Copy of Personal Letter.
Maurice Lloyd's Comment on Transition Periods, 'The Out Resurrection Out from The Dead', Order of The Pauline Epistles, The House of Judah NOT Lo-Ammi.
exanastasin tEn ek nekron epiphaneia sOtErion
tou mustEriou tou apokekrummenou apo tOn aiOniOn
Dear T,
Your request obliges me to write not as fully as I should but so as to deal with some of the outstanding points since I last wrote in February; also In July 1999, when I mentioned the 2nd copy I sent you of "The True Basis of Fellowship" which you have yet to consider. Though I said that I would be sending you a copy of my "Talmud or Torah ?" I find that I had already sent it to you, as you confirm in your letter of 8th December 1998.
The remarks In my last letter about my being unable to write to Duncan McGregor, probably due to his passing my letter to MP (who ignored it) are apposite; and you are privileged to get a reply - but do not expect this to continue if you write again, as you are supposed to get the message. You probably will observe the tone that we discussed on the phone, of patting you on the head but of course as a simple layman your rational powers cannot be matched with that of the superior academic, mind. I do recall your erstwhile friend of the Great Lakes stating somewhere that his views were subject to criticism from his peers - which rules us out ! I found this attitude much less so with "Professor Bruce (he whose name I could not recall when phoning you ).
However, I was surprised to find Mike admitting disagreement with Charles; or calling Leslie, whose name he misspells, "a good man" like Barnabas ! But I am also surprised to find that I agree with him quite a lot. Of course, it is reasonable for him, as with Sellers, to expect enquirers as to his beliefs to first read his publications.
I am not aware that Sellers promoted this concept that you hold about the "out-resurrectlon", but it is. 'Chapel of the Open Book' doctrine. I do not know Mike's reasons but I also reject it; since the form of exanastasin tEn ek nekron is not a unique Greek form; it occurs for instance in Ephesians 3:9 as tou mustEriou tou apokekrummenou apo tOn aiOniOn, where the Preposition occurs as well as it being embodied In the Substantive.
Because the subject of the PMK is "obviously a difficult one" he would opt out of the problem and calls for it to be disbanded - so evidently he does not consider himself a "diligent student of the Word". It is rather that the challenge demands that "the whole idea needs to be" investigated.
I cannot follow his logic In saying that "the pastorals come after Ephesians" because apostles and prophets are mentioned, surely In retrospect rather than contemporary. Of course bishops and elders were appointed by men, though the seven deacons in early Acts were appointed by apostles, but bishops/elders in biblical terms were never mediators, as were apostles/prophets.
There is something in what Mike says about transition periods, but they do not have to be as defined as is Acts 28. There was a transition stage after Christ was born and until he was anointed at his baptism and again at his resurrection. Fron Acts 9 there was a transition period until the death of Steven when the complement of the seven was not restored nor that of the I2 after James was killed by Herod; and there was another when the Greeks of Antioch were first preached to when that other 'good man' and Paul began their ministry, along with Simeon Niger of Cyrene.
I do now believe there was a transition from Acts 28:28 until the truth of The Mystery was first proclaimed In the Epheslan Epistle, though during the transition it was known that there was in being "a dispensation of God which is in faith" ITIm.1:4 (ASV). This is different from Mike's view that Ephesians began rather than ended the transition. Only after Paul declared the truth of the Mystery could the designation The Dispensatlon of the Mystery be applied. The actual point of transition is indicated in Epheslans 1:10, being God's purpose for "a dispensation of the fulness (filling out) of the seasons", viz. the Interruption of the 70 Weeks.
Before that point some partial light (an epiphaneia) had been given as noted In Titus 2. Here I must digress to discuss this word which is so generally misunderstood. There is no such thing as The epiphaneia, or The Church, or even The Parousia; they all need to be defined by context. Definitely Sellers' "blazing forth" is wrong, or Paul's bright light on the Damascus Road would have directed his future course; instead he needed to ask what he should do, and Ananias was sent to him with what was an epiphany. For the term means just enough tight, actual or figurative, to clarify the situation, as for the wise-men at Bethlehem.
In Titus 2:11 the "Salvatlon-BrlngIng (sOtErion)" grace of God Is said to have appeared (as an epiphaneia) to all men, the sOtErion clearly indicating Acts 28:28. That was one Epiphany which has to be distinguished from the later Epiphany of the glory in v.12, and the even later Epiphany of His Parousia in 2Thess.2:8.
I am now convinced that the order of the Pauline epistles should be thus :
Gal.; 1Thes.; 2Thess.; 1Cor.; 2Cor.; Rom.; Heb.; || then 1Tim.; Titus; 2Tim.; Phm.; Phil.; Eph.; Col.
There is discernible similarity of theme between the corresponding placement of early and later epistles. You have yourself pointed out the relationship of Romans to Epheslans; Galatlans links with ITimothy in using the term "living God"; but in particular Hebrews throws light on Colosslans. Observe that I now think Phllemon comes before Philipians, which affects what I had previously stated in the study on 2Timothy.
I had always regarded 2Peter as relating to Paul's early epistles in the Acts period, but if as you seem to say they were later then Peter could have written his second epistle after Acts 28. The proposition deserves to be closely investigated, which I cannot do at this time.
My mental alacrity is now much improved, due to the many supplements I now am taking, but my eye condition shows no change either way. I am due to visit hospital again on Wednesday.
Most Sincerely Yours in Christ, Maurice Lloyd 11th September 2000
P.S. I never believed The House of Judah became Lo-Ammi. I have sent copies of my letter to Ribbins, also to Howard White and Mike ? of New York. No response from any.