Monday, September 8, 2014

A Letter a From Grampy

A letter from Grampy,
When I was a child, I thought like a child. As a child, I went about life care free. I played and
looked around me in ignorant bliss, without a care in the world. My brother and I
were adopted, but I can still remember, clear as day, my great Aunt Gaga lifting me up on her knee and reading to me out of the Bible. She read to me the story of Noah and the flood.
That stuck with me and God was real to me, even as a small child. As for Gaga reading to me From the Bible, I am so grateful.
When we were children, we took much for granted in life. We just sort of went with the FLOW in life around us. At the time, we did not have much choice, did we? Most, sort of stick with what ever lot life gives us. If ones family is Catholic, or Mormon or of little faith at all, or even Muslim, most sort of just get busy going through life and accept what ever they see in religion around them as right. Sadly, one grows up and most likely decides to go on doing the same as their family did in the area of TRADITION and RELIGION.
Without our knowing it, God has a plan for each of us to discover Him. This process is on going, and may take longer for some then it does for others. For most people, they appear to be quite happy going with the FLOW of TRADITIONS around them. They may look around them a bit and begin to WONDER about things. Maybe, after a while, begin to ask a few questions when they see something weird or strange to them. Most of the time they do not get clear and straight answers to those questions, either from their parents or from the pastors later on.
As for me, two things were stamped by God into my being that have helped me move more and more into the direction God was CALLING me into. Number one, that He EXISTED and number two, that the Bible was the INSTRUCTION book for me to learn about Him.
Early on, thankfully, that was a gift to me from God, that has more and more directed my paths around me. The Scripture formed the basis for me as to what I believe and believed in the past.
As a young adult, having finished my first college degree, and starting out in life with a young family, I was very hungry for TRUTH about God. As an adult, I really wanted to know the answer to many things about the traditions I saw around me in life. My wife and I went to
church together in a Lutheran assembly. We both served as youth leaders in the church
for several years. As I received teaching from this church and looked around at some of its teachings, many things just did not seem RIGHT to me. In fact, many things were strange to me and just did not add up right to me. I would soon learn from other relatives, that there were different ways of thinking about what TRADITIONS we should follow.  I would even get in the mail all sorts of things that I wondered about. So many traditions and so many different ways of thinking about those traditions. It seemed like I was not getting any real answers that made good since to me.
Finally one day, I sort of through up my hands and I asked God in the most sincere prayer to Him up to that point in my life.....
I asked God to REVEAL TRUTH to me about Him.  If He was really real, I asked Him to show me.
I asked Him to give me TRUE WISDOM about Him.
At that point in my life, God began to answer that prayer. It was not answered right a way.
God started me on a wonderful journey that I discovered will last me a life time.....
and beyond into the AGES a head.
I soon discovered that to be true to what God was revealing to me, I would have to buck the systems around me. I discovered that I would have to make hard choices about traditions around me that were not always pleasing to those around me in my family or job areas.
God has continued to lead me on into His WORD,  sorting out and answering more and more about God and what is TRUTH.
I soon discovered that, for the most part, most people around me were quite happy with
just going with the FLOW. They were not really interested in learning about any wonderful nuggets of truth I might discover along the path of life. I was given a great hunger to discover TRUTH.
Since most people around me were not interested in talking about traditions around them and the things about God, in 2008, I decided to reach out in the COSMOS to who ever would be INTERESTED in listening on the World Wide Web. I started a blog to pass on nuggets of knowledge about God I would be growing in.
I first began to post information about the RAPTURE that I was discovering on my journey
to UNDERSTAND that topic. I had just finished reading all the novels called "LEFT BHIND".
I discovered to my surprise, that this topic was quite controversial to most BELIEVERS.
Over time, and looking at all sides of the issue, I have finally sorted out the THINGS THAT
DIFFER in Scripture about that issue and now KNOW when and just whom the RAPTURE
Is for.
I have discovered a great truth, also. Hind sight is twenty twenty.
My first blog was called ""
It takes much time and tireless EFFORT, much prayer, and hard work to DISCOVER TRUTH!
If one was to start with my first post and read on through all my posts in order,
one will discover great information on my journey that were pieces of a puzzle leading to truth. The knowledge God is revealing in SCRIPTURE is vast and it is deep.
It is so vast and takes so much time to cover, that we soon discover that as we develop
KNOWLEDGE about a topic at certain points, we are (not always far enough along)
on our quest at any given time, to see enough pieces of the puzzle to get a clear view of the truth on that topic. There is nothing wrong with saying that we are not yet sure about certain areas or topics of study. We are learning to sort out in Scripture, THINGS THAT DIFFER. We are learning that if we really want to know the truth about any given area of study in SCRIPTURE, we must do as the Scripture says as we dig and seek out its nuggets of truth.
1. Prove all things.
2. Get all the facts before giving an answer.
3. Learn to find the context of any given Scripture .
All scripture is for us to grow in knowledge, but not all Scripture is ADDRESSED to us
directly.  Example..... Scripture might say to go out and sacrifice an animal to God.
But, that does not mean God is telling you in this AGE OF GRACE to go out and
do the same.
The above being said, you will discover that my blog posts are a record of my incomplete
journeys on discovering the truth on any given topic, rather it be on the RAPTURE,
on The second Coming Parousia, life and death, immortal life, eternity, ages, the APPEARING, RIGHT DIVISION,  churches, Israel,God, Salvation, etc, etc......
That is why what I posted in my first month of posting articles in 2008, may or not
be what I feel is more complete truth on an area I posted yesterday.
In my quest for TRUTH, I soon discovered I needed to start a new blog.
My second blog is called
At the time I started my second blog, through hindsight, I did not yet know
I did not yet see ALL....
And now I know it will take a life time of continually searching out, proving all things,
looking at both sides of an issue,  all sides of an issue, searching the deep depths of Scripture, learning the more you know, maybe even the less you know as yet.
My third blog I started was after I went through and out of MID-ACTS, after discovering
Paul and his wonderful revelations directly from God, after Christ being raised to heaven
AT THE RIGHT HAND of God.  I discovering a vital part of knowing TRUTH in Scripture,
that being RIGHTLY DIVIDING Scripture.
My third blog on my lifetime journey in discovering TRUTH is called....
May I suggest a few wonderful topics that are vitally important on a journey to seeking out
TRUTH in Scripture:
Study Replacement Theology, RIGHT DIVISION, the two ministries of Paul before and after the book of Acts, Grace, Salvation,  life and death, resurrection as apposed to perishing.
Number one thing to do is STRIVE not only to BELIEVE in God,
but to most of all, BELIEVE GOD...! The TRADITIONS of MEN will lead you away from truth, not to IT! Grace and peace to you and God Bless you.
Your brother Mark

Sunday, April 29, 2012

It's Over Satan

It is time to appreciate all my brothers and sisters in Christ, no matter of what measure of faith you
have been given right at this present time.  I certainly am not going to be "dogmatic" about my measure of It changes all the time and God continues to reveal more and more to me via God's spirit through His living Word of God.  I know this...MY REDEEMER LIVES....AND IS IN CHARGE OF ALL THINGS...IN MY LIFE AND YOURS. God is not going around having to put fires out that Satan has messed up God's plans in any way....This is certainly not so.  Is anything impossible for God?
I love those in the body of christ who so wonderfully have studied God's word and passed their understanding that they in turn have learned for others in the body of Christ before them.....Like I just said, I am not dogmatic about anything other then God is going to work things out as He has planned before the foundation of the world.....Even Satan has to go with the flow in God's plan for us ALL and His WILL FOR US ALL... Do yourself a great favor and look to the likes of Marin Zender and Dan Sheridan......and others like them who not only believe in God, but "BELIEVE HIM"

Friday, April 27, 2012

The Blessed Hope of "The One New Man"


 Eph.2: 13-17
In this article when using the term "One New Man" I will be referring to the Church or Body over which Christ is the Head as described in Paul's prison epistles. According to Eph. 2:15 God made or created the One New Man when He broke down the middle wall of partition and abolished the Law after the close of the Acts period. I am firmly convinced by the Scriptures that the One New Man is not the same Church or Body that Paul describes in his Acts epistles. If they were the same, their description would be identical. But by comparing them with one another, I see that they are totally different and things that are different are not the same.

The mistake that many people make today is assuming that whenever Paul mentions "The Body" in his Acts epistles and prison epistles, he is writing about the same Body. This is like the same mistake people make when they read the word "Church" in the Bible. They read about a church in Matthew and a church in Ephesians and they assume that they are the same church just because the word "Church" is used in both places. But even though the word "Church" is used in both places they are not the same church because their descriptions are totally different. In the same way, just because the word "Body" is used in Paul's Acts epistles and his prison epistles that doesn't mean that they are the same Body. It's my firm conviction that THEY ARE NOT THE SAME BODY, for what is said about one is not true of the other. And as far as I am concerned it is spiritual dishonesty to say they are the same, when it is so apparent that they are different.

The main purpose of this article is not only to show the difference between the One New Man and the Acts Body, but also to show how far greater and glorious this Body is to any previous Body or church in the Bible. God has given the One New Man blessings, an inheritance, a Hope, a position, and many other things that are FAR BETTER than what He gave to the Acts Body, or to any other Body of believers in the Bible. It is my prayer that you the reader will see the differences and rejoice in the many advantages given to a member of the Body that God calls "One New Man".

As you read this article please do the following 3 things.

(l.) Forget what "the preachers" say about the subject of this article, no matter how fundamental or dispensational they claim to be.

(2.) Compare every verse with your Bible and be willing to believe the verses mean what they say and say what they mean.

(3.) Don't try to "explain away" things that are obviously different. The following is a scriptural description of the One New Man.


In Eph.2:15 Paul said "having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the Law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain ONE NEW MAN, so making peace."

The Body of the prison epistles is called ONE NEW MAN whereas, the Acts Body is called a "CHASTE VIRGIN ESPOUSED TO A HUSBAND"(IICor.11:2) The fact that one is called a MAN and the other a WOMAN should be enough in itself to convince a real Bible believer that they are not the same Body.


In Eph. 2:12 Paul said that the Body in the prison epistles were "Aliens from the commonwealth of Israel". An alien of Israel is unrelated to Israel and Abraham, whereas the Acts Body is made up of the children and seed of Abraham (see Gal. 3:29 and Rom. 4:9-16). This is why Paul said in Eph. 4:6 that the Body in the prison epistles has only ONE, God and FATHER. The Acts Body had TWO fathers, God and Abraham. I think it is also significant to note that Abraham's name appears 19 times in the Acts epistles, but not even ONCE in the prison epistles.


In Gal. 4:26 the Acts Body called New Jerusalem it's mother because they were partakers of the New Covenant being the seed of Abraham (Heb.11:8-10). The Body over which Christ is the Head is unrelated to Abraham, strangers from the covenants of promise (Eph.2:12). Consequently, it has no hope in the Heavenly City New Jerusalem. It's hope is far better, for it is in Glory far above all Heavens and far above New Jerusalem (Col.3:4, ITim.3:6, Eph.2:6; Phil. 3:20).


In the Acts period, members of the Acts Body were grafted into Israel, the Good Olive Tree (Rom.11:17). But at the close of the Acts period Israel, the Good Olive Tree, was completely cut down, cast away, and became Lo-Ammi (see Hosea 1:9). Consequently when God created the One New Man after the close of the Acts period there was no Good Olive Tree left to be grafted into. Instead the One New Man was grafted into or made members of Christ's Body, Flesh and Bones-Eph.5:30.


The Acts Body was blessed with the "Blessings of Abraham" and Israel's "spiritual things" (Rom.15:27, Gal. 3:14). But the Body in the prison epistles is said to be BLESSED WITH ALL SPIRITUAL BLESSINGS IN HEAVENLY PLACES IN CHRIST (Eph.1:3). These blessings are found exclusively in the prison epistles of Paul, especially the Book of Ephesians.


The New Covenant was made with the House of Israel according to Heb. 8:8. Only those related and allied with Israel partook of the New Covenant and it's blessings and hope, such as the Acts Body in IICor. 3:6. But the 'Body' of the prison epistles is unrelated to Israel being "Aliens from the commonwealth" (Eph. 2:12) and does not partake of the New Covenant being "STRANGERS from the covenants of promise"(Eph. 2:12). Instead, God has given this Body something much better than the New Covenant. He gave the "One New Man "the Dispensation of Grace (Eph.3:l-2). Just as the New Covenant is far better than the Old Covenant (Heb. 8:6-10), the Dispensation of Grace is far better than both the New and Old Covenants.


The "Acts Body" had an inheritance in the Kingdom of God (IIThess.1:4-5, ICor.15:50, Acts 14:21-22) which was an earthly kingdom promised and offered to Israel and those allied with Israel (Dan.2:44, Lk.8:1, Acts 1:3-6). But the "One New Man" of the prison epistles is given a better inheritance in a better kingdom. His inheritance is in the "KINGDOM OF HIS DEAR SON" according to Col.1:12-13. This Kingdom is located in Heavenly places where Christ sits at the right hand of God (CoI. 3:1-3, IITim.4:18, Phil.3:20). The One New Man has already been translated into this Kingdom according to Col.1:13, and now sits together with Christ as citizens of this kingdom according to Eph. 2:6.


Throughout the Acts period members of the Acts Body were grafted into Israel the Good Olive Tree and became partakers of her spiritual things including her Hope of resurrection (Acts28:20). Her Hope was the Second Coming of Christ at the Last Trump immediately after the Great Tribulation (Matt. 24:29-31, I Thess. 4:14-18, I Cor. 15: 50-54). Paul preached this Hope, wrote about it, and was imprisoned for it according to Acts 28:20. But after the close of the Acts period a radical change took place. Israel the Good Olive Tree was cut down and became Lo-Ammi.

The Law was abolished and the Dispensation of Grace began. At the same time the creation of the One New Man took place and a BETTER HOPE dispensed to its members. it's Hope is Christ's APPEARING IN GLORY far above all Heavens, not His COMING IN THE AIR to the Earth (Col.3:1-4, Phil. 3:20, ITim. 3:16). This Hope is far better than any hope previously offered to'' anyone in times past, that's why it's called the "Blessed Hope" in Titus 2:13. (I think it's significant to note that the word "COMING" referring to, Christ's Second Coming, DOES NOT appear one time in the prison epistles, whereas, the word "APPEARING" referring to Christ's Appearing in Glory DOES NOT appear one time in the Acts epistles.)


Throughout the Acts period the salvation of the Gentiles in the "Acts Body" provoked Israel to jealousy according to Rom.11:11. Paul also used his office as the Apostle of the Gentiles to provoke Israel to jealousy and salvation according to Rom.11:13-14. This of course was consistent with his heart's desire in Rom.10:1 - that Israel might be saved.

But the salvation of the One New Man has no effect or bearing whatsoever upon Israel in anyway. God saved the One New Man by His Grace, not to provoke Israel to jealousy, "But that in the Ages to Come He might shew the exceeding riches of His Grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. - Eph.2:5,-7.


In the Acts Body Jews and Abraham's seed clearly had the advantage over the Gentiles (Rom.1). But in the "One New Man" all advantages are erased and all members are placed on an equal footing and standing before God. Paul said in Eph. 2:14 "For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us." With the breaking down of the "middle wall of partition" Israel lost all of her advantages and the preeminence she once had over the Gentiles in times past including the Acts period. The One New Man is FITLY FRAMED TOGETHER and SITS TOGETHER in heavenly aces in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:6, 22).


Throughout the Acts period Gentiles in the Acts Body were accounted as Jews and Abraham's seed (Rom.2:26-29, Rom.4:11,Gal.3:29). The previous verses clearly show the advantage that Abraham's seed had in the Acts Body. But in the One New Man both Jews and Gentiles alike lose their identity and take Christ's identity in its place. In Col. 3:11 Paul said that in the New Man there is neither Greek, nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Sythian, bond nor free: BUT CHRIST IS ALL, AND IN ALL. In the One New Man CHRIST IS ALL, in other words, Christ's identity is the ONE AND ONLY identity that believers have whereas the Acts Body had both Christ's and Abraham's (Gal. 3:28-29).


The Acts Body had an obligation and a duty to minister unto Israel in "carnal things" according to Rom.15:27. Paul commanded the Acts Body to take up offerings for Israel in ICor.16:1-3.

But the One New Man does not partake of Israel's "Spiritual things" and has no duty or obligation to minister unto her in "carnal things" or to take up collections for her on the first day of the week. Instead the One New Man "works and labors with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth" (Eph.4:28) and supports those who follow the ministry of Paul as the prisoner of Jesus Christ for us Gentiles (IITim.1:8, Phil.3:1,3).


Throughout the Acts period Paul's heart's desire was the salvation of Israel (Rom.10:1) and the Acts Body was commanded to have this same desire in ICor.11:1. But the One New Man's desire is totally different. His desire is "To preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the Mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God (Eph.3:8-9).


Throughout the Acts period most of the doctrines that Paul preached and wrote about to the Acts Body were based upon the Old Testament Scriptures. In Acts 26:22 Paul stood before Agrippa and gave an account of his Acts ministry when he said, "I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets, and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that He should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles." And when you read Paul's Acts epistles you see that he CONTINUALLY quotes the Old Testament Scriptures as the basis of his doctrine. (Take a couple of hours and read the book of Romans and count the verses in this one Acts epistle: where Paul quotes and refers to the Old Testament as the basis of the doctrines he writes about in this epistle. Keep in mind also that Romans is the last Acts Epistle Paul wrote. But when you come to the prison epistles where you find the creation and description of the One New Man, you will suddenly realize that you are on different ground. The doctrine in these books is based upon the Mystery that was hid in God before the foundation of the world (Eph.1:4 , Col.1:26). In these books written exclusively to the One New Man, Paul does not quote the Old Testament scriptures as the basis of his doctrine. THERE IS ALMOST A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY REFERENCE TO THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE PRISON EPISTLES. Examine Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians and see this fact for yourself. In these Books every verse and chapter is something new and different from anything written before them, (Ephesians chapters 1-2 takes my breath away everytime I read them). The doctrine of these books is based upon the secret that God revealed to Paul as a prisoner in Rome after the Acts period.


In Phil. 3:20 Paul writes about the resurrection and glorification of the One New Man and five verses later in Phil. 4:5 he says "Let your moderation be known unto all men. THE LORD IS AT HAND." A text is always interpreted by the context, and in the context Paul is talking about the Lord's appearing and the One New Man's glorification. Therefore, when Paul says the Lord is at hand, he is in effect saying the Lord's appearing for the One New Man is at hand. But in writing to the Acts Body concerning the Coming of the Lord and their gathering together unto Him, he said in IIThess.2:1-4 "That they be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: FOR THAT DAY SHALL NOT COME. EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY FIRST. AND THAT MAN OF SIN BE REVEALED, THE SON OF PERDITION." This reveals that certain things had to happen first before Christ came and gathered them unto Himself. But the Hope of the One New Man is at hand, which means Christ can appear at any moment for the One New Man.


In Col.1:18 Paul said that He (Christ) is THE HEAD OF THE BODY THE CHURCH: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead: that in all things He might have the preeminence." I think it is very significant to note that the only place where Christ is called the Head of any Body or Church is in Paul's PRISON EPISTLES, (Eph.1:22, 4:1,5,Col.1:18, 2:19). Christ is never called the Head of the Acts Body in the Acts epistles (search the Acts epistles and see for yourself). And if He is never called the Head of the Acts Body, then no one has the right to say He was. That would be reading something into the scriptures that is not there. The way the word "Body is used in the Acts epistles is much the way we use the word "student body" or the "body politic" today. It is a collective mass of individuals united by a common tie (Webster's 1828 dictionary), but the Body of the prison epistles is a LIVING ORGANISM being members of Christ's Body, Flesh and Bones (Eph.5:30), and He is their Head' (Co1.1:18).


In Eph.4: -6 Paul said that the One Body of the prison epistles has one Spirit, One Hope, One God and Father, One Lord, One Faith and ONE BAPTISM. Paul describes this Baptism in Col. 2:11-12 as "an operation of God made without hands in putting off the Body of the sins of the flesh." God Himself performs this baptism without the use of any human agent. It is therefore spiritual and invisible. On the other hand, the Acts Body had more than one Baptism. They were baptised with the Holy Ghost (Acts 9:17,19:6), by the Spirit (ICor.12:13), and with water (Acts16:15, 16:33,19:5,22:16). If the "Body" in the Acts epistles is the same Body of Eph.4:4, why does it have 3 Baptisms, whereas, the One Body of Eph.4:4. has only one Baptism? The fact that the Acts Body had 3 Baptisms, whereas, the One New Man has only One Baptism should in itself be enough to convince any honest person that they are not the same body.


In IICor.11:2 Paul said that the Acts Body was a chaste virgin espoused (same as engaged) to Christ her husband. That verse clearly shows that the Acts Body was a part of the Bride of Christ. What else would you call a woman engaged to be married to a husband, but a Bride? But the Body in the prison epistles is a man, not a woman. Therefore, it is never said to be espoused to or engaged to a husband. Instead, the one New Man is said to be members of Christ's Body, Flesh and Bones (Eph.5:30).


Throughout the Acts period, the Acts Body received the gifts of the Spirit. These gifts are listed in ICor.12: 1-13. They were such things as healing, working miracles, speaking in tongues, prophecy and many others. The Acts Body was a tongue speaking, healing, miracle working church. You might say the Acts Body was a "Charismatic Church" for it possessed all of the gifts of the Spirit.

But the One New Man does not possess the gifts of the Spirit. Does that mean that the Acts Body was more blessed and rich than the One New Man? Quite the contrary, God gave the One New Man something FAR BETTER than the gifts of the Spirit. He gave them the UNSEARCHABLE RICHES OF CHRIST according to Eph. 3:8.

The unsearchable riches of Christ overshadow the gifts of the Spirit, and are far more glorious. And anyone who seeks after the gifts of the Spirit today when they could enjoy the unsearchable riches of Christ is taking a step backward, not forward spiritually.

In Phil. 3:21 Paul said that "The Lord Jesus Christ shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned LIKE UNTO HIS GLORIOUS BODY, according to the working whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself." When Paul said that Christ would fashion our vile bodies like unto His glorious Body, he placed no conditions upon the One New Man's glorification. It is a free, unmerited promise with no works attached. THIS IS NOT TRUE OF THE ACTS BODY.

In Rom. 8:17 Paul said to the Acts Body "And if children then heirs, heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; IF SO BE THAT WE SUFFER WITH HIM, 'THAT WE MAY BE ALSO GLORIFIED TOGETHER. The glorification of the members of the Acts Body was CONDITIONAL upon them suffering for Christ's sake. And the suffering was PHYSICAL for the sake of the truth (read 'the next verse). I realize that a statement like this may cause a lot of people to get "up-tight", but there it is in black and white in Rom. 8:17. Keep in mind that it was GOD WHO SAID IT, NOT ME. It's like I said at the beginning, compare every verse with your Bible and BE WILLING TO BELIEVE THE VERSES MEAN WHAT THEY SAY AND SAY WHAT THEY MEAN. And if you do that, then you've done the right thing and the thing that pleases God according to Heb.11:6.


In Eph.2:6 Paul said that God raised up the ONE NEW MAN and made Him to "SIT TOGETHER IN HEAVENLY PLACES IN CHRIST JESUS". The seat that the One New Man occupies represents the position of Glory and Honour that God has exalted him to. In the Bible different groups of believers occupied different seats or positions of Glory and Honour. In Matt.8:11 Abraham and his seed have a seat in the Kingdom of Heaven. In Matt.19:28 the Twelve Apostles each have a seat upon one of the twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. In Gal.4:26 the Acts Body must have had a seat in the Heavenly City New Jerusalem, for it is called their "Mother" and they were her "Children". And whatever position of Glory and Honour the mother has, her children have also. But God has given the One New Man the most exalted seat or position of Glory and honour in all the Bible. He raised Him up far above all Heavens to sit at His own Right Hand in Heavenly Places in Christ Jesus. This is never said of any one else in the Bible, but the One New Man in the Prison Epistles. The Acts Body died with Christ, was buried and raised with Christ, But the One New Man goes one step further. He ascended up on High with Christ to sit with Him in Heavenly Places at the Right Hand of God. (To say the Acts Body was also seated in Heavenly Places is to read something into the Acts epistles that is not there. That's reading present truth into past truth, which is wrongly dividing the Word of Truth).


In Phil. 3:20 Paul said "For our conversation is in HEAVEN; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ." The word "Conversation" has more than one meaning in the Bible. It can refer to a person's "SPEECH" as in IIPet.2:7; their "CONDUCT" as in Eph.2:3 or their "RESIDENCE OR DWELLING PLACE" as in Eph.2:6 (The One New Man has a residence in Heavenly Places, for His seat is there.) The point that I want to emphasize here is that everything the One New Man has now and in the future is in Heavenly Places. Everything about the One New Man is Heavenly. (Please read these verses).

His BLESSINGS are in Heavenly Places -Eph.1:3

His SEAT is in Heavenly Places - Eph.2:6

His HEAD is in Heavenly Places -Eph.1:20-23

His DESTINATION is in Heavenly Places - Eph.2:7

His MINISTRY is in Heavenly Places - Eph.3:10

His WARFARE is in Heavenly Places -Eph.6:12

His HOPE is in Heavenly Places - Col-1:5

His AFFECTION is in Heavenly Places- Col-3:2

His LIFE is in Heavenly Places - Col-3:3

His APPEARING is in Heavenly Places -Col-3:4

His INHERITANCE is in Heavenly Places - Col.l:12-13

His CROWN is in Heavenly Places - IITim.4:8

His KINGDOM is in Heavenly Places -IITim.4:18

The One New Man is a Heavenly Body with no relationship to Israel, the world, or New Jerusalem. His conversation is TOTALLY in Heavenly Places. This is not true of the Acts Body. Their conversation was not in Heaven, for they were "HEIRS OF THE WORLD" being Abraham's seed according to Rom. 4:13-16. Their inheritance was in the KINGDOM OF GOD, AN EARTHLY KINGDOM according to I Cor. 6:9-11,15:50. They partook of ISRAEL'S SPIRITUAL THINGS, which pertain mainly to the EARTH(Rom.15). Their Hope was in NEW JERUSALEM their mother, which will eventually be located on the NEW EARTH according to Gal. 4:26, Rev. 21:1-2. If the Acts Body were heirs of the World whose hope was to enter an Earthly Kingdom to dwell in the New Jerusalem, on the New Earth, how could their conversation be in Heaven? God never gave the Acts Body the Heavenly things that He gave to the One New Man, therefore, their conversation was not in Heaven. Their conversation was in things that God offered them in the Acts epistles. Their speech and conduct were in accord with their inheritance and hope in the Kingdom of God and the New Jerusalem.


In Acts 15, Paul along with the other apostles wrote out a list of ordinances for the Gentiles to observe during the Acts period, and delivered these ordinances to the members of the Acts Body.

In Acts 15:19-21 James (along with Paul and Barnabas) said "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day." Paul also elaborates upon these ordinances in his Acts epistles. In Rom.14:2-3 He said "For one believeth that he may eat all things; another, who is weak, eateth herbs, Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him". In Rom.14:5 he said "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." And further down in verse 21 he said "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth or is offended, or is made weak. In other words, there were people in the Acts period that abstained from eating meat and drinking wine for religious purposes and they also observed holy days. The Acts Body was commanded not to eat any meat or drink wine, or condemn any "holy day" that would offend these people. Those people were of course Israelites, who kept the Law of Moses according to Acts 15:21. Paul also warns the Acts Body that if they ate or drank anything that would offend Israel that they would "Destroy the work of God" (Rom.14:20)and could "Damn themselves" if they ate without faith (Rom. 14:23). Also read 1Cor. 8:10-11.

But there are no such Laws and Ordinances binding on the One New Man. In Col.2:14-17 Paul said, "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, He made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the Body is of Christ." In the prison epistles of Paul, the Law is abolished for the One New Man in Eph.2:15-16 and all the handwriting of ordinances (including those of Acts 15, Rom.14, ICor.8) are blotted out and taken out of the way. Those Laws and Ordinances are not binding on the One New Man and Paul rebukes anyone who places themselves under subjection to them in Col. 2:20-22. To observe those ordinances of touch not, taste not, handle not today is an abomination in the sight of God.


In Eph.1:4 Paul said "According as he hath CHOSEN US IN HIM BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love."

This is a tremendous verse of Scripture for many reasons and one of the main reasons is because this is only said about the One New Man in the prison epistles. He is the only Body or Church that God chose or elected BEFORE the Foundation of the World. All other bodies or churches were chosen after, since, or from the foundation or beginning of the world, including the Acts Body.

In II Thess. 2:13 Paul said concerning the Acts Body "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because GOD HATH "FROM" THE BEGINNING CHOSEN YOU TO SALVATION through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"

How could anything be any clearer than this? The Acts Body was elected FROM the beginning of the world, whereas, the One New Man elected BEFORE the Foundation of the World.


2 THESS. 2:13

If they were elected at two different times, how could they possibly be the same Body? If they were the same Body they would both be elected before Gen. l:l, or both elected after Gen. l:l. But they are not, which again leads me to the conclusion that they are not the same Body. For anyone to say they are the same body, when it is so apparent that they are not, to me is wrongly dividing the Word of Truth. Those who RIGHTLY divide the Word of Truth do not make things that are different the same.

In conclusion, I'm reminded of an event that took place in Israel's past history that typifies what I'd like to say here at the end of this article.

In times past God brought Israel out of Egypt, across the Red Sea to a place called Kadesh in the wilderness of Paran, which was located at the edge of the Land of Caanan. In Num.13 God instructed Moses to send 12 men to "spy out" the Land of Caanan and to bring back word of what they saw. When they returned, two of the "spies", Joshua and Caleb brought back with them figs, pomegranates, and a huge cluster of grapes that took two men to carry upon a staff, to show Israel the fruits of the land. They also gave a "good report" of the land calling it a land "flowing with milk and honey". And in Num.13:30 Caleb stood before Moses and Israel and said "Let us go up at once, and possess it; (the land) for we are well able to overcome it." But the other ten spies gave an "evil report" of the land, they said the land had giants in it, and the people that possessed it were strong and lived in walled cities and they said they were as "grasshoppers" in their sight. The story goes on to say that Israel believed the evil report of the 10 spies and rejected the good report that Joshua and Caleb gave. And instead of Israel going in to enjoy the fruits of the land flowing with milk and honey, God caused them to wander in the wilderness for 40 years till that whole generation died and was wasted in the wilderness (Num.14:33). The only ones who went in were Joshua and Caleb because they believed God and gave a good report of the land.

In this story I see analogy that is related to the subject of this article. In this Dispensation of Grace God has delivered us out of bondage (type of Egypt) baptised us into Christ (type of Red Sea) and set before us a "land flowing with Grace and Truth". That land is the prison epistles of Paul, which are flowing with the "Unsearchable Riches of Christ" and "All Spiritual blessings in Heavenly Places."

In that "Land" you will find the One New Man, the Body over which Christ is the Head that God created when He broke down the middle wall of partition after the close of the Acts period. In that "Land" God has planted the grandest blessings, inheritance, hope, promises, riches, position, salvation, destination, all of the entire Bible. And as there was only a small minority of men who gave a good report of the Land of Caanan (2 out of 12), there is only a very small minority of men who give a "good report" of the "Land" of Paul's Prison Epistles.

And as the majority were turned away by the evil report of the 10 spies in times past, the majority are turned away by the evil report that most preachers give concerning Paul's Prison Epistles today. They call them "hogwash and baloney" and label those that that claim the Prison Epistles as their "Land" as "stupid", "Nincompoops", Hyper-Dispensationalists" or "Bullingerites".

My prayer is that you won't be turned away by the evil report that men give today concerning Paul's Prison Epistles. Look at what happened to the men who gave the evil report in times past (Num.14:37), and look what happened to those that believed them (Num.14:33).

I would encourage you as Caleb encouraged Israel; "Go up at once to possess the riches and blessings of Paul's Prison Epistles, which are the books written exclusively to, for, and about the One New Man. Don't stay in the bondage of Matt.- John, don't wander in the wilderness of the Acts period, go on up and possess the Prison Epistles, the Land flowing with Grace, Truth, and Freedom.


Saturday, March 17, 2012

Future Snatching Away For Body of Christ Jesus

Donald G Hayter


(2 Thessalonians 4:17)

by Donald G Hayter

It is a help sometimes when seeking to understand why a certain word is used in a particular context to substitute another. It highlights the significance of the word that is used. Not that we can replace any word in the Scriptures, for they stand supreme among all literature in that the words are used with the utmost discrimination and exactitude. Seven times are they refined. 

      Consider this phrase in 1 Thessalonians 4. We might have read instead of snatched away, that we are taken up or that we ascend or go up. But each of these latter words conveys a different thought which was not intended by the holy Spirit. We are snatched up. That is, our departure is an urgent, swift, sudden plucking up, which thoughts the other words do not convey. The word "snatched" is used elsewhere in the Scriptures and its sense can be intensified in our minds by considering some of these other contexts. 

      Philip was snatched away from the eunuch (Acts 8:39). It was a sudden, abrupt departure. When Paul's safety was threatened by the throng (Acts 23:10) the captain ordered the troop to descend and snatch him out of their midst. There was an urgency in the circumstances surrounding Paul. On another occasion in one of the most miraculous and amazing events of Paul's life, he was snatched away to the third heaven and into paradise (2 Cor.12:4). He had then an experience similar, in this one respect, to that which will occur again to him when, with us, he will be snatched up into the air. These examples if we consider them will help us grasp the significance of the word "snatch" when it is used of our introduction into the presence of the Lord at His coming. 

      When the Lord comes He will snatch us all up to Him with urgency and speed. We shall not rise of our own volition, though we shall be fully capable of doing so. Perhaps we hesitate, not realizing our new power, or perhaps awed by the presence of the Lord, fearful to approach Him. But we are not left a moment longer.


      The dead in Christ (who have been raised from the dead) and the living will be snatched up in clouds simultaneously, together. These two words are not synonymous. One refers to the time of the snatching, the other to the proximity in space of the two parties. The snatching upward will occur at the same moment for all in Christ. Wherever they may have died, in whatever region of the world, their swift transfer from the earth to the air will happen at precisely the same moment. There will not be some who will approach the Lord more slowly. With speed and urgency the Lord will snatch us to Himself. 

      Also the movement upwards will be together. We shall not be spread over the expanse of the skies singly or in scattered groups, according to where we were located in life or in death. We shall be assembled and rise as one company to meet the Lord. It will not however be a massed throng, that is a single assembly, for we are snatched up in clouds. Now this does not mean that we shall ascend in the clouds of the sky, but that we shall be assembled like clouds and so ascend to the Lord. This is not an unusual figure of speech, for a massed assembly is often referred to as a cloud. We read of a vast cloud of witnesses. In Ezekiel 38:16 Gog goes up against Israel a great assembly, as a cloud to cover the land. Again in Isaiah 60:8 those who bring the sons of Israel from afar to their land as a thick cloud are flying. There are other examples. A very apt example of its use is by astronomers who refer to large groups of stars as star clouds. The photographic plate shows this most distinctly. 

      Just how the saints will be grouped we are not told. It may be according to the generation in which we have lived, or according to our place and function in the body of Christ. It is enough to know that the vast assemblage of saints will cover the sky as clouds in the vault of heaven. And thus we shall always be together with the Lord.


      The contrasts between the coming of the Lord for the ecclesia with a celestial destiny and His coming for Israel are great. 

      To the earth He comes as Son of Mankind. For us He returns as Lord and Chief Messenger. When coming to Israel His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives; for us He descends no further than the air. He travels alone from heaven's height for us, but for His earthly people He is accompanied by His holy messengers. These may be the vast array seen in the throne scene of the Unveiling, numbering two great groups of a hundred million and one million. The glory of His presence will differ on each occasion. For Israel He will appear as He was on the mount of transformation, His face shining as the sun. The brilliance of His glory will not be greater than His terrestrial saints can endure. For us He will come as the Celestial One with a different glory, one exceeding in brilliance the brightness of the noonday sun. But we shall be able to look and live, for we too shall be celestials, changed into beings with a glory similar to the Lord's. He Himself assembles us with His own voice and His own trumpeting and His personal snatching upward. Israel will be gathered by His messengers. We shall meet the Lord, a personal face-to-face encounter. Israel is assembled to Him; the intimacy indicated in the word meet is absent from the record of that assembly. 

      The grace shown to us transcends anything that Israel has. 

      Where then is the air in which we meet the Lord? In this context it is the same as we understand it in general conversation. It is that part of the atmosphere which contains the mixture of gases essential to life on earth. It stretches upward for a few miles. Even at the top of the highest mountains the air is very thin. At ten miles up we could not live without artificial aids, for the air is almost absent. So it is certain that we shall meet the Lord in the blue expanse above, within a few miles of the earth's surface, within sight of our erstwhile home. 

      One most important feature of this meeting place is that it is the territory of the Adversary, Satan, for he is the chief of the jurisdiction of the air. It is from the air that he controls earth's affairs. To him have been given all the kingdoms of the earth, and the affairs of mankind are under his sway, political and religious. He is a spirit making his headquarters in the air above us. And it is here that we shall meet the Lord, in the heart of the enemy's kingdom. But this is for a purpose, for it will be the role of the ecclesia to display to the archenemy of God and His truth, the power and glory of the sons of God. Then will be fulfilled the words, "The God of peace will be crushing Satan under your feet swiftly." It will not be by battle but by the power of the presence of Christ and His ecclesia.

Friday, January 6, 2012

Many Errors In KJV and Most Bibles....Know What Scripture Really Says

A.E. Knoch

    As an earnest Bible student, desiring to understand the word of God, I discovered that practically all solid progress in the recovery of truth during the last century had come through the use of the concordance. I found that those of my friends who based their study on a concordance made the surest and speediest advance in their knowledge of God. Hence I also began to test and correct my ideas as to the meaning of Bible words by tracing them through all their occurrences. The immense profit and pleasure of this plan awoke in me a strong desire to do all in my power to assist others in this safe and satisfactory method of assuring themselves of the real revelation which God has given.
    But I found that even keen students of exceptional intelligence were not able to derive much benefit from concordances based on English translations. Only those who used concordances based on the original languages received real help. And even they were harassed by using a version which continually counteracted the benefits of their concordant study. So it gradually dawned on me that it was foolish to fill my mind with a discordant version if I hoped to advance in the knowledge of God. It would be just as save to tangle up a ball of twine before trying to use it.
    Thus it was that the idea of a concordant version suggested itself to my mind. Instead of correcting current translations occasionally by a concordance, why not make a version which is already concordant, so that the simple reading of it will give all the benefits otherwise won by prolonged and arduous study? Indeed, such a version might do far more to bring the unschooled reader into accord with the truth than would be possible by the patient and prolonged study of a concordance. For instance, it would be easy to explain what the soul is if our translators had never rendered it life. It would be an impossible task to correct all the mistranslatings in the minds of Bible readers. Why not make a version in which psuchê is always soul, and zôê life?
    No one could honestly object to this method, for it is not based on human scholarship but on a worshipful recognition of the divine Author's ability to make Himself understood. Most versions always render zôê life, so that no one is at a loss to know the significance of the word. But how few know whatsoul means! That is because it is not uniformly translated. In the Hebrew Scriptures it is rendered by over forty different expressions, such as appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, ghost, heart, lust, man, mind, pleasure, but especially by life. The Greek word is rendered mindheart, and life (more than thirty times) besides soul.
    I appeal to the sanctified common sense of the saints, "the spirit of a sound mind" (2Ti.1:7). If the holy spirit intended us to understand life in so many places where the original has soul, why was not the word for life used? I came to the definite conclusion, which has been strengthened by tests extending over a quarter century of study, that wherever possible, each word in the original should be represented in translation by only one English word. Then the English reader, seeing this English word in all of the correct contexts, subconsciously acquires its exact signification and force and color.
    Another principle I found to be of just as great importance. The same illustration will serve. Even the word life has lost its distinct meaning by being used for soul. No one would tolerate such a translation as : The first man Adam was made a living life." Why, then translate "Take no thought for your life"? (Lu. 12:22). Why not "Do not worry about the soul"? No English word should do duty for more than one word of the original. This is quite as necessary as using only one English word for each Greek or Hebrew expression. Between the two we have the best possible safety device for insuring purity, clarity, and accuracy in the translation of God's holy word.
    The CONCORDANT VERSION is not another burden for the student to bear, but an easy, simple, short cut to knowledge which would cost him more than a lifetime of study by any other method. Instead of giving him a puzzle to solve, it gives him the solution. He does not need to study a concordance of the original to find out the exact meaning of any word. First, he is assured that he has the nearest English equivalent. Second, he knows that when he sees it he may depend upon it that the light of the context is true and not a false beacon to lead him astray.
    The greatest benefit will come, not to the student as such, but to the humble reader who will simplyuse the version and allow the contexts to color each word and define its force for him. He will be a constant attendant in the school of God, quite independent of human learning or scholarship.
    The CONCORDANT is not a "modern" version. Neither is it archaic. The method is such that little regard could be paid to the outward embellishment of thought. All appearances are subordinated to truth. Yet truth is itself so desirable and beautiful that only the superficial and unbelieving will prefer error because it is arrayed in robes rich and venerable. The living Word was not clothed in sumptuous garb to entice the eye. He had no form or comeliness. There was no beauty, that they should desire Him. So is the written word. The desire to dress it up is of the world and not of God. Those who despise its meanness ally themselves with the throng who crucified the Lord of glory.
    We are warned that, in the latter eras, religious men will want their ears tickled rather than their hearts aroused (2Ti.4:3). They will prefer the musical to the true. Familiar, finely phrased error will appeal to their ears rather than inspired facts to their minds. But truth has a spiritual harmony and sweet accord which no dissonance can mar, and which is unutterably more pleasing to the anointed ear than all the music of mere sound.
    The concordant method of studying the scriptures uses a concordance to discover the meaning of a word, not in any version, but in the original. It is based on its occurrences in the Hebrew, Chaldee, or Greek, however it may be translated into English. The aim is to discover the usage and fix its signification by its inspired associations. It is in line with the linguistic law that the meaning of a word is decided by its usage. In this version the efficiency and value of this method has been greatly multiplied by extending it to the elements of which words are composed and by combining with it the vocabulary method, which deals with each word as a definite province of the realm of thought which must be carefully kept within its own boundaries.
    The evidence for the exact force of a given expression is multiplied many times if we separate it into its elements. Take one of the two words which are usually rendered "foundation". Its elements areDOWN-CAST, and the Greek has found its way into English in the word catabolism. The element DOWNbrings in two hundred witnesses, while CAST commands over fifty, These we may call its near relatives. They arouse a suspicion in our minds that DOWN-CASTing is a strange and unlikely word for "foundation". It does not suggest building up but casting down. By testing this new thought in all the contexts we discover that DOWN-CASTing means disruption, not foundation.
    Not only does the separation of the Greek vocabulary into its elements help in fixing its true meaning, but it enables us to build up an artificial English-Greek for use in the Sublinear which brings the two languages together in a most interesting and profitable way. The reader who knows no Greek is easily able to follow and grasp the idiom of the original, and to enjoy God's revelation in the very mold in which He cast it. There is the same relation between His thoughts and words, and between the words themselves that exists in the inspired autographs.
    Such an English-Greek translation is by far the best instrument for making a version in which the thoughts, rather than the identical symbols of thought, must be used. The human mind at its best is limited. The keenest intellect needs this assistance. The mathematician might be able to count without the use of figures. But how far could the science of mathematics go if it had no numerals? So the Elements used in this version help to convey the precise values of the Greek into the English. Such a word as repentance in far more colorful when we find that, in Greek, it is called "after-MIND".
    Still greater is the gain in the grammatical elements. Take the word usually rendered Who hath abolished (2Ti. 1:10). Now we know that death has not been abolished yet. From the ending of the word we see that its grammatical elements associate it with indefinite verbals, which do not state the time of the action. Hundreds of other passages, where this form is used, focus their light on this, and we are practically compelled to render it Who abolishes. The great value of this change is instantly evident, for we can literally believe it, though we could not believe that death has been abolished.
    We unhesitatingly make two tremendous claims for concordant uniformity in transferring the grammatical elements into English. The probability of such renderings being correct is increased many fold, for all the evidence is continually before us, and subject to scrutiny. Moreover, even if a standard should be wrong, or, what is more likely, is not a perfect equivalent, the very fact that it occurs in all the divine contexts will tend to modify and correct it. Uniformity in rendering Greek grammatical elements into English is even more important than present exactness, for it is the only way to eventual exactitude.
    We have taken the Greek grammatical elements and given to each a corresponding English form. Any one can see what confusion will result if we should not always translate a past by a past, a future by a future, and a present by a present. We must fort out our equivalents in this way or truth is turned into pious error. The very fact that there is a special form of the past proves that the indefinite is not a past. If the past can be rendered I wrote, the indefinite must be different. The existence of the present incomplete form, I am writing, bars the indefinite from this rendering. If we assign all available English forms except the Greek indefinite and have nothing but the English indefinite left, that alone goes far to prove the correctness of I write. No other method can be so save of satisfactory.

    The concordant method has been used in a fragmentary way for a century. So far as we know, the CONCORDANT VERSION is the first attempt to employ it systematically and exhaustively by applying it to the complete vocabulary of the sacred text. From this has sprung the complementary "vocabulary" method. It insists, not on uniformity, but the opposite. If PLACE-CARE means foundation, and its elements and contexts clearly agree with that meaning, then DOWN-CASTing, which our versions so translate, does not mean foundation. In some languages we may not always have enough words to cover all cases, but English certainly ought to furnish sufficient. In this extreme example, the words are totally unlike in elements, association and contexts. One means foundation, the other disruption.
    The meaning or usage of one word is necessarily distinct from that of all other words. If we have placed all the words in the vocabulary of the Greek scriptures but one, we have a vast fund of information as to what it does not mean. This, of course, is not necessary with many words, but it is of the utmost value in dealing with words of similar or related meaning. Let any on study a passage in our accepted versions in which a number of synonyms are used together and he will find that our translators were forced to better work by the presence of words of nearly the same signification. What a pity they did not use such renderings elsewhere!
    Let us take an example from the so called Authorized Version. It translates twenty-one words depart. We will give the CONCORDANT standard of each and a passage, if possible, where they agree:
UP-LEAD they render led up (Mt.4:1) and departed (Ac.28:10).
UP-LOOSE is both return (Lu.12:36) and depart (Phil.1:23).
UP-SPACE, meaning retire, they render departed (Mt.2:12).
FROM-CHANGE, meaning clear, is departed (Ac.19:12).
FROM-COME, meaning pass away (Re.21:4) is depart (Mt.8:18).
FROM-LOOSE, meaning release (Mt.27:26) or dismiss (Ac.15:30) is sometimes depart (Ac.28:25).
FROM-SPACE is always correctly depart (Mt.7:23 Lu.9:39 Ac.13:13) as also in the CONCORDANT VERSION.
FROM-SPACEize they have tried to distinguish on one occasion by adding asunder (Ac.15:39), but in its other occurrences departed (Re.6:14). It means recoil.
FROM-STANDwithdraw (1Ti.6:5) is usually rendered departed (Lu.2:37)
THRU-SPACEize, sever, they make depart also (Lu.9:33)
THRU-COME, pass through (Lu.4:30) is once depart (Ac.13:14).
OUT-BEbe off, is twice depart (Ac.17:15).
OUT-COMEcome out, (Mt.5:26) is depart (Mt.9:31) a few times.
OUT-GOgo out, is depart (Mt. 20:29).
DOWN-COMEcome down (Lu.4:31) is once depart (Ac.13:4).
WITH-(after)-GOproceed, is usually depart.
WITH-LIFTwithdraw, is also depart (Mt.13:53).
BESIDE-LEADpass by (Mk.2:14) is once departed (Mt.9:27).
GO (Mt.2:8) is occasionally varied to depart (Mt.2:9).
UNDER-LEADgo away (Jn.14:28) is rendered depart (Mk.6:33).
SPACEize, separate (Ro.8:35) they have, on good grounds, rendered depart when it refers to a place (Ac.1:4; 18:1,2), and the English seems to have no nearer term, and the Greek word differs but slightly from FROM-SPACE.
    Is it not very evident that the translation of twenty words depart, when English has an abundant supply of synonyms, is in itself a departure from the dictates of reason and real reverence? How is it possible for the English reader to grasp twenty-one different ideas through the medium of one word? But the confusion is worse confounded by the fact that twenty different sets of contexts are throwing a false flood of light upon the word, and the light is darkness.
    The vocabulary method, used in the CONCORDANT VERSION, insists that each of these distinct ideas be distinguished from each other by a special symbol, if that is possible. It will be seen that, in most cases, the Authorized Version itself uses the proper word on some occasions. No plea for pious or venerable diction will convince the honest truth seeker that their erratic renderings are justified.
    In the trying task of transcribing the thoughts of another mind, which far transcends that of the translator, the ordinary methods of turning a human composition from one language into another are entirely inadequate. What a man has written a man can comprehend. The most effective course is to seize the foreign author's thought and express it afresh in a different tongue.
    But once we acknowledge that God, and not man, is the Author of the revelation which we will call the Sacred Scriptures, we are face to face with a spiritual problem akin to that which the scientist encounters in the sphere of nature. He can apprehend some, but never comprehend all. It has been demonstrated mathematically that the distance from one branch to another of a very common weed cannot be measured by any human scale. It is in a ratio whose solution demands a square root which is incommensurable. Now if a mere weed baffles the human intellect, what shall we say of His highest and greatest work? The Scriptures are for our apprehension, but very far beyond our comprehension.
    The ideal way of producing a perfect translation would be to find a man who could understand it all, fully and perfectly, and then have him turn it into English. But where is he? The staff of the CONCORDANT VERSION makes no claim whatever to such necessary knowledge and spiritual skill. On the contrary, the method employed is an admission on their part that such a task is entirely beyond the sphere of human attainment. The vital differences between the greatest of theologians make manifest the fact that no man or company of men can fully grasp divine revelation.
    During the past decade an average of one new translation has appeared annually, yet all differ in numberless details. That there can be such variety in results shows that the translations partake largely of the mind which acted as a medium. The differences are not in the text.
    Unless science had reduced its scattered facts into a system so that the human intellect could deal with its phenomena as the expression of law, it would still be groping in the dark domains of medieval philosophy. It would still be teaching that the heavier a stone, the faster it will fall. One single experiment would have demolished that dogma, but, in those days, "truth" rested on tradition and authority, not on fact. Science has made enormous strides ever since, despite the hindrance offered by unfounded theories. It resorts to experiment and founds truth on the regular recurrence of facts, that is, on law.
    But theology is still largely dominated by tradition and dependent on authority. The extent to which translations agree with such tradition and authority rather than with the inspired autographs is the measure of infidelity to fact and distance from truth.
    A true transcript of a divine revelation must be based on the laws of language rather than on the bias of theologians. What are these laws? How can they be applied? We will briefly consider them in this connection. We must remember, however, that English is not a pure language. It is a conglomeration of fragments from several languages. Sacred Greek, on the contrary, is one of the most perfect and law-abiding of all tongues. In English the same letters and sounds have a dozen distinct meanings. Each thought has a variety of close synonyms. Such difficulties are practically absent from the first century Greek.
    Everything in nature and revelation is known to us by its relation to other objects. We know nothing absolutely, only relatively. The same is true of the symbols, spoken or written, which we use to represent ideas. Hence, in studying words and their meanings, we are not so much concerned with the sign for a word, as with the relation this sustains to other signs. The meaning of a word depends on itsusage, that is the other words with which it is used; on its etymology, that is, the family from which it springs; and on the whole vocabulary of which it forms a part.
    Certain simple and common-sense laws have been discovered and confirmed which are of the greatest help to the linguist, the infraction of which is fraught with the most confusing consequences. One is,
No word is the exact equivalent of any other word.
    If a language, like English, is made up of several tongues, this rule seems to be contradicted. But such is the vitality of this law that such a condition refuses to be permanent. Many words once exactly alike, from the French and Anglo-Saxon, have gradually drifted apart, so that now no good writer will confuse them.
    Pork en pig were once the very same. Now the pig is in the pen and the pork is on the table. One is a living animal, the other, the flesh of a dead one.
    In the languages of inspiration such confusion is practically unknown. The few foreign words fill a vacant place. Each word stands for a definite idea. When, for instance, the divine Author wished to speak of life, what valid reason could be given if, occasionally, He should substitute the word soul? If He meant soul, why did He not use the symbols that expressed it? We are satisfied that He did not mean lifewhen He used the symbols for soul.
Every word in the original should have its own English equivalent.
    If no two words are precisely alike in meaning in the original, it should not be necessary to prove that accuracy demands that each Greek word be supplied with a distinct English equivalent. This, however, cannot be successfully done without a comprehensive system. It is not sufficient that we have the same number of different words in each vocabulary. Each English word should be the one which comes nearest to covering the same domain of thought as the original, and, more particularly, sustains the same relation to the other words of the language.
    To make this clearer, we will compare the world of thought to the surface of the earth, and the words to the geographical and political divisions. There is, indeed, a signal instance - the ancient province of Asia - which shows how confusing its is to use geographical names in English which do not correspond with those in the Greek. Asia now includes a vast continent, and the English reader, unless warned, must get the idea that the entire territory of Asiatic Russia, China, Japan, Korea, Siam, India, Persia, Arabia, Palestine, and Asia Minor are included. So we have translated it "the province of Asia", for only a small part of the present Asia Minor is meant. In precisely the same way it is misleading to translate a general term for one that is specific.
    Carrying out our figure, we will call this the Law of Location. If the geographer must not confound England with New Zealand, the lexicographer should not confuse yea and nay (A.V., 1Co.4:3;6:8), orpour out and fill (A.V., Rev 14:10;18:6).
    But such accidents are rare and easily avoided. It is when two words are similar in meaning that the danger is greatest. Great Britain covers three countries but there are times when it is most important to distinguish between England, Scotland and Wales. Similarly, though all are sin, it is of the highest value to discriminate between injustice and transgression and offense.
    This is practically impossible when one of them, offense, is rendered sin (Eph.1:7), trespass (Eph.2:1), which is practically the same as transgression, as well as the usual word offense. The translators were restrained from rendering it sin in the first verse of the second of Ephesians by the immediate presence of the real word sin. In the vocabulary method of the CONCORDANT VERSION this restraint is always present, and debars it from following their example and lapse in to sin in the fifth verse.
    The only practical safeguard in apportioning to each Greek expression its most fitting English equivalent is to arrange the whole vocabulary in alphabetical order, so that any duplicates will immediately become apparent. If, for instance, we wish to translate FROM-LOOSing redemption, as it is ordinarily rendered, we will be confronted by the fact that this term is already appropriated by LOOSing. We then find that we need, not merely another word, but one which will register the difference indicated by the prefix FROM-. The word deliverance admirably performs this function.
    The vocabulary used by a translator should be such that, when superimposed on the vocabulary of the original, it will not only coincide as far as possible, but clearly define the boundaries between the words and their relation to one another. Such a task is necessarily imperfect in its results, due to radical differences in the idioms of language and also to the usage of words. The question arises whether these imperfections can be removed and, if so, how it is to be done.
    It is not enough, that each word should harmonize with its contexts. If a single English word seems to suit different sets of contexts, in which the original uses two expressions, that is evidence that we have failed to grasp the finer phases of concord. The difference is there, though we may not be aware of it. The vocabulary method is the only means of discovering what our dull senses otherwise overlook. We must find a word for each set of contexts which will fit that and no other. We must compare it with the whole vocabulary and so prove that there is not a better word for the place it fills.
    This leads us to consider the greatest and most powerful of all the laws of language.
Every thought symbol, the moment that it is placed is connection with others, both influences the meaning of its neighbors and is itself modified by them.
    Words antagonistic to each other will not associate. We never read of hot ice. If we did the word hotwould gradually become chilled and lose its present meaning. If we did not know the meaning of cold, its close company with ice would soon assure us of its signification.
    Words get their color from their contexts. Without any dictionary whatever, it is possible to determine the meaning of almost any word if it is seen in a dozen sentences. From this we may deduce the notable conclusion that the actual and understood meaning of an English word in the Bible is not necessarily its current of dictionary meaning, but that which it absorbs from the passages in which it is found. A dictionary simply records the usage of words as employed by careful writers.
    We find, then, that we have discovered a law which will practically adjust the minor differences which exist between Greek and English equivalents. An English word will expand or contract, color or blanch, become purified or tainted, to conform to the thought environments which surround it in the Scriptures. If an English word is not an exact counterpart of the Greek, the contexts in which it consistently occurs will correct its inaccuracies. It will take on a special scriptural signification. This is why the uniform renderings of the CONCORDANT VERSION are the most valuable yet simple means of transferring the truth into English.
    But like all law, its benefits depend on its unvarying observance, and a penalty follows its infringement. If we inject into one English word all the virus of five false contexts, it will not only fail to furnish us with the truth, but it will reflect a false light when used in its proper place. A version which mixes its renderings subconsciously confuses its readers.
    One example will suffice. The ecclesiastical meaning of "ordinance" is a religious rite or ceremony.
    Five different Greek words are translated ordinance in the Authorized Version.
    One of them means decree (Lu.2:1 Ac.16:4;17:7 Eph. 2:15 Col.2:14). In the first three passages they so render it. Why not in the last two?
    Another is mandate (Ac.7:53 Ro.13:2). In the first they translate it disposition.
    Another is statute (Heb.9:1,10).
    Another is always translated creation or creature elsewhere (1Pt.2:13)
    Another is uniformity tradition except in 1Co.11:2.
    In no case does it mean a religious rite. Yet it injects this meaning into almost every passage. If the translators had used some of their own renderings consistently, or even a synonym, we should have been saved untold confusion. It is a flagrant violation of the laws of language to render five different words by one word, and, in each case, to translate these words by other terms as well. The truth is lost in such a maze.
    So valuable and vital is the law of reciprocation that we believe its observance puts the CONCORDANTVERSION in a class by itself. We urge all who are sincerely desirous of knowing God to test this matter fully. The continuous use of a version which obeys this law bridges the gulf between God's thoughts and human apprehension; the constant use of a lawless version puts an impassable chasm between us and God. One is clear concord; the other is subconscious confusion.

from CONCORDANT GREEK TEXT © 1975 Concordant Publishing Concern