 |  |
A Criticism.
"Weighed in the balances and found wanting."
pp. 215 - 218
In The Berean Expositor for June 1911, we published an article entitled "The
Dispensational Place of the Lord's Supper". We knew at the time that such an article
would shut many doors of service, and create a good deal of opposition and criticism.
For all this, however, we were, by grace, prepared. From time to time there have been
published articles and booklets exposing the error of our ways, which is quite natural.
For over twenty-five years, however, we have awaited a criticism of our attitude to the
Lord's Supper, written by one who held the following qualifications and beliefs:
(1)
An unshakeable belief in the inspiration of Scripture.
(2)
Freedom from sectarian bias.
(3)
Knowledge of the Greek originals.
(4)
Knowledge of dispensational truth.
Such qualifications are certainly very limiting, for while there are still some left, thank
God, who believe the inspiration of all Scripture, and still some who are free from
sectarian bias, there are not many who combine with these the two other qualifications
indicated. We felt that a criticism penned by one who possessed this fourfold
qualification would (1) either so completely expose our "error" as to demolish the
position we have occupied all these years, or (2) the method and nature of the criticism
would be so evidently self-contradictory as to leave our position unassailable. Such a
criticism at last has been published, from which we give extracts:
"If we have difficulty with the figures of speech used in connection with the Lord's
dinner, let us examine them, rather than alter what is clear and unmistakable."
To this, every true Berean must be in hearty agreement. But, the statement leads on to
the idea that the words "New Covenant" in II Cor. 3: 6 and in our Lord's own reference
are "figures of speech' and need "altering" if we are not to be misled.
"Paul speaks of being the dispenser of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the
spirit, for the letter is killing, yet the spirit is vivifying (II Cor. 3: 6). But Paul really had
no covenant. He simply called it that because it replaced the old covenant, and there was
no name which would so clearly express what he meant . . . . . It is the same with the
`new covenant' in which blessing will come through His blood alone. Even that was
figurative, for it is not a real covenant" (Our italics).
Here, therefore, is the criticism for which we have waited a quarter of a century. To
undermine the fundamentals of our position, any criticism must deal with the New
Covenant. Any other item is but the outside fringe of the subject, but this is vital. For an
opponent to admit that inspired Scripture actually means "The New Covenant" by the
words He Kaine Diatheke, would of course be fatal. We are consequently told that
neither our Lord nor Paul really intended what those words meant to every Jewish reader.
"Paul really had no covenant." "It is not a real covenant." We must also modify our