It should be understood that on this website is the availabilty of primary sources for research into the various aspects of the "Brethren Movement" so called.
It does not mean that the one placing the various documents and manuscripts on it agrees with everything expressed in them any more than with the ones in the Christian Brethren Archive in the John Rylands Library at Manchester University. Those who turn to it ought to be aware of that.
It needs to be kept in mind when studying the history of "brethren" that those in every section of it think they are in the right bit! Several companies claim to be the "original brethren" or the "primitive company" - and they cannot all be right on that, can they? Obviously not!
The danger when looking into this matter is to accept the opinions found in secondary sources. Tertiary sources are even more unreliable.
Hence the value of this website in being able to seek out information from those who were there at the time, evaluate from all sides, and importantly, to study the scriptures in the spirit of the Bereans.
Well it is common for the Exclusive groups to believe they are the inherent descendents of the 'primitive company', or the only ones on the 'ground of the One Body' etc. If you look at the circle chart in Noel which shows the 'primitive company' at the center, and every section, bar the one the author is in, as a schism, I would suggest that was, and is, common thinking. Certainly the TWs and the Taylor break-offs hold it. Indeed the Renton section of the Taylors holds that anyone who left before June 1970 was wrong. In theory the KLC's are not mean to hold it, but I've heard it taught by prominent teachers. One said to me 'how could God have two seperate comapnies gathered to His Name in the same place. Many of the conservative Gsopel Hall groups effectively believe the same thing, ie. that they are the only true Church, or they are the actual Assembly in any given place.
By the way, without wantint to sound pedandic or disappoint anyone, another thing I often heard, was the phrase 'Brethren doesn't have a captial B'. In the context it is used in the last two comments, ie. a proper noun, i'm pretty sure it should do according to English gramatical rules!
I cannot let pass the above comment by “SeekingrealTruth” and not respond in some measure.
That there is such an event as the Rapture is taught in the Bible, and that despite what some might say. 1 Thessalonians 4 verses 13 to 18 teach it quite clearly.
Admittedly, it might be the case that the word “rapture” does not occur in our English Bibles, but what else does ‘the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air’ (verses 16 & 17) mean? This is the Rapture. It is a word used as describing the catching up of Christians, true believers in Christ.
The fact of the Rapture cannot be denied, but the question is, “When?” Hence Paul’s next chapter and his second letter to the Christians in Thessalonica. In 1 Thessalonians 5 Paul describes a “them and us” situation, culminating with a distinguishing feature regarding "us" in these words: ‘For God has not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.’ (verse 10.)
This ‘wrath’ is not Hell, whether Hades or the Lake of Fire, but that which takes place on Earth, and is amply described, if symbolically, in Revelation 6 to 19, especially from chapter 15. See also particularly chapter 6 verse 17.
It is true that in the world we shall have tribulation (Jn. 16.33), but there is to come on earth the great tribulation – ē thlipsis ē megalē – literally, "the tribulation, the great one" – the emphasis being on "great" (Rev. 7.14). However, these in Revelation 7 are taken from the twelve tribes of Israel, not from the Gentiles. They are not Christians, therefore, certainly are not of the Church, the one [spiritual] body of Christ.
And this is where the problem lies. Is the Church simply Israel in another guise? Are we to pass through ‘Jacob’s trouble’ (Jer. 30. 7 – see, for connection, verses 3 and 4), the Great Tribulation? Is that something for us to look forward to first, and our hope deferred, our expectation before the Lord comes.
The Lord’s Second coming is one whole, but it involves His coming into the air for His Church and His coming down onto the earth for Israel. The former gathers the Church into its heavenly inheritance; the latter Israel, all twelve tribes, into their earthly inheritance.
In fairness, “SeekingrealTruth” appears to appreciate some distinction between Israel and the Church, but, even so, seems to think that Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 verse 2 is teaching that the Church also will go through the Great Tribulation. Rather, it will not. See, for example, Revelation 3 verse 10. The Day of the Lord was not present as the Thessalonians thought. All Scripture is for us but not all is about us.
Mark Best
Incidentally, I do not use a pseudonym, being responsible and accountable for what I have written.
Points also raised here lie behind the present “Middle East Problem” now much in the News.
Israel regards the Tanach – the Hebrew Bible [1] – as being their title deeds to the Land. The verses referred to above are therefore relevant.
However, since there are nowadays other claimants, the whole of Genesis 15, and not just verse 18, needs to be considered, particularly verses 13 and 14, the fulfilment of which is described in the early chapters of Exodus, thus making clear who the “seed” mentioned in these verses is. Similarly, Genesis 21 verse 12.
In addition, Genesis 22, in particular verses 15 to 18, must be taken account of, as also chapter 28, particularly verse 13.
Another point. In bold letters is a Bible quotation, “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” Notice that there is no mention of “the land” in Matthew 21 verse 43.
The Church has no promised land on earth. Christians are ‘blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ’ (Eph. 1.3).
Mark Best
[1] Though known to Christians as the Old Testament, the Jews do not call it such since that implies there is a New, the which they do not accept.
Syd. If I might add.
Looking at the state of the World today and comparing with the Holy Scriptures, the conflict that commenced on 7th October 2023, the way protests have spread to the UK and elsewhere, and how the nations are being drawn into this, indeed that there exists a state of Israel already, it makes we wonder how there are those who refuse to accept that God has a future for Israel as He had promised to their fathers (Rom. 11.25-29), and, of course, for the nations when Christ returns to Earth.
World leaders and politicians of various persuasions are getting themselves involved, but the world that has rejected God and His Christ is becoming unstable and descends into choas. Hence looms the Great Tribulation.
The Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the only Saviour of the World (Jn. 4.42) – and I do not mean simply in terms of those believing in Him now going to Heaven when they die, or, rather, of those of us still alive when He returns to the air for us to be taken there.
Yet despite what we can see with our very eyes, "Replacement Theology" is on the rise.
I have heard Darby blamed for America’s support of Israel, but that is like blaming the weather forecaster for forcing a wet day on us when we wanted sunshine!
It is all there in the Bible, but it needs to be steadily read through from beginning to end. Then all becomes clear.
Mark Best
Steve,
I was making a general statement regarding Jews, most of whom will not have it that Jesus of Nazareth was / is the Messiah. Yes, thankfully, there are those of them who indeed do believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
As to the Tanach, or Tanakh, the threefold division of the Hebrew Bible from which that word is derived, and the order of the books in many places, is very different than in our Old Testament. The Lord refers to this as recorded by Luke in chapter 24 verse 44.
The order of the books in the Old Testament in our Bible comes from the Septuagint, though those books known as the Apocrypha are omitted.
Thank you for the additional information.
Best regards
Mark
Syd,
I think this is now departing from the original subject. However, it is obvious that the New Testament writers often quoted from the Septuagint, and hence the reason for the seeming disparity between an Old Testament verse and its citation as in the New. An example of this is the quotation of Psalm 40 verse 6 found in Hebrews 10 verse 5. In the King James Version, the former says, ‘Mine ears hast thou opened’, but the latter, ‘A body hast thou prepared me’.
Also, several expressions are based on the Septuagint even though the translation in the OT of the KJV and subsequent ones is from the Hebrew. For example, in Leviticus 1, that described there is known as “the burnt offering”, yet it does not translate the Hebrew word ‘olah’, but is from the Greek word ‘holocautōma’.
I do not base my doctrine on the Septuagint exactly, but I do not discount it entirely.
Mark Best
