BROOKLYN, N.Y., JUNE 17TH, 1916
BROOKLYN, N.Y., JUNE 17TH, 1916
Mr. J. S. Giles.
My Dear Brother, — I am glad to have your letter of May 30th, which came two days ago. In view of your explanations I believe further correspondence may be of mutual help.
As said in my previous letters, my objection has been to the published statement on page 316 of December Mutual Comfort, and I regret to have to say that my difficulty still remains, notwithstanding that you have altered it. The altered statement reads: ‘If the church (having been set up in the position of a responsible witness on earth) had not failed it could not have been translated (for its translation would have been inconsistent with the ways of God, as seen in Adam, Noah, Israel, the priesthood, David’s house, and Nebuchadnezzar)’.
[p. 121] In spite of the modifying parenthesis, I have to say that the statement is not the truth. ‘Could not have been translated’ cannot be supported by Scripture, I am confident: indeed it is contrary to the plain teaching of the Word, as I have said in former letters. The fact that it was made in other connections is no justification for a statement that is contrary to any given scripture or scriptures, as this is to John 14 and 1 Thessalonians 4.
But I know you hold to John 14 and 1 Thessalonians 4, hence I am free to speak plainly as to your words, which are contrary to these scriptures. Indeed you strongly disclaim any thought of connecting your statement with these scriptures. I quote from your letter: ‘The sentence in question you say is contrary to John 14 and 1 Thessalonians 4. I agree if it had been so used’. Here the question arises as to whether any scriptural subject can be dealt with unless the passages that deal with it are allowed to speak. If so, the establishment of error is an easy matter. Whatever the context of a scripture it is well to remember the Lord’s words, “the scripture cannot be broken”. On the other hand it is true that if contexts are ignored the Scriptures themselves at times seem contradictory, but where is the scripture that says, or even seems to say that the church, as set up in responsibility, could not be translated had it not failed?
In all I have said your contention that the church’s position of responsibility on earth is not found in the scriptures mentioned has been assumed. But as far as I understand John 14, the assembly’s responsibility on earth during the Lord’s absence is very distinctly taught there. Indeed that whole section of the gospel (chapters 13 to 17) has in view the preparation of the saints for this very thing. Judas’ betrayal and Peter’s denial of the Lord undoubtedly point to certain church history — history found in Revelation 2. Such would cause a troubled heart. The Lord would assure His own and establish them in confidence in Himself “Believe also on me” implies responsibility. This is confirmed in verse 12, for the Lord says further, “He that believes on me the works that I do shall he do”, and so elsewhere in the chapter. It is in this connection we have, “I am coming again and shall receive you unto myself”. Then as to 1 Thessalonians, it would be hard to show that the church’s responsibility in some measure is not found there, and even in the very context in which the ‘rapture’ appears.
As to the church’s tenure of witness-bearing on earth, this would necessarily end at the coming of the Lord. There is no thought of the church continuing indefinitely — “till I come” was to be the limit. The Lord’s coming was not contingent on the church’s failure. Besides her position was essentially different from those who witnessed before her (Adam, Noah, Israel, etc.); they were indigenous to their environment; she is an exotic. She belongs to heaven and must go to heaven. It is true that the Lord’s coming is a necessity now on account of the church’s failure, but this does not set aside His primary announced thought of coming for her and she reigning with Him.
I have heard from Mr. Henderson that you were in Yorkshire. I am glad you had cheer. We had a good season at our meetings here. We read in Ephesians. I hope to go to Hamilton, Ontario, for meetings in July. R.S.S. and perhaps F.L. are going to Knoxville.
You may have heard of the trouble in the firm of M——— and G———. The president had taken a large sum of money as a loan and used same for private enterprise, and this crippled the firm. A reorganisation is likely.
My wife joins in love to Mrs. Giles and yourself.
Affectionately in Christ,
James Taylor.