 |  |
As a believer in Christ who owes his all to grace, we refrain from using stronger terms
with regard to our critic's statements, but surely the capital type of "IN" and "THERE",
as well as the actual wording in the above quotation, give the lie direct to the false
criticism that implies that our use of "super-heavenly" or "far above all" indicates some
fictitious position outside and beyond the heavens altogether.
We must leave other matter for a subsequent article.
#2.
pp. 128 - 132
In our previous paper we reprinted four extracts from The Berean Expositor, two
from Volume VII published in 1917, one from Volume XI published in 1921, and one
from "Far Above All". In this paper we will consider the criticism of our teaching a
little further.
Following the statement we have already quoted from our critic, that "the Word of
God knows nothing of the so-called `three spheres'," is an extract from a concordance,
now in preparation, which is excellent. Every occurrence of epouranion-os is given and
set out that nominative, genitive, dative and accusative cases, together with number and
gender, may be readily distinguished. We are then asked to "note carefully that this term
is not confined to the prison epistles, there are as many occurrences in Hebrews alone as
in Ephesians and Philippians". Passing by the argument as to grammar, our critic
continues:--
"What possible sense can there be to the occurrences in Hebrews, if the reference is to
the `third sphere', far above the heavens?"
Now, above all things, we want to be fair. We understand these words to mean that,
inasmuch as epouranios is used of the Hebrews as well as of the church of Ephesians, the
so-called third sphere is an error, and the heavenly Jerusalem and its calling are not
essentially distinct from the calling and citizenship of the church. In order to confirm
this, however, we will again quote our critic's own words:--
"Another remarkable statement shows how loosely and blindly this argument had been
conducted. We quote: `We rejoice that God in His grace has not given us a place in the
`heavenly city' that comes down from God out of heaven . . . . ."
"But the word `heavenly' (ouranios) is never applied to this city, though it is
mis-called `the heavenly Jerusalem' in our versions. It is precisely the same word, and
the same case as in Ephesians. Only the `things' of Ephesians, until it descends. If
Ephesians speaks of a `super-heavenly' sphere, then the new Jerusalem must be
`super-heavenly' also."
It is quite clear from these two quotations that our critic opposes our interpretation,
which seeks to differentiate between the two spheres of blessing, keeping the church "far