Written by Charles Scofield

5
CHAPTER I

In attempting to write on this lofty and sacred subject we are well aware of the danger of “fools rushing in where angels fear to tread.” Some one has truly said, “In mysteries men soon lose their way.” Men become confounded when they seek to fathom the being of God.

By the help of God we will “let the lid stay on the Ark,” – (1 Sam’l 6:19), not seeking personally to pry into things unlawful. In fact the major part of our task will consist of quoting what others far more able have had to say upon this subject. We trust the reader may derive as much profit from this study as the writer has. If so he will feel justified in having written.

If there are any people on earth who ought to welcome such information it is the Pentecostal people, for whom we more especially write. We are free from party spirit. The fact is many of us are becoming Higher Critics, and downright Modernists, on this subject. We are in grave danger of lining up with the Antichrist in the Apostasy. Anything that opposes or rejects a full Scriptural revelation of Jesus Christ must be antichrist. Because some have gone “beyond the things which are written,” ( I Cor. 4 :6, II John 9, R. V.), is no excuse for us to be frightened back and deny our Lord. Let our sympathies be placed on the side of right always. God will hold us accountable for this failure. Many have denied today truths once held through fear of being numbered “among the transgressors.” “Art thou also of Galilee?” This is ever the devil’s master stroke. He will push a people over the precipice, frightening the others back too far, one extreme always producing another. Jesus is thus again “crucified between two thieves.” Let us come up to the help of the Lord. Both are robbing Him of the glory due Him. The one by unscriptural extremes, the other through cowardly denial of their Lord. Though one extreme may hold the other in subjection for the time.

Men are naturally creatures of extremes, on all subjects. And the truth is most generally found about the middle, in between. It is also hard to be shown anything in the heat of battle. There is the smoke of conflict in our eyes. It is hard for a sectarian to believe that anyone can really be free from selfish, party spirit. But we want the balanced truth, free from preference or prejudice. Extremes divide. They can only hope to meet in the middle, in Christ. The Sun sometimes appears oblong at the time of rising, through refraction of its rays. But it is the Sun nevertheless. So truth regarding a subject does not always appear clearly in the beginning.
6

We have this treasure “in earthen vessels.” Crude ore is not gold bullion. It is easier to burn a man at the stake than to answer his arguments. Ignorance and prejudice are the greatest enemies of truth.

We need far more than a Sunday School or Kindergarten revelation of Jesus today to enable us to triumph over the Antichrist, the Beast and the False Prophet. “Unto a full grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” – Eph.4:13 “A spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him.” – Eph. 1:17. Any true Christian must rejoice in the discovery of all revelation that tends to bring their Lord more powerfully and fully before their vision. We only know God by revelation.

It has been often said, and truly, that men are willing to make Christ “a little more than man, but a little less than God.” But this can never be. He is either creature or Creator. If creature, we may not worship him. All great truths of the Bible run through the whole Book. They are never dependent or founded on some isolated Scripture.

Our first study will be that of the subject of the Godhead. This we will consider both from the standpoint of theology and Scripture. Tradition is so binding upon the consciences of most believers that the matter needs to be clarified for simple minds as far as possible.

As Christians we are called, according to the tenets of our faith, to walk a path between two extremes of unorthodox opinion. That is, between the idea of God as a mere. Monad, or a oneness as a single human individual is one, and the pagan idea of “gods many,” or that of three separate Gods. This latter is known as Tritheism. The fact is, as generally accepted by all orthodox believers, God is neither one as man is One, nor three, as men are three. The truth lies between these two conceptions. God is a trinity of being, a three-one God, a tri-part Being. The Germans call it’ the “dreieinigkeit” (threeoneness).

We might as well admit a most patent fact to begin with, that the Godhead has no human analogy. To this all scholars agree. The human mind can never “by searching find out God.” Men are seeking on all sides to understand and explain the being of God through human reasoning and analogy. This cannot be done. God is not “such an one as we.” – ( Psa. 50:21.) “God is Spirit.”
7

The declaration of the doctrine of the Swiss and German Protestants (Zwingle and Luther), reads as follows: – “We believe that this same God, one in essence and in nature, is threefold in person, that is to say, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as was declared in the Nicene Council, and as all the Christian church professes.” While the word for God in Genesis is plural, yet this certainly cannot denote three Go1ds, for the very genius of the Christian faith lies in the fact of there being but one true God, one Supreme Being, one “first cause.” “Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord.” – Deut. 6:4. There have been none added since. God has no beginning. Eternity knows neither beginning nor end. Only time and finite nature begins and ends. This one true God is tripartite in nature and manifestation. He ever existed as Father, Son (Logos, the Word, more properly expressed), and Holy Ghost. There are three eternal distinctions in the Substance of God. But, “these three are one.” – 1 John 5:7. The Logos and the Son are one.

Wm. Smith, L.L.D., in his Bible Dict., a book all scholars are familiar with as a text-book, states on this subject: – “The plural form of Jehovah ( Gen. 1:26), has given rise to much discussion. The fanciful idea that it referred to the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty (‘pluralis excellentiae’), or it denotes the fulness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God.” The old Swedish monarchs titled themselves in the plural as individuals, after this idea. The late Kaiser of Germany signed himself “Wir, Wilhelm, von Gottes Gnaden,” – (We, William, by the grace of God). However, this does not in any sense affect the truth of the Godhead.

Dr. Scofield writes: – “The Supreme Being is One but, in some sense not fully revealed in the O. T., is a unity in plurality. This is shown by the plural name, Elohim, by the use of the plural pronoun in the interrelation of Deity as evidenced in Gen. 1:26, etc. That this plurality is really a Trinity is intimated in the three primary names of Deity. God, in His own triune Person, no human being in the flesh has seen. But God, veiled in angelic form, and especially as incarnate in Jesus Christ, has been seen by men.”

No orthodox Christian or scholar has ever believed in three Gods, or in three separate Supreme Beings. That there can be but one Supreme Being, one first cause, is a fact attested to by all Christian scholarship in all the world, in all ages. God is one, and the Word of God is one. That the Jehovah of the O. T., is the’ Jesus of the N. T., is also attested to by all orthodox scholars, such as Dr. Scofleld, Dr. Torrey, Adam Clarke, etc. And this really goes without saying, for the Logos (Word), is God’s “thought and expression,” in the very meaning of the term. The thought and expression in the O. T. and the N. T. are one and the same, the revelation cumulative. It is all the Word of God, the thought and expression of the one God. “In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and God was the Word” (Greek). – John 1:1. German and Spanish translations read the same. God was never a non-entity, a mere blank, without thought or expression. His “thought and expression” (Logos) are a part of His very self, of His Being, begotten of Him. Just as my thought and expression are inseparable from myself.

Dr. Adam Clarke, the “Prince of Commentators,” has the following to say: – “In all transactions between God and man, mentioned in the sacred writings, we see one uniform agency.
8

The Great Mediator in all, and through all, God ever coming to man by him, and man having access to God through him. This was, is, and ever will be the economy of grace.” “There is one mediator between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus.” ( I Tim. 2:5) “The lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Rev. 13:8. Provision has been made for every possible contingency before it could arrive.

Clarke comments on the following Scriptures: – Psa. 50:21Gen. 12:7 “The Lord appeared unto Abraham.” This was probably by the great Angel of the Covenant, Jesus the Christ.

Gen. 12:8, – “And called upon the name of the Lord.” Abram was taught even in those early times to approach God through a Mediator; and ‘that’ Mediator, since manifested in the flesh, was known by the name of Jehovah.

Gen. 16:7-10 – “The angel of the Lord.” This was Jesus Christ who in a body suited to the dignity of his nature frequently appeared to the patriarchs. Also Gen 18:22. Of God the father, no man hath at any time seen His shape ( Deut. 4:12-16), nor has He ever limited Himself to any definite personal appearance.

Gen. 22:11 – “The angel of the Lord.” The Lord Jesus, who called himself Jehovah ( Vs. 15, 16). “Swore by Himself,” Jehovah (Jesus). – Heb. 6:13-18.

Gen. 32:24 – “There wrestled a man with him” This was the doubtless the Lord Jesus Christ, who among the patriarchs, assumed that human form, which in the fullness of time he really took of a woman. (This was only a form at this time, possibly vaporous or gaseous, compact to visibility which could be dissipated in an instant. I have given the sense of the comment on this point, to save space.) He could produce the effect on Jacob’s body to appear a real man wrestling with him. Jacob’s wrestling was also spiritual. V. 30, “I have seen God face to face,” – the Lord-Jesus Christ. (Of course we know the human nature and body of Jesus did not exist until formed and produced in the womb of Mary. Otherwise his conception, incarnation and birth would necessarily have been a farce.)

Gen. 35:13 – “God went up from him,” visibly. This was no doubt the future Savior, the Angel of the Covenant.

Gen. 48:16 – “The angel which redeemed me from all evil.” The Messenger, the Redeemer. We have full proof that this was no created angel, but the Messenger of the Divine Counsel, the Lord Jesus Christ. (The word angel means ‘messenger’ also. Not necessarily of the order of created angels Rev. 2:1.)

Ex. 4:2 – “The angel of the Lord.” Not a created angel certainly, for he is called Jehovah ( V. 4, etc.), and has the most expressive attributes of the Godhead applied to him ( V. 14, etc) Yet he is an angel, a messenger, in whom was the name of God ( Chap. 23:21), and in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily ( Col. 2:9), and who, in all these primitive times, was the messenger of the covenant – Mal. 3:1. And who was this but Jesus the Leader, Redeemer and Savior of9 Mankind?” – Dr Adam Clarke. The Jehovah of the O. T. is proven to be the Jesus of the N. T. He is the Word or Memra, later made flesh, and dwelt among us.

The Chaldee Paraphrasts, the most ancient Jewish writers extant, use the word Memra, which signifies the Word, in those places where Moses puts the name Jehovah. These writers ascribe to Memra (the Word), all the attributes of Deity. They say it was Memra, or the Word, which created the world, appeared to Moses on Mt. Sinai and gave him the Law, speaking to him face to face. Which brought Israel out of Egypt, marching before the people, and wrought all the miracles recorded in the Book of Exodus. The same Memra at Bethel, appeared unto Abraham in the plain of Mamre, and was seen of Jacob to whom Jacob made his vow, and acknowledged him as God. – Gen. 28:20.” – Alexander Cruden.

It is said of Augustine that one day walking by the seaside deeply engrossed in thought and meditation over the mystery of the Godhead, he observed a little child dipping the water out of the sea into a shallow hole he had just formed in the sand. Upon being asked why he did this he replied that he intended to put the sea into that hole. The conviction came powerfully upon Augustine that he was attempting precisely as impossible a thing in seeking to comprehend and explain mystery of the Three in One.

Some one has truthfully said “The infinite truth of the Godhead lies far beyond the boundaries of logic, which deals only with finite truths and categories.” But the revelation of it is ‘in the face of Jesus Christ,” according to the Word. – 2 Cor. 4:6. The Logos (Word), the pre-existent Christ, is one with God. “In the beginning was the Word.” – John 1:1. It was already there. God exists from eternity, throughout all eternity. “From everlasting to everlasting thou art God.” – Psa. 90:2. No orthodox scholar ever taught that the Logos or Word had a beginning in eternity. In fact eternity knows no beginning. “In the beginning” predicates a starting point to reason from. Or it simply states the fact that “in the beginning” the Word was already there. The Logos is without beginning or end. In fact He is “the Alpha and the Omega the beginning and the end.” – Rev. 18:17. A beginning without beginning “And God was the Word.” – John 1:1.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is in His Deity of necessity as uncreated as God Himself. Were it otherwise He could not be Deity. Deity is uncreated, without beginning or ending. Deity is one inseparable of necessity in life and attributes. Hence all scholars declare that God the Son has the same attributes as God the Father, differing in office only, as Son, neither existing before the other.

Alexander Cruden in his Concordance gives to the Son of God the following titles in the Word which accredit him with the attributes of God. “Ancient of Days, Creator, Emmanuel, Eternal Life, Everlasting Father, Father of Eternity, First and10 Last God, Most High, Jah, Jehovah, Living God, Strong God, Mighty God, etc., etc.,” In fact if Jesus were not absolute Deity we would have no right to worship him. He must be God. “Worship God.” = Rev. 19:10. Cruden also says: “The Son of God is equal and consubstantial with the Father. He is, the express image of the Father, as our words are of our thoughts. – John 1:3; Heb. 1:3; 11:3.

Jesus Christ is not a created being, not a creature, but Creator. “All things were made by him.” – John 1:3. To declare him less than absolute Deity is to make him a creature. To say he is divine, but not Deity, means nothing. A long tailed coat and a piece of parchment, or a roll of sermons, makes a modern ‘divine.’ Divinity is Deity or it is nothing. “God the Father, God the Son, and Got the Holy Ghost,” are equally God. All this orthodox scholars have always taught.

A difficulty has been raised over the term “begotten,” as applied to the Son. But all scholars’ agree that the Son, or Logos, could not have had a beginning in eternity. He could not be “co-eternal with the Father,” and have a beginning. From standpoint of manifestation as the Son, and as to his human nature, He had a beginning, from the womb of Mary. But in His Deity he was uncreated, as all scholars teach and declare. Many do not seem to realize they have an Eternal Lord, in the person of Jesus Christ. He is more than a Sunday School or Kindergarten Christ, more than a mere human sacrifice, yes, more than a Son even. He is both the Son of God, and God, according to all orthodox theologians. He is both the pre-existent Logos, which “was God,” and the Son of God.

The Logos proceeded, or came forth, from God. – John 8:42. “The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” – John 1:18. This has reference to his coming into the world. The Son, and the Logos, the Word, are one. He was the Logos, (thought and expression of God, in the bosom of the Father, before he was manifested as the Son, of God. In His Deity He was always in heaven, omnipresent.

Tertullian wrote, A. D. 200: – “The Word (Logos) was sent from the Father into the Virgin, and was born of her, both Man and God, the Son of God, and called Jesus Christ.

Theologians have sometimes applied the term ‘begotten’ the pre-existent Christ, or the Logos, as though He were begotten from eternity, or eternally begotten, but this they have never implied as a beginning of existence. They all claim the Logos is eternal. The Word is begotten, as my thought and expression are begotten of me. They are a very part of myself. No less, and of as long duration. This is what theologians mean by the Logos, or Son, being ‘eternally begotten,’ or “from an eternity begotten of the Father.” Some claim a continuous begetting.

In Acts 13:33, Paul refers the Scripture, “Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee,” to the resurrection of11 Christ. – ( Psa. 2:7). “This day,” in time. There is no time in eternity. ( Heb. 5:5.) Read Rev. 1:5, Rom. 1:4, Heb. 1:5,6. – Compare Luke 2:13, 14, John 1:14, in parenthesis. John 1:18; 3:16-18, I John 4:9, John 17:18, Luke 1:35, “begotten.” – Rotherham. Gal. 4:4. In Rev. 1:5, Heb. 1:6, the word is properly ‘born,’ not begotten. The Logos was sent into the world through the incarnation, as a Son, clothed in humanity. Heb. 1:2, I John 4:14, John 1:1 John 3:16. “A child is born, a son is given,” – Isa. 9:6, as every child is born, and son given. Though in this case Jesus was Deity, the Logos. Only his humanity was “begotten” in the womb of Mary. “And God was the Word (Logos).” – John 1:1.

The Word (Logos) was sent into the womb of Mary and “became flesh.” (the only begotten from the Father. – John 1:14), The Incarnation took place. A Son was manifest in Bethlehem’s stable. The pre-existent Word abode forever. The Son revealed the Fatherhood. God was never known as Father until the advent of the Son into the world. The Jews never knew Him as such.

Jesus and the Logos are one and the same. Leon Tucker has said: “The Word of God and the Son of God are eternal and inseparable.” “Therefore also that holy thing which shall be ‘begotten’ of thee shall be called the Son of God.” – Luke 1:35, – Rotherham. “Thou shalt call his name Jesus.” – Matt. 1:21, 1 John 4:15. “God sent forth his Son, born of a woman.” Gal. 4:4. “Hath in these last days spoken unto us in the Son.” – Heb. 1:1-2. The “Word of the Lord” (Logos) came to the prophets. “There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” – 1 John 5:7.

Dr. Adam Clarke, the “Prince of Commentators,” co-worker with John Wesley, has written the following interesting matter on this subject: “They have taken away my Eternal Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.

“I believe in the Holy Trinity; in three persons in the Godhead, of which none is before or after another. I believe Jehovah, Jesus, the holy Ghost, to be one infinite eternal Godhead, subsisting ineffably in Three Persons; I believe Jesus Christ to be, as to his divine nature, as unoriginated and eternal as Jehovah Himself; and, with the Holy Ghost, to be one infinite Godhead, neither Person being created, begotten, nor proceeding, more than another. As to its essence, but, one Trinity, in an infinite, eternal and inseparable unity; and this triune God is the Object of my faith, my adoration, and my confidence. But I believe not in an eternal sonship or generation of the Divine nature of Jesus Christ. Here, I have long stood; here I now stand; and here I trust to stand in the hour of death, in the day of judgment; and to all eternity. (One can readily judge how strong were Clarke’s convictions on this point.)

“The doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is absolutely12 irreconciliable to reason, and contrary to itself. Eternity is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in reference to time; Son supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such generation. Therefore the conjunction of these two terms; Son and eternity, is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas. (Poetry and human sentiment notwithstanding.)

His human nature is derived from the blessed Virgin Mary through the creative energy of the Holy Ghost; but His Divine Nature because God, infinite and eternal, is uncreated, underived and unbegotten; which, were it otherwise, He could not be God in any proper sense of the word; but as He is God, the doctrine of the eternal Sonship must be false.” – Adam Clarke.

Clarke admits a three-fold personality, or three persons, in the being of God from eternity, but rejects the idea of Sonship before the advent of Jesus in the flesh. Before that He was the Word or Logos ( John 1:1-14), the idea of sonship being transferred back to the Logos. A multitude of spiritual leaders of the church today agree with Clarke. Critics in referring to this particular view of Adam Clarke have been content to pass it over with the simple observation that “this opinion has not been generally accepted.” The Logos and the Son are one.

The Son is evidently in no sense inferior to the Father in His Deity, except in office. Deity is Deity. He was “equal with the Father.” – Phil. 2:6, but “emptied himself,” becoming inferior only in his humanity, through the Incarnation. Nothing has ever been added to or taken from God. Deity is self-existent, uncreated. Are not then the theological expressions “begotten from eternity,” or “eternally begotten,” as applied to Christ, mere technical human terms, their meaning in this connection understood only by scholars? They agree that these are not intended to postulate a beginning for God the Son, nor any increase, or inferiority in Deity. The Son of God was “begotten”, humanly speaking, in the womb of Mary. – John 3:16. Before this He existed eternally as the Logos. He is both “God the Son,” and the Son of God.

W. H. Bennett, a well-known English writer, has said: – He (Christ) became (in the Incarnation), what He before was not, but He did not cease to be what He was, – (very God).” All orthodox scholars declare the Christ to be not only the Son of God, but “very God.” “Very God and very man.’’ In fact they declare Him to be as much to God as God the Father is superior in office only. This is an accepted tenent of orthodox theology. All scholars admit there is no human analogy whererwith to express or define the matter of the Godhead. They admit that the Logos or Word is without beginning, even as the Father; and that the Word of God and the Son of God are one. The real, scriptural, mystery of the Godhead lies in the Incarnation. God manifest in the flesh.” – 1 Tim. 3:16.
13

The well known theological expression, found in the so-called Athanasian Creed, “Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance (Essence),” we consider a safe proposition. Granted that the Substance or Essence of the Godhead cannot be divided or separated, it becomes impossible to make three separate Persons or Supreme Beings out of the proposition. Hence we are saved from Tritheism, the postulation of three Gods; to which Trinitarianism is admitted by scholars to come dangerously near. As the whole-question hinges on the use of the word “Persons,” it might prove helpful to look more carefully into the meaning of this much argued term, as used and purposed originally in this connection.

In Nelson’s Encyclopedia we read: – “It is generally conceded that the Christians of the second, and even of the third century, were far from having a clearly understood and recognized doctrine on this high subject (the Trinity). At the council of Nice, A. D. 325, they began to formulate a creed on this order. But the doctrine of a Trinity of Persons was not fully complete till the addition of the Filioque clause in the Western Church of the 6th Century, which led to the separation of the Greek church from the Latin. A declaration of the nature of the Trinity was finally draw up to meet certain heretical declarations regarding the same matter.”

Philip Schaff, D. D, L.L. D., writes: – “God is one in three persons or hypostases (subsistences – used by Greek theologians to denote each of the three subdivisions of the Godhead; Latin ‘personae,’ from whence comes our modern term persons applied to the Godhead), each expressing the whole fullness of the Godhead. – ( Col. 2:9, 10.)

“The term persona is taken neither in the old sense of a mere personation or form of manifestation (face, mask), nor in the modern sense of an independent, separate being or individual, but in a sense which lies between these two conceptions, and thus avoids Sabellianism on the one hand, and Tri-theism on the other.

“In modern philosophical usage the term person means ‘separate and distinct rational individual. But the tri-personality of God is not a numerical or essential trinity of three beings (like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), for this would be tritheism; nor is it, on the other hand merely a three-fold aspect and mode of manifestation, in the Sabellian or Sweden-borgian sense, but it is a real objective and eternal, though ineffable distinction in the one Divine being, with a corresponding three-fold revelation of this being in the works of creation, redemption and sanctification.

“In the Trinity there is no priority or posteriority of time, superiority or inferiority of rank, but the three persons are coeternal and coequal.”

In the Dictionary of the. Apostolic Church, by Jas. Hastings, D. D., we read: – “The technical terms by which the christian church has expressed the faith that it derived from14 the Scriptures were not invented for a considerable time after the Apostolic period. Thus no one would expect to find the terms Trinity and Person in the N. T. The word “Trinity” referred to God, was first used by Theophilus of Antioch, A. D., 180. But it was not then an accepted technical term. Theophilus did not use the word “Trinity” in the technical sense in which it was even later used. The words which we render “Person” are of a still later date, and at first exhibited a remarkable fluidity of signification, being at one time used to denote what is common to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, the Divine “Substance,” and at another time to distinguish between them.

“The student must necessarily be always on his guard against the supposition that “Person’ means ‘individual’, as when we say that three men are three persons. These technical expressions are but methods of denoting the teaching found in the N. T. that there are distinctions in the Godhead, and that while God is “One” yet he is not a mere Monad. These technical terms are not found in the Apostolic or sub-apostolic writings.

“It must be remembered that human language is limited and unable to express fully the divine mysteries, so that just as the technical terms, “Trinity,” “Person,” may be misused in the interest of Tritheism, so subordination (of Son and Spirit) may be misused in the interest of Arianism (a supreme God and two inferior deities).”

J. Munro Gibson, M. A.: D. D., writes: “The word ‘Trinity” does not occur in the scripture, nor is there anything to be found there corresponding to those complicated formulas by which theologians have tried to define the relations of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. If theologians had only followed, the Scriptures in this respect, how many bitter controversies might have been spared, and how many needless difficulties and perplexities would have been avoided.”

Dr. Scofield, in his Reference Bible, write as follows: “The name of God (El, Elah, Elohim) suggests certain attributes of Deity, as strength, etc., rather than His essential being. God subsists in a personality which is three-fold, indicated by relationship as Father and Son: by a mode of being as Spirit: and by the different parts taken by the Godhead in manifestation and in the work of redemption – Spirit, Father, Son.” A tri-personality.

“Calvin did not enforce the Athanasian Creed, and did not use the words Trinity and Person in the confession drawn up by himself and others at Geneva.” – Encyclopedia Britt.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bartleman/deity.iii.html

The blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.—HEB. 12:24.

Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.—The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.—It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Abel, . . . brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof . . . The Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering.—Christ . . . hath loved us, and hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour.

Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.—Having . . . boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus.

John 1:29. -Rev. 13:8. -Heb. 10:4,5,10.Gen. 4:4. -Eph. 5:2.Heb. 10:22. -Heb. 10:19.

By Miles J Stanford

“Walk in [dependence upon] the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh” (Galatians 5:16).

Those who have thoroughly learned full dependence on Him for justification will come to understand that sanctification is by the same faith principle. We are to rest in His finished work both for birth and for growth.

“We are not to overcome the lusts of the flesh in order that we may walk in the Spirit. We are to walk in the Spirit in order that the lusts of the flesh may be overcome. The enemy can hold up young Christians on this point for a long time, so that they do not really get started on the Christian walk. They feel they cannot expect to begin to walk in the Spirit until they have, in some degree at least, dealt with the lusts of the flesh.

“They wait for some vague time when they hope they will have reached a more satisfactory position in regard to the lusts of the flesh, and will feel more confident about attempting a walk in the Spirit. But that is all the wrong way around. If we are to wait until we have, in some degree, mastered the lusts of the flesh before we venture to walk in the Spirit: if we are to wait until we feel that we can give some sort of security to ourselves and to God that we shall do a bit better in the future than we have done in the past, then we never will walk in the Spirit. For until we walk in dependence upon the Spirit we shall not, and cannot, overcome the lusts of the flesh.” -D.T.

“Be filled with [controlled by] the indwelling of the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18, Cony.).

Notes on
Ephesians
2 0 1 2 E d i t i o n
Dr. Thomas L. Constable
Introduction
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Almost all Christians believed in the Pauline authorship of Ephesians until the nineteenth
century when destructive biblical criticism gained much influence (cf. 1:1; 3:1).1 The
critics built a case against Pauline authorship from linguistic and stylistic features,
literary comparisons chiefly with Colossians, historical evidence, and doctrinal
peculiarities.
“When all the objections are carefully considered it will be seen that the
weight of evidence is inadequate to overthrow the overwhelming external
attestation to Pauline authorship, and the Epistle’s own claims.”2

Is a believer in Christ a sinner saved by God’s Grace while possessing a sin nature, or is the believer a new man in Christ, with a new and distinct identity, now fundamentally different from the former person prior to conversion?

A popular view among many evangelical teachers is that the New Testament terms “old man” (or old self), “sin nature,” and “flesh” are all synonymous. In this view, since the New Testament clearly teaches that the Believer still has the “flesh,” he must still posses the old man. And if this is so, the crucifixion of the old man in Romans 6, where Paul states that “our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin” (Romans 6:6), can not be seen as actual, but only positional or judicial. Teachers of this view would say that the old man, which is the sin nature and the flesh, is positionally crucified, but still with us in our life, that he has only been dealt a judicial death blow by the work of Christ.

The Sin Nature

Although the origin of sin begins with Satan’s rebellion against God, sin came into this world through Adam.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned (Romans 5:12).

Here we see that in Adam all sinned, as we all participated when Adam sinned. The Biblical principle of participation is demonstrated in Hebrews 7:9-10, where Levi the priest is said to have paid tithes to Melchizedek through his ancestor Abraham, although he was not yet born. Adam’s sin produced spiritual and physical death for all of humanity. His fall transformed him downward into a different being from the perfect being which God created. He propagated after his own kind and passed his corrupt nature to all of his descendents who are spiritually dead.

This transmission of sin and its manifested effects of spiritual and physical death, depravity, and hostility toward God, is referred to by some theologians as the “sin nature.” The term “sin nature” finds its nearest expression in the New Testament in the words of Paul describing unbelievers, “and were by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3). Though Scripture underlines the fact that believers possess the capacity to sin, it would seem to go against the emphasis of the new birth in Christ to say that “the nature” of a believer is to sin. Instead of using the term “sin nature” to describe the believer’s capacity to sin, Paul uses the word “flesh.”

The Flesh

Scripture never speaks of Believers having a “sin nature,” but refers to their daily struggle with what it calls “the flesh.”

For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so (Romans 8:5-7).

Newell explains the meaning of the word flesh when it is used to describe sin in a believer’s life: The flesh is the manifestation of sin in the as yet unredeemed body. Our “old man,” therefore, is the large term, the all-inclusive one — of all that we were federally from Adam. The flesh, however, we shall find to be that manifestation of sin in our members with which we are in conscious inward conflict, against which only the Holy Spirit indwelling us effectively wars.[1]

The Old Self (or Old Man)

The old self in Adam is presented in these verses:

Knowing this, that our “old self” was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin (Romans 6:6).

That, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the “old self,” which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit (Ephesians 4:22).

Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the “old self” with its evil practices, (Colossians 3:9).

Newell writes: This is our old self, as we were in and from Adam. It is contrasted with the “new man” (Colossians 3:9,10) — which is what we are and have in Christ. Also, we must not confuse the “old man” with “the flesh.”[2]

Believers are told to put on the new man, or self, as this is now the true identity of who we are in Christ.

And put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth (Ephesians 4:24).

And Ironside states: The “old man” is more than the old nature. It is the man of old, the man you used to be before you knew Christ as Saviour and Lord. In other words, the old man is all that I once was as an unsaved person. I am through with that man; he has disappeared, for faith, in the cross of Christ.[3]

God is indeed finished with the old man with his sin nature, He has no program to clean him up, He is finished with him! As we have seen, these three terms, old man, sin nature, and flesh are distinct from each other, so a totally different picture emerges of what the life of a believer in Christ is subsequent to salvation. A believer in Christ isn’t a sinner saved by God’s Grace while possesseing a sin nature, but a “new man,” a new creation in Christ, with a distinct identity and possessing a glorious hope.

[1] Newell, William R., Romans Verse by Verse (Chicago: Moody Press, 1938), 212.

[2] Ibid., p. 210.

[3] Ironside, H.A., Lectures on the Epistles to the Colossians (Neptune New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers Inc., 1929), 135.

Written by Alan Torres

(1) Most Reformed thinkers do not believe that the reference to a 1000-year reign of Christ should be taken as a future event (Rev. 20:1-5). They regard this section of Revelation as a symbolic “recapitulation” of Christian church history, with Satan spiritually “bound” through Christ’s resurrection, the resurrection of souls being a symbol of new birth, and so on (see Cox’ booklet Amillennialism Today, Presbyterian & Reformed Pub.; also L. Berkof’s standard Systematic Theology, A. Hoekema’s The Bible and the Future). Although this view is often called a-millennialism, this is not quite accurate. The prefix “a” means “no”. Covenant writers do believe in a Millennium; but they define it non-physically and non-futuristically. Most Covenant thinkers accept the general idea of a final period of extreme apostasy and divine wrath just prior to Christ’s return.

There has recently been a resurgence of post-millennialism in Reformed circles as well. This is the belief that all the glorious O.T. predictions of a Golden Age for Israel will be fulfilled through the Christian Church prior to Christ’s return. Post-millennialism is an essential element in the Christian Reconstruction/Theonomy movement.

Since the mid-1800s, the system of theology known as dispensationalism has had a great deal of influence on how some Christians view the doctrines of ecclesiology and eschatology. Here is some of the history of dispensationalism and a few of the key beliefs of that type of Bible interpretation. I call it a way to interpret the Bible because I believe that is what it is. I believe there are several different ways to interpret the Bible. I think you should follow the rules of Bible interpretation and not mix several ways together or you will just become foolish in your thinking. Before considering studying the Bible learn the rules of Bible study. The Granville Sharp Rules of Greek interpretation is always useful to know.

Theologians continue to argue over the origin of dispensationalism. Those who are dispensationalists contend that the basic beliefs of dispensationalism were held by the apostles and the first generation church. Those who are not dispensationalists believe that dispensationalism is a new theology that began in the 19th century. I believe  that dispensationalism, as a way to interpret the Bible, began around the mid-1800s.

1. John Nelson Darby The beginning of systematized dispensationalism is usually linked with John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), a Plymouth Brethren minister. While at Trinity College in Dublin (1819), Darby came to believe in a future salvation and restoration of national Israel. Based on his study of Isaiah 32, Darby concluded that Israel, in a future dispensation, would enjoy earthly blessings that were different from the heavenly blessings experienced by the church. He thus saw a clear distinction between Israel and the church. Darby also came to believe in an “any moment” rapture of the church that was followed by Daniel’s Seventieth Week in which Israel would once again take center stage in God’s plan. After this period, Darby believed there would be a millennial kingdom in which God would fulfill His unconditional promises with Israel.1 According to Paul Enns, “Darby advanced the scheme of dispensationalism by noting that each dispensation places man under some condition; man has some responsibility before God. Darby also noted that each dispensation culminates in failure.” 2 Darby saw seven dispensations: (1) Paradisaical state to the Flood; (2) Noah; (3) Abraham; (4) Israel; (5) Gentiles; (6) The Spirit; and (7) The Millennium. By his own testimony, Darby says his dispensational theology was fully formed by 1833.

2. The Brethren Movement Dispensationalism first took shape in the Brethren Movement in early nineteenth century Britain. Those within the Brethren Movement rejected a special role for ordained clergy and stressed the spiritual giftedness of ordinary believers and their freedom, under the Spirit’s guidance, to teach and admonish each other from Scripture. The writings of the Brethren had a broad impact on evangelical Protestantism and influenced ministers in the United States such as D. L. Moody, James Brookes, J. R. Graves, A. J. Gordon, and C. I. Scofield.3

3. The Bible Conference Movement Beginning in the 1870s, various Bible conferences began to spring up in various parts of the United States. These conferences helped spread Dispensationalism. The Niagara conferences (1870—early 1900s) were not started to promote dispensationalism but dispensational ideas were often promoted at these conferences. The American Bible and Prophetic Conferences from 1878—1914 promoted a dispensational theology.

4. The Bible Institute Movement In the late 1800s, several Bible institutes were founded that taught dispensational theology including The Nyack Bible Institute (1882), The Boston Missionary Training School (1889), and The Moody Bible Institute (1889).

5. The Scofield Reference Bible C. I. Scofield, a participant in the Niagara conferences, formed a board of Bible conference teachers in 1909 and produced what came to be known as, the Scofield Reference Bible. This work became famous in the United States with its theological annotations right next to the Scripture. This reference Bible became the greatest influence in the spread of dispensationalism.

6. Dallas Theological Seminary After World War I, many dispensational Bible schools were formed. Led by Dallas Theological Seminary (1924), dispensationalism began to be promoted in formal, academic settings. Under Scofield, dispensationalism entered a scholastic period that was later carried on by his successor, Lewis Sperry Chafer. Further promotion of dispensationalism took place with the writing of Chafer’s eight-volume Systematic Theology.

1. Hermeneutical approach that stresses a literal fulfillment of Old Testament promises to Israel Though the issue of “literal interpretation” is heavily debated today, many dispensationalists claim that consistent literal interpretation applied to all areas of the Bible, including Old Testament promises to Israel, is a distinguishing mark of dispensationalism. Dispensationalists usually argue that the progress of revelation, including New Testament revelation, does not cancel Old Testament promises made with national Israel. Although there is internal debate concerning how much the church is related to the Old Testament covenants and promises, dispensationalists believe national Israel will see the literal fulfillment of the promises made with her in the Old Testament.

2. Belief that the unconditional, eternal covenants made with national Israel (Abrahamic, Davidic, and New) must be fulfilled literally with national Israel Although the church may participate in or partially fulfill the biblical covenants, they do not take over the covenants to the exclusion of national Israel. Physical and spiritual promises to Israel must be fulfilled with Israel.

3. Distinct future for national Israel “Only Dispensationalism clearly sees a distinctive future for ethnic Israel as a nation.”5 This future includes a restoration of the nation with a distinct identity and function.

4. The church is distinct from Israel The church does not replace or continue Israel, and is never referred to as Israel. According to dispensationalists, the church did not exist in the Old Testament and did not begin until the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). The church was a mystery not revealed until Jesus’s ascension into heaven. Revealed to Paul alone who taught others about it.

Old Testament promises to Israel, then, cannot be entirely fulfilled with the church. Evidences often used by dispensationalists to show that the church is distinct from Israel include: (a) Jesus viewed the church as future in Matthew 16:18; (b) an essential element of the church—Spirit baptism—did not begin until the Day of Pentecost (compare 1 Cor. 12:13 with Acts 2); (c) Christ became Head of the church as a result of His resurrection (compare Eph. 4:15; Col. 1:18 with Eph. 1:19-23); (d) the spiritual gifts associated with the church (cf. Eph. 4:7-12; 1 Cor. 12:11-13) were not given until the ascension of Christ; (e) the “new man” nature of the church (cf. Eph. 2:15) shows that the church is a NT organism and not something incorporated into Israel; (f) the foundation of the church is Jesus Christ and the New Testament apostles and prophets (cf. Eph. 2:20); (g) the author, Luke, keeps Israel and the church distinct. On this last point, Fruchtenbaum states, “In the book of Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. The term Israel is used twenty times and ekklesia (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct.”6

5. Multiple senses of “seed of Abraham” According to Feinberg, the designation “seed of Abraham” is used in different ways in Scripture. First it is used in reference to ethnic, biological Jews (cf. Romans 9—11). Second, it is used in a political sense. Third, it is used in a spiritual sense to refer to people, whether Jew or Gentile, who are spiritually related to God by faith (cf. Romans 4:11-12; Galatians 3:7). Feinberg argues that the spiritual sense of the title does not take over the physical sense to such an extent that the physical seed of Abraham is no longer related to the biblical covenants.

6. Philosophy of history that emphasizes both the spiritual and physical aspects of God’s covenants According to John Feinberg, “nondispensational treatments of the nature of the covenants and of Israel’s future invariably emphasize soteriological and spiritual issues, whereas dispensational treatments emphasize both the spiritual/soteriological and the social, economic, and political aspects of things.” 7

Other significant, although not necessarily exclusive features of dispensationalism, include: (1) the authority of Scripture; (2) belief in dispensations; (3) emphasis on Bible prophecy; (4) futuristic premillennialism; (5) pretribulationism; and (6) a view of imminency that sees Christ’s return as an “any-moment” possibility.

Variations Within Dispensationalism (I refer to myself as a Classic Pauline Dispensationalist)

The above features characterize the beliefs of those within the dispensational tradition. However, as Blaising writes, “Dispensationalism has not been a static tradition.” 8 There is no standard creed that freezes its theological development at any given point in history. Blaising offers three forms of dispensational thought:

1. Classical Dispensationalism (ca. 1850—1940s) Classical dispensationalism refers to the views of British and American dispensationalists between the writings of Darby and Chafer’s eight-volume Systematic Theology. The interpretive notes of the Scofield Reference Bible are often seen as the key representation of the classical dispensational tradition.9

One important feature of classical dispensationalism was its dualistic idea of redemption. In this tradition, God is seen as pursuing two different purposes. One is related to heaven and the other to the earth. The “heavenly humanity was to be made up of all the redeemed from all dispensations who would be resurrected from the dead. Whereas the earthly humanity concerned people who had not died but who were preserved by God from death, the heavenly humanity was made up of all the saved who had died, whom God would resurrect from the dead.” 10

Blaising notes that the heavenly, spiritual, and individualistic nature of the church in classical dispensationalism underscored the well-known view that the church is a parenthesis in the history of redemption.11 In this tradition, there was little emphasis on social or political activity for the church.

Key theologians : John Nelson Darby, C. I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer

2. Revised or Modified Dispensationalism (ca.1950—1985) Revised dispensationalists abandoned the eternal dualism of heavenly and earthly peoples. The emphasis in this strand of the dispensational tradition was on two peoples of God—Israel and the church. These two groups are structured differently with different dispensational roles and responsibilities, but the salvation they each receive is the same. The distinction between Israel and the church, as different anthropological groups, will continue throughout eternity.

Revised dispensationalists usually reject the idea that there are two new covenants—one for Israel and one for the church. They also see the church and Israel as existing together during the millennium and eternal state.

Key theologians : John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost, Charles Ryrie, Charles Feinberg, Alva J. McClain.

3. Progressive Dispensationalism (1986—present) What does “progressive” mean? The title “progressive dispensationalism” refers to the “progressive” relationship of the successive dispensations to one another.12 Charles Ryrie notes that, “The adjective ‘progressive’ refers to a central tenet that the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are being progressively fulfilled today (as well as having fulfillments in the millennial kingdom).” 13

“One of the striking differences between progressive and earlier dispensationalists, is that progressives do not view the church as an anthropological category in the same class as terms like Israel, Gentile Nations, Jews, and Gentile people. The church is neither a separate race of humanity (in contrast to Jews and Gentiles) nor a competing nation alongside Israel and Gentile nations. . . . The church is precisely redeemed humanity itself (both Jews and Gentiles) as it exists in this dispensation prior to the coming of Christ.”14

Progressive dispensationalists see more continuity between Israel and the church than the other two variations within dispensationalism. They stress that both Israel and the church compose the “people of God” and both are related to the blessings of the New Covenant. This spiritual equality, however, does not mean that there are not functional distinctions between the groups. Progressive dispensationalists do not equate the church as Israel in this age and they still see a future distinct identity and function for ethnic Israel in the coming millennial kingdom. Progressive dispensationalists like Blaising and Bock see an already/not yet aspect to the Davidic reign of Christ, seeing the Davidic reign as being inaugurated during the present church age. The full fulfillment of this reign awaits Israel in the millennium.

Key theologians : Craig A. Blaising, Darrell L. Bock, and Robert L. Saucy

1. See Floyd Elmore, “Darby, John Nelson,” Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, Mal Couch, ed., (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996) 83-84.

2. Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody, 1989) 516.

3. See Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton: Victor, 1993) 10.

4. These essentials of Dispensationalism are taken from John S. Feinberg’s, “Systems of Discontinuity,” Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton: Crossway, 1988) 67-85. At this point we acknowledge the well-known sine qua non of Dispensationalism as put forth by Charles C. Ryrie. According to Ryrie, Dispensationalism is based on the three following characteristics: (1) a distinction between Israel and the church; (2) literal hermeneutics; and (3) A view which sees the glory of God as the underlying purpose of God in the world. See Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995) 38-40.

5. Feinberg, 83.

6. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. Tustin: Ariel, 1994) 118.

7. Feinberg, 85.

8. Blaising and Bock, 21.

9. Blaising and Bock, 22.

10. Blaising and Bock, 24.

11. Blaising and Bock, 27.

12. Blaising and Bock, 49.

13. Charles C. Ryrie, “Update on Dispensationalism,” Issues in Dispensationalism, John R. Master and Wesley R. Willis, eds. (Chicago: Moody, 1994) 20.

14. Blaising and Bock, 49.

Fired Up! Top Five Stories on Fox Nation

• January 12, 2012
  

  Palin Rips Michelle Obama

  Sarah Palin Rips Michelle Obama: ‘Are We Just A Bunch Of Numbskulls?’ by James Crugnale | Mediaite, January 11th, 2012 Appearing …

• January 12, 2012
  

  CEOs Blow off Obama Meeting

  The Gateway PunditWhen Barack Obama invited several CEO’s to his Wednesday jobs summit discussion and photo-op he didn’t expect this…They …

• January 12, 2012
  

  Obama Plans to Create Internet ID for All Americans

  Obama Administration Reportedly Plans to Create Internet ID for All Americans Published January 08, 2011 | FoxNews.com President …

• January 12, 2012
  

  Bankrupt Solyndra Handing Out Bonuses

  Bankrupt Solyndra seeking to pay bonuses Court’s OK sought for ‘incentive plan’ By Jim McElhatton – The Washington Times Now …

• January 11, 2012
  

  Republican Destroys NBC News Anchors On Live TV

Sunday, 08 January 2012
Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important choke point for oil shipments, has become a contentious issue between the U.S. and Iran. On Sunday, the U.S. warned that there will be consequences if Iran to close Strait of Hormuz. (File Photo)
Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important choke point for oil shipments, has become a contentious issue between the U.S. and Iran. On Sunday, the U.S. warned that there will be consequences if Iran to close Strait of Hormuz. (File Photo)
inShare21

By Dina al-Shibeeb
Al Arabiya

The Middle East roils in crisis as a U.S. aircraft carrier entered one of the world’s most important choke point for oil shipments, the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has threatened to close if the United States raises sanctions against the Islamic Republic. The deployment of thousands of U.S. troops in Israel has raised speculation of an imminent war.

On December 20, the Jerusalem Post reported that Lt.-Gen. Frank Gorenc, commander of the U.S. forces based in Germany, said that there will be a deployment of several thousand American soldiers in Israel.

An Egypt-based military expert, major general Jamal Mathloum, said that “there is a military strategic cooperation between the U.S. and Israel since the 1980s and there is definitely mutual understanding.” He added that the U.S. troop deployment might not necessarily mean a direct signal of war, but that it could be read as Israel and U.S. readiness in case of a conflict arising in the region.

“There is already a U.S. radar station in southern Israel, and might contain from 500 to 700 American soldiers operating there,” Mathloum said.
But for Abdulaziz Sager, chairman and founder of the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, the deployment of U.S. troops in Israel is “definitely to send a clear signal to Iran.”

Sager said that there is a U.S.-Israel defense agreement that makes defending the Jewish state an obligation to the United States. In addition to that, U.S. President Barack Obama said in his last AIPAC meeting that the United States does not rule out any option against Iran.

According to debka.com, an Israeli website that provides political and security analysis, about 9,000 U.S. soldiers have already arrived in Israel. But Mathloum said this figure remains insignificant compared to the more than 100,000 American soldiers dispersed in 1,000 U.S. bases worldwide.

Lt.-Gen. Gorenc’s announcement came as he was visiting Israel to finalize plans for the upcoming drill. There will also be an establishment of American command posts in Israel and IDF command posts at EUCOM headquarters in Germany – with the ultimate goal of establishing joint task forces in the event of a large-scale conflict in the Middle East, the newspaper reported.

But according to Elias Henna, a Lebanon-based expert in military issues, the deployment of 9,000 U.S. troops in Israel goes back to the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and to support U.S. presence in the region and not to leave the “Arab field” open to further Iranian influence.

Asked why the United States did not increase its troop numbers in its military bases in the Persian Gulf, Henna said that both countries [Israel and United States] have far more compatible militaries, are bound with military agreements and that the United States has more freedom in Israel.

“Israel does not mind even if one million U.S. soldiers to be deployed in the Jewish state,” he added. As the U.S. and Israel continue their cooperation in light of the crisis looming around Iran, the Islamic Republic appears to remain unyielding.

On Sunday, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization Fereydoun, Abbasi Davani, reportedly said that Iran’s underground uranium enrichment facility will go on stream soon. Davani said that the Fordow nuclear enrichment plant will be operational in the near future and that around 20 percent, 3.5 percent and four percent enriched uranium can be produced at the site.

“There is no third party to verify about the site [Fordow] and truth about the announcement,” said Sager, adding “they can say all they want to say but there is no confirmation or verification.”