The Deity of God

"IF GOD purposed that sin should enter the world, why does He cast Satan into the lake of fire for doing what it was planned he should do?" On the surface this question seems reasonable and right, but beneath its demand for fairness lies the most malignant of all sins. God is put in the same category with man. He is placed on trial by a jury of His peers. He is called to account as though He were a criminal and we were gods, high and mighty, and far more just than He. It denies His deity; it undermines His sovereignty. Man takes His empty throne and is seated in the place supreme.

When the great apostle of the nations was confronted with the equivalent of this question he did not even deign to answer it (Rom.9:19). None who ask it can be enlightened unless first of all they take the place which becomes them in His august Presence. So we echo the apostle's reply. Of those who seek to overthrow the truth by questioning God's right to do what He does, we simply ask, Who are you? We have no controversy with them. Their quarrel is with God. Until they bow to the Creator and acknowledge that they are merely creatures, His ways will be hidden and His doings devious and dark.

This question is but an echo of man's objections to God's dealings with Pharaoh. "You will be protesting to me, then, `Why, then, is He still blaming? For has anyone withstood His intention?'" What is the spirit's answer to such insolence? "O man, who are you, to be sure, who are rejoining to God? That which is moulded does not protest to the moulder, `Why do you make me thus?' Or has not the potter the right over the clay, out of the same kneading to make one vessel, indeed, for honor, and one for dishonor" (Rom.9:19)?

Jehovah said "I will harden Pharaoh's heart" (Ex.7:3). The Hebrew word here rendered "harden" is the same as is elsewhere translated, encourage, establish, strengthen, fortify, etc. Why should it have a special meaning when applied to Pharaoh? Pharaoh's heart was weak. It had to be fortified after the very first infliction (Ex.7:22). After the second, he called for Moses and Aaron and told them he would let the people go (Ex.8:8). After the third it was again fortified (Ex.8:19). After the fourth he weakened once more, and promised to let the people go into the wilderness (Ex.8:2).

While God had to encourage the king's heart, Pharaoh took the honor and glory to himself. This is entirely obscured in our version, where two distinct terms are both rendered "harden." The second term is the same as that in the precept "Honor thy father and thy mother" (Ex.20:12). It never has the sense of harden. Pharaoh honored or glorified his own heart (Ex.8:15,32 [28]; 9:34). God's answer to this is in the same terms, "And the Egyptians shall know that I am Jehovah, when I have gotten Me honor upon Pharaoh..." (Ex.14:18).

Nothing is more mistaken than the supposition that the Pharaoh of the oppression was a mighty strongheart, whom nothing could move, and that his persistent opposition brought his destruction. His heart was infirm and faltering from the first to the finish. He sought one compromise after another, but whenever he weakened, Jehovah fortified his heart, so that he refused to carry out his concessions. It is useless for us to seek to evade the facts. Moses said, "Thus saith Jehovah, `Let My  people go, that they may serve Me!'" (Ex.10:3). Pharaoh said "Go" (Ex.10:8). "But Jehovah fortified Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the sons of Israel go" (Ex.10:20).

The ruler of Egypt was the merest puppet in the hands of God. Pharaoh did not think so. He was conscious of no external coercion. He gloried in the influx of a mysterious might that enabled him to recover from his spells of fear and answer these miserable Hebrew slaves as they deserved. Herein lies the real essence of what is misnamed free will. It is simply that men are not conscious of coercion. Their volition is not really the independent deity it seems to be. It is as much the product of law as all else in nature. It is a composite of the interior and exterior forces in which they, have their being. Free will is the insensibility brought on by the anesthetic ignorance.

The important point for us to fix firmly is the fact that God was apparently working counter to His revealed will. It is but natural for us to suppose that, if He said that He wanted His people to go, He would use His influence with Pharaoh to effect their deliverance. But we forget the divine purpose back of it all. Israel's liberation and exodus and Pharaoh's defeat were not the end in view. They were merely the means. The immediate purpose was the revelation of God's power. The ultimate purpose is the complete revelation of Himself.

All knowledge is relative. The greatness of God's power can only be grasped by contrast with another similar power. Egypt's greatness and strength must be established before God's might can be manifested by its overthrow. And, if the ruler of Egypt begins to melt before His might, he must be held together long enough to stand up before the onslaughts of Jehovah. Man's puny power must actually be reinforced by God before it can even form a foil for the display of His strength.

The physical is a parable of the spiritual. Almost all locomotion or progress is the result of two counteracting forces. The major, or applied power, is modified by a minor or secondary directing force. Were the ships that cross the sea compelled to sail before the wind they would seldom reach a haven. The helmsman holds the vessel across the path of the breeze by pitting the water against the wind. Any sailor will acknowledge that the force that holds a ship to its course is quite as necessary to its usefulness as the driving power.

Gravity is the essential counter force on land. Without it we could not walk or ride. However much it may weigh on us and tire us, we could make no progress whatever without it. In walking, we lift our feet from the ground. They would continue to leave the earth but for gravity. We could not put them down again, for we have no support for a downward thrust, unless we are walking in a tunnel. But for gravity a vehicle could ascend a hill as easily as go down. Indeed, it could do neither, for it would soon leave the ground and lose all its power of traction.

The principle of two opposing forces is contained in almost all methods of utilizing mechanical energy. Every motorist knows that to get the full effect of his fuel, the momentum of an internal combustion engine must compress the charge after it has been exploded in order to produce practical results. These forces must not be equally balanced, of course, or the engine will stall. In operation, when the charge explodes, it is not immediately allowed to propel the piston, but the inertia of the engine compresses it for a brief instant, greatly increasing its potential power. After this it is allowed to do its proper work. If anyone wishes a practical example of the principle we are discussing, let him try to crank a motor with the spark advanced to running position. The explosion will force the engine backwards, and so forcefully that it will endanger the hand or arm of anyone who does not take due precautions.

The electric dynamo is gradually replacing other methods of producing power, so that, in civilized lands, it bids fair to become the main medium of motion and light and even heat. Suppose we should build a dynamo, driven by water power. We will take cores of soft iron and wind wire around them to make an armature. We will mount these so that the water will set them whirling. But we get no electricity. No practical effect is produced.

Now, however, let us add some magnets and place the poles so that they pull the armature in the opposite direction. Now we have two opposing forces. The result is that we get an electric current. We may not be able to reason out the physical fact that an opposing power is essential, but we know that it works. The moment we withdraw the counter force it ceases to be practical. This subtle form of energy, which can be known only from its effects, is one of the closest approximations to the divine   spirit which we have. The only way this physical power can be known is by the same principle which God used in the case of Pharaoh.

As we behold the grand orbs of space we are appalled at the power displayed. The moon, the sun, the myriads of stars, all present such staggering exhibitions of physical force that our imagination reels, and refuses to follow the facts. Yet these immense masses, as well as the most minute particles of matter in the universe are held in place by the operation of two forces, not by one the moon, for instance, like every other object above the earth, is constantly falling. What a tremendous impact it would make if it were not held aloft by the counteracting centrifugal motion which seeks to make it fly off into space!

These are offered simply as illustrations to enable us to grasp the truth taught in God's word, that He pits His power against itself, and introduces conflict into the creation, so as to guide it into the path which leads to perfection. Had Pharaoh obeyed the revealed will of God, Jehovah's purpose would have been defeated. There would have been no mighty portents, no restraining of the Red Sea, no bloodless battle, no defeat of Egypt's armies by a rabble of slaves. God's indignation and power would have remained below the horizon of human perception.

Perhaps no other event has so impressed mankind with the sovereign power of Jehovah as the deliverance of His people out of Egypt. Israel never did and never will forget it. Only a few millenniums have passed since Jehovah led His people from the land of bondage, yet millions of men have marveled at the might and majesty which it manifested. The suffering involved has been justified thousands of times by the lesson which it has conveyed.

With the indisputable and undeniable facts before us, we pray God's forgiveness beforehand for so much as staging the farce of bringing the divine Majesty before the bar of human folly. We repeat the question with which we began, suiting it to the circumstances attending the exodus out of Egypt. "If God purposed that Pharaoh should resist His mandate, why did He plague Egypt and drown Pharaoh's host in the Red Sea for doing what He had planned that they should do?" God Himself replies that it was done to display His indignation and to make His power known (Rom.9:22). And who dares to question His right to do as He wills with His own?

But for those who bow before His divine Majesty, there is a complete and satisfactory solution of the apparent moral obloquy which seems to cling to such arbitrary despotism. Our mistake lies in this, that we take a small segment of God's dealings with Pharaoh as a public character and treat it as though it were the complete cycle of His dealings with him as an individual.

Orthodoxy insists that the die is cast at death. According to its teachings Pharaoh was not only coerced into rebellion against God at the exodus, but he has consciously suffered for his sin ever since, and will do so for all eternity. The annihilationist view is far more merciful to Pharaoh, for he does not receive any punishment in death and suffers extinction of being after enduring the penalty of his acts. The revolt against God's deity has its roots in these unreasonable and irreconcilable doctrines of human destiny.

Once we allow God to complete the broken record of Pharaoh's life it is easy to justify Him and it is easy for God to justify Pharaoh. The great king is not suffering now, before he appears in the judgment to be sentenced. When he does stand before the great white throne, his sentence will be just, in accord with his deeds. The judgment will be, not merely penal, but corrective and remedial. Its end will be death, in which there is no suffering or consciousness of time.

So far as Pharaoh's conscious experience is concerned, his death is immediately followed by his resurrection, and ushers him into the judgment. If he was drowned in the waters of the Red sea he loses all trace of time till he awakens before the great white throne. The judgment is not simply to condemn. Its object is to set right what is wrong. The greatest wrong is his attitude toward God. In the presence of Christ and the awful throne this will be corrected. By means of the blood of Christ his life will be justified (Rom.5:18).

To some it may seem inexplicable that, when he is brought to this point, he should not immediately join the saints, and enter into eonian bliss. But a little reflection will show that this has never been God's way. We are justified and reconciled, yet God does not immediately transport us into the ineffable bliss of His presence. How do most of His saints enter the glory? Through the portals of death. Some of the most faithful have actually suffered death by fire, and not by fire only, but by tortures unspeakably worse and more prolonged.

We do not believe in the theological denial of death embodied in the formula "Sudden death, sudden glory." There is no glory for us until the resurrection. The silence of the Scriptures and the palpable obscurity of theologians should be sufficient to convince anyone on this point. Nevertheless, since the dead know not anything (Ecc.9:5), this statement is true so far as they are aware. In their conscious experience, the moment of repose coincides with the moment of awakening.

Pharaoh dies the second death, yet to him it is quite as if he entered at once into the unutterable glory of the consummation. Through water he enters into the resurrection. Through fire he enters vivification. Thus he is justified, vivified and reconciled. He is a notable example of those whom God locks up in stubbornness (Rom.11:32). In his case, as in all others, it is done, not to lead to his eternal condemnation, but that God may be merciful to him. Christ, Who taught His disciples to love their enemies, will display the richness of His heart and the efficacy of His blood, in the reconciliation of the invisible sovereignties which He created (Col.1:16,20).

At that time no such question will cloud the character of God, so we can well imagine Pharaoh changing it into an affirmation, or, rather, exultation. Well may he exclaim: Blessed be the God Who used my unworthy self to exalt His name and spread His fame! It is an honor to have been trodden beneath His feet!

The case of Satan has some points peculiar to the arch enemy, but it is the same in principle as that of Pharaoh and all of God's opponents. The differences are in degree and detail, not in essence. If God Himself encouraged Pharaoh to oppose His revealed will, we are under no necessity of seeking to invent some new god to be His adversary. Pharaoh carried out God's larger purpose while opposing His apparent determination. So Satan is His instrument for producing the necessary alienation which is the only possible basis of the universal reconciliation.

Satan has no more free will than Pharaoh had. Freedom, in the creature, does not consist in absolute independence of environment, but in accordance with it. God alone originates action. Place, time, and circumstance control His creatures. In reality, they have as little to say about the course of their existence as they had about their creation. But consciously, within the limitations of their own experience, they are allowed the same liberty as Pharaoh had. They may sit upon the throne of their own diminutive personality and fondly dream that they have excluded God from their domain. Of such the chief is Satan, adversary of Christ and slanderer of God.

If judgment were what men think it is, mere punishment for misbehavior, it would be somewhat difficult to see clearly just why Satan should suffer in the lake of fire for having played his part according to the underlying purpose of God. But God's judgment is never such an exhibition of puerile impotence. It sets matters right. During the eons, it will deal with all in accord with His revealed will, and in such a fashion that this will coincide with His underlying purpose at the consummation.

Neither is God's judgment concerned with detached cases, with no reference to its effect on others, especially Himself. He did not make His power known in His dealings with Pharaoh in such a way as to forfeit the regard of all who love justice and righteousness, though such seems to be the case at present. The judgment of Pharaoh will not only set him right but will set God right in the eyes of all His creatures. He is God, hence He must be an absolute ruler. But He will yet show that His is a most benevolent and beneficent rule.

So with Satan. His judgment is unique. Why is he not cast into the lake of fire together with the beast and the false prophet at the beginning of the thousand years? Because God still has work for him to do. If it was contrary to the underlying purpose of God that mankind should rebel at the close of the millennium, why is he kept and loosed in order to bring it about? Some will insist that this rebellion was of the devil. So it was. But if the mayor of one of our municipalities were to set a noted political prisoner loose in order to lead a revolution against the government there are some hard-headed individuals who would hold him responsible just as much, if not more, than the traitor.

Satan's judgment is not a private, but a public affair, quite as much as his previous career. He is not bound for his own sake but to restrain his power for evil. He does not make his escape, but is deliberately loosed in order to stir up strife. It is evident that Gog and Magog would not have rebelled apart from his instigation. They are not "responsible." Neither could Satan have done it if he had not been set free. He is not "responsible." God alone is "responsible," for He is the only One Who is neither bound nor influenced by an exterior force

Here is an episode in the annals of evil which we would commend to the consideration of those who insist on the deity of Satan but repudiate the deity of God. They may refuse Jehovah's solemn declaration that He is the creator of evil and place the sable crown on the brow of Satan and thus rob God of His proper place because their vision of the past has been dimmed by the fogs of tradition, but they cannot confute the fact that in this final irruption of sin, which rehearses briefly its introduction at the first, their god goes forth as the obedient vassal of his Jailer. The unbinding of Satan is just as much the deliberate act of God as his binding at the beginning of the thousand years.

It is worthy of note that Satan is one of the few who receive no hearing before the great white throne. As soon as his part has been played he is cast into the place specially prepared for him and his messengers. There is no need to inquire into his case. All judicial proceedings are superfluous. So he is summarily consigned to the lake of fire.

With ordinary human beings the lake of fire means immediate death. But not so with Satan. A man would soon succumb to imprisonment in the abyss. He stood it for a thousand years. There is no reason to suppose that it was a place of suffering. We have no ground for believing that Satan suffers before his doom. The salutary though severe providence which subdues and softens the hearts of mankind has never been his portion. Some of God's dearest saints have spent a lifetime in pain. They will thank Him for it when they realize its benefits. It does not destroy their sense of God's love. It will form the foil for its display.

For Satan to enter the consummation with all the unbroken pride and arrogance that are his at the end of the thousand years would be unthinkable. Then all creation will have been subdued. So that Satan must be the subject of the severest discipline to bring him into subjection to God and in harmony with all creation at the consummation. This is found in the lake of fire. This is not the place where men are judged. Their judgment precedes it. Satan suffers in it. There is just as equitable a proportion between his life and its rectification as there is in the case of mankind. If men are judged in accord with their deeds it is only reasonable to assume that Satan's doom should be more severe, to accord with his doings.

In brief, the case of Satan presents no special difficulties. The case of Pharaoh or of any man presents precisely the same problem. Indeed, our own experience ought to enable us to understand these greater examples. We may refuse to believe that Satan was made a sinner apart from his own choosing, but we can hardly convince even ourselves that we had any choice in our own entrance into the world as we are. Why not ask, "If men come into a world of sin without their own volition, what right has God to condemn them?" The principle is the same. The answer is the same. God is God, and we are His creatures.

We can see the answer to this problem in the creation about us (Rom.8:18-24). God has subjected it to vanity. It had no will in the matter. But this is in expectation. We can see the solution in our own experience. We are suffering at the present time, not because God uses us to oppose His will, but because we are making it known. Is it not stranger to suffer for doing the will of God, than for consciously undoing His decrees? Is it not more difficult to see why we should suffer than to understand Satan's judgment? But, you say, we have a hope. We know that our suffering does not deserve the glory about to be revealed. So with all suffering. It is transient, disciplinary, corrective, and leads to the haven of God's heart. Christ died for all, and all will eventually benefit by the efficacy of His blood.

If Satan, created to oppose God, were doomed to eternal torment, then we may indeed question the justice of God. If the Slanderer, formed to destroy, is finally annihilated, then indeed we may wonder if God has done right. So long as we are held by either of these alternatives, we are almost forced to shield the character of God by falling back on the assumption that He is not responsible for the creation of His adversary, and thus we unconsciously drag Him from His throne. The doctrine of the deity of the Devil is the rational recoil from God's supposed inability to bring His creation to a successful consummation.

But once we see that sin and suffering are parts of the divine process, not the goal, and that all will contribute to the full revelation of Himself and the utmost blessing of His creatures, we have a destiny which does not demand His dethronement at the beginning. We do not need to fabricate another god to take the blame from His shoulders. In brief, we have a God. Satan's suffering in the lake of fire is essential to God's purpose for both Himself and all creation. It is not his end. It is the process by which he is prepared for his ultimate place in the perfected universe.

The rational retribution of believing in the triumph of Satan at the close is to deify him at the beginning. Reason demands that one who can thwart God and rob Him of the mass of His creatures must be His equal or superior. As a result we come to the most startling conclusion that very few, even of His saints, intelligently hold to the proper deity of God! Of course all will repudiate the charge. They would not think of denying what seems so "fundamental." Yet their words and their actions all proclaim that He is not God alone, but only one of the Christian pantheon.

It is quite fitting that those who hold to eternal torment or annihilation should object to God's deity. They reason in a circle. Because all are not saved He is not God. He is not God because all are not saved. But they should not load us with their problems. We who see the grand ultimate are enabled to acknowledge His Godhood. Eternal torment either deifies the devil or transforms God Himself into a fiend. Annihilation somewhat softens the harshness of His injustice, yet insists on Satan's supremacy. No one can be held by either of these doctrines or any intermediate scheme of human destiny and acknowledge the full deity of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is operating the universe in accord with the counsel of His own loving adamantine will.

It is only as we see His supreme success at the consummation, when He will be All in all His creatures, that we are able to grasp the great truth of the deity of  God. Only then can we turn back to the beginning and see Him supreme. Only then can we look above the clouds and see Him ride the storm. Only then can we believe Him when He says (Isa.45:6-9):

I am Yahweh, and there is none else,

Former of light, and Creator of darkness,

Maker of peace, and Creator of evil:

I the Yahweh, am Maker of all these.

Drip jubilation, ye heavens, from above, 

And ye skies, distil righteousness.

Open, O earth, and be fruitful with salvation

And let righteousness sprout together with it.

I, Yahweh, am its Creator.

Will one contend with his Former?

The earthenware with the Ceramist?

God’s Will and Intention

IN translating the ninth of Romans, verse nineteen, I felt almost as if the text before me was faulty. It should surely read "who hath resisted His will?" Yet the word is not will, but intention. There seemed so little difference, at the time, that I did not appreciate the concordant rendering myself. Since then I have been most thankful fIN translating the ninth of Romans, verse nineteen, I felt almost as if the text before me was faulty. It should surely read "who hath resisted His will?" Yet the word is not will, but intention. There seemed so little difference, at the time, that I did not appreciate the concordant rendering myself. Since then I have been most thankful for it. It helps to solve one of the deepest difficulties and contradictions connected with the place and problem of evil. To the question, Who hath resisted His will? we may answer, Many, if not all. But to the query, Has anyone withstood His intention? the reply is the opposite, for no one can thwart Him. Even when withstanding His will we are fulfilling His intention.

There are not many passages in God's word like the ninth of Romans. Seldom are we taken behind the scenes into the realm of the absolute. Much in this chapter seems to contradict other portions of the Scriptures, because they deal with processes, as seen by man, while this is concerned with causes, known only to God. God has a goal. In order to reach it He must have had absolute control from the beginning. All the intervening process, no matter what it may appear to be to men, must be the working out of His original intention. He is the great Potter. His creatures are clay. This is true only in regard to God's intention. Viewed in relation to His will they are not at all the passive material suggested by the clay. "Ye will not" describes man's antagonistic attitude toward God's revealed will.

The case of Pharaoh is the classic example of the chasm between God's will and His intention. His revealed will was very plain. "Let My people go!" It seemed to be fulfilled in the liberation of Israel. But no one who reads the account and believes it can escape the conviction that God's intention included more than His revealed will, and that it involved opposition to that will. This much might be easily inferred if Pharaoh had been hard-hearted enough to play his part. It is put beyond doubt by the action of God in hardening his heart.

God's revealed will was limited to the release of Israel. His intention was to display His own power and glorify His name in all the earth. This is given us as a specimen of His complete purpose and of the process by which He will attain it. Mankind does not comply with His will, His saints do not comprehend His intention. Yet He uses both the opposition and the ignorance to effect His object. No doubt many in Israel were fervently praying that Pharaoh's heart would soon soften, and he would let them go. God's answer to their prayer was to harden his heart. They sighed for salvation. He wrought with a view to His own glory.

It takes little imagination to picture this scene. Its continuous repetition during the first three eons makes it most important to our spiritual welfare. The same conflicting forces are at work today. It is quite conceivable how the saints would have managed the affair. They would have implored Jehovah to compel Pharaoh to let them go. Perhaps they would call a grand Prayer meeting for this purpose. Perhaps they would set aside a week of intercession. "We know not what to pray for" was as true of them as of us. Perhaps they would be "definite" in their petitions, and insist that He melt the heart of the king, and so remove his opposition.

How much there is of this today! The saints unite in great "world movements," seeking to soften the heart of mankind, trying to do away with sin, seeking to abolish the many evils that harass us, uniting against war and vice and corruption, for all of these are against the revealed will of God. These efforts, we are told, are practical. They are not mere theory, words without works. Of what use is such an article as this, for example, to stem the tide of iniquity? Using the same figure, I would advise all that the tide will be the highest in all history, and that no human effort will be able to stop it, for it is necessary to fulfill God's intention.

The Israelites hoped Jehovah would soften Pharaoh's heart. What they wished was to quietly slip out of Goshen into the promised land. They wanted none of the terrible signs. They did not ask for the passover. Surely they would not have entered the trap which threatened to destroy them. They did not ask for the miraculous passage through the Red Sea. The forty years in the wilderness was not of their choosing. The most illustrious epoch in their history was forced upon them. It was a continuous exhibition of disobedience to God's will. Yet who doubts for a moment that it was in line with His purpose?

Now that all is past and we can get a true perspective of these events, who would prefer to have Israel's prayer answered? It was not necessary to soften Pharaoh's heart. It was too soft already. If it had not been hardened the exodus would have been a flat, uninteresting story, with no outward manifestations of Jehovah's power or love. Its glory would be gone. Its God would be unknown. The wisdom and power of Egypt must be exposed by conflict with the wisdom and power of God. His attributes must be revealed by contrast with the mightiest and wisest of humankind.

The antitype of this marvelous period of Israel's history lies just before us, only the miraculous manifestations will be far more wonderful than of old. God is today hardening the world's heart in preparation for that epoch. Men are approaching the wisdom of ancient Egypt in their knowledge of nature, and are far surpassing it in power. Shall Jehovah weaken them before using them as a foil to display His might? Rather it is His wisdom to harden their hearts, so that, in opposing His will, they may fulfill His ultimate intention.

It is obvious that God could not reveal His intention. He could not tell Pharaoh that, while He asked him to let the people go, He really did not Want Him to comply, but desired to use him as a foil for the revelation of His power. This would actually make a mere machine of him. It was the ignorance of God's ultimate object which made the whole procedure real to the actors in it. They did not by any means feel or act as mere puppets, notwithstanding that each an d every one was doing precisely what was needed to accomplish God's aim.

Too often we are told that, if man has no free will, he is a mere automaton. This is a mistake. The so-called "freedom" consists merely in the lack of conscious coercion. Being ignorant of the constraining or restraining influences which determine his conduct, and altogether unaware of ulterior forces, he subconsciously yields at the very time that he imagines he is most independent. His freedom of will is simply ignorant unconsciousness or submission to environment or heredity.

In relation to the will of God, men are consciously independent. They can accept it or reject it, and imagine that no other force but the divinity enthroned within them has anything to do with their decision. But when we find the niche assigned them in God's intention they are (thank God!) the most utterly dependent slaves of circumstance it is possible to imagine. It will be found that, throughout their lives, they were no more masters of their fate than they were of the date and details of their birth.

The doctrine of man's free will peoples the earth with a race of puny gods. We object to the dual gods of Persia or the many deities of the Greek and Roman pantheon, yet these ancient pagans never rose to the absurdity of making every man a god. The possession of a free, untrammeled, unconquerable will is the exclusive attribute of deity. Only One God can possess it. Our blessed Lord Himself did not claim it. He came, not to do His own will, but the will of Him Who had sent Him.

The failure to recognize both of these aspects of divine revelation has led to incalculable confusion and misunderstanding. Those who reject God's intention rob Him of His godhood and deify man. Those who confuse His intention with His revealed will make of Him a love-lacking tyrant, a hard-hearted monster. Others, who wish to believe all the Scriptures have to say, are not clear how to harmonize His character with the presence of sin, especially when it becomes evident that sin has a place in the attainment of His ultimate purpose.

It seems most reasonable, at first thought, that God's will must be fulfilled in order to reach God's goal. We imagine that any infringement of it forever forfeits any share in His ultimate purpose. But further reflection will show that God's intention must be attained, not only through submission to His will, but also through opposition to its express commands. The highest expression of God's wisdom lies in His ability to transform every effort against Him into that which is not only favorable to His plans, but essential to His purpose.

All evil and every sin reverses its character completely when we take it from the limited light of God's revealed will to the universal illumination of His intention. This is the reason that we do not hesitate to believe the Scriptures that all is of God. No sin remains such when completely illumined by His intention. It is a failure, a sin, and subject to dire penalties when man commits it, but it is no longer a mistake when it finds its place in God's purpose. The same act which brings shame and dishonor on the creature, when subjected to the divine alchemy, is transmuted into a source of glory and peace to God.

Such general observations are apt to be dismissed as bordering on blasphemy. But let anyone take the great sins in the Scriptures and ponder all their aspects. Each one is essential to God's plan. But it is better to be specific. Pharaoh is the great sinner in this scene. He is the one who opposes God's expressed desire. Make him willing or compliant with God's command, and what is left? In that case God would have failed in His object. To avoid this He finds it necessary to stiffen the opposition. Jehovah hardens Pharaoh's heart in order that he my sin against Him! Some insist that God cannot have such a close connection with sin. They would prefer to fix the blame on Pharaoh, or on Satan. But, while Jehovah directly causes Pharaoh to sin, by doing so He Himself avoids failure or sin.

Any lack of discrimination when speaking on these themes is likely to cause confusion. The same statement may be both true and false. Two directly contradictory assertions may both be true or both be false, according as they are related to God's will or to His intention. A beloved brother, who had been meditating on these things, made the statement that Adam's "fall" was really a fall upward. I would strenuously object to such a suggestion, apart from an explanation. Adam's sin and transgression and offense were very bad and degrading when viewed as disobedience to God's will. When associated with the work of Christ and God's ultimate purpose it was the very best he could have done. Even its immediate effects were not all evil, for he obtained a knowledge of good, impossible is his previous condition.

So with sin as a whole. We almost dread to speak of it in relation to God's ultimate, for few, even of His beloved saints, have seen behind the scenes, and almost any assertion would be false if related to His revealed will. Is sin good? No! It is the worst thing in the world. No words can express our horror and detestation of it. Is sin good? Yes! Not, indeed, in itself, but its effect will be beneficent beyond anything else this world can give, when combined with the mediatorial work of Christ and the reconciliation of which it is the occasion.

Perhaps this is why some beloved brethren insist that I teach that God sins, or is the Author of sin. I have never said this or even thought it, so far as I am aware. If I have unwittingly done so, I humbly retract and recant. But I am informed that various passages in my writings on this subject imply it, though they do not express it in so many words. When I review these passages, I do not see the implication. I did not intend such a thought. I did not express it. To my own consciousness, I did not even imply it. Some inferred from the apostle Paul's teaching that they should do evil that good may come. If he, could be misunderstood, I count it an, honor to be in the same condemnation.

But what is an implication? Is it not the result of combining what we think with another's statement? It is reasoning from two premises, one our own and one supplied by another. In its crudest form the argument may be stated thus: I believe that all is of God. My inquisitors insist that sin is part of the "all." Therefore, I believe that God sins. It seems very logical to them. I may object and say that I do not concur in their conclusions. I may even say that my premise is not mine, but God's. But no. My scheme is simply an attempt to exonerate Satan and prepare people for the homage which he will demand at the time of the end! Away with such a fellow from the earth!

This places me in a strange position. I cannot but consider their deduction a mistake in logic, a transgression of morals, and even an offense. In short, it is a full-orbed sin. I am eager to acknowledge, however, that it is of God. But even my small mind, weakened by overwork, and dulled by distress, has not the slightest difficulty in discriminating between the human and the divine aspect of these acts. God is making no mistakes. His servants are. He will justify their injustice, not because they are in line with His will, but because they are carrying out His intentions I have no hesitation in thanking God for this distressing antagonism, for I know that in His hands it is no error. Truth such as this needs opposition for its development and dissemination. It takes friction to rub off the rust of centuries.

I take it to be my duty never to insist on a deduction from another's words to which he does not assent. It may be impossible for me to see how he can escape it, but my infirmity is no valid ground for another's condemnation. I find the same mistake is often made in the study of the Scriptures. A deduction is made from some passage and held in opposition to the plain teaching of another portion. What am I, that I should escape this mishandling? I would take it very kindly of my inquisitors, however, if they would publicly acknowledge that I do not believe that God sins, or is the author of sin, and that I see nothing in my writings to that effect, but I have always maintained, with my inquisitor, that this is unscriptural.

I would exhort my inquisitors concerning the form of their indictment. I have striven to avoid non-scriptural forms of expression when dealing with this theme. This is difficult to do when writing at length on a single subject. But it is easy to do when drawing up definite charges. The form of an indictment may condemn those who prefer it. It may be purposely ambiguous, so as to cloud the issue. Such is the phrase "Author of sin." The word author is unscriptural. It is an appeal to prejudice. It seems to smirch God with sin. It may or may not imply that God sins. Some do not think that it does. Others do. The lack of love that thinks evil injects it into the issue as a character witness, to fasten the odium of heresy and blasphemy on those who stand for the truth!

The difficulty seems to be that we cannot easily view an act apart from its moral character. We do not readily see that no act is sinful in itself, but in its relations. The act of plucking and eating fruit is not necessarily a sin. Yet it was humanity's primal error. The mistake lay in its relation to the God Who had forbidden it. If He had commanded it, it would have been commendable. Now that we know that it was essential to His intention, that He had provided for it before it occurred, that He arranged everything so that it should occur, we see that, though it was a sin in relation to His will, it was no mistake in view of His benevolent intention.

Who fortified Pharaoh's heart? Was it good or evil? Was it a sin or not? Straightforward answers to these simple questions should settle the matter. Until my judges suggest a more satisfactory solution I shall still believe and teach that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, that it was necessary to spread abroad His name and fame and therefore good and just, and also that Pharaoh withstood God's word, which was an evil and a sin. One act. Two aspects. Bad and good.

Perhaps the greatest example of the distinction between God's will and His intention is found in the law promulgated from Sinai. Jehovah made known His will in a complete code of laws, besides the condensed commandments which were carved in stone. The Jew, who was resting on law, is said to "know the will" (Rom.2:18). But if it was God's intention that the nation should keep the law, it certainly was a dismal failure on His part. The broke its greatest precept before it reached them. They dishonored God by its flagrant infringement.

But, though the failure of the law seems to be contrary to the will of God, it actually was a fulfillment of His intention. It was really given that "every mouth may be barred, and the entire world may be becoming subject to the just verdict of God, because by works of law, no flesh shall be justified before Him, for through law is the recognition of sin" (Rom.3:19,20). The law which, ostensibly, was to deter from sinning, actually was given for the detection of sin. It was given to prove that no one could keep it. Beneath the revelation of God's will in it was His intention that it should not be kept, but should accomplish its object through its infraction.

"Law crept in that the offense should be increasing" (Rom. 5:20). How differently did Israel, at Sinai, feel about it! They were quite sure that they would greatly lessen the distance between themselves and Jehovah by their obedience to His precepts. Why had He told them what He wanted them to do and to avoid unless it was His will to carry out His instructions? The will of Jehovah was clear. But His intention was quite concealed. He could not make known His intention at that time without frustrating it.

This should help us in considering the larger question of sin. Sin is always against the revealed will of God. No one can possibly find any excuse for sinning so far as His expressed precepts are concerned. Both conscience and nature add their voice to restrain us from wrong. But we do sin. How can we be justified unless the sin is, in some sense, justifiable? We know that it is God's intention to draw His creatures into loving intimacy with Himself through sin and a Saviour. We know that the temporary term of sin will leave the world infinitely richer in the knowledge and appreciation of God. It will bring God immeasurable treasures of love and adoration. As a whole, its results vindicate its presence for a time. What is true of all sin must be true of every sin.

This truth is the foundation of the doctrine of justification. Because it has been lost, justification has also disappeared, or has been degraded to a pardon or an "imputed" fiction. Few believe that God actually justifies believers. They imagine He only alters the court records, so that no one can legally prove their guilt. It is of the utmost comfort and satisfaction to know that all that we have done is vindicated by the part it plays in carrying out His intention. Do not let anyone sell you an imitation justification! God's is the actual, the genuine, the precious reality.

This is why we insist that all the world has not become "guilty" before God, as the Authorized Version mistranslates (Rom.3:19). The entire world is subject to the just verdict of God (C.V.). He withholds this verdict until the judgment, in the case of the unbeliever. The believer, however, is pronounced not guilty. He is acquitted, vindicated, justified, by faith. His sins, though contrary to God's will, were in line with His intention, in order that He might reveal Himself through them.

All that the usual theology has to offer us at the consummation, even in the saved, is a partial, patched, repaired and repainted universe. The song of the saints will be in a minor key, "I was a guilty sinner." Their joy will be clouded by eternal regret and shame for their part in the tragedy of the eons. The eonian times will be the eyesore of eternity. Oh! if they only had not been! And so will God's wisdom and power be questioned, and His glory dimmed for He Himself must be the chief culprit in the collapse of His creation.

But away with such unworthy thoughts! The consummation will not reveal a patched, but a perfected universe. We will not be worrying about our past sins, but overwhelmed with God's wisdom and love in their vindication. Much as they distress us now, much as we fear them and avoid them and dread the very possibility of further sin, God will see to it that they will leave no stain, no blot to mar the bliss eternal, but will blend into His benign designs, and discover to a delighted universe the delicious depths of love which could not be displayed by any others device, or appreciated by any other plan.

This teaching is also the substructure for a mature experience in the things of God. It gives stability, a calm confidence in the face of the chaotic conditions which surround and engulf us. We are not worried, as once we were, by the awful opposition to God's will, nor do we fear for the fulfillment of His purpose. The flood tide of evil and sin, however contrary it may be to His will, is essential and indispensable to His ultimate intention. He is the great Alchemist Who will transmute everything into glorious gold by contact with the accursed tree.

IN translating the ninth of Romans, verse nineteen, I felt almost as if the text before me was faulty. It should surely read "who hath resisted His will?" Yet the word is not will, but intention. There seemed so little difference, at the time, that I did not appreciate the concordant rendering myself. Since then I have been most thankful for it. It helps to solve one of the deepest difficulties and contradictions connected with the place and problem of evil. To the question, Who hath resisted His will? we may answer, Many, if not all. But to the query, Has anyone withstood His intention? the reply is the opposite, for no one can thwart Him. Even when withstanding His will we are fulfilling His intention.

There are not many passages in God's word like the ninth of Romans. Seldom are we taken behind the scenes into the realm of the absolute. Much in this chapter seems to contradict other portions of the Scriptures, because they deal with processes, as seen by man, while this is concerned with causes, known only to God. God has a goal. In order to reach it He must have had absolute control from the beginning. All the intervening process, no matter what it may appear to be to men, must be the working out of His original intention. He is the great Potter. His creatures are clay. This is true only in regard to God's intention. Viewed in relation to His will they are not at all the passive material suggested by the clay. "Ye will not" describes man's antagonistic attitude toward God's revealed will.

The case of Pharaoh is the classic example of the chasm between God's will and His intention. His revealed will was very plain. "Let My people go!" It seemed to be fulfilled in the liberation of Israel. But no one who reads the account and believes it can escape the conviction that God's intention included more than His revealed will, and that it involved opposition to that will. This much might be easily inferred if Pharaoh had been hard-hearted enough to play his part. It is put beyond doubt by the action of God in hardening his heart.

God's revealed will was limited to the release of Israel. His intention was to display His own power and glorify His name in all the earth. This is given us as a specimen of His complete purpose and of the process by which He will attain it. Mankind does not comply with His will, His saints do not comprehend His intention. Yet He uses both the opposition and the ignorance to effect His object. No doubt many in Israel were fervently praying that Pharaoh's heart would soon soften, and he would let them go. God's answer to their prayer was to harden his heart. They sighed for salvation. He wrought with a view to His own glory.

It takes little imagination to picture this scene. Its continuous repetition during the first three eons makes it most important to our spiritual welfare. The same conflicting forces are at work today. It is quite conceivable how the saints would have managed the affair. They would have implored Jehovah to compel Pharaoh to let them go. Perhaps they would call a grand Prayer meeting for this purpose. Perhaps they would set aside a week of intercession. "We know not what to pray for" was as true of them as of us. Perhaps they would be "definite" in their petitions, and insist that He melt the heart of the king, and so remove his opposition.

How much there is of this today! The saints unite in great "world movements," seeking to soften the heart of mankind, trying to do away with sin, seeking to abolish the many evils that harass us, uniting against war and vice and corruption, for all of these are against the revealed will of God. These efforts, we are told, are practical. They are not mere theory, words without works. Of what use is such an article as this, for example, to stem the tide of iniquity? Using the same figure, I would advise all that the tide will be the highest in all history, and that no human effort will be able to stop it, for it is necessary to fulfill God's intention.

The Israelites hoped Jehovah would soften Pharaoh's heart. What they wished was to quietly slip out of Goshen into the promised land. They wanted none of the terrible signs. They did not ask for the passover. Surely they would not have entered the trap which threatened to destroy them. They did not ask for the miraculous passage through the Red Sea. The forty years in the wilderness was not of their choosing. The most illustrious epoch in their history was forced upon them. It was a continuous exhibition of disobedience to God's will. Yet who doubts for a moment that it was in line with His purpose?

Now that all is past and we can get a true perspective of these events, who would prefer to have Israel's prayer answered? It was not necessary to soften Pharaoh's heart. It was too soft already. If it had not been hardened the exodus would have been a flat, uninteresting story, with no outward manifestations of Jehovah's power or love. Its glory would be gone. Its God would be unknown. The wisdom and power of Egypt must be exposed by conflict with the wisdom and power of God. His attributes must be revealed by contrast with the mightiest and wisest of humankind.

The antitype of this marvelous period of Israel's history lies just before us, only the miraculous manifestations will be far more wonderful than of old. God is today hardening the world's heart in preparation for that epoch. Men are approaching the wisdom of ancient Egypt in their knowledge of nature, and are far surpassing it in power. Shall Jehovah weaken them before using them as a foil to display His might? Rather it is His wisdom to harden their hearts, so that, in opposing His will, they may fulfill His ultimate intention.

It is obvious that God could not reveal His intention. He could not tell Pharaoh that, while He asked him to let the people go, He really did not Want Him to comply, but desired to use him as a foil for the revelation of His power. This would actually make a mere machine of him. It was the ignorance of God's ultimate object which made the whole procedure real to the actors in it. They did not by any means feel or act as mere puppets, notwithstanding that each an d every one was doing precisely what was needed to accomplish God's aim.

Too often we are told that, if man has no free will, he is a mere automaton. This is a mistake. The so-called "freedom" consists merely in the lack of conscious coercion. Being ignorant of the constraining or restraining influences which determine his conduct, and altogether unaware of ulterior forces, he subconsciously yields at the very time that he imagines he is most independent. His freedom of will is simply ignorant unconsciousness or submission to environment or heredity.

In relation to the will of God, men are consciously independent. They can accept it or reject it, and imagine that no other force but the divinity enthroned within them has anything to do with their decision. But when we find the niche assigned them in God's intention they are (thank God!) the most utterly dependent slaves of circumstance it is possible to imagine. It will be found that, throughout their lives, they were no more masters of their fate than they were of the date and details of their birth.

The doctrine of man's free will peoples the earth with a race of puny gods. We object to the dual gods of Persia or the many deities of the Greek and Roman pantheon, yet these ancient pagans never rose to the absurdity of making every man a god. The possession of a free, untrammeled, unconquerable will is the exclusive attribute of deity. Only One God can possess it. Our blessed Lord Himself did not claim it. He came, not to do His own will, but the will of Him Who had sent Him.

The failure to recognize both of these aspects of divine revelation has led to incalculable confusion and misunderstanding. Those who reject God's intention rob Him of His godhood and deify man. Those who confuse His intention with His revealed will make of Him a love-lacking tyrant, a hard-hearted monster. Others, who wish to believe all the Scriptures have to say, are not clear how to harmonize His character with the presence of sin, especially when it becomes evident that sin has a place in the attainment of His ultimate purpose.

It seems most reasonable, at first thought, that God's will must be fulfilled in order to reach God's goal. We imagine that any infringement of it forever forfeits any share in His ultimate purpose. But further reflection will show that God's intention must be attained, not only through submission to His will, but also through opposition to its express commands. The highest expression of God's wisdom lies in His ability to transform every effort against Him into that which is not only favorable to His plans, but essential to His purpose.

All evil and every sin reverses its character completely when we take it from the limited light of God's revealed will to the universal illumination of His intention. This is the reason that we do not hesitate to believe the Scriptures that all is of God. No sin remains such when completely illumined by His intention. It is a failure, a sin, and subject to dire penalties when man commits it, but it is no longer a mistake when it finds its place in God's purpose. The same act which brings shame and dishonor on the creature, when subjected to the divine alchemy, is transmuted into a source of glory and peace to God.

Such general observations are apt to be dismissed as bordering on blasphemy. But let anyone take the great sins in the Scriptures and ponder all their aspects. Each one is essential to God's plan. But it is better to be specific. Pharaoh is the great sinner in this scene. He is the one who opposes God's expressed desire. Make him willing or compliant with God's command, and what is left? In that case God would have failed in His object. To avoid this He finds it necessary to stiffen the opposition. Jehovah hardens Pharaoh's heart in order that he my sin against Him! Some insist that God cannot have such a close connection with sin. They would prefer to fix the blame on Pharaoh, or on Satan. But, while Jehovah directly causes Pharaoh to sin, by doing so He Himself avoids failure or sin.

Any lack of discrimination when speaking on these themes is likely to cause confusion. The same statement may be both true and false. Two directly contradictory assertions may both be true or both be false, according as they are related to God's will or to His intention. A beloved brother, who had been meditating on these things, made the statement that Adam's "fall" was really a fall upward. I would strenuously object to such a suggestion, apart from an explanation. Adam's sin and transgression and offense were very bad and degrading when viewed as disobedience to God's will. When associated with the work of Christ and God's ultimate purpose it was the very best he could have done. Even its immediate effects were not all evil, for he obtained a knowledge of good, impossible is his previous condition.

So with sin as a whole. We almost dread to speak of it in relation to God's ultimate, for few, even of His beloved saints, have seen behind the scenes, and almost any assertion would be false if related to His revealed will. Is sin good? No! It is the worst thing in the world. No words can express our horror and detestation of it. Is sin good? Yes! Not, indeed, in itself, but its effect will be beneficent beyond anything else this world can give, when combined with the mediatorial work of Christ and the reconciliation of which it is the occasion.

Perhaps this is why some beloved brethren insist that I teach that God sins, or is the Author of sin. I have never said this or even thought it, so far as I am aware. If I have unwittingly done so, I humbly retract and recant. But I am informed that various passages in my writings on this subject imply it, though they do not express it in so many words. When I review these passages, I do not see the implication. I did not intend such a thought. I did not express it. To my own consciousness, I did not even imply it. Some inferred from the apostle Paul's teaching that they should do evil that good may come. If he, could be misunderstood, I count it an, honor to be in the same condemnation.

But what is an implication? Is it not the result of combining what we think with another's statement? It is reasoning from two premises, one our own and one supplied by another. In its crudest form the argument may be stated thus: I believe that all is of God. My inquisitors insist that sin is part of the "all." Therefore, I believe that God sins. It seems very logical to them. I may object and say that I do not concur in their conclusions. I may even say that my premise is not mine, but God's. But no. My scheme is simply an attempt to exonerate Satan and prepare people for the homage which he will demand at the time of the end! Away with such a fellow from the earth!

This places me in a strange position. I cannot but consider their deduction a mistake in logic, a transgression of morals, and even an offense. In short, it is a full-orbed sin. I am eager to acknowledge, however, that it is of God. But even my small mind, weakened by overwork, and dulled by distress, has not the slightest difficulty in discriminating between the human and the divine aspect of these acts. God is making no mistakes. His servants are. He will justify their injustice, not because they are in line with His will, but because they are carrying out His intentions I have no hesitation in thanking God for this distressing antagonism, for I know that in His hands it is no error. Truth such as this needs opposition for its development and dissemination. It takes friction to rub off the rust of centuries.

I take it to be my duty never to insist on a deduction from another's words to which he does not assent. It may be impossible for me to see how he can escape it, but my infirmity is no valid ground for another's condemnation. I find the same mistake is often made in the study of the Scriptures. A deduction is made from some passage and held in opposition to the plain teaching of another portion. What am I, that I should escape this mishandling? I would take it very kindly of my inquisitors, however, if they would publicly acknowledge that I do not believe that God sins, or is the author of sin, and that I see nothing in my writings to that effect, but I have always maintained, with my inquisitor, that this is unscriptural.

I would exhort my inquisitors concerning the form of their indictment. I have striven to avoid non-scriptural forms of expression when dealing with this theme. This is difficult to do when writing at length on a single subject. But it is easy to do when drawing up definite charges. The form of an indictment may condemn those who prefer it. It may be purposely ambiguous, so as to cloud the issue. Such is the phrase "Author of sin." The word author is unscriptural. It is an appeal to prejudice. It seems to smirch God with sin. It may or may not imply that God sins. Some do not think that it does. Others do. The lack of love that thinks evil injects it into the issue as a character witness, to fasten the odium of heresy and blasphemy on those who stand for the truth!

The difficulty seems to be that we cannot easily view an act apart from its moral character. We do not readily see that no act is sinful in itself, but in its relations. The act of plucking and eating fruit is not necessarily a sin. Yet it was humanity's primal error. The mistake lay in its relation to the God Who had forbidden it. If He had commanded it, it would have been commendable. Now that we know that it was essential to His intention, that He had provided for it before it occurred, that He arranged everything so that it should occur, we see that, though it was a sin in relation to His will, it was no mistake in view of His benevolent intention.

Who fortified Pharaoh's heart? Was it good or evil? Was it a sin or not? Straightforward answers to these simple questions should settle the matter. Until my judges suggest a more satisfactory solution I shall still believe and teach that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, that it was necessary to spread abroad His name and fame and therefore good and just, and also that Pharaoh withstood God's word, which was an evil and a sin. One act. Two aspects. Bad and good.

Perhaps the greatest example of the distinction between God's will and His intention is found in the law promulgated from Sinai. Jehovah made known His will in a complete code of laws, besides the condensed commandments which were carved in stone. The Jew, who was resting on law, is said to "know the will" (Rom.2:18). But if it was God's intention that the nation should keep the law, it certainly was a dismal failure on His part. The broke its greatest precept before it reached them. They dishonored God by its flagrant infringement.

But, though the failure of the law seems to be contrary to the will of God, it actually was a fulfillment of His intention. It was really given that "every mouth may be barred, and the entire world may be becoming subject to the just verdict of God, because by works of law, no flesh shall be justified before Him, for through law is the recognition of sin" (Rom.3:19,20). The law which, ostensibly, was to deter from sinning, actually was given for the detection of sin. It was given to prove that no one could keep it. Beneath the revelation of God's will in it was His intention that it should not be kept, but should accomplish its object through its infraction.

"Law crept in that the offense should be increasing" (Rom. 5:20). How differently did Israel, at Sinai, feel about it! They were quite sure that they would greatly lessen the distance between themselves and Jehovah by their obedience to His precepts. Why had He told them what He wanted them to do and to avoid unless it was His will to carry out His instructions? The will of Jehovah was clear. But His intention was quite concealed. He could not make known His intention at that time without frustrating it.

This should help us in considering the larger question of sin. Sin is always against the revealed will of God. No one can possibly find any excuse for sinning so far as His expressed precepts are concerned. Both conscience and nature add their voice to restrain us from wrong. But we do sin. How can we be justified unless the sin is, in some sense, justifiable? We know that it is God's intention to draw His creatures into loving intimacy with Himself through sin and a Saviour. We know that the temporary term of sin will leave the world infinitely richer in the knowledge and appreciation of God. It will bring God immeasurable treasures of love and adoration. As a whole, its results vindicate its presence for a time. What is true of all sin must be true of every sin.

This truth is the foundation of the doctrine of justification. Because it has been lost, justification has also disappeared, or has been degraded to a pardon or an "imputed" fiction. Few believe that God actually justifies believers. They imagine He only alters the court records, so that no one can legally prove their guilt. It is of the utmost comfort and satisfaction to know that all that we have done is vindicated by the part it plays in carrying out His intention. Do not let anyone sell you an imitation justification! God's is the actual, the genuine, the precious reality.

This is why we insist that all the world has not become "guilty" before God, as the Authorized Version mistranslates (Rom.3:19). The entire world is subject to the just verdict of God (C.V.). He withholds this verdict until the judgment, in the case of the unbeliever. The believer, however, is pronounced not guilty. He is acquitted, vindicated, justified, by faith. His sins, though contrary to God's will, were in line with His intention, in order that He might reveal Himself through them.

All that the usual theology has to offer us at the consummation, even in the saved, is a partial, patched, repaired and repainted universe. The song of the saints will be in a minor key, "I was a guilty sinner." Their joy will be clouded by eternal regret and shame for their part in the tragedy of the eons. The eonian times will be the eyesore of eternity. Oh! if they only had not been! And so will God's wisdom and power be questioned, and His glory dimmed for He Himself must be the chief culprit in the collapse of His creation.

But away with such unworthy thoughts! The consummation will not reveal a patched, but a perfected universe. We will not be worrying about our past sins, but overwhelmed with God's wisdom and love in their vindication. Much as they distress us now, much as we fear them and avoid them and dread the very possibility of further sin, God will see to it that they will leave no stain, no blot to mar the bliss eternal, but will blend into His benign designs, and discover to a delighted universe the delicious depths of love which could not be displayed by any others device, or appreciated by any other plan.

This teaching is also the substructure for a mature experience in the things of God. It gives stability, a calm confidence in the face of the chaotic conditions which surround and engulf us. We are not worried, as once we were, by the awful opposition to God's will, nor do we fear for the fulfillment of His purpose. The flood tide of evil and sin, however contrary it may be to His will, is essential and indispensable to His ultimate intention. He is the great Alchemist Who will transmute everything into glorious gold by contact with the accursed tree.

It may not be easy to grasp the distinction between God's will and intention without, at the same time, revising our views on many related truths. We must have our eyes opened to the difference between evil and sin. Evil need not be wrong, while sin always is a mistake. We must determine the source of sin. We must see how God uses evil as a background to make good appear good. We must realize that sin is transmitted, not by a "sinful nature," but by inherited mortality. Then we will be able to understand how God justifies and repudiates sin. Above all, then will we revel in the discovery of a real God (a conception almost unknown today), not a magnified man, defeated and desperate amidst the ruins of His creation, but a Deity infinite in power, sublime in wisdom, limitless in His affections, Who is operating all in accord with the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11), in order to reveal Himself to our hearts as Light and Life and Love.

The God of Judas Iscariot

GOD is the real subject of divine revelation, rather than man. Whatever He has told us in His Word concerning any of His creatures is primarily a disclosure of Himself. The characters in the Bible receive all their value from contact with the Deity, and reflect His glory, not their own. This is not difficult to apprehend in the case of those whom the Great Potter uses as vessels of mercy. Our knowledge of God is put to its supreme test when we consider His connection with the vessels of indignation. Perhaps no case of this kind is more typical than that of Judas Iscariot. God has told us much concerning him which ought to lead us into a better appreciation of Himself. To be sure, the subject is shunned, because it seems to cast a somber shadow across God's glory, and leads into distressing difficulties. But these arise from false teaching, from current superstitions and not from a knowledge of His Word.

Long before Judas was born, David, by the spirit of God, made several very definite predictions concerning him (Psa. 69:25;109:8). He was to acquire a piece of property, but neither he nor others were to dwell in it. He was to have the place of a supervisor, but it was to be taken from him and given to another (Acts 1:16-20). I doubt if Judas knew that these passages referred to him. Nevertheless, in all fairness, the question may be asked, Was it possible for Judas to avoid fulfilling these Scriptures? Could he have made void the Word of God? If these passages referred to the reader of these lines, how would he feel about it? Is it right for God to bring a man into the world under such a handicap? Centuries before he was born, Judas' fall was fixed. It was inevitable. Not Judas himself, nor the whole nation of the Jews, which he represented, nor all the powers of earth or heaven could keep him from betraying His Lord, or from buying the Field of Blood, or from losing his place as an apostle. God had spoken. His doom was inevitable.

Judas was one of the "elect" in a very special sense. Our Lord said "Do not I choose [elect] you, the twelve, and one of you is an adversary?" (John 6:70). Christ knew from the beginning who would give Him up (John 6:64). Did He, therefore, warn Judas of his awful danger? Did He put him out of the apostleship? Did He do anything, so far as the record goes, to save him from his terrible fate? Did He allow Judas to suspect what He thought of him? At the very close, just before Judas went out, when the Adversary had already put it into his heart to betray his Teacher (John 13:2), our Lord gave Judas the morsel with His own hand. This act was usually considered a special token of esteem. By such a sign our Lord indicated to John who it was that was about to betray Him. Judas was not helped.

Can we not picture the scene? The eager disciples are altogether perplexed by their Master's assertion that one of them should turn traitor. Not one of them guessed that it was Judas. Does not this show that the betrayer had done nothing out of the way, so far as they could see? Indeed, they had honored him by making him the treasurer of their little band. He was a thief (John 12:6), but outwardly he must have been rather exemplary to pass so long as one of the twelve apostles. Our Lord knew what he was about to do. What did He say to stop him? "What you are doing, do more quickly." Does it not seem almost incredible that our Lord actually hastens him on his dreadful deed? (John 13:27).

Foreordained by God, one would suppose that Judas was born with the evil urge in him which should lead to his downfall. But this was not the case. It was true that he was not clean, as the other apostles were clean (John 13:10-11). Nevertheless, the impulse to lift up his heel against the One Who fed him (John 13:19) and to betray Him to His enemies did not come from within, but from without. Let us be clear on this point. Judas, by himself, would not have betrayed the Christ. It was put into his heart by the Adversary (John 13:2). And again the question arises, Could he have helped himself? It was because his heart was not depraved enough that the incentive had to come from without. The great Adversary could not trust him to do it of his own volition. Our Lord knew what was in his heart, but does not lift His finger to deter him from his awful deed. Rather, He hurries him in the doing of it.

It is a remarkable fact that Satan does not, as a rule, enter into, or "possess" human beings. Demons make a practice of doing this. It is a pity that "the devil" has been confused with "the devils" in English versions. Otherwise the fact that Satan entered into Judas would stand forth, as it should, as a most notable exception. The facts are clear. Judas, by himself, would not have betrayed Christ. The arch-enemy did not entrust the task of coercing Judas to the hands of evil spirits or demons, as would ordinarily be the case. He will employ such demon spirits at the time of the end to mobilize earth's kings for the great day of God Almighty (Rev. 16:14). But this most important task Satan did not leave to others. Contrary to all precedent, he himself entered into the apostle and transformed him into a traitor (Luke 22:3).

We do not wish to make out that Judas was a saint, or that he was not a sinner like other men. In fact, we wish to add this to the influences of which he was the victim. He was a thief. So we may well suppose that the money he received for his treachery had some weight in inducing him to transgress. The question is, whence came this tendency to covetousness? Did he acquire if after "the years of accountability", or was it born in him? Was it within his power to escape it? Like every other man, he was a son of Adam, and, without having any choice in the matter, he inherited mortality and sin and condemnation (Rom. 5:12,18), the lot of all mankind. If any reader of these lines has escaped this tendency to sin, let him cast the first stone. Otherwise let him forbear.

Let us now count up the forces which were for Judas and those which were against him. He doubtless had a conscience, for, when he realized what he had done, he not only returned the money, but his regret was so overpowering that he took his own life. This should show us what Judas himself thought of his transgression. His own estimate of the sin that he had committed was that he had forfeited his right to live. Had he been free to choose beforehand, would he have done this deed, which he regretted to the death? This regret seems to have come naturally out of his own heart, without exterior constraint. We are not told of any special visitation of God's spirit to bring on this change, to correspond to the entrance of the Adversary, in order to make him sin. Judas himself, naturally, sinner though he was, had an utter abhorrence of his own treachery.

But what of the forces against him? We have seen that his inheritance from Adam was not sufficiently bad to compel him to commit such a capital crime. So the Adversary cast it into his heart (John 13:2). This is a strong expression. It was no mere suggestion, which could be repelled. The heart is the very center and core of our being. Out of it are the issues of life. But still stronger is the expression, "Satan entered into Judas" (Luke 22:3). Practically, the man was displaced. He was not acting naturally or normally. He was not doing what Judas would do, but what Satan would do. To be sure, if God's spirit had entered him first, then Satan could not have come. But God's spirit had not then been given (John 20:22). No mere man, by the power of his own spirit, can withstand the great prince of darkness. Judas was utterly powerless to prevent his entrance. He was an involuntary tool in the hands of one much mightier then himself.

The only One Who could withstand Satan, and Who could have prevented his entrance into Judas, knew all about his plight, but did not make the slightest effort to rescue him. Our Lord had cast out many demons from strangers, but now that one of His own apostles is under the power of Satan himself, He makes no attempt to expel him. On the contrary, immediately after Satan had entered, He said, "What you are doing, do..." Can we imagine Judas' impressions? His Lord singles him out for special attention, and seals it with a dainty bit of food. Straightway he receives an irresistible urge to go out and arrange to give Him up. Before his conscience can act, he hears the voice of his Lord. Surely He knows his heart and is about to expose his treachery! But no, Christ also urges him to go!

Why was it that our Lord gave him no helping hand? How could He send him away at such a time for such a deed? Was He not, in effect, also against Judas? Did not Judas, as one of His chosen apostles, have a special claim on His favor? Under normal circumstances, would we not expect Him to guard these men who had cast in their lot with Him? That He did this is evident, especially in the case of Peter. Satan claimed the right to sift all the apostles, as the grain is sifted from chaff. Yet our Lord besought that Peter's faith should not be defaulting (Luke 22:31,32). As a consequence Peter was not allowed to go as far as Judas, due alone to the intercession of Christ. In His marvelous prayer, our Lord avers: "When I was with them in the world I kept those whom Thou has given Me in Thy name, and I guard them, and not one of them perished except the son of destruction, that the Scripture may be fulfilled (John 17:12).

Here is the secret of our Lord's apparent callousness. His every act was conformed to God's written revelation. God had spoken. Not even pity could move Him to do anything to hinder the divine decree. That is why He rather hastened it. That is why He deliberately chose an adversary, and made no effort whatever to save him from his fate. But was our Lord really callous? Did He enjoy having such a character among those near and dear to Him? Acquiescing in God's foreordination, He seldom spoke of it, for no one else knew about it and, of necessity, it could not be made known before the event. It was not at all ideal to have a man like Judas about. Christ suffered much from contact with outsiders, hard hearted scribes, hypocritical Pharisees, faithless Sadducees. Among His own close companions and constant attendants, the only possible ideal would be unswerving loyalty, unstinted devotion.

We earnestly beg the reader to consider the facts we have presented and test them by the Scriptures. Many may be tempted to cry, "Blasphemy!" Many may insist that God could not do these things, no matter how clearly the Scriptures seem to certify them. But these matters are so set forth that they cannot be misunderstood. The fact that they are shunned shows that it is not a question of understanding but of believing. These facts are in our Bible and will stay there whether we accept them or not. They should help us to see that there are depths in God which we have not fathomed. They should show us that there is something radically wrong with our theology when we cannot bear these "hard sayings" or do not exult in these "dark sayings".

Only once does our Lord bare His heart in relation to Judas, and that just at the crisis when Satan enters into him, and he goes away to give up his Lord. Here again Christ falls back upon the fact that the Scriptures must be fulfilled. "The Son of Mankind is indeed going away according as it is written concerning Him, yet woe to that man through whom the Son of Mankind is being given up! Ideal were it for Him if that man were not born!" (Mark 14:21, Matt. 26:24). Here He was, with the twelve, just before His sufferings, and He wished to pour out His heart to them. Alone with them in the upper room, the conditions seemed ideal. But His sensitive spirit knew that they were not ideal. One of the twelve hindered these sacred revelations. That one must be removed before He can speak freely. So Judas is told to go. Then His heart is relieved. Fondly calling the eleven "little children" for the first time, He utters the wonderful words as we have them in the fourteenth to seventeenth chapters of John's evangel.

In all four of the accounts of our Lord's life, the first mention of Judas Iscariot is accompanied by the statement that he is the betrayer. He was chosen with the rest of the twelve. We know the compassion of our Lord. How the very sight of Judas must have disturbed Him! Eleven true, trusting hearts. Why not unmask this one false intruder and remove him from his office? It was written! Evil, such as this, must be borne, or the Scriptures cannot be fulfilled. But the conditions certainly were not ideal. A potential traitor is no apostle. Christ, no doubt, rejoiced in the honors He would confer on His faithful band, in the kingdom. But He must also have shuddered at the prospect awaiting one of them. How much it would have saved Him if that man had not been born! If Matthias, who was also with them, had been in his place from the first, His heart would not have been burdened by the state and fate of Judas Iscariot.

The usual translation, "Good were it for that man if he had never been born," has no foundation in the Original. In examining various translations, we must always bear in mind that the tendency to translate in accord with accepted theology is so overwhelmingly strong that a very little evidence on the other side is practical proof of the correctness of any unpopular translation. This is an excellent example. It is well known that the Revised Version margin is more dependable than the text, especially where the reading of the Greek is given. All will recognize how impossible it would be to get a two-thirds vote of the Revision Committee in favor of confirming this text to the Original. Few men who would do such a thing would be chosen for such a task. Yet there were a few who were faithful, and these succeeded in putting the truth into the margin: "Good were it for him, if that man had not been born."

In such passages as these we can realize the benefits of an exact concordant version. What was good for the Son of Mankind, and what was ideal, are two distinct ideas. I have no doubt that, at bottom, it was good for Him to have Judas, if we understand by "good" that which will work out the most blessing in the end.

The sphere of the word "good" is very wide and its force here is difficult to define. But the Greek word kales, "ideal", limits the thought to that which reaches our highest conception of perfection at the time. Twelve faithful apostles would be ideal for Christ, though one traitor was doubtless among the all things that worked together for good. So we may even be justified in saying that the birth of Judas was good, but not ideal, for the Son of Mankind.

Whatever may be our estimate of Rotherham's Emphasized Version, we may be quite sure that, at first, he made little attempt to pander to public opinion. The character of his translation makes his testimony of special weight in a matter of this kind. He was not concerned about the language so much as the sense. He renders it, "well would it have been for him, if that man had not been born."

Two translations used by Roman Catholics have this text correctly turned. The Douay version of Matthew 26:24 reads: "it were better for him, if that man had not been born." Dr. Leander van Ess, in his German version, renders it "for him were it better, such a human were never born".

LUTHER'S VERSION

Luther's version, by itself, is proof that the Concordant Version rendering is right. Though the Greek is precisely the same in Matthew and Mark, he renders it correctly in the former and twists it in the latter. May we ask, if it really read, good were it for Judas if he never had been born, would Luther, or any other translator, make it read, good were it for the Lord, if Judas had not been born? Never! But Luther reads (literally): "it were better for him that the same human never were born". In Mark 14:21 he renders the same words: "it were better for the same human that he never were born".

In the context immediately preceding, the identity of those referred to is fixed beyond question. It may be set forth as follows:

Him	that man
(The Son of Mankind)	(Judas)
The Son of Mankind is indeed going away, according as it is written concerning Him.	Yet woe to that man through whom the Son of Mankind is being betrayed!

Ideal were it for Him if that man were not born!

If it had read "Ideal were it for that man if he had not been born (as usually mistranslated) then both would refer to Judas. But no unprejudiced reader of the English or the Greek can possibly refer the Him to anyone but our Lord, Who is so termed in the preceding sentence.

But if all the translations ever made rendered the passage incorrectly, that would not prove anything except human fallibility -- which is already proven. The Original speaks of the Son of Mankind as Him and of Judas as that man, and makes it clear that it were ideal for Him if that man were not born. The real cause of this mistranslation is the hardness of the human heart. On the one hand, who has been concerned with the feelings of our Lord and His distress at having the traitor in His company? Even his saints seem utterly unable to sympathize with Him in this trial. On the other hand, they have allowed a just indignation at Judas' dreadful deed to degenerate into vindictiveness, and attribute to our Lord the harshness of their own hearts. In judging Judas they have condemned themselves.

The Scriptures show the utter helplessness of Judas. How could he flee from his fate? Not only were the powers of evil against him, but the powers of good were just as determined to make him play his part. God Himself had determined the role he should have, and Christ, the only Savior, must act in accord with the divine decree. I beg my readers not to evade the issue. Let them put themselves in Judas' place. What can a mortal do when Satan and Christ and God all force him to commit a deed so awful in his own eyes that it drives him to desperation and death?

It may help if I confess that I once feared to face this issue. I tried to find a way for God to get out of this dilemma. The idea that He could make vessels for dishonor (Rom. 9:21), and then punish them eternally was incredible. And I was right. God could not do such a thing. My mistake was to disbelieve God's plain statement and all the evidence which sustains it in the Scriptures, because I had accepted a false theology in regard to His future dealings with these vessels which He fits for destruction. Since I now know that God will not only deal justly with them, but lovingly, I am able to believe God, and glorify God, and exult in the God Who remains Love, even when He hardens and hates.

THE FUTURE OF JUDAS ISCARIOT

We have considered Judas' past, and now we will consider his future. All are agreed that Judas has committed a crime which can have few equals in the annals of mankind. Therefore he must be judged for his sins, more particularly for this supreme sin of his career. For the sake of simplicity we will focus our attention on this one act alone, for all else that he did sinks into insignificance compared with this. All are agreed that he must be judged for giving up his Lord, but all are not agreed as to when and how. At least four different answers have been given, which may be tersely stated thus: He must burn on, burn out, burn up, or burn through. For him there is eternal torment, or purgatory, or annihilation, or he must go through severe judgment to ultimate reconciliation (Col. 1:20).

JUDAS TORTURED ETERNALLY

According to the most popular view Judas' full career would read something like this: Foredoomed by God, long before he was born, to betray the Messiah, chosen by Christ Himself to be the traitor, he proves too weak to perform his part, so Satan takes control of him until he has done the deed, and, driven by remorse, he takes his own life. As punishment he has been suffering in the flames of hell ever since and will continue to do so until the judgment of the great white throne, more than a thousand years hence. Then he will be tried and condemned to anguish unspeakable, above all other men, for a never-ending eternity in the lake that burns with sulphur, miraculously kept alive to undergo his agony.

We have tried not to exaggerate. Yet the plain statement seems so fiendish, so utterly and horribly repulsive that one wonders how sane human beings can bear to think of it. The fact is they do not consider it, or, rather they dare not face it. If they did they would lose all faith in a god who is such a hateful, hideous monster. First he fixes Judas' fate, foretells it long before, then gives him a place among the apostles, with the brightest of prospects, then refuses to shield him from Satan, until the dastardly deed is done and he dies a self-inflicted death. I repeat, Judas could no more help himself than a piece of straw in a tornado. Not a person who reads these lines could have done differently, had he been in Judas' place.

And now, for doing what God forced him to do in one short hour he is to suffer woe utterly beyond human conception for all eternity! Such is the idol worshiped by Christendom. We have shuddered at the awful caricatures of the deity which men carve out of wood or stone, but none of them can compare with the revolting and hateful fiendishness which coerced Judas to do wrong and then expends infinite power in torturing him, and works an eternal miracle to sustain his life so that he is able to survive his sufferings.

It is not Judas who suffers most from this terrible travesty of justice, but the God of Judas. This is intensely practical. The apostasy of these days is largely the result of such terrible teaching. It has led to the virtual repudiation of the deity of God, and of those passages which represent Him as the great Potter, Who fashions vessels for dishonor, adapted to destruction (Rom. 9:21-22). The doctrine of eternal torment dethrones God. Only an inhuman fiend can really hold to His absolute sovereignty and torture everlasting. Acts speak louder then words. If God deliberately creates to doom and damn, it is useless to insist that He is Love. Black is not white, nor darkness light, neither is hate love. Judas will not burn on.

JUDAS IN PURGATORY

I know but little of purgatory, but I remember, when I was in the Sistine Chapel in St. Peter's, in Rome, the guide explained that the worst offenders went right straight to hell, below purgatory, whence not even the pope could recall them. So I imagine that Judas' sin could not be "burned out", and he does not come within this category. Judas will not burn out.

JUDAS JUDGED AND ANNIHILATED

The revolt against the awful injustice of eternal torment has led some to conclude that Judas is to suffer punishment, not punishing. That is to say, death is unconsciousness, and Judas as a part of his penalty, will be cast into the second death, from which he will never emerge. This, evidently, is a great relief to anyone who has God's name at heart. Judas, according to this, knows nothing until he is roused from the dead at the great white throne. As a result of that judgment he will return to death in the lake of fire, and that is his end.

Again, I insist, I am not so much concerned for Judas as for Judas' God. If this solution is true, He will lose His reputation through His dealings with the betrayer. It will be just a sorry piece of business in which His great Name will suffer severely. It will take away the very foundations of His throne. Every righteous creature in the universe will agree with me that it is unjust of Him to place one of His creatures in a position where he must sin, and then not only punish him for it, but blot him out of existence. Judas will not gain. God will not gain. It will be a total loss, and God will be the prime loser. Moreover, God Himself has never said that this is His solution. It is only a reaction from eternal torment, a deduction of reasoning rather than a matter of faith in actual divine declarations. Judas will not burn up.

JUDAS JUDGED AND RECONCILED

With hearts sickened by the contemplation of human injustice, as applied to Judas Iscariot, we turn with joy to God's own righteous and loving revelation. With bowed heads we acknowledge Him as the Potter, the Deity Who does what He does, Who needs not give account of any of His actions to His creatures. It was just and good of Him to doom Judas to be the betrayer of Christ, for this was necessary to reveal the depths of human depravity and the lengths to which mankind can be led when in the hands of the Adversary. This humbling knowledge needed to be set forth by a concrete example. So the Potter formed a vessel for dishonor, and destroyed it when its work was done. Such was Judas in the past.

THE JUDGMENT OF JUDAS

What of his future? He is dead, and awaits the judgment day in utter oblivion. God is just, and does not hold Judas a prisoner for thousands of years before bringing him before the bar. To his consciousness, the moment of of his death will also be that of his resurrection, and his judgment will immediately follow. Let us try to enter into his sensations. The last sight he has had of his Lord, was when Christ was condemned (Matt. 27:3), and was being bound to be led before Pilate. The first sight he will have of Him when he awakes will be as the Judge, upon the great white throne. What a tremendous contrast! Even before his death his regret had led him to return his ill-gotten gains and take his own life. Now that he stands before the august Judge, against Whom he has so grievously sinned, what more will be needed to convict him, or show him the heinousness of his sin? Will it not be unutterable anguish for his soul?

Recognizing the utter helplessness and irresponsibility of Judas, some may be tempted to deduce that he deserves no further infliction whatever. But the is another extreme, false as the first. We must always keep in view God's great purpose to reveal Himself and to bless His creatures. Judas is a public character, just as Pharaoh was, and all creation will judge of God as He judges Judas. Simply to pass over the betrayal, or any sin, transgression or offense, would be false to His own standard of justice and fatal for the future. All sin, and every evil deed, must be judged and condemned, and the appropriate penalty inflicted. The only escape lies in the deliverance which is in Christ Jesus, and this is only for believers, not for unbelievers who appear before the great white throne. Sin must be judged, not simply for the sinner's sake, but for God's.

Sin must be judged. Men are so unjust and their laws and tribunals so corrupt that we have lost the great truth of judgment. As a consequence the word judgment has been practically replaced by punishment. Men imagine that the whole end and aim of God's dealings with them in the future is to make them suffer for their sins. But God has already done much in the way of judging, and invariably He has had an end in view. His judgment eras have always been beneficial for the world. The deluge washed the earth of its iniquity. The judgment period now impending will cleanse it for the kingdom. The judgment of every creature is a necessary preliminary to salvation and reconciliation.

Some have supposed that judgment is intended to be a deterrent, so that those who have tasted the bitter fruit of sin will never offend again. This would be a very flimsy foundation for the future. It is contrary to human experience. A man who has served a sentence is not immune from temptation. He is more likely to fall than others who have never been behind the bars. God's judgment is preliminary to a life in which there can be no sin. Sin is due to death working in us. When there is no death and all are made alive it will be impossible for them to sin. Sin and death go together. Life and incorruption go hand in hand. Judgment is not needed as a deterrent for the future. But it is a necessary preliminary to the glory of God and the bliss of His creatures.

The principles of God's judgment are given us just where we should expect them -- in the opening argument of the Roman epistle. He will be paying each according to his acts. There will be indignation and fury, affliction and distress on every human soul which is effecting evil (Rom. 2:9). This agrees perfectly with the solemn announcement at the great white throne: "And the dead were judged by that which is written in the scroll, in accord with their acts" (Rev. 20:12). It is not for us to judge Judas or to determine the severity of his afflictions. We may rest assured that the One Who sits upon the throne will not mete out a mite more or less than what is right, not only in His own eyes, but before the whole universe, and Judas himself. When did Christ, Who sits on the throne, ever do aught else? Let us rejoice that the judgment of Judas is in the hands of One Whom we all can trust. He knows Judas, and is able to sympathize as well as condemn. Thank God that He is the Judge of all!

But this is not the end of Judas. His name is not written in the book of life. Hence, once more, he will enter death -- his second death -- until the consummation comes. There is no knowledge in the death state, hence, for Judas, the period of the second death has no conscious existence. Even as the moment when he lost consciousness in the past will be followed by the moment of his resurrection, so also the second death will form no part of his experience. The whole of the long last eon, called "the eon of the eons" in the Scriptures, will pass without his knowledge.

THE SALVATION OF JUDAS

God has declared that He is the Savior of all mankind, especially of those who believe. Up to this time in his career Judas has known nothing of God as his own Savior. He has been in His hands as the Potter, and was made a vessel for dishonor. As such he has been destroyed. He knew Christ as his Teacher, when he was one of the twelve apostles. Later, at the great white throne, he meets Him as Judge. But as Savior He is still unknown to Judas. And only a Savior is of any avail now. Judgment does not save the one judged. The afflictions he endures during his second life, between his resurrection and his second death, give him no claim on God or His blessing. Salvation is only of God, through Christ. God has lost Judas, and He alone can save him, on the basis of the blood shed on Golgotha (1 Tim. 4:10).

Along with all mankind, Judas has fallen into condemnation through Adam. But the God of Judas has made it clear that Adam's one offense has its counterpart in the obedience of Christ. Just as he was condemned on account of Adam's act, so will his life be justified on account of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:18). Up to the time of his second death Judas has not known God the Justifier.

God has declared that death shall be abolished. That, as in Adam all are dying, so in Christ, all shall be made alive (1 Cor. 15:22). Judas died in Adam. But, when he is in the second death, he has not yet been made alive in Christ. If he had been made alive in Christ he would not be in death at all. The God of Judas must not only become his Savior, but his Life (2 Tim. 1:10).

Originally, Judas was created in the Son of God's love (Col. 1:16). He was created in Him long before he was in Adam. If his place in Adam brings him so much shame and condemnation, such a surplus of suffering and death, how much more will his earlier position in the Son of God's love bring him salvation and life, justification and reconciliation! What he received from Adam came to him without his consent. No faith was required. He did not need to make it his own. Neither will it be necessary for him to believe or accept or struggle for that which will come to him because he was in the Son of God's love. How can he do any of these things when he is in the second death?

God's Word is true. Death shall be abolished. All mankind shall be saved and justified and vivified. All creation shall be reconciled. And Judas will not be left out. It is quite impossible for us to realize what this will mean to him, condemned, destroyed, alienated, twice dead. The God of Judas, at the consummation, will become his Savior, his Justifier, his Vivifier, and his Reconciler. Is it possible for us to imagine the relief, the joy, the ineffable exultation which will be his when he realizes that sin and enmity and death are all past forever? When he sees that, though for a fleeting moment he was a public vessel for dishonor, God was not sealing his eternal doom, but preparing him personally for a deep appreciation of His future gift, will he not worship and adore Him for it all?

The God of Judas, Who hardens hearts, Who molds vessels to display His indignation, did not begin His work with Adam, neither does He end it at the great white throne. He commenced with Christ and He will conclude it at the consummation. Adam, with his black burden of condemnation and death, is only a parenthesis in God's revelation. We must not judge God's work by it alone. Adam is not the Alpha of God's ways, and we must not make him the Omega. Judas was not only in Adam, in Eden, but in the Beloved Son in creation. He will not only be judged because of his inheritance from the first man, but also be saved because of his earlier union with the Second.

God does not call Himself the God of Judas, because doom and judgment are His strange deeds. They are temporary and terminable activities. The time is coming when there will be no more doom (Rev. 22:3). Then it will no longer be necessary to harden a king's heart to resist God's will, and thus reveal His power. Satan will never again enter a human being to turn him against God, as in the case of Judas. Evil exists only in the times of the eons, and doom is confined to the first four. It has no place in the last eon, when God tabernacles with mankind. Judas is, perhaps, the best example of doom that Scripture gives us. In considering his case we must emphasize the fact that God does not deal so with His creatures at all times. It would be difficult to justify His course if it were His normal and eternal procedure. It is exceptional and temporary. But its lesson is everlasting. The temporary pain will lead to an eternal gain to the creatures of God's heart.

THE GLORY OF GOD

No man is "responsible" for his own birth. "To be or not to be" is not a problem for a creature. The Creator has kept such matters under His own control. Hence He alone is "responsible". If it were good for Judas never to have been born, the only one to be blamed is the One Who alone could foresee his career and prevent his birth. Yet He, on the contrary, predicted his course and made his birth inevitable. God's Word would have been found untrue if Judas had never been born. Hence it was good for God that Judas was born. And what glorifies God is always a blessing to His creatures. It is good for us that Judas was born. And, in view of God's glorious ultimate, we may be sure that Judas himself will praise and adore God for giving him birth. The words in our popular versions are utterly false. It would not be good for Judas if he had never been born.

We have well nigh lost the true idea of deity. We speak of God as "allowing" this and "permitting" that, as though He could not help Himself. We have forgotten that He is Elohim, the great Disposer, Who works all according to the counsel of His own will. We refuse to believe that all is out of Him. As a result we are timid when called upon to face the facts in the case of Judas, for we fear for the God of Judas. If Judas is eternally damned our fears are justified, for he will drag down with him the Deity Who predicted his career and doomed him before he had been born. But, if Judas is eventually saved, all of these fears are groundless, and we can look into the face of God unafraid, with holy awe, as we bow in submission and acquiescence to His will. Some day we will see that the terrible tragedy of the present will issue in the unspeakable glory of the future.

Leaving Judas' own fate out of the matter, what about the future of the God of Judas. Shall this man be an eternal eyesore in His universe. Shall God's glory be eclipsed forever by His dealings with the traitor. He claims to be Love. Is it love to doom and condemn the helpless. Justice is the foundation of His throne. But how can He justify His condemnation of Judas before he had even been born. His wisdom can cope with any problem. Then why did it fail in Judas' case. Every attribute that adorns the Deity is called into question if Judas is eternally lost. His is a test case. Declarations are empty unless accomplished by deeds. If God's acts deny His words He will lose the confidence of all His creatures. It is not Judas' fate, but God's deity which is at stake.

But the love of God is wise. The case of Judas will prove it, not deny it. By saving one who sinned so fearfully, God's affection for His creatures will be displayed, not eclipsed. And the love of God is just. In justifying one whose hands were reddened with the blood of the great Sacrifice, His righteousness will be revealed, not violated. Judas' dreadful deed was committed under the very shadow of the cross. Who dares to limit the value of the blood of Golgotha, to confine the abiding efficacy of that august Sacrifice. God has made it the basis of reconciliation with all (Col.1:20). He has the ability. He has the wisdom. He has the love. And He will do it! Adored be His holy Name!

 

/div>