Copy of Personal Letter.
Maurice Lloyd's comments on the writings of Panin, The Resumption of The Kingdom Era, John Cheetham, The Nature of God.
epiphaneia archons oikiakos oikia oikos
Dear T,
"This is now my second letter to you", as Peter once wrote. A calamity befell the first. I had two full pages ready and about to print five days ago, when a faulty lead on my word processor created a spurious signal that wiped out all the internal memory - some six hours work lost !
You seem to have more clearly understood my chronological chart than anyone else that I know of, as previously mentioned in my letter of 11th August 1992 (which also see now). I enclose the latest version of it, but I know it will still need correction, as the 7 Weeks cannot relate to 408bc but possibly to 457bc when Astyages authorised Nehemiah. This is close to the Companion Bible position, though its nearness is by default, since I do not accept Lo-Ammi reckoning, and its Jubilee placement is in error.
There is no "unwitting "placing by me of the "last days" anywhere. I am in full agreement with Sellers on this point, so do not accept your suggestion of making Paul's "last days" part of the resumed Kingdom. The epiphaneia gives the enlightenment that both manifests the folly of those mentioned and stirs the remnants of both houses of Israel into self recognition, the very first stage in their recovery. You are making too much from the case of Jannes and Jambres which is only a simile. archons are not necessarily evil.
The word oikia does not mean "household", except rarely as a figure, but does mean a dwelling. The specific word for "household" is oikiakos as Mat.12.36. The general word for "house" is oikos which matches the English counterpart, as "household" in 2Tim.4:19, as "dynasty" in Lk.1:27, and equivalent to oikia in Mk.5:38. = Mat.9:23. [this is an example where two different Greek words can be represented by the same English word]. Your ability to produce Greek script is of interest, but I suggest it would be better for both writer and reader not to use the Hebrew type - which is hard enough to read in any case.
I think I should confess that back in 1946 when I first came across Berean literature, as a test, I initially sent for a copy of The Deity of Christ from the publication secretary - who then was L.F.Green. whom I was not to meet until ten years later at Sunningdale. But I have since then learned better.
We are not called upon to make a judgment about another believers personal faith - that is the Lord's own prerogative. But you and I are responsible as to links held with those whose conduct is not blameless. The enclosed The True Basis of Fellowship is excellent; if you already have it you can pass it on.
The perception of the truth of the deity of Christ is apprehended by faith; it is not a dogma for mental assent nor a touchstone for judging others. After all, one who may not now see it as a truth may yet come to do so.
The nature of GOD is the supreme and most sacred truth that is revealed in Scripture, and is not a subject for argument. You will know that I reject the idea of Sellers that Jesus Christ is our God. as you have my study on it. The Holy Spirit is what we call God when He operates secretly to give light: the Father is our God in known relationship in love and purpose, whom we worship: the One Who is the expression of God mediating that knowledge and relationship is our sovereign Lord. The idea of God in three persons is not Scriptural; He is made known to us in One Person, Who is great enough to do so. See Col.2:9. I am enclosing a copy of a letter from someone whose name you will recognise; it was to a missionary of the Jews Society who I knew in Manchester.
I am also enclosing "Placing the Pastorals" which will be self explanatory; it is a challenge to Michael Phelan which he has yet to answer satisfactorily.
I return your last letter as requested, also the chart which I suggest ought to be dated and identified, as documents for discussion always should be.
I do not accept Panin's idea of Neighbourhood: tell me the significance of the number 50: is it 5x5x2, or 7x7, or 3x17 ? On what basis does one decide that a given number is large enough for its neighbour to qualify ? Nevertheless, Panin's work on Chronology is a sound and helpful work.
I would expect the resumption of the Kingdom Era to be related to sabbatic years in someway, but not a jubilee. But it's wiser not to try and determine the situation. The period 366 BC to 27 AD is exactly 392 years = 7x7x8. You have not understood that zero is only a datum point where, instead of looking back to years ending in December one turns about and considers years starting from January; so it is necessary to deduct one when adding BC and AD years.
The Companion Bible is at fault in showing Year 0. It is also defective in treating Jubilees as additional to the 49. Also, I do not accept the idea of Anno Dei and Anno Mundi reckoning. In spite of this the CB has by default got the chronology very nearly correct as I calculate it..
As to Acts 28.28. I am already being speculative in fixing on 62ad. In fact the sabbatic year would end in Adar of 63ad, and if the actual day was of any significance it could follow the pattern of 70ad and terminate with the next completion of the twenty-four priestly courses. But I am not pressing the point.
Regarding the teaching of John Cheetham you have a problem with which I can sympathise, but I feel I should not make a decision for you since I am not fully informed of all he teaches. I would observe that the Secret of Christ is not one and the same as the Adninistration of the Secret; moreover, neither term can be compared with 2Cor.3:9. where the word is Ministry or Service. I should have to question one who states. "Yahweh continues his religious program of hostility"; and, "even the Bible is secondary to this" - can this be Biblical Research ?
I will add an extract from ny letter to Dan Andersen in which I wrote to discontinue my subscription to 'This I Believe'. It may help you in how to approach your own problem. Of course it may be that he now does believe what he puts out of late, but ny previous understanding of the word implied faith, not mental reasoning. Terms like "I like to think", "proposed thoughts". "I can't help but feel" and "ideas being presented" are no part of Biblical exegesis.
While it may not be your place to condemn Cheetham, you should clearly set out your own position and Scriptural attestation, bearing in mind the injunction of 2Tim.2:25.. This may indeed imply censure, or be taken as "provocative", or even be regarded as "offensive" if rejected. But you must be faithful.
Yours most sincerely, . Maurice Lloyd 19th January 1994.