SEVEN CHURCHES OF REVELATION
Maurice M Johnson
Los Angeles, California
March 2, 1958
This here, that I'm not going to read, but call attention to, two or three items in it. This is from John Rice's magazine or paper, weekly paper, called, "The Sword of the Lord." That of course is, in itself, is profanity because the Bible is the sword of the Lord. But John Rice, evangelist, us far as I know he still holds his membership in the Southern Baptists. I met him years ago in Frank Norris' building the First Baptist Church living in Ft Worth way back yonder, I don't know when it was, 1928 or -9. John Rice for several years has been functioning out of Wheaton, Illinois. He has evidently a very large publishing business, writes lots of books himself, and this is his paper.
Here in the January 24th issue, he has a financial report of the Billy Graham New York Crusade. "The national TV broadcast," in connection with that Madison Square Garden campaign, "Cost $1,054,439.12. Offerings received in the services $812,938.87. Contributions through the mail and otherwise $2,004,532.17. "
That's little more than Iíve gotten the last month from the radio audience. If I get from strangers in the radio audience ... $120 a month, Ií11 get concerned; something wrong, am I slipping or what? And yet we have radio programs now cost several hundred dollars a month. I'm not proud in a sense that more don't write making some contribution because I know that, especially in these days, spiritual Christians, ministers, will make friends slowly. I believe that's inevitable because we're commanded in the Word of God to lay hands suddenly on no man. And since we're living in a day when there's so many voices, "lo here is Christ, lo there," and so many shades and degrees of doctrinal, correctness, so many people who claim to be just Christians ... the Seventh Day Adventists will come into a community, rent a big building civic auditorium or put up a big tabernacle, and announce "Bible Meeting, Bible Prophecy," and proclaim, that they are just coming as Bible Christians. And sometimes it will be weeks before they'll let it out, publicly, that they are Seventh Day Adventists. And they will give a lot of fine Bible truth, and catch people; Others similarly: the so-called "Jehovah's Witnesses" come from door to door, "We are Bible students," and so forth. You have to press them often, if you don't know already, to get them to admit that they are so-called "Jehovah's Witnesses."
So I repeat, we're living in days when people are tossed to and fro by so many voices that it behooves any honest, humble, God-fearing Christian to go slow. So I'm really glad that we make friends slowly, I'm not glad that I don't have more spiritual Christians that recognize in us (when I say Ďus' I'm not using the stilted editorial plural, or pulpit plural; brother Stevens, Wilbur Johnson, any and all of us who are preaching Christ as Savior and Lord and head over all things to His church), I'm not glad that we don't make more real friends but we don't. Some of it is our fault.
"Sale of song books, Bibles, and records $32,559.00. Total receipts in the visible meeting, collection, and through the mail, and the sale of song books and Bibles, the total, plus special offerings $280,490.75. Grand total of receipts $3,130,524." I would say that's in the realm of high finance, if I know anything about what it is, big business, and so forth.
Billy Graham is due to start next month the San Francisco campaign. And he has on the official board there one of the main leaders, is a woman who a few months ago almost single-handedly worked up and was given credit for putting it over, one of the most ungodly things with all, kinds of pagan religion officially connected with it, kinds like we had a few years ago called the Fellowship of Faith; Moslems, Buddhists ... I mean she had in the Bay Area in the same place where Billy Graham is holding his meeting, the row Palace, and she's one of the outstanding leaders on the Billy Graham committee in San Francisco.
Here's something else that is shocking and enlightening. This is from McIntire's magazine called the Christian Deacon. McIntire is in the fundamentalist Presbyterian what John Rice is in the Baptist probably, one of the outstanding and comparatively courageous and very cable Fundamentalist. He has in a current issue of his magazine, February 6, "Catholic Patriotic Compact. The following Patriotic Compact was approved and signed by 1500 Shanghai Catholics at a meeting , Sunday March 11, 1951, in honor of visiting volunteers from Korea. First, in support Mao Tse-tong," (is that the way to pronounce it?) I think about as good a way to pronounce that as to sneeze), "support the . . . " (that's no reflection on the Chinese, it's just a reflection on me, (Don' t know how to pronounce his name), "support the Central People's Government, support the Chinese People's Liberation Army". That is of course ... now that's a Roman Catholic resolution. "Prove the strength of the Catholics in Shanghai to realize the people's political consultative counsel's common program, and resolutely and strictly serve all regulations and orders of the People's Government." That's Red China you see. "Third, strengthen the study of everybody can fulfill his own task. Fourth, further expand the great movement of resisting the United States, aiding Korea," Red China and Korea, "protecting home and defending fatherland." This is Roman Catholic resolution, mind you. "Fifth, resolutely opposing the United States unilateral peace treaty with Japan to enable Japan to resist the encroachments of Red China, Red Korea, Red China, and Russia. Refuse any subsidy from and cut off all connections with United States imperialism." It's a Roman Catholic resolution from Shanghai. "Thoroughly wipe-out all remnants of pro-American . . . American worship and American filed thoughts. Uphold all agressive activities of United States imperialism and defend the peace of the world." Roman Catholic in Red China.
Now one reason I want to read that this afternoon (they're two), one is to show the vast expanse, enormous expenditure of the best in Protestant revivalism, Billy Graham. In order to carry on, to ;acct over such an immense and expensive program in New York City, Billy Graham had to grieve his oldest, best friends in the New York area and elsewhere among the Premillennial Fundamentalists who urged him to conduct the meeting in New York City with and under their sponsorship, and not the Modernists. He repudiated that. Spoke against modern Fundamentalism and lined up officially with the rankest Modernists from Columbia University, Union Theological Seminary, and other outstanding men. Norman Vincent Peale sat on his platform, led in prayer, and got the largest number of converts, the new membership ... members of any church in New York City, Norman Vincent Peale. Man in whom there's no more smooth pussy-footing, compromising, merchant of piffle in the realm of Christendom today, Norman Vincent Peale. He's one of your do-gooders, think pretty thoughts. The difference between Norman Vincent Peale's preaching and Mrs Mary Baker Glover Eddy is just difference in terminology. In the final analysis, there's not any significant or fundamental difference between Vincent Peale. And Harry Emerson Fosdick, successor in the pulpits of the infamous Riverside Church. I forgot the fellow's name for the moment. He officially cooperated with Billy Graham, and on the platform.
Bob Thompson and I viewed the outside. I'd read about it since they first built it, and John D Rockefeller Jr gave the largest amount for building that enormous ... I forget how many million dollars it cost, Riverside Church, when Harry Emerson Fosdick, the baptized infidel was pastor, minister. Outside they have (I don't know what you'd call it) statues, and one of them is supposed to be Jesus, and another is Plato, another is (I forget), and another is Mahatma Gandhi,
any one of them, is... maybe that fellow ... but who is the man that just died? The Jew ... Einstein. Einstein before he died... sometime, came out with the statement he didn't believe there was any personal God in the universe. But he's a great mathematician, physicist. Statue of Jesus, statue of Plato, statue of Einstein, statue of Mahatma Gandhi, Indian leader over in India who did not believe in the deity of Christ and was a Hindu till his death and so forth. Billy Graham of course knowing those things officially went into that.
But now after this Roman Catholic statement. One reason I wanted to read that was, I'm going to call to your direction directly that these outstanding Fundamentalist: H.A. Ironside... this is Ironside's book on, the Revelation. He was pastor up until about his death, I believe to his death may be, of the Moody Memorial Church, in Chicago. And he, for many years during the
time he gained his reputation as a profound Bible student (because in the main I think he was that), he was with the Exclusive Plymouth Brethren that repudiated human denominational organization, names, repudiated official ordination by ecclesiastical groups, and to his death he didn't have a formal ordination from any man. But he did begin to accept titles, some of them he earned, but most of them honorary. Before he died, his earlier books that I have are just signed Harry A Ironside, but before he died ... well this one copyrighted 1930 is H.A. Ironside, but latter book... "Doctor Ironside, LittD", and so on. Well, when he was just brother Ironside, when he was just Harry Ironside, Christian strident of the Word of God, preacher and Bible teacher, he got a remarkably fine deep grasp of most of the Scriptures so far as I know. Wrote many hooks, and was more or less justly recognized as a very able expounder of the Word of God, I believe he had the little leaven that leavens the whole lump, however, in his ministry. In his book on Revelation, he says that Thyatira, the letter to the church at Thyatira, (which we'll read directly, in Revelation, first three chapters) represents Roman Catholicism.
Here's a book by William R Newell. I think he's still living probably in Florida, elderly. Newell's lectures on Romans, and in book form, several editions, have been considered for years by Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, certainty Premillennial teachers (I heard about him first when I was in Moody Institute in 1917 and 1918), William R Newell's work on the book of Romans has been considered for years some of the very finest exposition. This is a book by Newell on the Book of Revelation. He takes the same position (this is copyrighted 1935, eighth printing 1949, quite popular, widely disseminated), he takes the same position that the letter to the church at Thyatira ... that Thyatira represents the period in the church dispensation (Iíll give you some of the dates directly) that in which Rome was in the ascendancy in most of the realm of Christendom so far as uninspired history tells us. And that therefore the letter to the church at Thyatira was a letter to Roman Catholicism. I don't believe it for one second. I think it's very hurtful, very far-reaching delusion. Now you may say, "Well what do you think we care about your opinion compared to those men." Well, my opinion isn't worth anymore than theirs, I can assure you. Because the opinions of nobody is worth anything when it comes to what God has said.
I have another book here, "Revelation", by A.C. Gaebelein. He was one of the most highly respected, fundamental, Premillennial Bible teachers, a few years older than Ironside, but about equally revered among the Premillennial Bible student such as the Bible Institute represents. The Bible Institute, that is in the earlier days of the Bible Institutes in this country, Moody Bible Institute and the Los Angeles Bible Institute, now they' re many all over the country. But Moody Bible Institute sort of blazed the trail as a Bible Institute, institution see, and their doctrine, same with here, the Moody Bible Institute doctrine, that is their doctrinal. position is about exactly the same as the position that H.A. Ironside took when he first ...(oh, I left one of my books out in the car, but I'll tell you about it.)
Itís Walter Scott, book on Revelation. (No, I have it here.) Walter Scott was a contemporary of J.N. Darby, F.W. Grant, C.H. Mackintosh, William Kelly, the human founder of the movement generally described, more or less accurately described as Plymouth Brethren. Ironside, when he was saved out of the "Salvation Army" organization, so-called "Salvation Army", when he was saved out of that with a second blessing position ... converted one time and have to get a second blessing the next time, wash your old Adamic sins away, even after you got your old Adamic ... I mean your Adamic nature washed away, eradicated, even after you got that second blessing you could be lost any minute you wanted to according to the position of the Salvation Army and other people who teach saved and loss and second blessing. Ironside was saved out of that and began to company with and read from the Plymouth Brethren. And it was during those years of separation to some real degree from ecclesiasticism that God taught him. Well one of the teachers, that I presume he knew personally... but anyway, one of the leading Plymouth Brethren was Walter Scott. And I heard years ago that Walter Scott's book (this is only a brief of his larger work), that Walter Scott's book of Revelation's considered one of the most profound and able existing. Walter Scott takes the same position exactly that, the letters to the seven churches in the book of Revelation are first to seven assemblies that existed at that time in Asia, but second, and primarily, are an inspired history of the entire church dispensation, seven chronological periods, except when they get to the last, they don't have them run chronologically because they've got Philadelphia and Laodicea. And nobody wants to be in Laodicea, so they say that today in this last period we've got two of them running concurrently instead of subsequent one to the other. Well, they teach that.
And here's J.H. McConkey. McConkey, I think in the main was a very spiritual writer, comparatively, he wrote many devotional booklets. And here's a little book by him, brief on the book of Revelation. He takes the same position too.
Here's a book on Revelation by Louis. Talbot of the Bible Institute. He's given all of this over the radio. Directly I want to read what he says about Revelation 17, Roman Catholicism, and then what he says (or maybe the order will be switched), what he says on the 3rd chapter of Revelation about Thyatira being Rome.
Here's a book by William Orr, "Revelation. Clear. Plain." He says, William Orr, right over here you know, and he ought to know because he signs his name William W Orr, A.B., that's Bachelor of Arts. M.A., that's Master of Arts, Th.D., that's Doctor of Theology, D.D., that's Doctor of Divinity. How if he doesn't know, why not? He tells us here, I'll just read this brief here, "Statistics of the book: The time of the writing of the book of Revelation is presumed to be very late, or about 90-95 A.D. At this time John was the beloved bishop and patriarch of the church at Ephesus in Asia Minor." He doesn't tell us where he got that. He reached into Babylon's grab bag to get that. There is no authority whatsoever for saying that John the beloved was bishop of the church at Ephesus. That's just as near the truth as to say Santa Claus is God the Father. That's just religious hooey. And I don't mean to be unkind, neither do I want to pat a snake with anything less than a spade or something. Don't want to pat him with a hand of compassion at all.
Let's read now in 2 Timothy the 2nd chapter. Now, let me just say this please here, and listen carefully will you. Do you believe it was all right, so far as you know, for me to refer to brother ... the late brother Ironside as a man that had a comparatively profound grasp of Bible doctrine, and a man who evidently was taught of God for years. Was that all right? You didn't think I was ugly when I said that did you? Well the only reason I could say that, the only way I could have possibly arrived at that conclusion and been correct was to have some conception of the Word of God and some knowledge of H.A. Ironside. And by comparing the two, they say, and what I heard from people whose opinions I respect, that so far as I know brother Ironside, H.A. Ironside had a comparative profound grasp of much of the Word of God. And in the earlier days of his ministry when he was growing spiritually and writing prolifically, he didn't use "Doctor Ironside". Never did have the title Reverend, spoke against it for several years. He was just brother Ironside, H. A. Now the only way I could possibly be right about such judgment that Ironside was a comparatively dear man of God would to be to know something of the Scriptures on the subject and compare him and his writings on the subject and compare him and his writings with them, wouldn't it? And I would be judging wouldn't I? Certainly that's judging, that isn't convicting, pronouncing a sentence against, but it's judging. Remember that judgment isn't always bad. There have been lots of judges, and juries and judges have rendered a verdict, "Not guilty." In a case like that, wasn't that judgment? Wasn't the judge functioning just as surely (is when he rendered a verdict, "Guilty"? Why of course. Christ, didn't say to any Spirit taught Christian, "Judge not". But He said to hypocrites, "Judge not", "Judge not, you hypocrite," Matthew the 7th chapter. He said, "Judge not after appearance but judge righteous judgment," John 7:24.
Now what I want you to see may be more clearer than some of you have seen, is that I have no right to say that William R Newell wrote some beautiful things in the book of Romans, and of course much in this book on Revelation. I have no right to say that unless I know something about the spiritual character of the book of Romans, teaching, and then read Newell on it. And say "I believe brother Newell wrote some beautiful things." You wouldn't throw at me, "Judge not, brother!" when I do that. But if I say brother Newell wrote some things that are not true, you'd say, "Who are you compared to know what he gave that's wrong." You should have said, "Who are you to know what he gave that's right!" I can no more judge what Newell says is right than I can judge what he says is wrong, that is so far as my own spiritual condition, and the same with you. God help you to believe that. 'We've got to remember that now.
Now please, 2 Timothy 2. If I say l think Billy Graham preaches beautiful gospel of salvation from time to time, you should not say, "Judge not, brother," if you're going to say, "Judge not! Who are you to criticize Billy Graham whose been so used of God in the salvation of many souls. Who are you to criticize him." Well I have just as much and exactly the same right, and there are two sides of one picture, one ... to judge what he says... does, whether it's good or not, and what he does, whether it's bad or not. Don't forget that my friend. God help you to see that. And to practice it. "He that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man," 1 Corinthians 2:15. "He that is spiritual judgeth all things." Are you going to judge ... have you already judged me in your thinking? Certainly! Are you going to judge before I get through as to whether or not you believe I gave the truth this afternoon? Well you shouldn't be here, you better duck and go to sleep. Maybe that's the reason so many of you are drowsy already. Maybe you don't want to be guilty of judging.
2 Timothy the 2nd chapter, please. 2 Timothy the 2nd chapter.
Thou therefore, my son, he strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
Timothy was to judge as to whether this man, that man, the other man was faithful before he as a minister, evangelist, pastor, and teacher in the church of Jesus Christ dared to ask him or urge him and admonish him, "Won't you teach these things? Won't you give these things out?"
Are there any Timothys in the church of Jesus Christ today? I believe there are. Timothy didn't give any inspired writings of his own. He... wasn't used of God to write a single thing by inspiration. But he was called of God and encouraged by God's servant the apostle Paul to teach and preach and rebuke with all authority.
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No man that warreth."
You like a preacher that wars? Do you believe a true man of God will fight? I hope you are well enough posted spiritually to say he'll fight. the good of faith. Paul said, "I've fought a good fight." And told Timothy, "War a good warfare."
Listen to this now,
No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who bath chosen him to be a soldier.
I believe Billy Graham is becoming more and more and more hopelessly involved in inter-denominationalism. And therefore he's losing what little bold spiritual independence he had when God evidently used him in proclaiming a saving message. Now had he gone on and preached all the truth, he would have been protected from the invitations and compliments of pussy-footin' clergymen. That's the best way I know of being protected against false friends, is to turn on all the light. And then you'll run the pussy-footers and cowards out! And they will take up offenses out against you to level at you and you'll then feel the need of going to God in humility and prayer because they'll get you if you don't.
How many times I've thought, "Oh Lord, if you don't help me out, I won't sell any radio. I've been put off ... I was looking the other day through some old material, found a letter that KMPC wrote me when I was on there. Richard Bailey took the radio one time, and maybe unwisely, I don't want to he unkind, I love Richard, maybe had some godly courage, and I think he's had some kind of spiritual revival ... I mean in definite way the last few months. I get very fine reports of his reaching out and going out, and I thank God for it. Richard Bailey, quite young then, spoke on KMPC and he went down the line against-... I don't know what all, and some preachers went to the management of KMPC, they didn't come to me or Richard, went to management. The management wrote me and said that they wouldn't allow that and so forth. Then J got a letter from, primarily, the executive secretary of the Los Angeles Church Federation saying, "You have a certain freelance, nondescript man on your radio, and I'm sure you do not realize what he's giving. I have many letters on my desk from various ministers in this area protesting," and so forth. And I went in to see the manager and talk to them and so forth. It's a grand and glorious privilege to be identified with the unknown, despised Lord Christ.
No man that warreth entangteth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.
Now skip to the last part of this chapter, 24th verse.
And the servant of the Lord must not strive.
Now that would seem to be a flat contradiction, one with the another, one against the other. "No man is crowned except he strive lawfully." "Strive not." But you study carefully and obey what's in between, the 15th verse,
Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
In the first part of this chapter we have Timothy presented as a soldier, in the last part of it as a servant. Now as a soldier you're no good unless you fight when the enemy's around. But you won't be crowned by your master unless you strive lawfully. But as a servant of Christ don't go out and start a fight. A servant of Christ mustn't be pugnacious or warring in his attitude. Now here it is in the very same chapter. And I found out one day when I was checking up, I thought, "Why that must be ... why that looks like a contradiction." And I'd forgotten that 15th verse right in between. Rightly divide. "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing," and I thought, "Why here's a good place to begin to obey that right in this chapter: rightly divide between a soldier of Christ and a servant of Christ." Because there's certain aspects of those two positions that are not identical. A soldier must fight when the enemy comes, a servant doesn't have the same call in the same way. But both together make a man of God as they did in Timothy's case, you know.
Now, back to 1 Timothy the 3rd chapter ... the 3rd chapter and the 15th verse. 1 Timothy 3:15,
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God.
Is that Thyatira? In one long period of the present dispensation when Roman Catholicism was 'it' according to all these men. No I don't believe Thya... that Roman Catholicism ever was the house of God, don't think it ever was the house of God. I think it was dead aborning. There's a proverb, I think it's an Iranian proverb, it says, "When it comes to snakes, there's no such thing as big or little, a snake's a snake." And I'm sure a sect is a sect. And you and I need to know what starts a sect. Some of you that I've preached a few times on this question, "How old is a sect?" Somebody first, hearing it or hearing it for the first time might think I was silly. "How old is a sect? That's ridiculous." No it isn't, because most people think nothing in religion is a sect until long whiskers, lot of property, and obviously stinks, doctrinally stinks. No, a sect is a sect aborning. Do you believe that? Were there baby sects at Corinth? "I'm of Paul, I'm of Apollos, I'm of..."; there were baby sects there. And Paul didn't wait till they got old and built monuments to their sectarian entity. He crushed the egg didn't he, thank God. He crushed the eggs of those sectarian eggs back there. That's the time to do it, too. If you can start that early in a given case.
1 Timothy 3:15,
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Now that's the church, the church. I won't take time, because that clock hand's going fast, I won't take time but to just refer to Paul's statement found in Romans 11:13, "I the apostle to the Gentiles magnify my office." Turn to Colossians 1 though. I'll quote again Romans 11:13, "I the apostle to the Gentiles magnify my office." How many apostles to the Gentiles? Just one. Barnabas was chosen to go with Paul as we read in Galatians 2, but Paul is called the apostle to the Gentiles. Let's not forget that.
Now to Colossians the 1st chapter. Paul said, "It's given to me," given to me. The 1st chapter, and for want of time let's begin at ... the latter part of the 23rd verse; these sentences are so long, Iíll just break in the middle of the sentence. The last part of the 23rd verse, 1:23, he said, "I'm a minister of the church, I'm a minister",
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation,
of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill,
the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man,
Now every one of these men whose books I have here bring out beautifully, when they are on the subject, I don't know about Orr, I think he does, but Orr is of course about a third generation ditto man. Most of the premillennial Bible teachers in denominational programs, he has a baby denomination of course, but most all of them, and I say this kindly, I say this not gleefully, certainly not gloating, but I am absolutely convinced of the truthfulness of it, that the present day Bible Institute type of Fundamental premillenniallist are men that... they have hit upon what they think is a fine system of doctrine and they major in that rather than in what their grand-daddies maybe in denominationallism majored in, but they still take the denominational method of organizing churches and naming them and being Reverend and Doctor and so forth, and thus they escape the terrific offense that the fathers in this movement ...
Oh, I forgot to say, I have a book here by F.W. Grant, one of the outstanding leaders in the early days (not the first) of the Plymouth Brethren movement. Now this man F.W. Grant and this man Trotter, no this one is Walter Scott (not the poet, but the Plymouth Brother, Bible expositor), J.N. Derby, C.H. Mackintosh, F.W. Grant, William Kelly, and for awhile George Mueller (famous, and justly so Iím sure, for his work in missions in Bristol, England), those men repudiated Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Baptist denomination, Methodist denomination, Lutheran; they came out for the truth of the one body, they came out teaching as no outstanding Bible teacher that history tells us about, I mean man's history, they came out ... J.N. Darby came out of the church of England about, somewhere along 1820 I think, Ď24, with some crisis experience in his life and doctrinal thinking and all. He was well-trained, scholarly clergyman in Anglicanism. So was William Kelly. And they came out of the church of England, repudiating the denominational names, denominational organisation, and the titles Reverend and Doctor and those things, membership, and they came out mainly because (according to their writing), mainly because they saw that the church which is Christ's body is not the kingdom, that the church which is Christ"s body is not spiritual Israel, and that Godís program for the church is not to make the world safe for democracy or anything else.
But that the church which is Christ"s body is the ecclesia from the Greek word 'called out'. And you can't think of the kingdom of God ... it's program according to Daniel and other Scriptures is to fill the whole earth. The kingdom of God program for the earth is to fill the whole earth so that the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ. And that stone cut out of the mountain without hands is going to come down and smite the feet and toes of that image representing Gentile world governments given us in Daniel is going to reduce the kingdoms of this world to a condition like the chaff with a summer threshing floor and the wind carried away. And that stone's going to fill the whole earth. Well how could that be the same program as the ecclesia, the called out?
Now this morning I touched, and I must not get into it, because it's too intriguing or interesting for me to touch and not ... and just touch, about how that little slogan 'under God', 'one nation indivisible under God' was put in the Constitution, that clause, phrase 'under God' four years ago. I told you this morning that I found just the other day in a Knights of Columbus magazine, they're officially in this country called Columbia, their magazine, how that they bring out that they in their national conclave, four different times I think, passed resolutions urging the Congress of the United States to put that in the Constitu-tion, in that statement ? faith, and they put it over. And I mentioned this morning and the present President Eisenhower wrote them a letter, and I have it in my briefcase, a copy of his letter to the Knights of Columbia commending them for having taken the initiative and putting it over, and it finally resulted in them passing the law.
I brought out this morning how, briefly, that considering the Roman Catholic position on what the church is, their church, they say that the Roman Catholic Church is the church and it's the kingdom, it's spiritual Israel, and the Pope is king. Therefore with that position and that condition, for them ... why did they want that put in the Constitution of the United States? Because that ... remember that the pope has taken the Roman Catholic Emperor's title of years ago, 15--, 1800, 1920, 2000 years ago and all, the Roman Catholic Emperor's title was Pontifex Maximus, the Master Bridge Builder, and that's one of the official titles of the pope now; Pontifex Maximus, the Great Bridge Builder. That little clause put in the Constitution of the United States is one of the best bridges from Rome's standpoint that has ever been in any of our federal documents between God and Caesar, church and state.
Said I ought not to touch it because I wouldn't just touch it. Oh I want to go into that my friend, that's ... blood curdling. Brother Ed, I'm sure you're going to preach to some of the significance of why the... K.C.'s wanted to put that in our federal law. Because their position is that there's no proper distinction between God and Caesar. Well there isn't when the stone cut out of the mountain without hands comes down because then Caesar will be put where he belongs, and the kingdom of God will take charge all over this world, earth. In the meantime though, the church which is Christ's body, the ecclesia, the called out.
Now try to listen. I know that you've had a busy day some of you, and if you want to get up here in order to keep awake and speak, I'll punch myself with a needle to listen to you (if I can borrow a needle). This is important my friend. These are important things! Had some fresh air, it would help. Whose a fresh air crank, this kind of a crank. Let's have some fresh air if you can please, if you can give it somewhere. Thank you brother Len, Baker.
All right now watch. I was saying something that might sound to some of you very unkind, very unbrotherly. But I'm going to repeat it. Men like William Orr, I thank God for all that God is doing through William Orr; I thank God for all that He's doing through the wildest Pentecostalist. But I don't thank God for those things that I know are contrary to God's Word. Can't you take the same position toward me? If you believe there's some things in my life that are unscriptural, don't let that keep you from saying, "Well there's other things that I've got to admit are Biblical." I hope you take that position. And I hope you don't have to say that you believe some things in my life are unBiblical. But now William Orr teaching the yes-yes doctrine of Walter Scott, and of F.W. Grant, and J.N. Derby, and C.H. Mackintosh on the first three chapters of Revelation. How they ever came to that, heaven only knows; I don' t know.
Let me tell you what Ironside said about it. Here's what Ironside said about it. He says ... for years Bible teachers, scholars ... (I thought I could find it right here) ... didn't know what those first three chapters meant. They didn't know what the key to it was. And he said a ... (oh, I thought I had it all planned out) ... he said some men of God made the suggestion that maybe it was a prophecy of the whole church period. Maybe that was the key, and he said they began to apply that idea. And they applied it to Ephesus and they said, "Why that sure fits Ephesus." We will see that directly. And then they applied it ... and down the line, he said it fitted all of them. Well I've applied it, and it doesn't fit a one of them. And I'm going to try to show you that.
Back to Colossians 1 please. I had just read where he said, "It is given to me to complete the Word of God", and then he told what the mystery among the Gentiles is, "God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." May I just throw this out right now, these two things. We read here that Paul ... I quoted from Romans 11, Paul said, "I, the apostle to the Gentiles, magnify my office." "I, the, the apostle to the Gentiles, magnify my office." Then we read in Colossians 1, "It's given to me to complete the Word of God for you," to fill-up the Word of God for the church. I do not believe there is one thing in the book of Revelation, from the first verse to the last verse, that is peculiarly, distinctively church truth. I do not believe there is one single thing in the book of John (listen carefully now), in the book of John, glorious spiritual truth though it is, or in 1, 2, 3 John, well let me just include all the writings that God gave through John, the book of John, 1 and 2 and 3 John and the book of Revelation (John's the human agent for all those books), I do not believe there is one single line in any of those books that is distinctive church truth, unless it is a repetition of Paul's epistles. I believe all the church truth, that is distinctive church truth for the church which is Christ's body, is found in Paul's epistles. That's what he said!
Now salvation from the guilt and penalty of sin is prophetically given us in Genesis 3:15. Pictorially given us in Genesis when the Lord God made coats of skin and clothed them. And we read in Paul's epistles, I Corinthians 15, "I delivered unto you the gospel how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," well that's the Old Testament, "and was buried and rose again according to the Scriptures," And the same in Romans 1, "I'm separated unto the gospel of God which He promised before in the Scriptures." And he said, "Timothy," 2 Timothy 3, he said, "You heard the plan of salvation back yonder from your mother and grandmother back in the Scriptures," "which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." So he told Timothy that the plan of salvation was back in the Hebrew Scriptures.
So I do not agree with Bullinger, or the late J.C. O'Hair, or any of these extreme dispensationalists who say that Paul was not only the apostle to the Gentiles but that he had a new gospel of salvation. I don't believe that for a second. I think that's a very hurtful error. Though many of my Fundamentalist critics are glad to lump some of us right in with the extreme dispensationalists. They don't care to be accurate, they wnat to smear you see. "He' s a Bullingerite." You ask him, "What is a Bullingerite?" "Well, boo. He's awful." I don't agree with the distinctive doctrines of the late, E.W. Bullinger, those which would characterize his writings as Bullingerism. Bullinger taught that there are two gospels of salvation, at least two, one committed to Peter, James,
and John and another to Paul and Barnabas and so on. That they differed, the first one had water baptism content and some other works, Paul's just pure grace. I believe that no one was ever saved from the guilt, and penalty of sin by any mixture whatsoever. I believe that, all sinners saved by the grace of God were saved by pure grace. For if it's not ... "if it's of work, it's not grace; and if it's grace, it's not work", as Paul brings out so beautifully in Romans 11:6.
But now watch. I started to say awhile ago that everyone of these men except, and then I got off on these younger yes-yes fellows that are just rehashing what they want to strengthen their new denominationalism, like Orr, and, sad to say, because I somehow regard Talbot and William R Newell and A.C. Gaebelein and Ironside much higher than I do some of the younger yes-yes fellows, but anyway these Bible Institutes, Moody Bible Institute, Bible Institute here, and the general Premillennial Bible teachers are just parroting part of J.N. Darby, C.H. Mackintosh, William Kelly, F.W. Grant, without the teaching that these men give that moved them out of organizational churchanity. What was it that moved J.N. Darby out of Anglicanism? It was the sinfulness of institutionalism. He said that's an imitation of Rome and the kingdom program. And when he saw the truth that the church was the body of Christ, that separated him from all institutionalism, except the essence of his doctrine on the supper and water, but I won't go into that now. And similarly, J.N. Darby... C.H. Mackintosh, William Kelly, and those men repudiated denominationalism, they repudiated organizations, they repudiated Reverend, and church membership man-made, they repudiated that, and they suffered for it. These fellows today, hah! They join the church of your choice, Reverend Doctor, but they preach Premillennial coming of Christ and some things, without the part of that God-given program that would make them unpopular. I want to preach God helping me my friend, the whole counsel of God which exposes religious error more than any other kind of error, because remember the devil's not a bootlegger of hard liquor. He makes people drunk with wine but not with what they get out of a bottle, primarily. He's not primarily concerned in making people drunken sots of poor ? infected nervous dope or derelicts that Caesar has to rescue; he's interested in making people think they can become god! like he did Eve.
Now Paul said, "It's given me to complete the Word of God for the church." "I'm the apostle to the Gentiles." Notice I said awhile ago about the book of... John: glorious spiritual truth. You find anything in the book of John, the 1, 2, 3 John, Revelation that doesn't fit Paul's inspired revelation regarding the church, you should say that belongs to some other people. Now how could the mystery among the Gentiles be Christ in us the hope of glory if Christ is on the outside of the church knocking trying to get in? I wont have time now... to close when I said I would, I won't have time to read from these books where they bring out that in ... the letter written to the church at Laodicea, the last of these seven here, Christ is pictured on the outside, Revelation 3:20, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock." And they go ahead ... having taken the position that that's the church in its final form, the last phase of the church. For they say these seven letters are seven chronological periods and so the last one before Christ comes back, He's on the outside of the church. You talk about hopeless contradiction of thought. It's utterly astounding that they take a position like that, to me.
Well we better read some in the book of Revelation. I've given ... quoted some things of course and given you these many passages from 2 Timothy 2 ... I wanted to read there in 2 Timothy 1 where Paul said, "Now in a great house there are not only vessels of honor and dishonor but of gold and silver, but some to honor and some to dishonor. If a man therefore purge himself from these, heíll be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and prepared for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work." (As for the ... trying to go too fast.) If a man doesn't purge himself from these. Now there we have in Paul's epistles, in his last epistle, telling about a condition of a great house with vessels of honor and dishonor in it, gold and a stone, wood, hay, and stubble, and so forth, the same thought. And he said, "lf a man purge himself from these."
I mentioned over the radio that I was going to tell an experience I had 1925 when I was given an unanimous call to become assistant pastor of the Church of the Open Door. The president of the Bible Institute then, the late John MacInnis, PhD, Doctor of Philosophy. That meant you had to have an A.B. degree and a M.A. degree and I don't know what other degrees and then PhD; he just wore that one, cause that's supposed to be really something if you're doctor of philosophy. (I have a friend years ago, he's departed this life; now, he said, "I have several degrees too: B.A.., M.A., PhD; Born Again, Marvelously Attired, Phenominally Done." But anyway, anyway, back to this.) Mr MacInnis, brother MacInnis, was talking to me one day down out the B.I. when I was considering, prayerfully, whether or not 1 would accept that position. He was acting pastor of C.O.D. and president or dean of the Bible Institute. And he said, "Brother Johnson, you've had quite a battle lately with the Modernists and Methodists haven't you?" And the papers had carried it because I had been formerly assistant to Bob Shiner and therefore I was good copy, a former assistant of his, he was a big shot, J. was little. But in those days-the Fundamentalists-Modernists:: fight inside the denominations was good copy for the newspapers because William Jennings Bryan in fighting Harry Emerson Fosdick and the Northern Presbyterian convention in Philadelphia succeeded in getting Fosdick put out of the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian pastorate in New York City because of Fosdick's Modernism and was... headlines in the paper. So when I had to fight, having been under Bob Shuler, locally the papers wrote it up, "Methodists oust Fundamentalist pastor," and so forth, for my pastorate for the Methodists. Brother and sister Ross were in that congregation at that time. I was put out of the Broadway Methodist, pardon me, in Glendale, pastor of Broadway Methodist, in Glendale. And then it was, while I was in that conference fight and the local papers wrote it up, Fundamentalist and so forth, that the Bible Institute of Los Angeles extended me a call to be assistant pastor. And I was elected, in my absence, elected president of the Southern California Premillennial Prophetic Association convening once a month in the Bible Institute of Los Angeles. They used to say then it was the largest organization of Premillennial prophetic preachers and teachers in the world. 1 got some honors in those days. And Louis Bauman extended me indirectly an invitation to be assistant pastor to him. And I was invited to speak, give the opening address Sunday morning at 11:00 in the Brethren Church of ... Southern California Brethren conference, and R.A. Torrey, Bible Institute spoke after me, in the afternoon, I spoke in the morning, opening the conference of the Brethren Church when they thought maybe I'd become a triune immersion baptized, wash your feet occasionally, Brethren Church member; but I didn't.
So I had a measure of popularity as a young Fundamentalist that had some possibility some of them thought. And I was given that call down at the Bible Institute, C.O.D. ...talking to MacInnis, he said, "Brother Johnson, you've had very interesting experiences lately in your ... battle with the Modernists and Methodists haven't you?" He said, "You know, my wife called attention to something the other day that I had never noticed. We've been reading the book of Revelation recently in our devotions, and she called my attention to the fact that after the Lord spoke about the condition of the church at Laodicea, He didn't say one word about anybody coming out of it. And I had never noticed it before." And I thought, "Now what's he telling me that for now if it isn't to give me a PhD type slap on the wrist for having had a battle with the Modernists." I thought, "Now what's going on here. I'm about to be his assistant pastor." Well you know I think the Lord used that one thing to make me say, "Listen, I'm not going to be under him. A fellow that's going to trifle and pussy-foot." Because I know the Scriptures had plainly told us, "Come out." I didn't know what all it meant then, not that I know all it means now.
But anyway, I didn't accept that call, Stayed with a little group of come outers out of Glendale, because in some respects thatís what we were. We didn't know where we were going but we knew we'd left that thing. And we did start a Fundamentalist organization I'm ashamed to say. But thank God later on we repudiated everything in the realm of human, man-made, carnal organizations.
But now Revelation, remembering that Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles, remember it was given to and through Paul to bring out the distinctive truth of the church. And I think I'll finish it this time. I started to say awhile ago that every one of these men, that may be, and so far as historians tell us, are regarded as the great fathers of the modern Premillennial Bible teaching. You all know what Premillennial means in theology? The millennium you know is a thousand years, mille annum, the Latin, a thousand years. That word 'millennium' doesn't appear in the Bible, but in the 20th chapter of the Bible 'thousand years' occurs five times, I believe, thousand years, thousand years. About the resurrection of the just and the unjust, they ... weren't raised until the thousand years were finished after the end of the millennium.
Now the resurrection of the just, that's Premillennial; resurrection of the unjust, that's post-millennial. Now most all of the denominations including Rome used to teach before the First World War that the world was getting better and better, Christianity was gradually sweeping the world, and that one of these days the king ... I used to sing as a Methodist, "The kingdom is coming, oh tell ye the story." And I used to hear Methodist preachers, especially bishops, say every time there's a little reform you know, squirting political perfume on a political polecat, white washing dirty fences in the reformation, that the kingdom was advancing, kingdom's advancing. You used to hear that brother Kopper (?) about the kingdom advancing. When the Prohibition-Amendment was put in the United States Constitution, 18th Amendment 1918, making it illegal to manufacture or sell intoxicating liquor, oh.` boy!' that was really a jump forward for the kingdom, the kingdom of God was really advancing. And then when women got the right to vote, wasn't that the 19th Amendment?, oh! that was another jump forward. Hasn't it really brought us close to the thousand year glorious reign since you women started to vote? Oh it's been wonderful hasn't it! Homes have gone down, down, down, and crooked politicians have kissed your babies and you voted for them right away. Well anyway, back to this now...
These men that saw the truth of the church being the body of Christ and not the kingdom, they, along with that, saw and brought out beautifully, Ironside brings it out beautifully, Gaebelein brings it out beautifully, and J.N. Darby, C.H. Mackintosh, and F.W. Grant, those men brought out beautifully that God gave the distinctive truth of the church which is Christ's body to and through Paul. I have it marked ... William R Newell has about Peter and Paul showing the concept that he goes like Bullinger did almost, but William R Newell, the Bible institutes love William R Newell. I first heard of him and then heard him at Moody Institute in Chicago. If you can hear William R Newell go miles to do it. Very able profound teacher, great and so on. William R Newell brought out that God gave to and through Paul the distinctive revelation of the church.
And I heard from some of those teachers and read from them years ago when I liked to repeat that in Paul's epistles only will you find the word 'body' used in regard to the church. The church is nowhere called the 'body' in Peter's three recorded sermons. The beloved John in the book of John, 1, 2, 3 epistle, and in the Revelation never mentions the 'body', the church which is Christ's body, never mentions the word 'body', James in his epistle doesn't mention it, Jude doesn't mention it, only Paul. Now, that fits so beautifully you see when Paul said, "I'm the apostle to the Gentiles," and "To me it's given to complete the Word of God for the church," and "God wants now to make known what is the glory .., the riches of this glory among the Gentiles which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." That's our position on earth, Christ in us; as to our heavenly position, we're in Christ. Paul brings out both of course in his epistles. Our heavenly position in Christ in the glory, seated in the glory, and on earth Christ in us.
Now how will that fit with Christ on the outside of the church at Laodicea? "Behold, I stand at the door and knock." And every one of these men, I can't understand for the life of me how these men went back to that.
Turn now for a few minutes in Revelation. I've given you only a sort of a ? get into it, haven't I. We haven't gotten into it... the book of Revelation. I'll have to repeat this maybe, announce it the next time I'm here, we'll have another Sunday afternoon meeting on this subject, God willing. And then maybe I can get right into it.
Revelation. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ." The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Well, we going to see whether, briefly, whether anything is given here about the revelation of Jesus Christ in His vital union with the members of His body, in which we're not to think of Christ in His physical person because we're to think of Christ as the head, not visualize like from the neck up. But the head of a family, the head of a bank, the head of the government. Christ is the head of the church. But anyway, we're not to think of Christ, in the church epistles we're not to think of Christ in His physical person. Isn't that one reason we're told in 2 Corinthians 5, "Henceforth know we no man after the flesh, though weíve known Christ after the flesh," concerning His birth He was an Israelite, of the seed of David we read in Romans: 9 and Acts 2 and so forth. But we don't. know Him anymore after the flesh Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:16-17. Well now the book of Revelations presents Christ in His visible aspect. Now watch.
'The Revelation of Jesus Christ," drawing the curtain aside so you can look at Him. And watch, let's see if whether we see Him in His position seated at the right hand of the Father's throne, the right hand as grace is on the throne.
Letís see if that's it, grace is on the throne. "Revelation of Jesus...", we read that in Romans 5, it's grace is on the throne now. But grace isn't on the throne here at this picture.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.
Paul didn't signify things in the church epistles for this present dispensation. Signs were for Israel, and for apostolic confirmation. But signs are not for us. today. That's why in the book of John 20th chapter we read; "Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, but they're not written in this book. But these are written," not repeated, "these signs are written,"
and read the book of John and you'll find eight miracles that were performed as signs. If the Pentecostalists knew this, they would get straightened and not
be so-called "Pentecostal". Roman Catholicism wouldn't beguile and hoodwink and poison people by the miracles of Fatima and the miracles of Lourdes. I saw the other day they expect 10,000,000 people I believe it was to make tours to Lourdes this year '58; 10,000,000 people. Think of the money spent to go to Lourdes. I got a little advertisement in one of the Roman Catholic papers that you ... of water for Lourdes. Bob Birkholz, whether he's here now he was here this morning, Bob Birkholz wrote one of those ads and got some water, and I got the bottle. A little water from some one of these shrines, I forget. But you know it won't even move a ? Why they're gyps, you know.
I got some of that holy water though.
Now if people understood the difference, the Biblical distinction between the church and the kingdom, God's program today calling out of the Gentiles. a people for His name, the Bible's complete now and we don't need signs. Those signs that Christ performed among the disciples as miracles, as credentials, John the beloved said, John 20:30-31, "They're written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing might have life through His name."
he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy,
now that includes us, cause we get doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness out of reading Genesis: and Revelation and all in between, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 tells us.
and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
What time's at hand?
John to the seven churches which are in Asia.
Everyone of these men bring out that the seven churches were existing right then and there in Asia, and that the condition of the church of Ephesus at that time was the condition given us in the letter to Ephesus and the condition of Sardis at that time was the condition given us in the letter to Sardis and so on to Philadelphia and Laodicea. Then they turn right around and say the condition of the church at the time John wrote was the condition at Ephesus and the condition of everyone of the churches. The condition of Sardis was what we have at Ephesus, the condition of Thyatira was what we have at Ephesus, the condition of Laodicea was what we have at Ephesus, Ephesus in 90 A.D. Then turn right around and say the condition after ... after that Ephesus period is that everywhere was the condition you have at Sardis, and they go on, Pergamos, so on. And the condition in the letter to Thyatira which describes Rome, having said that Thyatira was just like that in 90 A.D. Then they turn around and say, "Now that represents the fourth period when Rome took over," and they try to show how it fits the Roman picture. Well I say, "Wait a minute! If that letter to Thyatira fits the church in the days of Rome when Rome was: first Euro-fied and so forth in her heyday as a religious system, if the letter to Thyatira fits the church in that period, then don't tell me it also fitted Thyatira in this period!" That's maybe just confusing to some of you that haven't studied this already, but you go on with it and grapple with it, and I'm going to have to stop please.
I want to call to your attention one thing here and try to see if you can apply this to Jesus Christ in His position as head of the church. Turn to the 1st chapter ... I better say this before I have to stop. John said here in the 10th verse,
I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day.
Now I won't have time to try to prove what I believe I can prove to the satisfaction of any God-fearing person that he was in the Spirit on the day of the Lord. I've got the arguments, a lot of them you know, about this couldn't mean that and the Greek and so forth. I believe exactly like Ezekiel. God grabbed Ezekiel by the hair of the head and brought him over here, he said, "I was in
the Spirit," brought him over here at a time and place and showed him something. believe the Spirit of God picked up John the beloved and took him over here in the day of the Lord, the beginning of the tribulation period. And showed him the time getting up to and including the revelation of Jesus Christ to the earth. That's why we have this picture of Christ.
And I'll have to stop with this. Look at the... 12th verse, 1;12,
And I turned to see the voice that spake with me.
Now that's all into his physical ear you see.
And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks.
Try to find anything like that in Paul's epistles:, seven golden candlesticks. And
saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man.
And He had one of those candlesticks you know, the true minister if not the church at Laodicea. And when they get to expounding that they say it's the church that the Lord's going to spew out His mouth. So then they have just six good ones left. But one of those six was Thyatira; it was what? And I'm telling you my friend honestly, the more l study this stuff I say it stinks too. No wonder MacInnis that brilliant philosophic scholar down there, "My wife called my attention to something I'd never seen before. That after describing the awful condition of Thyatira, the Lord didn't tell anybody to come out of it." Stay in you know and try to clean up that olí mess, but the Lord's on the outside. Well if the Lord's on the outside I want to go out too. I don't want to go in anywhere my friend ... of which the Lord is on the outside.
And it's very important my friend, it's this mixture that has encouraged millions of ... at least hundreds of thousands of Fundamentalists to stay in an utterly unBiblical thing. That's the reason I'm especially burdened to take this up.
The Lord Jesus Christ was never outside any part of the church which is His body. 2 Corinthians 13, "Examine yourselves. whether you be in the faith, prove your own selves,, know you not your own selves.. how Jesus Christ is in you except you be," cast away, "reprobate." If I believed that Laodicea ever had been the church of Jesus Christ Iíd believe Ďsaved and lostí brother Tedford, like you used to teach, and I was in the Methodists you know.
And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man.
Never in all Paul's. epistles do you have the title 'Son of man'. Not once! When Christ was on earth He referred to Himself as the Son of man about 88 times, but not once in Paul's epistles is He ever called the Son of man. That's interesting, that's significant to a humble student that rightly divides the Word of Truth. But now He's in relationship again to man, as well as God, as the Son of man.
unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto brass.
I'll close with this verse,
as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
I was really surprised to find that these men when' they get on that subject of "His feet like brass", they bring out (I forget whether everyone of them does), that, the brass throughout al-l-l the Scriptures represents judgment. And they bring out here is Christ pictured with feet of brass. Well my beloved brethren I say to you on the authority of the Word of God, the Lord Jesus as head of the church today isn't pictured with feet of brass. Grace is on the throne now, and He's not coming round with feet of brass. He's not going to come with feet of brass when He comes in clouds to catch us away. I don't think you will find any feet of brass in 1 Thessalonians 4th chapter, 1 Corinthians 15th chapter, Philippians 3; I don't think you'll find any feet of brass. But when the Lord gets ready to come back to earth as the Son of man, every eye will see Him ... have Him in this ... revelation of Him as it's previewed here in Revelation the 1st chapter and Daniel likewise.
Well I have to apologize. I didn't stop right at 4:30. We've had several things today that were a little bit more pressing than I thought, and ... I ... forgive me if you think I just deliberately lied. It really isn't the first time I've ever done anything like that. But I'm through now, going to have to stop rather. But I hope you weren't wearied and you'll check up on these things. God willing now I'm going to speak on this subject again two weeks from this afternoon, if I'm here. And will you read the first three chapters over and over again before then, and other things that the Holy Spirit may bring to your mind.
Do you want to know for yourself? Now, believe me folks, I wouldn't say derogatory things about these men whom I respect in the main. I don't Orr, I think he's one of the most contemptible pussy footers in many ways, and yet he gives a lot of truth for which I have to thank God. But wait until
I read what he says in here. You talk about hocus pocus, contradiction. But I don't take pleasure, honestly I don't, in bringing out these things, the men that teach so much truth, except for this: in the book of Ecclesiastes, "As dead flies in the ointment of the apothecary shop causeth it to send forth a stinking savor, so does a little folly in them that are had in reputation for wisdom and honor." That's why the sins of Abraham and David and Peter were: brought out and recorded, emblazoned on the screen for God's people to read, as well as their virtues.
Let's stand shall we.
Return to Navigation