, the common language of most of the world in the time of Jesus’ sojourning on the earth. The English translators have put those same thoughts into our language, so that we know Jesus was saying, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

It is also important to know that these exact words had been foretold by King David in the 22nd Psalm -- about 1,000 years before Jesus spoke them! Psalm 22 gives a word picture of the crucifixion, describing the abuse Jesus would undergo. It foretold the piercing of His hands and feet. It foretold that His tormentors would cast lots for His clothing. It foretold that Gentiles would turn to Him. Verse 26 of that psalm even suggested the concept of eternal life. What a marvelous proof of the inspiration of the Scriptures!

One more interesting thing about our text in Matt. 27 -- those in the crowd who did not understand the Aramaic dialect thought Jesus was calling Elijah. The Old Testament prophet Elijah had not died, but had gone into heaven bodily, 2 Kings 2:11. Centuries later, the prophet Malachi foretold that "Elijah" would appear before the coming of the Messiah, Mal. 4:5. Most of the Jews of Jesus’ day looked for a literal fulfillment of that promise. They thought Elijah himself would leave heaven and return to the earth. Thus they hesitated to see if perhaps now would be the time when that ancient prophet would reappear. Jesus, however, instructs us that Malachi’s prophecy was fulfilled in John the Baptist, who came "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke 1:17).

--CRJ

"LITERAL" COMPARED AND CONTRASTED WITH "BY MEANS"

[Editor’s Note: We submit the following article for the consideration of our readers. We believe the author carries several of his illustrations to the extreme. (He would probably agree, probably did so purposely.) And we are not in total agreement with the application he makes of every passage of Scripture he cites, but overall we believe the article to be worthy of consideration, and perhaps helpful in studying a subject usually described as difficult. --CRJ]

It is right and good that brethren are showing a renewed interest in a study of the manner in which the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian. It is an important subject and we ought to shed all the Divine light upon it that we are able to find before drawing our conclusions too quickly or too firmly. Neither the love of brethren nor the fear of foes ought to deter us from the task of seeking the truth of the matter if it can be found. Every argument ought to be carefully examined. The words that we use ought to be sifted carefully before we hastily discount or accept the arguments that even sound brethren make.

Among those who would encourage us to believe that the Holy Spirit "literally" dwells in us is at least one who has argued (among other things) that His "personal" indwelling would be the most "literal" meaning of the word used in the New Testament to describe His indwelling. He argues that, since this is the simplest and least complicated idea associated with the idea of "dwelling" it ought to be accepted at face value. He is a good man and a brother in Christ. His arguments were presented so well and with such conviction it almost pains us to have to seize them from him.

We do not have the space, in this brief article, to argue the case for the Holy Spirit’s indwelling of the Christians by means of the word that He inspired men to write except to say that it can be shown that every act of the Holy Spirit upon men living today is accomplished by means of the Word of God which is the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:17). For example, He strengthens "by his Spirit in the inner man" (Eph. 3:16) by means of the Word (Psalm 119:28); sanctifies us (1 Thess. 2:13) by means of His Word (John 17:17); and dwells in us (Rom. 8:9) by means of the Word (Gal. 3:2, 14; 4:6). Several other examples could be given. Although many of those among us who maintain that the Spirit’s indwelling is direct and personal do not proceed any further, some cannot seem to refrain from supposing that He must be providing some sort of guidance, comfort, or support by means of His indwelling that is in addition to what He provides by means of the Word. Herein is the danger. The Scriptures already make us complete and thoroughly furnish us unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The knowledge provided by the Word of God gives us "all things that pertain unto life and godliness" (2 Pet. 1:3). One brother has so missed this important point that he suggested the following to me: "Where the Bible speaks, speak. Where the Bible is silent, listen to the Holy Spirit."

It may be that some are extending the meaning of the word "figurative" a bit too far when they use it to speak of things that are done by means. Things are "literally" done even though they have been by means of some instrument. The world is literally reproved of sin (John 16:8) when the Holy Spirit uses His sword, the Truth, to point it out to them (2 Tim. 3:16). Noah built an ark. Did he literally build it? Yes. Did he employ means? No doubt. He likely used a hammer and other tools. I recently flew. Did I literally fly? I suppose you could say that I did. But I did so BY MEANS of an airplane. David killed Uriah the Hittite. Did he literally kill him? Yes. In a sense. Uriah was literally dead when it was over. Did David directly kill him? No. Did David kill him by means? Yes. By means of the sword. Did David kill him by means of his own sword? No. He did so by means of the sword of the children of Ammon (2 Sam. 12:9). Herod the king killed James the brother of John. Did he literally kill him? Yes. By what means? By the sword (Acts 12:2). Abraham dug a well (Gen. 21:30). Did he literally dig it? You could say so. Did he dig it directly and without means or did he use a shovel or some such tool? Did he dig it himself with a shovel or did he have his servants dig it? Actually, it seems that his servants dug it (Gen. 26:18-22). Later, Isaac re-dug the well, along with others, after the Philistines had stopped it. But he did so by means of his servants’ hands (Gen. 26:18-22, 25). I will go out on a limb and assert that they probably used shovels. David killed Goliath. By what means? By means of a sling and a stone. We are to purify our hearts (James 4:8). By what means? By means of the word of God (1 Pet. 1:22).

If I convey an idea to another person you might ask, "By what means did he convey that idea?" The answer would be, "By means of words." The fact that I conveyed an idea by means of written or spoken words does not make that conveyance "figurative." If instrumentality is truly figurative then we seem to use more figurative language than literal when we speak of the actions of people. Just think for a moment at all of the miscommunication that would occur every day if we believed that all things done by people must generally be assumed to be "literally" done as opposed to "by means:"

The above examples are all to show us that we regularly recognize that things done by means are things literally done. When David wrote, "...they have digged a pit before me..." (Psa. 57:7) he was using strictly figurative language. (See also Psa. 94:13; 119:85; Jer. 18:20, 22). When Ezekiel wrote, "...I digged through the wall with mine hand..." (Ezek. 12:7) he was using strictly literal language.

If a deed done by means is truly done "figuratively," then what figure of speech is employed? Instrumentality is not strictly metonymy, simile, parable, fable, hyperbole, or any other recognized figure. Maybe it would clarify the matter to speak of whether or not the Spirit’s indwelling is direct or by means, rather than whether it is literal or figurative. D.R. Dungan was not contrasting "literal" with "instrumentality" when he said, "All words are to be understood in their literal sense, unless the evident meaning of the context forbids. Figures are the exception, literal language the rule; hence we are not to regard anything as figurative until we feel compelled to do so by the evident import of the passage. (Hermeneutics, pg. 184). He is likely contrasting "literal" with "figurative" in a more specific sense. By the way, did D.R. Dungan write the book on hermeneutics? Do you accept the notion that he was considering instrumentality a figure and that we should always assume a thing to be literal in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, then you will have to either say he "figuratively" wrote the book by means of a pen or that he "literally" wrote the book with his bleeding finger.

--Tim Nichols, Matters of THE Faith, Vol. 7, No. 3

MORE INFORMATION...