16
temporary dispensational attachments and the abiding doctrinal principle. The principle that decided whether a
believer would eat or not, or whether he would observe the day or refrain, remains the same :
`For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself . . . For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and
revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living' (Rom. 14:7-9).
Not only has our brother a claim upon us by reason of our union with the risen Christ, but in verse 10 there is
another motive introduced :
`For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ' (Rom. 14:10).
Here I have rather a difficulty, for I take it that no member of the Body of Christ will stand before this judgment
seat.
B.- The difficulty is, I think, one of words rather than of realities. It may be true that no member of the Body of
Christ will ever stand before that judgment seat, just as it is most certainly true that no believer in Christ will stand
before the throne of Matthew 25 or Revelation 20; but that does not prove that there will be no scrutiny of the
believer's service simply because he is blessed on higher ground. Colossians 3 makes it clear that a principle similar
to that of Romans 14 is at work also in the dispensation of the Mystery.
`And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive
the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong
which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons' (Col. 3:23-25).
A.- Yes. The concluding clause `There is no respect of persons' seems almost to have been written to guard
against one company putting forward a claim to exemption from this searching scrutiny.
B.- What other parallels had you noted?
A.- I have been thinking a good deal of the references to `armour' in Romans and Ephesians. Romans 13:12
speaks of the `armour of light', while Ephesians 6:11 speaks of the `whole armour of God'. Romans sums up the
`armour of light' by the balancing clause `Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ', while Ephesians specifies each part of
the armour separately. The particular point, however, which I wanted to raise was that Ephesians 6:12 speaks of
`wrestling not against flesh and blood', whereas in Romans 13 `the flesh' seems very prominent. Let me read the
passage :
`The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the
armour of light. Let us walk honestly (decently), as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in
chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not
provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof' (Rom. 13:12-14).
B.- In Ephesians 6 the conflict is against `spiritual wickednesses', `principalities and powers', `rulers of the
darkness of this world', and not against `flesh and blood'. In Romans 13 it is the believer's conflict with `the flesh'
as opposed to `the spirit'; and the rioting, drunkenness, etc., that are specified are examples of what the Apostle
means. The exhortation of Romans 13 can be brought over without alteration into the present dispensation, but the
conflict of Ephesians 6 is peculiar to the Church whose blessings are `in the heavenlies'. The underlying principle
may be the same, but the dispensational features in Ephesians 6 are peculiar to the dispensation of the Mystery.
A.- I quite see your point. There are many items of practice found in Romans that may be transferred without
reserve to the present dispensation, while there are other items that belonged essentially to the dispensation that then
obtained and which have since lapsed.
We began, I remember, with widely divergent views as to the true interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans,
and I must thank you for helping me to distinguish things that differ. Before we end our discussions, it would be a
great help if you could sketch out quite briefly the relation between the various epistles, and their position with
reference to the dispensational boundary. I believe you teach that this boundary must be drawn at Acts 28. While I
no longer believe that the Church that we have in mind began at Pentecost, I have rather inclined to the view that all
Paul's epistles must be considered as a whole, and that the revelation of the Mystery of Ephesians 3 is a