 |  |
above all principalities and powers", &100:, and the new Jerusalem on a lower plane. He
says, let us repeat: "The celestial Jerusalem must be one of the on-heavenly `things' of
Ephesians, until it descends."
Moreover, in referring to Phil. 3: 20, our critic seeks to show that the destiny of
those spoken of is heaven, the "second sphere" which, according to his interpretation, is
the same as the "super-heavenlies", the "third sphere". After quoting Phil. 3: 20,
Col. 1: 5, and Col. 4: 1, where "heaven" is used, he continues:--
"Can language be plainer than this? The citizenship of the Philippians saints was not
above the heavens, but belonged to them."
It is then very evident that our critic opposes our attempted distinction. We will,
however, let him explain still further. In an introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews, he
writes as follows:--
"The book of the Hebrews deals with the problem of these Pentecostal believers, and
takes them back to the same position as was occupied by the patriarchs and prophets of
old, as explained in the eleventh chapter. They died in faith, not having received the
promises."
So Hebrews is written for the Pentecostal believers, and Heb. 11: takes them back to
the position of the patriarchs and prophets of old. Inasmuch, too, as in Heb. 11:, the
better country is an on-heavenly one, and intimately connected with the city called "the
on-heavenly Jerusalem" in 12: 22, and, further, as there is no so-called third sphere (the
citizenship of Phil. 3: being in the "second sphere", associated with the new Jerusalem),
then there is no essential difference between the spheres of blessing of the church of the
mystery, of Pentecostal believers, and of O.T. saints! We do not think that we
misrepresent our critic when we say that he definitely opposes us on this point.
Now comes an astonishing volte face. Commenting on Heb. 3: 1, "Partakers of the
celestial calling", he writes:--
"It is not easy, in English, to distinguish between the celestial calling here referred to,
and the `calling above' (Phil. 3: 14) of Paul's later revelation. That which is celestial as
to location is often spoken of in Ephesians, as our blessing among the celestials . . . . . the
celestial calling is from the ascended Christ, not to heaven, but from heaven. They have
no part in the calling above. Their blessings, though celestial in character, are on earth."
We can imagine the reader rubbing his eyes on coming to this passage. He might,
indeed, feel constrained to re-read the whole of the quotations, for here we have as
complete and inexplicable a contradiction as can well be found.
The Berean Expositor endorses every word of this comment on Heb. 3: 1: it is what
we have ourselves taught, and still stand for. But our critic wishes to keep both views. In
controversy with his brethren, he is zealous to prove that the calling of Phil. 3: and the
calling of Heb. 11: are both in "the second sphere". But when he is dealing only with
Scripture itself, he cannot help but teach the exact opposite of his previous statement.