By the same Author
THE WAYS OF
PROVIDENCE
THE
VISIBLE HAND OF GOD
THIRTEEN
LECTURES ON THE APOCALYPSE
NAZARETH
REVISITED (Life of Christ)
THE
LAW OF MOSES
SEASONS
OF COMFORT
ROBERT
ROBERTS: AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY
CHRISTENDOM
ASTRAY
POPULAR
CHRISTIANITY (BOTH IN
FAITH
AND PRACTICE), SHEWN TO BE
UNSCRIPTURAL;AND
THE TRUE
NATURE
OF THE ANCIENT APOSTOLIC
FAITH
EXHIBITED.
EIGHTEEN LECTURES
(Originally
Published as “TWELVE LECTURES
on
the true teaching of the Bible.”)
by
ROBERT
ROBERTS
LOGOS
PUBUCA11ONS
9
WEST BEACH ROAD, WEST BEACH,
SOUTH
AUSTRALIA 5024.
CONTENTS
PAGE
Preface 7
Foreword 11
LECTURE 1
The
Bible-What it is, and how to interpret it 15
LECTURE 2
Human
Nature Essentially Mortal, as proved by Nature
and Revelation 34
LECTURE 3
The Dead Unconscious till the Resurrection,
and consequent error of popular belief in heaven and hell 52
LECTURE 4
Immortality
a conditional gift to be bestowed at the Resurrection 88
LECTURE
5
Judgment
to come; the dispensation of Divine awards to
responsible classes at the return of
Christ 106
LECTURE 6
God,
Angels, Jesus Christ, and the Crucifixion 133
LECTURE 7
The Devil not a personal supernatural being,
but the scriptural personification of sin in its manifestations
among men 172
LECTURE 8
The Kingdom of God not yet in existence, but
to be established visibly on the earth at a future dayLECTURE 9
The Promises made to the Fathers (Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob), yet to be fulfilled in the setting up of the Kingdom of God
upon earth. 233
LECTURE 10
The
Kingdom of God the Final Instrumentality in the
great scheme of human redemption 254
LECTURE 11
Christ
the Future King of the World 271
LECTURE 12
The Covenant made with David to be realised in
the reestablishment of the Kingdom of Israel under Christ 286
LECTURE 13
The
Second Coming of Christ the only Christian Hope 308
LECTURE 14
The Hope of Israel, or, the Restoration of the
Jews, a part of the divine scheme, and an element of the
Gospel 323
LECTURE 15
Coming
troubles and the Second Advent 340
LECTURE 16
Times
and Signs: or the evidence that the end is near 351
LECTURE 17
The
Refuge from the Storm: or, “What must I do to be
Saved?” 397
LECTURE 18
The
Ways of Christendom inconsistent with the Commandments of Christ
417
PREFACE
To the Edition of
1884
THE
enlightened reader will bear with the seeming arrogance of the title. It is a
proposition-not an invective. The question proposed for consideration is a
question for critical investigation. Attention is invited to the evidence and
the argument. They are strictly within the logical sphere. They can be examined
and dismissed if found wanting. What the title affirms is that Christendom, the
ostensible repository of revealed truth, iS away from that truth.
In
reality the title goes further than this. By implication, it asserts certain
things to be the truth that are not accepted by Christendom. It offers the
proof of the doctrines that are according to truth, as the best demonstration
that Christendom is astray from those doctrines. The
Pg
8
peared
in the pages of the monthly Christadelphian during the past
Parallel
cases in ancient Bible times indicate the nature of the present dead.
Of
the exact date of the Lord’s appearing we have no information. We supreme
happiness of being included in their glorious number.
(The
author of “Christendom Astray” died in 1898.)
FOREWORD
“Christendom
Astray” was first published as “Twelve Lectures on the which stood against
philosophical arguments a century ago, is still mighty to stand against the
modern philosophical arguments advanced against the Bible today. The ground of
the contention has altered, but the principle is the same-human reasoning
exalting itself against Divine revelation.
In
a different category is Lecture 16 entitled “Times and Signs: or the evidence
that the end is near.” In this lecture, Robert Roberts wrote in 1862, after
reviewing certain chronological arguments:
if
this is so, there wants about forty-four years to complete the 6,000 years of
the great world-week, and therefore we are that number of years from the time
when the blessing of Abraham shall prevail o’er the whole world through Christ.
But we are not, therefore, that number of yearsfrom the advent. This may happen
within the next twelve months. The comin of Christ is one event; the setting up
of the kingdom another.”
His
anticipation of the return of Christ at that time, and the
Pg
12
establishment
of the Kingdom by 1906, was incorrect. The question becomes: “Should an error
of this nature be preserved in the present edition, or left out?” Who can
answer a question of this nature better than the author himself? In the Preface
to the Fifth Edition, Robert Roberts stated:
“The
prophetic-chronological conclusions of lecture 11(A) are allowed to appear
unaltered, although the state of facts in this year, 1869, would seem to
stultify them. The fact is that events have verified them, and brought us to
the era of the advent. A.D. 1866 has been signalised by epochal events
characteristic of the termination of the Little Horn period, though it has not
brought the consummation. The mistake was in expecting the occurrence of the
advent and resurrection immediately 1866 was attained . .
Robert
Roberts did not hesitate to retain a point on which he was open to challenge,
because he was well aware that a discerning mind would appreciate the general
argument advanced, and be able to press on in personal study.
The
lecture iii question is a valuable section of this book. It will give the
reader an insight into principles to be applied in order to understand the
prophecies of the Bible. It deals with the great time periods of the Bible. It
details much of the history of Europe essential to an understanding of the
development of prophecy through a period of nearly 2,000 years. It pinpoints
the position of the Catholic Church in Bible prophecy, in a clear and
forthright manner. Events are outlined concerning the last-days activities of
Turkey, Russia and the Jews, leading up to the personal return of the Lord
Jesus Christ.
The
author of Christendom Astray was greatly assisted in his understanding of the
Bible by the writings of his predecessor, John Thomas. The study of the Bible
on the part of John Thomas revealed to him also that Christendom was astray
from the Scriptures. He set down the results of his research in a book entitled
Elpis Israel (or The Hope of Israel being “an exposition of the Kingdom of
God.” The book, which is a standard work of the Christadeiphians, expounds both
Bible doctrine and prophecy in a manner that reveals that the latter does
predict the future with certainty, and that when it is correctly expounded, can
be completely relied upon. Consider the following statements made in the year
1848:
Concerning
the Jews
“There
is. then, a partial and primary restoration of the Jews before the advent of
Christ, which is to serve as the nucleus, or
pg 13
basis,
of future operations in the restoration of the rest of the tribes after he has
appeared in the kingdom. The pre-adventual colonisation of Palestine will be on
purely political principles; and the Jewish ccrlonists will return in unbelief
of the Messiah-ship of Jesus, and of the truth as it is in him. They will
emigrate thither as agriculturists and traders, in the hope of ultimately
establishing their commonwealth, but more immediately of getting rich in silver
and gold by commerce with India, and in cattle and goods by their industry at
home under the efficient protection of the British power” (Elpis Israel, pp.
395/6-3rd. Edition, printed 1859).
This
statement, based upon Bible prophecy, has been remarkably fulfilled. A partial
restoration of Jewry has taken place, the nation of Israel has come into
existence, and Britain was a prime mover in accomplishing this.
Concerning Britain
“As I have said
elsewhere, the Lion-power will not interest itself in behalf of the subjects of
God’s kingdom, from pure generosity, piety towards God, or love of Israel; but
upon the principles which actuate all the governments of the world-upon those,
namely, of the lust of dominion, self-preservation, and self aggrandisement.
God, who rules the world, and marks out the bounds of habitation for the
nations, will make Britain a gainer by the transaction. He will bring her
rulers to see the desirableness of Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba, which they will be
induced. by the force of circumstances, probably, to take possession of. They
will, however, before the battle of Armageddon, be compelled to retreat from
Egypt and Ethiopia . . .“ (p. 398).
Following
World War 1 (seventy years after the above statement was written) Britain was
granted a mandate over Palestine, and sponsored the establishment there of a
national home for the Jews. Since that time, and developing out of that
movement, the nation of Israel came into existence. It is all in fulfilment of
Bible prophecy, as the above writer clearly showed.
Concerning Russia
In the Preface to
the 3rd. Edition of Elpis Israel (p. 21), the author wrote:
“Russia’s
mission is to reduce all the nations of the Old World, save Britain and her
dependencies, into one imperial dominion represented in the book of Daniel by
the Image of Nebuchadnezzar. Licentiousness will again break loose, and in the
mele’e the Austro-Papal empire will succumb; the contest will end in the
discomfiture of the Continent and Russia, like a
pg
14mighty inundation, will overflow the nations, and dash her waves upon their
shores, from the Danish Belts to the Dardaneiles. Britain will rage, and shake
the world with her thunder; but, as in the days of Napoleon, her alliance will
be fatal to them that trust her, and only precipitate their fall.”
Again
(p. 13):
“When
Russia makes its grand move for the building up of its image-empire, then let
the reader know that the end of all things as at present constituted, is at
hand. The long expected, but stealthy advent of the King of Israel, will be on
the eve of becoming a fact; and salvation will be to those, who not only looked
for it, but have trimmed their lamps by believing the gospel of the kingdom
unto the obedience of faith, and the perfection thereof in ‘fruits meet for
repentance.’”
There
is much more in this book in similar vein, not only in regard to the nations
mentioned above, but the world in general; and the fulfilment of these
anticipations clearly reveals that the Bible is true, and its prophecies
certain of fulfilment.
Robert
Roberts made a mistake in setting a date for the establishment of the Kingdom
of God on earth, because the Bible clearly states: “of that day and that hour
knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but
the Father” (Mark xiii, 32). There are time periods set down in the Bible, but
they do not reveal that date, and the fact that Robert Roberts made a mistake
in regard to them only serves to underline the importance for every reader of
Christendom Astray to turn to the Bible himself for confirmation of the matters
set before him. Let him do this, and he will be led into all truth, and rejoice
in the knowledge of God’s plan of salvation, and His future purpose to send
back Jesus Christ to this earth, that he might establish therein the universal
Kingdom over which he will reign (Acts i, 11; Daniel ii, 44; Zechariab xiv, 9).
There is a “day appointed” for this glorious and wonderful event (Acts xvii,
31), and the signs of the times show that it is near at hand, for “at the set
time,” “when the Lord shall build up Zion, He shall appear in His glory” (Psalm
cii, 13, 16).
THE PUBLISHERS
Pg15
LECTURE 1
THE BIBLE - WHAT IT IS, AND HOW TO INTERPRET IT
“The
time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine They shall turn away their ears from the
truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (II Tim. iv, 3, 4).
“Of
your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away
disciples after them” (Acts xx, 30).
“There
shall be false teachers among you ... and many shall follow their pernicious
ways, by reason of whom, the way of truth shall be evil spoken of” (II Pet. ii,
1, 2).
“Try
the spirits whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out
into the world” (I John iv, D.
“Their
word will eat as doth a canker” (II Tim. ii, 17). “All nations deceived” (Rev.
xviii, 23).
“TO
THE LAW AND TO THE TESTIMONY: IF THEY SPEAK NOT ACCORDING TO THIS WORD, IT IS
BECAUSE THERE IS NO LIGHT IN THEM “ (Isaiah viii, 20).
THAT
CHRISTENDOM is astray from the system of doctrine and practice established by
the labours of the apostles in the first century, is recognized by men of very
different ways of thinking. The unbeliever asserts it without fear; the church
partisan admits it without shame, and all sorts of middle men are of opinion
that it would be a misfortune were it otherwise. The unbeliever, while himself
rejoicing in the fact, uses it as a reproach to those who profess to follow the
apostles whom he openly rejects: the churchman, while owning the apostles as
the foundation, regards it as the inevitable result of the spiritual
prerogative vested in
the
church,” that there should be further unfoldings of light and truth leading
away from the primitive form of things; and the moderate and indifferent class
accept it as a necessary and Welcome result of the advance of the times, with
which they think the original apostolic institution has become inconsistent
pg
16
Is
there not another meaning to the fact? To such as have confidence in the Bible
as a divine record, the quotations standing at the head of this chapter must
suggest a view of the present state of things very different from that
entertained by the common run of religious professors. Do not these quotations
require us to believe that it was in the apostolic foresight (a foresight
imparted to them by that presence of the Holy Spirit which Jesus before his
departure promised he would secure for them during his absence-John xiv, 17:
xvi, 13)-that the time coming was a time of departure from what they
preached-when men indulging in “fables” and walking in “pernicious ways,” would
wholly turn aside from the saving institutions of the gospel delivered by them,
and realise the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy as to the state of things upon earth
just before the manifestation of God’s glory at the appearing of Christ, viz.,
that “darkness should cover the earth and gross darkness the people”? (Isa. lx,
2). Such a view may bring lamentable conclusions, and be fruItful of personal
embarrassments in a state of society where a man cannot prosper unless he fall
down and worship the current “doxy.” But an earnest mind will not be debarred
by such considerations from the investigation of a momentous topic. “What is
the truth?” is the engrossing question of men of this type, and they follow
wherever the answer may lead them, even “to prison and death,” if that were
possible in our age.
We
propose this investigation in the following lectures. Such subjects have been
supposed to pertain exclusively to the clerical province. Obviously, it is not
a likely theme for a clergyman to discuss whether the whole system of
clericalism itself be not a departure from Bible truth. It is not one which he
is specially fitted to consider. And, in point of fact, it is more and more
generally conceded that questions of Bible truth are matters of
non-professional understanding and concern. Nothing but an untrammelled
individual knowledge of the Bible will satisfy the earnest curiosity that would
know what the truth is amid the intellectual turmoils, questionings and
collisions of modern times. If the Bible is God’s voice to every man that has
ears to hear (which it demonstrably is), it is for every man by himself, and
for himself, to seek to understand it, and to extend the benefit he may have
received.
Qualification
for this is not a question of “ordination”: it comes with enlightenment. And
not only qualification, but obligation comes with this enlightenment. As soon
as a man understands and believes the gospel, he is bound to lend himself
Pg
17
as
an instrument for its diffusion. The command is direct from the mouth of the
Lord Jesus himself: “Let him that heareth say, COME” (Rev. xxii, 17), the
example of the early Christians affords unmistakable illustration of the
meaning of the command (Acts viii, 1-4). Tradition clings to “holy orders.” Of
these we hear nothing in the Scripture. Apostolic teaching inculcates the
common-sense view that the truth of God is designed to make propagandists of
all who receive it.
The
subject of this afternoon’s lecture is the natural starting point of all
endeavours to ascertain what the Bible teaches. We want to know what the Bible
is in itself, and on what principles it is to be understood. On the first of
these points, we must take a good deal for granted. We shall assume throughout
these lectures that the Bible is a book of Divine authorship. Our present duty
is simply to look at the structure and character of the Bible as a book
appearing before us with a professedly divine character taken for granted.
Looking at it in this way, we first discover that the Bible consists in reality
of a number of books written at different times by different authors. It opens
with five, familiarly known as the “five books of Moses,” a history written by
Moses, of matters and transactions in which he performed a leading personal
part. This history occupies a position of first importance. It lays the basis
of all that follows. Commencing with an account of the creation and peopling of
the earth, it chiefly treats of the origin and experience of the Jewish nation,
of whom Moses says, “The Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto
Himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth” (Deut. xiv, 2). The
five books also contain the laws (very elaborately stated), which God delivered
by the hand of Moses, for the constitution and guidance of the nation.
It
has become fashionable, under various learned sanctions, to question the
authenticity of these books, while admitting the possible genuineness of the
remaining portions of the Sacred Record. Without attempting to discuss the
question, we may remark that it is impossible to reconcile this attitude with
allegiance to Christ. You cannot reject Moses while accepting Christ. Christ
endorsed the writings of Moses. He said to the Jews by the mouth of Abraham in
parable: “They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them; if they hear
not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose
from the dead” (Luke xvi, 29, 31). It is also recorded that when he appeared
incognito to two of his disciples after his resurrection,
beginning
at MOSES and all the prophets, he expounded unto
pg
18
them
in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke xxiv, 27). Further,
he said, “Had ye believed MOSES, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
But IF YE BELIEVE NOT HIS WRITINGS, HOW SHALL YE BELIEVE MY WORDS?” (John v,
46, 47).
If
Christ was divine, this sanction of the Pentateuch by him settles the question;
if the Pentateuch is a fiction, Christ was a deceiver, whether consciously or
otherwise. There is no middle ground. Moses and Christ stand or fall together.
The
next twelve books present the history of the Jews during a period of several
centuries, involving the development of the mind of God to the extent to which
that was unfolded in the message prophetically addressed to the people in their
several stages of their history. This gives them more than a historical value.
They exhibit and illustrate divine principles of action, while furnishing an
accurate account of the proceedings of a nation which was itself a monument of
divine work on the earth, and the repository of divine revelation.* The book of
Job is no exception as to divinity of character. It does not, however, pertain
to Israel nationally. It is a record of divine dealings with a Son of God, at a
time when that nation had no existence. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecciesiastes, and the
Song of Solomon, are the Inspired writings of two of Israel’s most illustrious
kings- writings in which natural genius is supplemented with preternatural
spirit-impulse, in consequence of which the writings 50 produced are
reflections of divine wisdom, and by no means of merely human origin. This is
proved by Christ’s declarations in the New Testament.
In
the books of the prophets, from Isaiah to Malachi, we are presented with a most
important department of “Holy Writ.” In these seventeen books-respectively
bearing the names of the writers-we find recorded a multitudinous variety of
messages transmitted from the Deity to the “prophets,” for the correction and
enlightenment of Israel. These messages are valuable beyond all conception.
They contain information concerning God otherwise inaccessible, and
instructions as to acceptable character and conduct, otherwise unobtainable; in
addition to which they have a transcendent value from their disclosure of God’s
purpose in the future, in which we naturally have the highest interest, but of
which, naturally, we are in the greatest and most helpless ignorance.
Coming
to the New Testament, we are furnished in the first
See
the Visible Hand of God by the Lecturer
Pg
19
four
books with a history which has no parallel in the range of literature. The
Messiah promised in the prophets, appointed of God to deliver our suffering
race from all the calamities in which it is involved, appears: and here are
recorded His doings and His sayings. What wonderful deeds! What wonderful
words! We are constrained in the reading to exclaim with the disciples on the
sea of Galilee: “What manner of man is this?” He entrusted his apostles with a
mission to the world at large. In the Acts of the Apostles we have made plain
to us in a practical way, what Christ intended them to do as affecting
ourselves. In the same book we have the proceedings of the primitive
Christians, written for our guidance as to the real import of the commandments
of Christ, and the real scope and nature of the work of Christ among men. The
remainder of the New Testament is made up of a series of epistles, addressed by
the inspired apostles to various Christian communities, after they had been
organised by the apostolic labours. These letters contain practical instruction
in regard to the character which Christians ought to cultivate, and in a
general and incidental way illustrate the higher aspects of the truth as it is
in Jesus. Without these epistles, we should not have been able to comprehend
the Christian system in its entirety. Their absence would have been a great
blank; and we in this remote age should hardly have been able to lay hold on
eternal life.
Such
is a scant outline of the book we call “the Bible.” Composed of many books, it
is yet one volume, complete and consistent with itself in all its parts,
presenting this singular literary spectacle, that while written by men in every
situation of life- from the king to the shepherd-and scattered over many
centuries in its composition, it is pervaded by absolute unity of spirit and
identity of principle. This is unaccountable on the hypothesis of a human
authorship. No similarly miscellaneous production is like it in this respect.
Heterogeneousness, and not uniformity, characterises any collection of human
writings of the ordinary sort, even if belonging to the same age. But here is a
book written by forty authors, living in different ages, without possible
concert or collusion, producing a book which in all its parts is pervaded by
one spirit, one doctrine, one design, and by an air of sublime authority which
is its peculiar characteristic. Such a book is a literary miracle. It is
impossible to account for its existence upon ordinary principles. The futile
attempts of various classes of unbelievers is evidence of this. On its own
principles it is accounted for God spoke to, and by, its authors
Pg
20
“at sundry times and in divers manners.” This
is no mere profession on the part of the writers. It is shewn to be a true
profession not only of the character of the book and the fulfilment of its
prophecies, but by the fact that nearly all the writers sealed their testimony with
their own blood, after a life of submission to every kind of disadvantage-”
trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover, of bonds and
imprisonments; were stoned, were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with
the sword, wandered about in sheep skins and goat skins, in deserts and
mountains; in dens and caves of the earth
-being
destitute, afflicted, tormented” (Heb. xi, 36-38). To suppose the Bible to be
human is to raise insurmountable difficulties, and to do violence to every
reasonable probability. The only truly rational theory of the book is that
supplied by itself. “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Spirit” (II Peter i, 21). In this we find an explanation of the whole matter.
The presence of one supreme guiding mind, inspiring and controlling the
utterances of the authors, completely accounts for their agreement of teaching
throughout, and for the exalted nature of their doctrines: on any other
supposition the book is a riddle, which must ever puzzle and bewilder the mind
that earnestly faces all the facts of the case.
There
are, unfortunately, those who hold the book in contempt as a priestly
imposture. There are few who do so as the result of individual investigation.
It is the result of writings which are not careful about facts, or scrupulous
in the use they make of them. The result is lamentable to those deceived. They
reject the only book which can possibly be a revelation from the Deity, and
they throw away their only chance of immortality; for surely if there be a book
on earth that contains the revealed will of God, that book is the Jewish Bible;
and if there be a possibility of deliverance from the evils of this life-the
corruptibility of our physical organisation, the weakness of our moral powers,
the essential badness of a great portion of the race, the misconstruction of
the social fabric, the bad government of the world-that possibility is made
known to us in this book, and brought within our reach by it. By his rejection
of the Bible, the unbeliever sacrifices an immense present advantage. He
deprives himself of the consolations that come with the Bible’s declarations of
God’s love for man. He loses the comfort of its glorious promises, which have
such power to cheer the mind in distress. He cuts himself away from all the
moral heroism which they impart; he sacrifices the abiding
Pg
21
support
which they give; the soul-elevating teaching which they contain; the noble
affection they engender; the solace they afford in time of trouble; the
strength they give in the hour of temptation; the nobleness and interest which
they throw around a frittering mortal life. And what does he get in exchange?
Nothing, unless it be licence to feel himself his own master for a few mortal
years, to sink at last comfortless and despairing into the jaws of a
remorseless and eternal grave!
The
effect of the Bible is to make the man who studies it, better, happier and
wiser. It is vain for the leaders of unbelief to assert the contrary; all facts
are against them. To say that it is immoral in its tendencies, is to propound a
theory, and not to speak in harmony with the most palpable of facts. To declare
that it makes men unhappy, is to speak against the truth; the tormented
experience of the orthodox hallucinated is no argument to the contrary, when it
becomes manifest, as it will in the course of these lectures, that the Bible is
no ways responsible for these hallucinations. To parade the history of
unrighteous government and tyrannical priest-craft in support of such
propositions, is to betray either ignorance or shallowness or malice. Many are
deluded by such a line of argument, and have the misfortune, in many instances,
to become conscientiously impressed with the idea that the Bible is an
imposture. Such are objects of pity; in the majority of instances they are
hopelessly wedded to their view.
It
does not come within the scope of the present lecture to deal with the vexed
but settleable question of Bible authenticity. Sufficient now to remark that
the person who is not convinced by the moral evidence presented to his
understanding on a calm and independent study of the Holy Scriptures, in
conjunction with the historical evidences of the facts which constitute the
basis of its literary structure, is not likely to be altered in his persuasion
by elaborate argument. The plan of trying to show what it teaches, and thereby
commending it to every man’s sober judgment, will be found the most profitable.
Here it may be well to notice an aspect of the question not often taken into
account in the discussions which frequently take place on the subject.
The
modern tendency to disbelieve the Bible must be traceable to some cause. Where
shall we look for that cause? The moral inconsistency of professing Christians
has, no doubt, done something to shake the faith of many; the natural
lawlessness of the human mind is also an element in the various attempts to get
rid of a book which exalts the authority of God
Pg
22
over
the will of man; but is there not another fruitful source, of unbelief in the
doctrinal tenets of the very religion professed to be derived from the Bible
itself? The result of these lectures will be to show that in the course of
religious history there has been a great departure from the truth revealed by
the prophets and apostles, and that the religious systems of the present day
are an incongruous mixture of truth and error that tends, more than anything
else, to perplex and baffle the devout and intelligent mind, and to prepare the
way for scepticism. I)o you mean to say, asks the incredulous enquirer, that
the Bible has been studied by men of learning for eighteen centuries without
being understood? and that the thousands of clergymen and ministers set apart
for the very purpose of ministering in its holy things are all mistaken? A
moment’s reflection ought to induce moderation and patience in the
consideration of these questions. It will be admitted, as a matter of history,
that in the early ages, Christianity became so corrupted as to lose even the
form of sound doctrine-that for more than ten centuries, Roman Catholic
superstition was universal, and enshrouded the world in moral, intellectual,
and religious darkness, so gross as to procure for that period of the world’s
history the epithet of “the dark ages.” Here then is a long period unanimously
disposed of with a verdict in which all Protestants, at least, will agree,
viz., “Truth almost absent from the earth though the Bible was in the hands of
the teachers.” Recent centuries have witnessed the “ Reformation,” which has
given us liberty to exercise the God-given right of private judgment. This is
supposed to have also inaugurated an era of gospel light. About this there will
not be so much unanimity, when investigation takes place. Protestants are in
the habit of believing that the Reformation abolished all the errors of Rome,
and gave us the truth in its purity. Why should they hold this conclusion? Were
the reformers inspired? Were Luther, Calvin, John Knox, Wycliffe, and other
energetic men who brought about the change in question infallible? If they were
so, there is an end to the controversy: but no one Will take this position who
is competent to form an opinion of the subject. If the Reformers were not
inspired and infallible, is it not right and rational to set the Bible above
them, and to try their work by the only standard test which can be applied in
our day? Consider this question: Was it likely the Reformers should at once,
and in every particular. emancipate themselves from the spiritual bondage of
Romish tradition?
Pg
23
Was
it to be expected that from the midst of great darkness there should instantly
come out the blaze of truth? Was it not more likely that their achievements in
the matter would only be partial, and that their new-born Reformation would be
swaddled ‘with many of the rags and tatters of the apostate church against
which they rebelled? History and Scripture show that this was the case-that
though it was a “glorious Reformation,” in the sense of liberating the human
intellect from priestly thraldorm, and establishing individual liberty in the
discussion and discernment of religious truth, it was a very partial
Reformation, so far as doctrinal rectification was concerned-that but a very
small part of the truth was brought to light, and that many of the greatest
heresies of the church of Rome were retained, and still continue to be the
groundwork of the Protestant Church.
Such
as it was, however, the Reformation became the basis of the religious systems
of Germany and England. Reformation doctrines were adopted and incorporated in
these systems and institutions, and boys, sent to college in youth, were
trained to advocate and expound them, and indoctrined by means of catechisms,
text books, treatises, and not by the study of the Scriptures themselves; and on
issuing forth to the full-blown dignities and responsibilities of theological
life, these boys, grown into men, had to remain true to what they had learnt at
the risk of all that is dear to men. It is not wonderful in such circumstances
that they did not get farther than the Lutheran Reformation The position was
not favourable to the exercise of independent judgment. Men so trained were
prone to acquiesce in what they were brought up to, from the mere force of
habit and interest, sanctioned and strengthened no doubt by the belief that it
was, and must of necessity be, true. And this is the position of the clergy of
the present day. The system is Unchanged. The pulpit continues to be an
institution for which a man must have a special training. With a continuance of
the system, we can understand how the religious teachers of the people may be
grievously in error, while possessing all the apparent advantages of superior
learning.
It
may be suggested that the extensive circulation of the Bible among the people
is a guarantee against serious mistake. it ought to be so; and would be so if
the people did not, with almost one accord, leave the Bible to their religious
leaders. The people are too much engrossed in the common occupations of life to
give the Bible the study which it requires. They do not,
Pg
24
with
few exceptions, give it that common attention which, the commonest of common
sense would prescribe. They believe what they are taught if they believe at
all. They cannot tell you why they so believe. Everything is taken for granted.
Of course, there are exceptions; but the rule is to receive unquestioningly the
doctrines of early days. Sometimes it happens that a thoughtful reader comes
upon something which he has a difficulty in reconciling with received notions.
There are two ways in which the thing comes to nought. The clergyman or
minister is consulted; he gives a decided opinion, which, however arbitrary and
unsupported, is accepted as final. If the enquirer I is not satisfied, his
business or his “connection” with the
congregation
suggests to him the expediency of keeping silent on “untaught questions.” If,
on the other hand, he be of the reverential and truly conscientious type,
though unable to satisfy himself of the correctness of the explanation prescribed,
he thinks of the array of virtue and learning on the side of the suspected
doctrine, and concluding that his own judgment must be at fault, he thinks the
safest course is to receive the professional dictum; and so the difficulty is
hushed up, and what might prove the discovery of Scriptural truth is strangled
in the inception. Thus, you see, the great system of religious error is
protected from assault in the most effectual manner, and is consequently
perpetuated from day to day with effects that are lamentable in every way.
Through lack of the understanding that might be attained by the independent and
earnest study of the Scriptures, the Bible and science are supposed to be in
conflict, with the result of generating a practical unbelief, which is rising
like a tide threatening to sweep everything before it. The unconcerned are
becoming confirmed in their indifference, and the intelligent among devout
persons are growing uneasy with a feeling that their position is unsound at the
foundation. It is easy to prescribe a remedy-a something that would prove to be
a remedy if it could be generally applied; but it is hopeless to see any
effectual remedy, so far as the mass are concerned, apart from that
manifestation of divine power and wisdom that will take place at Christ’s
return. Nevertheless, the remedy is available in individual cases. Let
earnest-minded people throw aside tradition. Let them rise to a true sense ot
their individual responsibility. Let them emancipate themselves from the idea
that theoretical religion is the business of the pulpit. Let them realise that
it is their duty to go to the Bible for themselves. If they study diligently
and devotedly, they will make a
pg
25
startling
but not unwelcome discovery; they will discover something that will make them
astonished they ever regarded popular religion as the truth of God. They will
attain to what many an intelligent mind anxiously desires, but despairs of
obtaining; a foundation on which the highest and most searching exercise of
reason will be in harmony with the most fervent and childlike faith.
We
pass to the second part of the subject: “How to interpret the Bible.” We get an
introduction to this in the words of Paul to Timothy-” The Scriptures are able
to make thee wise unto salvation” (II Tim. iii, 15). Here we have apostolic
authority for the statement that the Scriptures “make wise.” How is this effect
produced? Obviously, by the communication of ideas to the mind. But how are
these ideas communicated? There is only one answer: by the language it employs.
Hence, it ought not to be a matter of difficulty to determine how the
Scriptures are to be interpreted. It ought to be easy to maintain that, with
certain qualifications, the Bible means what it says. And it is so. This
emphasis of a very simple and obvious truth may seem superfluous, but it is
rendered necessary by the prevalence of a theory which practically neutralises
this truth as applied to the Bible. By this theory, it is supposed and assumed
that the Bible is not to be understood by the ordinary rules of speech, but is
couched in language used in a non-natural sense, which has to be construed, and
rendered, and interpreted in a skilled manner. What we mean will be apparent,
if we suppose it were said to an orthodox friend, “The Bible, as a written
revelation from God, must be written in language capable of being understood by
those to whom it is sent.” To this abstract proposition there is no doubt he
would agree. But suppose his attention were directed to the following
statements of Scripture:
The
Lord God shall give unto him (Jesus) the throne of his father David” (Luke i,
32), “and he shall be ruler in Israel” (Micah v, 2), and “shall reign over them
in Mount Zion” (Micah iv, 7). For the same Jesus that ascended to heaven shall
come again in like manner as he ascended (Acts i, 11). “He shall have dominion
also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. Yea, all
kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him” (Psa. lxxii, 8,
11.) for he shall come in the Clouds of heaven, and there shall be given unto
him a kingdom, glory and dominion, that all peoples, nations, and languages may
serve and obey him (Dan. vii, 13-14); and “the moon shall be confounded and the
sun ashamed when the Lord of
Pg
26
Hosts
shall reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously”
(Isaiah xxiv, 23).
And
suppose, on the reading of these statements, the remark were made, “It seems
plain from this that Christ is coming to the earth again, and that on his return,
he will set aside all existing rule upon the earth and reign personally in
Jerusalem, as universal king,”-what would he say? it is not a matter of
surmise. The answer is supplied by thousands of cases of actual experience.
“Oh! no such thing!” is the instant response; “what the prophet says is
spiritual in its import. Jerusalem means the church, and the coming of Christ
again to reign means that the time is coming when he will be supreme in the
hearts and affections of men.”
This
is the method of treating the words of Scripture to which we have referred. It
cannot be justified on the plea that the Bible directs us so to understand its
words. There are, in fact, no formal instructions on the subject. The Bible
comes before us to tell us certain things, and it performs its office in a
direct and sensible way, going at once to its work without any scholastic
preliminaries, taking it for granted that certain words represent certain
ideas, and using those words in their current significance. The best evidence
of this is to be found in the correspondence between its terms, literally
understood and the events they relate to. The events which form the burden of
them are fortunately, in hundreds of cases, open to universal knowledge in such
a way that there can be no mistake about them, and themselves supply an
accessible easily-applied and recognisable standard for determining the bearing
of Scripture statements.
Take
a prophecy : -“I will make your cities waste, and bring your sanctuaries into
desolation, and I will not smell the savour of your sweet odours, and I will
bring the land into desolation; and your enemies which dwell therein
shall
be astonished at it, and I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw
out a sword after you; and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste”
(Lev. xxvi, 3 1-33). “And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a
byword among all nations whither the Lord shall lead thee” (Deut. xxviii, 37).
There
is no dispute about the mode in which this has been fulfilled. The sublimest
spiritualisticism is bound to recognize the fact that the subject of these
words is the literal nation of Israel and their land, and that in fulfilment of
the prediction they contain, the real Israel were driven from their real, literal
Pg
27
land,
which became really and literally desolate, as it is this day, and that Israel
has become a literal byword and a reproach throughout the earth. This being so,
on what principle are we to reject a literal construction of the following?- I
will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither
they
shall be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their
own land. And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of
Israel, and ONE KING shall be king to them all; and they shall be no more two
nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all”
(Ezek. xxxvii, 21, 22).
It
is usual, with this and other similar predictions of a future restoration of
Israel and their reinstatement as a great people under the Messiah, to contend
that they mean the future glory and extension of the Church. That such an
understanding of them can be maintained in the face of the fulfilled prophecies
of Israel’s calamities will not he contended for by the reflecting mind.
Take
another instance : -“But thou, Bethlehem Ephrarah, though thou be little among
the
thousands
of Judah, yet Out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in
Israel” (Micah v, 2).
How
was this fulfilled? Turn to Matthew ii, 1:- Now Jesus was born in Bethlehem of
Judea, in the days of Herod
the
King.”
The
fulfilment of the prophecy was in exact accordance with a literal understanding
of the words employed, as every one is aware.
In
Zechariah, chap. ix, 9, we read:- “Rejoice greatly, 0 daughter of Zion; shout,
0 daughter of Jerusalem;
behold,
thy king cometh unto thee: he is just and having salvation, lowly, and riding
upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass.”
It
is difficult to conjecture what the spiritualistic method of Interpretation
would have made of this as a still unfulfilled
prophecy.
That it would have expected the Messiah to condescend so far as to ride on the
literal creature mentioned in the Prophecy, is highly improbable in view of the
surprised incredulity with which the idea is received that Christ will sit upon
a real throne, and be personally present on earth during the coming age. All
conjecture is excluded by the fulfilment of the Prophecy in a way that compels
a literal interpretation,
pg
28
Matt.
xxi, 1-7-” Jesus sent two disciples, saying unto them, Go into the village over
against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her;
loose them and bring them unto me. . . And the disciples went and did as Jesus
commanded them, and brought the ass and the colt, and put on them their
clothes, and they set him thereon.
ALL
THIS WAS DONE THAT IT MIGHT BE FULFILLED WHICH WAS SPOKEN BY THE PROPHET,
SAYING, ETC.
The
event that fulfilled the prophecy was the event spoken of in the prophecy. So
it is with all fulfilled prophecies. They came to pass exactly as the terms of
the prediction, plainly and literally understood, would have led us to expect;
that is, a certain thing was plainly predicted, and that thing came to pass. Is
not this a rule for the understanding of unfulfilled prophecy?
But,
it will be asked, is there no such thing as figure in the Scriptures? Is there
no such thing as predicting events in language that will not bear a literal
construction, such as describing the Messiah as “a stone,” “a branch,” “a
shepherd, etc.? True, but this does not interfere with the literal
understanding of prophecy. It is a separate element in the case coexisting with
the other without destroying it. Metaphor is one thing; literal speech is another.
Both have their functions, and each is so distinct from the other, that
ordinary discrimination can recognise and separate them, though mixed in the
same sentence. This will be evident on a little reflection.
We
use metaphor in common speech without causing obscurity. We are never at a loss
to perceive the metaphor when it is employed, and to understand its meaning. We
never fall into the mistake of confounding the metaphorical with the literal.
The difference between them is too obvious for that. When we talk of tyrants “
trampling the rights of their subjects under their feet,” we mix the literal
with high metaphor; but no one is in danger of supposing that rights are
literal substances that can be crushed to pieces under the mechanical action of
the feet. When we say, “he carries a high head,” we do not mean a height that
can be measured by the pocket rule “a black look out” has nothing to do with
colour; “hard times” cannot be broken with a hammer; so with “over head and
ears in love,” “heart melting,” “corn dull,” “beans heavy,” “Oats brisk,” etc.
They are well-understood metaphors, beyond the danger of misconstruction; but
suppose we say, “The Polish nationalIty is to be restored.” “A new kingdom has
just been established in the interior of western Africa,” etc., we use a style
of language in which there is no metaphor. We speak plainly of
Pg29
literal
things, and instinctively understand them in a literal sense. Now with regard
to the Bible, it will be found that in the
main,
this is the character of its composition. As a revelation to human beings, it
is a- revelation in human language. It is not a revelation of words but of
ideas, and hence everything in its language is subordinated to the purpose of
imparting the ideas. The peculiarities of human speech are conformed to in the
various particulars already mentioned.
Metaphors,
for example, find illustration in the following : -A place of national
affliction is likened to an iron furnace.
Says
Moses in the 4th chapter of Deuteronomy, 20th verse:- “The Lord hath taken you,
and brought you forth out of the iron
furnace,
even out of Egypt.”
The
fact that Egypt is metaphorically spoken of as an “iron furnace,” does not
interfere with the fact that there is a hteral country of Egypt.
Nations
are said to occupy a position high or low, according to their political state.
Thus in Deuteronomy xxviii, 13, Moses says to Israel:- “The Lord shall make
thee the head and not the tail: and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt
not be beneath.”
So
Jesus says of Capernaum (Matt. xi, 23) : -“And thou, Capernaurn, which art
exalted unto heaven, shalt be
brought
down to hell.”
And
Jeremiah, lamenting the prostration of Judah, says (Lam. ii, 1):- “How hath the
Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, and cast down from
heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel.”
Then
nations are likened to rivers and waters. In Isaiah viii, 7, we read : -“The
Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and
many,
even the King of Assyria, and all his glory.”
And
hence, in referring to the constant devastations to which Israel’s land has
been subject at the hands of invading armies, the words of the Spirit are,
“Whose land the rivers have spoiled” (Isaiah xviii, 2).
Instances
might be multiplied; but these are sufficient to illustrate the metaphorical
element in the language of the Scriptures. Metaphor there is, without doubt;
but this is a very
Pg
30
different
thing from the gratuitous and undiscriminating rule of interpretation which, by
a process called “spiritualising, obliterates almost every original feature in
the face of Scripture, making the word of God of none effect.
There
is another style of divine communication which is neither literal nor
metaphorical, but which is yet sufficiently distinctive in its character to
prevent its being confounded with either; and also sufficiently definite and
intelligible to admit of exact comprehension. This style is the symbolic style,
which is largely employed in what may be called political prophecy. In this
case, events are represented in hieroglyph. A beast is put for an empire, horns
for kings, waters for people, rivers for nations, a woman for a governing city,
&c.; but there is In this style no more countenance to the spiritualisation
of orthodoxy than in the metaphorical. It is special in its character, can
always be identified where it occurs, and is always explicable on certain rules
supplied by the context. The literal is the basis; the elementary principles of
divine truth are communicated literally; its recondite aspects are elaborated
and illustrated metaphorically and symbolically. The one is the step to the
other. No one is able to understand the symbolical who is unacquainted with the
literal; and no one can understand the literal who goes to the Scriptures with
his eyes blinded by the veil which the “spiritualising” process has cast over
the eyes of the people. This must be got rid of first; the literal must be
recognised and studied as the alphabet of spiritual things, and the mind, established
on this immovable basis, will be prepared to ascend to the comprehension of
those deeper things of God which are concealed in enigmas, for the study of
those who delight to search out His mind.
There
remains one other important matter to be considered. Not long ago, on the
occasion of an address on a kindred subject, a person in the audience put
several questions. In answering them, the writer quoted from the prophets; but
was stopped by the remark, “Oh, but that’s in the Old Testament; we have nothing
to do with that; the New Testament is our standard; the Old has passed away.”
Now this sentiment is a common one with many religious people. It is an
erroneous idea, and has done great mischief. It has a slight basis of fact. The
“first covenant” dispensation of the law, or the old constitution of Israel,
has been abolished; but it is far from being true that what God communicated
through the prophets has been annulled. The New Testament itself shews this
clearly. As we have
Pg
31
already
seen, Paul says, “The Scriptures are able to make thee wise unto salvation “
(II Tim. iii, 15). Now it must be remembered that this could only apply to the
Old Testament. When Paul made the statement, the New Testament was not in
existence. Consider then the import of the statement-the Scriptures of the Old
Testament are able to make us WISE UNTO SALVATION. If this be true, how can it
be correct to speak of the Old Testament having been done away?
And
this statement of Paul’s is by no means the only one to this effect. Hear what
he said before Agrippa (Acts xxvi, 22): -“Having therefore obtained help of
God. I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying NONE
OTHER THINGS than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come.”
Now,
if, in preaching the Christian faith, he said “none other things than those
which Moses and the prophets did say should come,” it is obvious that Moses and
the prophets must contain the subject-matter of that faith. This is undeniable.
It is borne out by the interesting incident narrated in Acts xvii, 11, where,
speaking of the inhabitants of Berea, to whom Paul preached, it says:- “These
were more noble than those in Thessalonica; . . . and searche4
the
Scriptures daily, whether those things were so; therefore, many of them
believed.”
If
the Bereans were satisfied by a searching of the Old Testament, which were the
only Scriptures in existence at the time of their search, that what Paul said
was true, is it not evident that what he said must in some form be contained in
the Old Testament? Does it not follow that the Old Testament furnishes a basis
for the things spoken by Paul? That Paul’s faith as a Christian laid hold of
the Old Testament, is evident from what he said before Felix the Roman Governor
: -
“After
the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing
all things which are written in the law and in the prophets” (Acts xxiv, 14).
In
harmony with this individual attitude of Paul in the matter, we find that when
he went to Thessalonica, he entered the synagogue, and “three sabbath days
reasoned with them out of the Scriptures” (Acts xvii, 2), that is, out of Moses
and the prophets, for there were no other Scriptures for him to reason out of.
And when he called together the Jews at Rome, it is testsfied that “he
expounded and testified the kingdom of God,
Pg
32
persuading
them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses and out of the prophets,
from morning till evening” (Acts xxviii, 23).
The
same fact, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament are accessory to the
teaching of Christ and his apostles, is apparent in several other statements to
be found in the New Testament. Peter exhorts those to whom he wrote in his
second epistle, chapter 3, verse 2, to” be mindful of the words which were
spoken before by the holy prophets?” and in the 19th verse of the first chap.
of the same epistle, he says, “We have also a more sure word of prophecy,
WHEREUNTO YE DO WELL THAT YE TAKE HEED.” Does not this settle the question?
Jesus puts this statement into the mouth of Abraham in a parable (Luke xvi, 29,
31):-
“They have Moses and the prophets; LET THEM
HEAR THEM; If the hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be
persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”
And
it is recorded of him that during an interview with his disciples, after his
resurrection (Luke xxiv, 27), “Beginning at MOSES AND ALL THE PROPHETS, he
expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” If
the Saviour himself appealed to the Old Testament in exposition of the things
concerning him, and exhorted us to “hear Moses and the prophets,” what further
need of argument?
It
is obvious that those people fall into a great mistake who suppose that
Christianity is something distinct from the Old Testament. So far from
Christianity being distinct from the Old Testament, it will be found that
Christianity is rooted in the Old Testament. The Old Testament lays the
foundation of all that is involved in the New. The New Testament is simply an
appendage to the Old, valuable beyond all price, and indispensable in the most
absolute sense; but in itself, apart from the Old Testament, far from being
sufficient to give us that perfection of Christian knowledge which constitutes
a person “wise unto salvation.” The two combined form the complete revelation
of God to man, vouchsafed for his spiritual renovation in the present, and his
constitutional perfection in the future. Divided, they are each inefficacious
to “thoroughly furnish the man of God unto all good works.”
We
must request the reader to suspend his judgment on this point, and refrain from
thinking too harshly of an idea which, though probably opposed to his dearest
accustomed sentiments, is one that is sustained by the general teaching and
emphatic
Pg
33
declaration
of the word of God, as will be shown in the succeeding lectures, to which, as a
whole, the conscientious dissentient is referred for an answer to his
objections.
Thus
we bring the subject of the present lecture to a conclusion
-“
The Bible: what it is, and how to interpret it.” It was necessary to go into
these details by way of preliminary to the investigation which shall be entered
into in subsequent lectures
-clearing
away errors and misconceptions, and laying a distinct and sure foundation for
what is to follow.
It
only now remains for us to bespeak your sympathy with the subjects, and your
patience with the necessarily somewhat dry and tedious process essential to
their thorough treatment. It is a vital question, and worthy of all the labour
which you can bestow upon it. We cannot be too particular in trying the
evidence upon which our faith relies. We ought not to be content to take it
second hand. We ought not in a day like this to simply accept what we have been
taught at home, in the church and chapel, without ever giving it a thought
whether it is right or wrong, or reckoning upon the awful consequences of
error.
Never
mind if others do not consider it their business to study the Bible. Remember
that the majority have always been in the wrong in all ages of the world. Look
not at your neighbours, think not of your friends in this matter. They are in
all probability like the world in general. They lack independence, and are
subservient to their worldly interest. They cannot afford to deviate from orthodox
sentiment and usage, and long conformity has deadened their power to judge of
the evidence. With all their church-goings and religious profession, the
anxiety of the majority of people centres in the present evil world. Act for
yourselves. Do as Peter told a Jewish assembly to do in Jerusalem : -“ Save
yourselves from this untoward generation.”
Pg
34
LECTURE 2
HUMAN NATURE ESSENTIALLY MORTAL,
AS
PROVED BY “NATURE” AND
REVELATION.
IN
NOTHING will Christendom appear in the eyes of the Bible student further astray
than in the ordinary theological view as to the nature of man. We now ask what
the Bible teaches on the subject, and getting the Bible answer, we shall seek
to confirm that answer by an appeal to Nature-God’s other great witness. Our argument
may appear to savour of infidel tendencies, but we are confident this
appearance will disappear in the eyes of such as can discriminate between
intellectual caprice, and earnest conviction entertained for reasons that can
be stated. The proposition we have to maintain (and we bespeak your earnest
consideration of the evidence in support of it) will be astounding to you at
first. It is that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is an untrue
doctrine, which effectually prevents the believer of it from truly apprehending
the truth concerning the work and teaching of Christ.
Consider,
first, what the universal theory of the human constitution is. It is that in
his proper essential being, a man is a “spiritual” immaterial, and immortal
being, living in a material body composed of organs necessary for the
manifestation of his invisible and indestructible inner “self” in this external
and material world. This organic body is not regarded as essential to man’s
identity or existence. His proper self is understood to subsist in the
immaterial entity or divine spark called the soul or spirit. The organs
composing the body are looked upon as things which the man uses as a mechanic
uses his tools-the external agencies by which the behests of “the inner man” are
carried out. Mental qualities-such as reason, sentiment, disposition, &c.,
-are
set down as the attributes of the spiritual “essence” which is supposed to
constitute himself. The body is, of course, admitted
pg
35
to
have a material derivation “from the dust of the ground,” but the “essence” is
believed to have come from God Himself-to be, in fact, a part of the Deity-a
spark, or particle, scintillated from the divine nature, having intelligent
faculty and existence independently of the substantial organism with which it
is associated. In accordance with this view, death is not considered to affect
a man’s being. It is regarded simply as a demolition of the material organism,
which liberates the deathless, intangible man from the bondage of this “mortal
coil,” which having “shuffled off,” he wings his way to spiritual regions, for
eternal happiness or misery, according to “deeds done in the body.”
Now,
in opposition to this view, we shall show that, according to the Scriptures man
is destitute of immortality in every sense; that he is a creature of organised
substance subsisting in the life-power of God, which he shares in common with
every living thing under the sun; that he only holds this life on the short
average tenure of three-score years and ten, at the end of which he gives it up
to Him from whom he received it, and returns to the ground, whence he
originally came, and meanwhile ceases to exist. Such a proposition may well be
shocking to ordinary religious susceptibility; but it demands investigation. Our
business is to look at the proof. Evidence is the main thing with which we have
to deal, and that evidence is of two kinds as indicated- 1st, the testimony of
existing natural facts; and, 2nd, the declaration of the inspired word of God.
It
may seem inappropriate to take natural facts at all into account, in discussing
a question in which the Holy Scriptures are allowed to have authority. This
impression disappears when we remember that nearly all the arguments by which
the popular doctrine is supported, are derived from natural facts. We shall try
to show that all the arguments upon which it is founded are fallacious-natural
as well as Scriptural. However distasteful to purely sentimental minds such a
process may be, it is the only one by which searching minds can be satisfied.
We shall endeavour to show-lst, that the natural facts adduced in support of
the immortality of the soul do not in any way constitute proof of the doctrine;
and, 2nd, that certain natural facts exist which Overturn the doctrine. Then we
shall show that the testimony of Scripture is entirely inconsistent with the
popular doctrine, and teaches, in fact, as one of the first principles of
revealed truth, that man is mortal because of sin.
The
first argument usually employed by those who set themselves philosophically to
demonstrate the doctrine, is like this.
Pg
36They say that matter cannot think, and that as man thinks there must be an
immaterial essence in him that performs the thinking, and that, the essence
being immaterial, it must be indestructible and, therefore, immortal. This is
an old argument, and seemingly strong at first sight. Let us consider: ls it
quite correct to assume that matter cannot think? Of course, it is evident that
inanimate substances, such as wood, iron, are incapable of thought; but is
substance in every form and condition incapable of evolving mental power? To
assert this would require the asserter to be able in the first place to define
where the empire of what is called “matter” ends, and to prove that he was
familiar with every part of this empire. What are the boundaries dividing that
department of nature styled “matter,” from which the old metaphysicians have
distinguished as “mind “? Earth, stones, iron and wood would come into the
category of matter without a question, but what about smoke? It may be replied
that smoke is matter in diffusion: well, what about light and heat? Light and
heat can hardly be brought within any of the ordinary definitions of matter,
and yet they manifestly have a most intimate relation to matter in its most
tangible form. Nothing can exceed light in its subtlety and imponderability. Is
it within or without the empire of matter? It would puzzle the methodical
metaphysician to say. And if perplexed with light what would he do with
electricity, a power more uncontrollable than any force in nature-a principle
existing in everything, yet impalpable to the senses except in its
effects-invisible, immaterial, omnipotent in its operations, and essential to
the very existence of every form of matter? Is this part of the “matter” from
which the argument in question excludes the possibility of mental phenomena? If
so, what is that which is not matter? Some say “spirit” is not matter. In
truth, it may be found that spirit is the highest form of matter. Certainly
“spirit” as exhibited to us in the Scriptures possesses material power. The
Spirit came upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost, “like a mighty rushing
wind,” and made the place where they were assembled shake, showing it to be capable
of mechanical momentum. Coming upon Samson, it energised his muscles to the
snapping of ropes, like thread (Judges xv, 14); and inhaled by the nostrils of
man and beast, it gives physical life (Psalm civ, 30).
It
is evident that there would be great difficulty in arriving at such a
definition of “matter” as would sustain the argument under consideration. It
is, in fact, only an arbitrary and, in
Pg
37
modern
times, discredited system of thought that has created the distinctions implied
in the terms of metaphysics. Nature, that is universal existence, is one; it is
the incorporation of one primitive power; it is not made up of two antagonistic
and incompatible elements. God is the source of all. In Him everything exists;
out of Him everything is evolved. Different elements and substances are but
different forms of the same eternal essence or first cause-described in the
Bible as “spirit,” which God is; and in scientific language, by a diversity of
superficial terms. The word matter” only describes an aspect of creation, as
presented to finite sense; it does not touch the essence of the thing, though
intended so to do by the short-sighted, because unexperimental and unobservant,
system which invented it.
But
if difficult to fix the limits of unsentient matter, there is another
difficulty which is equally fatal to the argument, viz., the difficulty of
defining the process which is expressed by the word “think.” It would be
necessary to define this process before it would be legitimate to argue that
every form of matter is incapable of it; for unless defined, how could we say
when and where it was possible or not possible. To say that matter cannot think
is virtually to allege that the nature of thought is so and so, and the nature
of matter so and so, in consequence of which they have no mutual relation. We
have seen the impossibility of taking this ground with regard to “matter.” Who
shall define the modus operandi of thought? It can only be done in general
terms which destroy the argument now under review. Thought, in so far as it
relates to human experience, is a power developed by brain organisation, and
consists of impressions made upon that delicate organ through the medium of the
senses, and afterwards classified and arranged by that function pertaining in
different degrees to brain in human form, known as reason. This is matter of
experience. It cannot be set aside as a fact, whatever reservation may be
entertained as to the explanation of the fact. It is a fact that destroys the
metaphysical argument, since it shows us what the argument denies, viz., that
the matter of the brain electrically energised is capable of evolving thought.
The
whole argument in question is based on a fallacy. It assumes a knowledge of
“nature’s” capabilities impossible to man. Chemists can tell the number and
proportion of elementary gases which enter into any compound; but who
understands the essential nature of any one of those elements separately? The
more truly learned great minds become, the more diffident do they grow on this
subject. They hesitate to be certain about
Pg
38
almost
anything in which the secrets of nature are involved. The progress of
biological investigation during the last century is eloquent on this subject.
None but the ignorant or the superficial would be so unwise as to draw the line
fixing the limit of the possible. What is nature? The sphere of omnipotence-the
arena of God’s operations. Shall we say that anything is impossible with God?
True, inanimate matter, such as iron or stone, cannot think; but we know,
experimentally, that there is such a thing as “ living matter,” and that living
matter is sentient, and thinking by virtue of its organisation, which is only
another phrase for its divine endowment. This is a matter of experience,
illustrated in degree in every department of the animal kingdom.
It
is argued that the possession of “ reason” is evidence of the existence of an
immortal and immaterial soul in man. The logic of this argument is difficult of
discovery. Reason is unquestionably a wonderful attribute and an
incomprehensible function of the mental machinery; but how can it be held to
prove the existence of a something beyond knowledge, since there can be no
known connection between that which is incomprehensible and that which is
unknown? To say that we have an indestructible soul, because we have reasonable
faculty, is to repeat the mistake of our forefathers of the last generation,
who referred the achievements of machinery to Satanic agency, because in their
ignorance they were unable to account for them in any other way. We may not be
able to understand how it is that reason is evolved by the organisation with
which God has endowed us, but we are compelled to recognise the self-evident
fact that it is so evolved.
Again,
it is argued that the power of the mind to “travel,” while the body remains
quiescent, is proof of its immaterial and, therefore, immortal nature. Let us
see. What is this “travelling” of the mind? Does the mind traverse actual space
and witness realities? A man has been in America, has seen many sights, and
returns home; occasionally he sees those sights over again; the impressions
made on the sensorium of the brain through the organs of sight and hearing,
while in America, are revived so distinctly that he can actually fancy himself
in the place he has left so many thousands of miles behind. Surely no one will
contend that each time this reverie comes upon him, his mind actually goes out
of his body, and transfers itself to the place thought of! If this is
contended, it ought also to be allowed that the man, when so spiritually
transferred, should witness what is actually transpiring in the country at the
time of his spiritual presence, and that, therefore, we might dispense with the
post and
Pg
39
telegraph
as clumsy contrivances for getting the news compared with the facility and
despatch of soulography. But this will not he contended. As well might we say
that the places and persons we see in our dreams have a real existence. In both
cases, the phenomenon is the result of a process that takes place within the
brain. Memory treasures impressions received, and reproduces them as occasion
occurs-clear, calm and coherent, if the brain be in a healthy condition;
confused, disjointed, and aberrated, if the brain be disordered, whether in
sleep or out of it. In no case does reverie involve an actual transit of the
mind from one place to another; and hence the “travelling” argument falls to
the ground. if a man could go to China, while his body remained in Britain, and
see the country and people as they really are, there might be something worthy
of consideration, though even then it would not prove the immortality of the
soul, but only the wonderful power of the brain while a living instrument, in
acting at long distances through an electrical atmosphere.
The
power of dreaming is cited as another fact favourable to the popular doctrine;
but here again the argument fails; because dreaming is invariably connected
with the living brain. Beside, who ever dreams a sensible dream? Dreams, in
general, are a confused and illogical jumble of facts which have at one time or
other been stowed away in the storehouse of the brain; and if they prove
anything concerning a thinking spirit, independent of the body, they prove that
that spirit loses its power in exact proportion to its separation from the
assistance of the body; and that, therefore, without the body it would
presumably be powerless.
It
is next contended that the immateriality of man’s nature is proved by the fact
that though he may be deprived of a limb, he retains a consciousness of that
limb, sometimes even feeling pain in it. The argument is, that if the man is
conscious of a part of himself when the material organ of that part is wanting,
he will be conscious of his entire being when the whole body is wanting. This
looks plausible: but let us examine it. Why is a man conscious of an absent
member? Because the independent nerves of that member remain in the system from
the point of disseverment up to their place in the brain; so that although the
hand or foot may be absent, the brain goes on to feel as if they were present,
because the nerves that produce the sensation of their presence are still
active at the brain centre. But if, when you cut off a leg, you could also
remove the entire nerves of the leg from the point of amputation up to their
roots in the brain, and
Pg
40
still
preserve a consciousness of the severed member, the argument would be deserving
of consideration.
The
most powerful natural argument in favour of the popular doctrine has yet to be
noticed. It is the one mainly relied upon by all its great advocates. It is
this: It is an ascertained fact in physiology that the substance of our bodies
undergoes an entire change every seven years-that is, there is a gradual process
of substitution going on, by which the atoms, one after another, are expelled
from the body as their vital qualities are worn out, and their place filled up
by new ones from the blood; so that at the end of the period mentioned, the
body is made up of entirely new substance. Yet, notwithstanding this constant
mutation of the material atoms of the body, and this periodical change of its
entire substance, memory and personal identity remain unaffected to the close
of life. An old man at eighty feels he is the same person he was at ten,
although at eighty he has not a single particle of the matter which composed
his body when a boy, and the argument is that the thinking faculty and power of
consciousness must be the attribute of some immaterial principle residing in
the body, but undergoing no change. Now this has all the appearance of
conclusiveness. However, let us look at it narrowly. The question to be
considered is-whether this fact of continuous identity amid atomic change, can
be explained in accordance with the view which regards the mind as a property
of living brain substance. The question is answered by this well-known fact,
that the qualities resulting from any organic combination of atoms are
transmissible to other atoms which may take their place as organic
constituents. An atom as it exists in food has no power of sensation; but let
it be assimilated by the blood and incorporated with any of the nerves, and it
possesses a sensitive power it formerly did not have. It becomes part of the
organisation, and feels whether in man or animal. Why? Because it takes up and
perpetuates the organic qualities which its predecessor has left behind. On
this principle, we find that the mark of a scar will be continued in the flesh
through life; and so also with discolourations of the skin, which exist in some
persons from congenital causes. This perpetuation of physical disfigurement
could not take place if it were not for the fact of the transmissibility of
corporate qualities to migratory corporate constituents. Now, if we apply this
principle to the brain, we have a complete solution of the apparent difficulty
on which the argument of the question is founded. Mind is the result of
impressions on the living brain, and personal identity of the sum of
Pg
41
those
impressions. This definition may be scouted, but it will quietly commend itself
to honest reflection. It will not be questioned by the student of human nature,
though it may not be understood. Mental impression is a fact, though a mystery,
alike in men and animals; and facts are the things that wise men have to deal
with. It is impossible to explain, or even to comprehend, the process by which
thought is begotten in the tissues of the brain; but that the process takes
place will not be denied. We are conscious of the process, and feel the result
in the possession of separate individuality-the power of contemplating all
other persons and things objectively. Now, in order to perpetuate this result,
all that is necessary is to preserve the integrity of the organ evolving it.
This, of course, involves the introduction of fresh material into its
structure, but it does not imply an invasion of the process going on in it,
which the argument in question supposes; the process conquers the material, and
converts it to its own uses, and not the material the process. Who ever heard
of a man’s bone turning to wheat from the eating of flour? The nutritive
apparatus assimilates, which is in fact the answer to the argument. The new
material entering the brain is assimilated to its existing condition; and thus,
although the atoms come and go for a lifetime, the condition remains
substantially unaltered, like a fire kept up by fuel. If, then, we are asked
how a man at eighty feels himself to be the same person that he was at ten, though
his entire substance is changed, we reply, those brain impressions which enable
him to feel that he is himself, have been kept up all along, though modified by
the circumstances and conditions through which he has passed. The process of
change is so slow that the new atoms take on the organic qualities of the old,
as they are gradually incorporated with the brain, and sustain the general
result of the brain’s action in preserving its continuous function unimpaired.
If cases could be cited in which identity survived the destruction of the
brain, the case would stand differently; but as a fact, it is only to be found
in connection with a perpetuated brain organisation.
These
are the main “natural” arguments relied upon for proof of the current theological
conception of the immortality of the soul. It will be observed that none of
them is really logical. Each of them falls through when thoroughly looked into.
The natural argument on the other side of the question will be found to stand
in a very different position. At the very outset we are confronted with the
difficulty of conceiving how immateriality can inhere in a material
organisation. Cohesion and conglomer
Pg
42
ation
require affinity as their first condition, but, in this case, affinity is
entirely wanting. What connection can exist between “matter” and the immaterial
principle of popular belief? They are not in the nature of things susceptible
of combination. Yet in the face of this difficulty, we find that the mind is
located in the body. It is not a loose ethereal thing, capable of detachment
from the material person. It is inexorably fixed in the bodily framework, and
never leaves it while life continues. If we enquire in what portion of the body
it is specially located, we instinctively answer that it is not located in the
hand, nor in the foot, nor in the stomach, nor in the heart, nor in any part of
the trunk. Our consciousness unerringly tells us that it is in the head. We
feel, as a matter of experience, whatever our theory may be, that the mind
cohabits with the substance of the brain.
Extending
our observation externally, we never discover mind without a corresponding
development of brain. Deficient brain is always found to manifest deficient
reason, and vice versa. Master minds in science and literature have larger and
deeply convoluted cerebrums. If the popular theory were correct, mind ought to
be exhibited independently of either quantity or quality of organisation.
Again,
if the mind were immaterial, its functions would be unaffected by the
conditions of the body. Thinking and feeling would never abate in vigour or
vivacity. We should always be serene and clear-headed-always ready for the
“study,” whatever might be the state of the bodily machinery; whereas we know
that the opposite is the case. Sickness or overwork will exhaust the mental
energies, and make the mind a blank. Languor and dullness of spirits are of
common experience. We can all testify to days of ennui, in which the mind has
refused to perform its office; and we can remember, too, the uneasy pillow when
horrible visions have scared us. This never happens in a good state of health,
but always when the material organisation is out of order. How is this? Does it
not tell against the theory which represents the mind as an immaterial,
incorruptible, imperishable thing? The mind is the offspring of the brain, and
is therefore affected by all its passing disorders.
Let
us carry the process further. Let the brain be injured, and we then perceive a
most signal refutation of the popular idea; the mind vanishes altogether. The
following extract illustrates:
-RICHM0ND
mentions the case of a woman whose brain was exposed in consequence of the
removal of a, considerable part of its bony covering by disease. He says, “I
repeatedly made a pressure on the brain, and
Pg
43
each
time suspended all feeling and all intellect, which were immediately restored
when the pressure was withdrawn “. The same writer mentions another case. He
says, “There was a man who had to be trepanned, and who perceived his
intellectual faculties failing, and his existence drawing to a close, every
time the effused blood collected upon the brain so as to produce pressure “.
PROF.
CHAPMAN, in one of his letters, says, “1 saw an individual with his skull
perforated and the brain exposed, who was accustomed to submit his brain to be
experimented upon by pressure, and who was exhibited by the late Prof. Weston
to his class. His intellect and moral faculties disappeared on the application
of pressure to the brain. They were held under the thumb, as it were, and
restored at pleasure to their full activity by discontinuing the pressure “.
But
of all facts, the following related by SIR ASTLEY COOPER, in his surgical
lectures, is the most remarkable: “A man of the name of Jones received an
injury on his head while on board a vessel in the Mediterranean, which rendered
him insensible. The vessel soon after made for Gibraltar, where Jones was
placed in the hospital, and remained several months in the same insensible
state. He was carried on board the Dolphin frigate to Deptford, and from thence
was sent to St. Thomas’s Hospital, London. He lay constantly on his back, and
breathed with difficulty. When hungry or thirsty he moved his lips or tongue.
Mr. Ctyne, the surgeon, found a portion of the skull depressed, trepanned him,
and removed the depressed portion. Immediately after this operation, the motion
of his fingers, occasioned by the beating of the pulse, ceased, and in three
hours he sat up in bed, sensation and volition returned, and in four days he
got up out of his bed and conversed. The last thing he remembered was the
occurrence of taking a prize in the Mediterranean. From (lie moment of the
accident, thirteen months and a few days before, oblivion had come over him,
all recollection ceased. Yet, on removing a small portion of bone which pressed
upon the brain, he was restored to the full possession of the powers of his
mind and body
These
cases are not in accordance with the popular theory of the mind. Here is
suspension of mental action on the derangement of the material organisation.
Obviously, the mind is not the attribute of a principle existing independently
of that organisation. The facts show that thinking is dependent upon the action
of the brain, and cannot, therefore, be the action of an immaterial principle,
which could never be affected by any material condition.
There
are other difficulties. If the mind be a spark from God -if it be a part of the
Deity himself, transfused into material organisations (and this is the view
contended for by believers in the immortality of the soul) our faculties ought
to spring forth in full maturity at birth. Instead of that, as everybody knows,
a newborn babe has not a spark of intellect or a glimmer of consciousness.
According to the popular belief, it ought to possess both in full measure,
because of the immaterial thinking principle. No one can carry his memory back
to his birth. He can
pg
44
remember
when he was three years old, perhaps; only in a few cases can he recall an earlier
date. Yet, if the popular belief were correct, memory ought to be
contemporaneous with life from its very first moment.
Again;
if all men partake alike of this divine thinking essence, they ought to
manifest the same degree of intelligence, and show the same disposition.
Instead of that, there is infinite diversity among men. One man is shrewd and
another dull-one vicious and depraved, and another high-souled and virtuous-one
good and gentle, another harsh and inconsiderate, and soon. There ought to be uniformity
of manifestation if there be uniformity of power.
These
are so many natural obstacles in the way of the doctrine which constitutes the
very foundation of all popular religion. They disprove that man is an
immaterial entity, capable of disembodied existence. They show him to be a
compound-a creature of material organization-endowed with life from God, and
ennobled with qualities which constitute him “the image of God “; but
nevertheless mortal in constitution. Why so much opposition? All natural evidence
is in its favour. If there are mysteries in it, there is nonetheless
obviousness. Mystery is no ground of disbelief. This is shown by the universal
belief in the immortality of the soul. Surely this is “mysterious” enough. If
it comes to that, we are surrounded with mystery. We can only approximate to
truth; the how of any organic process is beyond comprehension; we can but note
fads, and bow in the presence of undeniable phenomena. Though we are unable to
understand the mode in which nerve communicates sensation, muscles generate
strength, blood supplies life, &c., we cannot deny that these agencies are
the proximate causes of the results developed, whether in man or animals. Why
should there be an exception in the case of thought? What we know of it, is all
connected with physical organization. We have no experience of human mind apart
from human brain. In fact, we have no experience of any human faculty apart
from its material manifestation; and in ordinary sensible thinking, the various
living powers of man are practically acknowledged to be the properties of the
numerous organs which collectively compose himself. If he sees, it is
recognised as the function of the eye to see; if he hears, that it is with the
ear, and that without these organs, he can neither see nor hear. In proportion
as these organs are perfectly formed, there is perfect sight or hearing. Why
should this principle not be applied to the mind? The parallel is complete. Man
thinks, and he has a
Pg
45
brain
to think with; and in proportion as the brain is properly organised and
developed, he thinks well. If it be large, thore is power and scope of mind; if
small, there is mediocrity; if below par, there is intellectual deficiency, and
idiocy. These are facts apart from theory of any kind; and they prove the
connection of mind with living brain substance, however mysterious that
connection may be. Some say “No” to all this; “the brain is simply the medium
of the soul’s manifestation: deficiency of intellect and other mental irregularities
are the result of imperfection in the mediumship;” but this begs the question.
It assumes the very point at issue, viz., the existence of a thinking
abstraction to manifest itself. But even supposing we accept the explanation,
what does it avail for popular theory? If the soul cannot manifest
itself-cannot reason, cannot reflect, be conscious, love, hate, etc.-without a
material “medium,” what is its value as a thinking agent when without that
medium; that is, when the body is in the grave? The explanation, however,
cannot be accepted. It is the ingenious suggestion of a philosophy which is in
straits to preserve itself from confusion. How much wiser to recognise the fact
which presents itself to our actual experience, namely, that all our conscious,
as well as unconscious, powers as living beings are the result of a conjunction
between the life-power of God and the substance of our organisation, and do not
exist apart from that connection in which they are developed.
WHAT
THE SCRIPTURES SAY.
We
turn now to the Scriptures, whose voice is weightier than the fallible
deductions of philosophy. And what find we here? Here we find a complete
agreement with the natural facts in the case. First, and most astounding fact
of all (as it must appear to those who think the Bible teaches the immortality
of the soul), we do not find anywhere in the Bible those common phrases by
which the popular doctrine is expressed. “Never-dying soul,” “immortal soul,”
“immortality of the soul,” &c., so constantly on the lips of religious
teachers, are forms of speech which are not to be met with throughout the whole
of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. Anyone may quickly satisfy himself on
this point by reference to a concordance, if he be otherwise unacquainted with
the Scriptures. How are we to explain the fact? All the essential teachings of
Scripture are plain, unequivocal, and copious. The existence and creative power
of God-His purposes in regard to the future-the Messiahship of Jesus Christ
Pg
46
-the
object of his mission to earth-the doctrine of the resurrection, etc., are all
enforced as plainly as language can enforce them; but of the doctrine of
immortality of the soul, there is not the slightest mention. This fact is
acknowledged by eminent theologians, but does not seem to suggest to their
minds the fictitiousness of the doctrine. They argue the other way, and
maintain (or at least suggest) that the reason of the Bible passing over in
silence the doctrine of human immortality is because it is so self-evident as
to require no enunciation. This is very unsatisfactory. It would be much more
appropriate to suggest the very opposite significance to the silence of the
Scriptures on the subject. If the immortality of the soul is to be believed
without sanction from revelation, on the mere assumption that it is
self-evident, may we not uphold any doctrine for which we have a prepossession?
A more rational course to pursue is surely to suspect a doctrine not divinely
inculcated, and subject it to the severest scrutiny. This is the course adopted
in the present lecture; and we shall find that the process will result in a
complete breakdown of the doctrine. The Bible is not silent on the question,
although it says nothing about the immortality of the soul. It supplies direct
and conclusive evidence of the absolute mortality of man.
Some,
however, may not be satisfied that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul
is not definitely broached in the sacred writings. Recalling to mind the
constant use of the word “soul,” they may be disposed to consider that it is
countenanced and endorsed in such a way as to render formal enunciation
superfluous. For the benefit of such, it will be well to look at the use made
of the word in the Scriptures, in order to see its meaning. First, let it be
remembered that in its original derivation the word “soul “simply means a
breathing creature, without any reference to its constitution, or the duration
of existence. This fact is strikingly illustrated in the renderings adopted by
our translators in the first few chapters of Genesis. As applied to Adam, it is
translated soul (Gen. ii, 7); as applied to beasts, birds, reptiles, and fish,
it is rendered “creature” and “thing” (Gen. i, 20, 21, 24, 28). The word is
employed to express various ideas arising out of respiring existence as its
fundamental significance. It is put for persons in the following : -“And Abram
took ... the souls that they had gotten in Haran, and
they
went forth to go into the land of Canaan;” that is, Abraham took all the
persons, etc. (Gen. xii, 5).
Pg
47
Levy
a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle, one soul of
five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of
the sheep” (Num. xxxi, 28).
It
is also used to represent mind, disposition, life, etc.; and that which it
describes is spoken of as capable of hunger (Prov. xix, 15), of being satisfied
with food (Lam. ~, 11, 19), of touching a material object (Lev. v, 2), of going
into the grave (Job xxxiii, 22, 28), of coming out of it (Psalm xxx, 3), etc.
It is never spoken of as an immaterial, immortal, thinking entity. The original
word occurs in the Old Testament about 700 times, and in the New Testament
about 180 times; and among all the variety of its renderings, it is impossible to
discover anything approaching to the popular dogma. It is rendered “soul” 530
times; “life” or “living” 190 times; “person” 34 times; and “beasts and
creeping things” 28 times. It is also rendered “a man,” “a person,”
self,’’
“ they,” “ we,’’ “ him,” “ anyone,” “ breath,” “ heart,” “mind,” “appetite,”
“the body,” etc. In no instance has it the significance claimed for it by
professing Christians of modern times. It is never said to be immortal, but
always the reverse. It is not only represented as capable of death, but as
naturally liable to it. We find the Psalmist declaring in Psalm xxii, 29, “None
can keep alive his own soul;” and again, in Psalm lxxxix, 48, “What man is he
that liveth and shall not see death? Shall he deliver HIS SOUL from the hand of
the grave?” And in making an historical reference, he further says, “He spared
not THEIR SOUL from DEATH, but gave their life over to the pestilence” (Psalm
lxxviii, 50). Finally, Ezekiel declares (chap. xviii, 4), “The soul that
sinneth IT SHALL DIE.”
We
have to note another difference between scriptural and modern sentiment. We are
all familiar with the estimate put upon the value of the supposed immortal
soul. We frequently hear it exclaimed, “Oh! the value of one human soul!
Countless worlds cannot be placed in the balance with it!” Now we meet with
nothing of this sort in the Scriptures. The sentiment there is entirely the
contrary way. Take for instance this : -“WHAT IS YOUR LIFE? It is even a vapour
that appeareth for a little
time,
and then vanisheth away” (James iv, 14).
Or,
Psalm cxliv, 3, 4:- “Lord, what is man that Thou takest knowledge of him, and
the son of
man
that Thou makest account of him? Man is like to vanity; his days are as a
shadow that passeth away.
”
pg
48 “He knoweth our frame, he remembereth that we are dust. As for man, his days
are as grass; as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth; for the wind passeth
over it, and it is gone, and the place thereof shall know it no more.”
And
more expressive than all, we read in Isaiah xl, 15-17- “Behold the nations are
as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as
the
small dust of the balance . . . All nations before him are AS NOTHING, and are
counted to him LESS THAN NOTHING, and vanity.”
And
in Daniel iv, 35 : -“All the inhabitants of the earth ARE REPUTED AS NOTHING.”
There
is only one passage that looks a little different from this.
It
is this:- “What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his
own
soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Mark viii, 36, 37).
This
is frequently quoted in justification of the popular sentiment; but it will at
once be observed that the words do not describe, the absolute value of a man’s
life in creation, but simply its relative value to himself. They enforce the
common-sense principle that for a man to sacrifice his life in order to obtain
a thing which without life he can neither possess nor enjoy, would be to
perpetrate the lightest folly. Does any one insist that it means the “immortal
soul” of common belief? Then let him remember that the same word which is
translated “soul” in this passage is translated “life” in the one immediately
before* in which if we were to read it “immortal soul” the absurdity would at
once appear: -“For whosoever will save his immortal soul shall lose it, but
whosoever shall LOSE HIS IMMORTAL SOUL for my sake and the gospel’s the same
shall save it” (Mark viii, 35).
What
an awful paradox would this express in orthodox mouths. But regard the words in
the light in which we have already seen the Scriptures use it, and you perceive
beauty in the idea-preciousness in the promise. He who shrinks not from
sacrificing his life in this age, rather than deny Christ and forsake his
truth, will be rewarded with a more precious life at the
*
In the Revised Version life is substituted for soul in verse 37 as well.
Pg
49
resurrection:
whereas he who renounces the truth to protect his poor mortal interests, will
be excluded from the blessings of the life to come.
We
get to the root of the matter in
Genesis, where we are furnished with an account of the creation of man. Here
the phraseology is not at all in agreement with the p opular view, but entirely coincides with the view advocated in this
lecture: -“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground,, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul” (Gen. ii,
7).
Here
we are informed that man was made from the ground, and that that which was
produced from the ground was the being called MAI’4. “But,” says an objector, “that
only means his body.” It is possible to say that it means anything we may
fancy. A statement of this kind is worth nothing. There is nothing in the
passage before us, nor anything else in the Scriptures, to indicate the popular
distinction between a man and his body. The substantial organisation is here
called man. True, he was without life before the inspiration of the breath of
life, yet he was man. The life was something super-added to give man living
existence. The life was not the man; it was the principle; it was something
outside of him, proceeding from a divine source, and infusing itself into the
wonderful mechanism prepared for its reception. “He breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life, and MAN BECAME a living soul.” This is frequently quoted in
proof of the common doctrine-or rather, misquoted, for it is generally given
“and breathed INTO HIM a living soul “; but it really establishes the contrary.
What became a “living soul “? The dust-formed being. If, therefore, the use of
the phrase “became a living soul,” prove the immortality and immateriality of
any part of man’s nature, it carries the proof to the body, for it was that
which became a “living soul.” But, of course, this would be absurd. The idea
expressed in the passage before us is simple and rational, viz., that the
previously inanimate being became a living being when vitalised, but not
necessarily immortal, for, though a living soul, it is not said that he became
an “ever-living” or “never-dying” soul, though doubtless he would have lived
had not sin brought death.
But,
whatever Adam may have been as originally constituted, the decree went forth
that he should cease to be-that he should return to the state of nothingness
from which he had been developed by creative power: that he should die: and
this consti
Pg
50
tutes
the greatest disproof that could be brought forward of mans immortality in any
sense. It was said to Adam that in the day ate of the forbidden tree, he should
“surely DIE” (Gen, ii:17 )If there could be any doubt as to the meaning of
this, it at rest by the terms of the sentence passed upon him when he
disobeyed.
“Because thou hast eaten of the tree of which
I commanded t saying, Thou shalt not eat of it . . in the sweat of thy face s’
eat bread till Thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast 1 for dust THOU
art, and unto dust shalt thou return” (Gen. II:17-19)
To
say that this sentence merely relates to the body and not affect the being, is
to play with words. The personality expressed in the pronoun “thou” is here
distinctly al the physical organisation. “THOU art dust.” What could be more.
emphatic? “Thou shalt return to the dust.” This, of course utterly inapplicable
to the intangible principle which is supposed to constitute the soul, and
refers exclusively to man’s material nature.
Longfellow’s
view of the matter is that : -“Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was
not spoken of the soul.”
Ergo,
it conclusively decides that to be a man’s constituent personality which
undergoes physical dissolution, or, at any the indispensable basis of it.
Abraham expresses this view: -~
“Behold
now I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, am but dust and ashes” (Gen. xviii, 27).
This
is Abraham’s estimate of himself; some of his modern friends would have
corrected him. “Father Abraham, YOU :are mistaken; YOU are not dust and ashes;
it is only your body”
Abraham’s
unsophisticated view, however, is more reliable than “the (philosophical)
wisdom of this world,” which Paul pronounces to be “ foolishness with God” (I
Cor. iii, 19). Paul keeps company with Abraham: “I know that in me (that is, in
my flesh) dwelleth no good thing” (Romans VII: 18)
and
tells us in general to” Beware of philosophy and vain deceit which are
specially to be guarded against on this question. ~ James (chap. 1: 9, 10) adds
to this testimony : -“Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is
exalted; but the rich in that he is made low: because as the flower of the
grass he e shall pass away.”
Which
is something like a reiteration of Job’s words (chap. xiv, 1,2)
pg
51
“Man
that is born of woman is of few days and full of trouble; he cometh forth like
a flower, and is cut down; he fleeth also as a shadow and continueth not.
Then
comes the words of Solomon, the wisest of all men : -“I said (or wished) in
mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest
them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts; for that which
befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them; as
the one dieth so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so THAT A MAN
HATH NO PRE-EMINENCE ABOVE A BEAST; for all is vanity. All go unto one place;
all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again” (Eccles, iii, 18-20).
The
hasty believer in the popular doctrine gets impatient with this statement: “No
pre-eminence above a beast.” At first, he imagines it proceeds from a less
authoritative pen than Solomon’s; he stigmatises it as detestable; but there it
stands, in unmistakable emphasis, as a sweeping condemnation in the very Bible
itself, of the flattering dogma which exalts human nature to equality with
Deity.
Thus
do the Scriptures combine with nature in pronouncing man to be a creature of
frailty and mortality, who, though bearing the image of God, and towering far
above all other creatures In his his intellectual might, and in the grandeur of
his moral nature, and in his racial relation to futurity, is yet labouring
under a curse which hastens him to an appointed end in the grave.
It
is of the highest importance that this truth should be recognised. It is
impossible to discern the scheme of Bible truth while holding fundamental error
on the nature of man. The doctrine of the immortality of the soul will be found
to be the great error of the age-the mighty delusion which overspreads all
people like a veil-the great obstruction to the progress of true Christianity!
This will be manifest to the reader of the succeeding lectures. Words truly
fail to describe the mischief the doctrine has done. It has rendered the Bible
unintelligible, and promoted unbelief by making the Bible responsible for a
doctrine with which its historic and moral features are inconsistent. It has
taken away the Vitality of religion by destroying its meaning, and investing
the subject with a mystery that does not belong to it. It has ropbbed it of its
vigour, and reduced it to an effeminate thing, disowned and unpractised by men
of robust mind, and heeded only y by the sentimental and romantic. Fling it to
the moles and o the bats, and humbly accept the evidence of fact, and the
‘testimony of God’s infallible word.
Pg 52
LECUTRE 3
THE DEAD UNCONSCIOUS TILL THE RESURRECTION, AND
CONSEQUENT
ERROR
OF POPULAR BELIEF IN HEAVEN AND HELL
IF
CHRISTENDOM is astray on the nature of man, it naturally follows that it is
astray on the state of the dead, its theory of which occupies so large a place
in the theology of the day. We now look at this subject in the light of facts
and the testimony of Scripture.
Death
is the greatest fact in human experience, considered in its relation to the
individual. Its occurrence is universal and inevitable: its gloomy shadow,
sooner or later, darkens every house. Who has not felt its iron hand? Who has
not beheld the loved one chilled and stiffened by its desolating blast? The
blooming child with all its prattling innocence and winning ways: the companion
of youth, rosy, and healthful, and gay; the cherished wife, the devoted
husband, the tried and trusty friend; which of them has not been torn from our
side by the terrible hand of this ruthless and indiscriminating enemy? One day
we have seen them with bright eye, beaming countenance, supple frame, and have
heard the words of friendship and intelligence drop from their living lips; the
next we look upon them stretched on the bier-still, cold, motionless, ghastly,
dead!
What
shall we say to these things? Death brings grief to the living. It overwhelms
them with a sorrow that refuses consolation.
It
is not for ourselves that we mourn; news of life would bring gladness, even if
friends were far distant, and intercourse impossible. No, it is for the dead
our hearts are pained. Let us consider the bearing of this upon the popular
theology of the day. If death be merely a change of state, and not a
destruction of being, why all this heartbreaking for those who have gone? It
cannot be on account of the uncertainties “beyond the grave,”
Pg
53
because
our grief is quite as poignant for those who are believed to have “gone to
heaven,” as for those about whom doubts may be entertained. Tears flow quite as
fast for the good as for the bad, and, perhaps, a little faster. There is
something inconsistent with the popular theory here. If our friends are really
gone to “glory,” we ought to feel as thankful as we do when they are promoted to
honour “ here below “; but we do not; and why? The evidence will justify the
answer. Because the strength of natural instinct can never be overcome by
theological fiction. Men will never practically believe the occurrence of death
to be the commencement of life, when they see it to be the extinction of all
they ever knew or felt of life.
If
the dead are not dead, but “gone before “; if they are “praising God among the
ransomed above,” they are alive, and, therefore, they have merely changed a
place of “temporal” for a place of eternal abode. They have simply shifted out
of the body from earth to heaven, or to hell, as the case may be. The word
“death,” in its original meaning, has, therefore, no application to man. It has
lost its meaning as popularly employed. It is no longer the antithesis of
“life.” It no longer means the cessation of living existence (its radical
signification), but simply means a change of habitation. “A man die? No,
impossible! He may go out of the body, but he CANNOT DIE.” This is the popular
sentiment-the dictum of the world’s wisdom-the tenacious belief of the
religious world.
We
shall enquire if there is anything in the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, or
in the testimony of nature to warrant this belief. And we shall find that there
is not only an entire absence of warrant for it, but great evidence to show
that death invades a man’s being and robs him of existence, and that
consequently in death he is as totally unconscious as though he had never
lived. Let the reader suspend his judgment. He will find that the sequel will
justify this answer, appalling as it may at first appear.
First, let us consider, fo r a moment, the primary idea expressed by the
word death. It is the opposite of life. We know life as a matter of positive
experience. The idea of death is derived from this experience. Death is the
word that describes its interruption, or negation, or stopping. Whether life is
used literally or figuratively; whether it is affirmed of a creature or an
institution, death is the opposite of the life so spoken of. It means the
absence or departure of the life. In order, therefore, to understand death in
relation to our present enquiry, we must have a definite conception of life. We
cannot understand life in a meta-
Pg
54
physical
sense; hut this is no bar to our investigation; for the difficulty in this
sense is neither greater nor less than in the case of the animals, and in the
case of the animals people profess to find no difficulty in reconciling the
mystery of life with the occurrence of actual death.
Throwing
metaphysics aside, we need but ask ourselves, what is life as known
experimentally? It is the answer of literal truth to say that it is the
aggregate result of the organic processes transpiring within the human
structure-in respiration, circulation of the blood, digestion, etc. The lungs,
the heart, and the stomach conspire to generate and sustain vitality, and to
impart activity to the various faculties of which we are composed. Apart from
this busy organism, life is unmanifested, whether as regards man or beast.
Shock the brain, and insensibility ensues; take away the air, and you produce
suffocation; cut off the supply of food, and starvation ensues with fatal
effect. These facts, which everybody knows, prove that life depends on the
organism. They show that human life, with its mysterious phenomena of thought
and feeling, is the evolution of the complicated machinery of which we are so
“fearfully and wonderfully made.” That machinery, in full and harmonious
action, is a sufficient explanation of the life we now live. In it and by it we
exist.
Now,
whatever prejudice the reader may feel against this presentation of the matter,
he cannot evade recognising this, that there it’s a time when we did not exist. This important
fact shows the possibility of non-existence in relation to man. The question
is. shall this state of non-existence again supervene? And this is a simple
question of experience, on which, alas! experience speaks but too plainly.
Since human existence depends on material organic function, non-existence
ensues upon the interruption of that function. By experience we know that this
interruption does take place, and that man dies in consequence. Death comes to
him and undoes what birth did for him. The one gave him existence; the other
takes it away. “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return,” is realised in
every man’s experience. In the course of nature, his being vanishes from
creation, and all his qualities submerge in death for the simple reason that
the organism that develops them then stops its working.
These
are the facts of the case from a natural point of view. But when we look into
the Scriptures it is astonishing how much stronger the case becomes. When the
Scriptures speak about the death of anyone, they do not employ the phraseology
of the
Pg
55
modern
religionist. They do not say of the righteous that they have “gone to their
reward,” or “gone to their last account,” or that they have “winged their
flight to a better world “; or of the wicked, that they are “gone to appear
before the bar of God, to answer for their misdeeds.” The language is
expressive of a contrary doctrine. The death of Abraham, the father of the
faithful, is thus recorded
And
Abraham gave imp the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of
years, and was gathered to his people” (Gen. xxv, 8).
So
also in the case of Isaac: -And Isaac gave up i/ic ghost amid died, and was
gathered unto his
people”
(Gen. xxxv, 29).
So
of Jacob:- And when Jacob had made an end of commanding his sons, he
gathered
up his feet into the bed, and yielded up the ghost, and was gathered unto his
people “ (Gen. xlix, 33).
Of
Joseph it is simply said : -‘So Joseph died, being an hundred and ten years
old, and they
embalmed
him, and lie was put in a coffin in Egypt” (Gen. I, 26).
So
in the case of Moses:- “So Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there, in the
land of Moab,
according
to the word of the Lord. And he buried him in a valley, in the land of Moab,
over against Bethpeor, but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day”
(Deut. xxxiv, 5, 6).
And
so we shall find it in the case of Joshua (Jos. xxiv, 29), Samuel (1 Sam. xxv,
1), David (I Kings ii, 1, 2, 10; Acts ii, 29, 34); Solomon (I Kings xi, 43),
and all others whose death is recorded in the Scriptures. They are never said
to have gone away anywhere, but are always spoken of as dying, giving up their
life, and returning to the ground. The same style of language is adopted by
Paul when he speaks of the generation of the righteous dead. He says (Heb xi,
13):- These all died in faith, NOT HAVING RECEIVED THE PROMISES, but
having
seen them afar off”
If
Jesus spake of the death of Lazarus, he recognised the fact in its plainest
sense (John xi, 11-14): -“He (Jesus) saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus
sleepeth; but I go
that
I may awake him out of sleep. Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he
shall do well. Howbeit Jesus spake of his death, but they
pg
56
thought
he had spoken of taking rest in sleep. Then said Jesus unto them plainly,
LAZARUS is DEAD.”
When
Luke records the death of Stephen (Acts vii, 60), he does not indulge in any of
the high-flown death-bed rapture so prevalent in modern religious literature.
He simply says, “He fell asleep.” Or when Paul has occasion to refer to
deceased Christians, he does not speak of them as “standing before the throne
of God!” The words he employs are in keeping with those already quoted (I
Thess, iv, 13):
“I
would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are
ASLEEP,
that ye sorrow not, even as others who have no hope.”
There are no exceptions to these
cases in Bible narrative. All Bible allusion to the subject of death is as
unlike modern sentiment as it is possible to conceive. The Bible speaks of
death as the ending of life, and never as the commencement of another state.
Not once does it tell us of a dead man having gone to heaven. Not once, except
by an allowable poetical figure (Isa. xiv, 4) or for purposes of parable (Luke
xvi, 19-3 1), are the dead represented as conscious. They are always pictured
in language that accords with experience-always spoken of as in the land of
darkness, and silence, and unconsciousness. Solomon says : -Whatsoever thy hand
findeth to do, do it with thy might: for there
is
no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, IN THE GRAVE, whither thou
goes! “ (Eccles. ix, 10).
Job,
in the anguish of accumulated calamity, cursed the day of his birth, and wished
he had died when an infant; and mark what he says would have been the
consequence:
“ For
now should I have lain still and beetz quiet; I should have slept; then had I
been at rest with kings and counsellors of the earth, which built desolate
places [tombs] for themselves; or with princes that had gold, who filled their
houses with silver, or as an hidden untimely birth I HAD NOT BEEN, as infants
which never saw the light: there the wicked cease from troubling, and there the
weary be at rest. There the prisoners rest together; they hear not the voice of
the oppressor; the small and great are there, and the servant is free from his
master” (Job iii, 13-19).
He
also makes the following statement, which with the one just quoted, ought to be
well considered by those who believe that babies go to heaven when they die :
-(Chapter x, 18)-” Wherefore hast thou brought me forth out of the
womb?
0, that I had given up the ghost, and no eye had seen me; I should have been AS
THOUGH I HAD NOT BEEN.”
Pg
57
David
incidentally alludes to the state of the dead in the following impressive words
(Psa. lxxxviii, 5, 10-12):- “Free among the dead, like the slain that lie in
the grave, whom thou
rememberest
no more; and they are cut off from Thy hand.” “Wilt thou show wonders to the
dead? Shall the dead arise and praise
Thee?
Shall Thy loving kindness be declared in the grave, or Thy faithfulness in
destruction? Shall Thy wonders be known in the dark, and Thy righteousness in
the land of forgetfulness?”
These
questions are answered in a short but emphatic statement, which occurs in the
115th Psalm, verse 17:- “The DEAD praise NOT the Lord, neither ANY that go down
into silence.”
And
the Psalmist gives pathetic expression to his own view of man’s evanescent
nature, in the following words, which have a direct bearing on the state of the
dead : -(Psa. xxxix, 5, 12, 13)-” Behold, thou hast made my days as an hand-
breadth,
and mine age is as nothing before Thee. Verily every man at his best state is
altogether vanity. . . . Hear my prayer, 0 Lord, and give ear
unto
my cry; hold not Thy peace at my tears, for I am a stranger with Thee, and a
sojourner, as all my fathers were. 0, spare me, that I may recover strength,
before I go hence, and BE NO MORE.”
He
says in Psalm clxvi, 2, “ While I live will I praise the Lord, I will sing
praises unto my GOD WHILE I HAVE ANY BEING”; clearly implying that in David’s
view, his being would cease with the occurrence of death.
In
addition to these general indications of the destructive nature of death as a
deprivation of being, there are other statements in the Scriptures which
specifically deny that the dead have any consciousness. For instance:- “The
living know that they shall die; but THE DEAD KNOW NOT ANYTHING, neither have
they any more a reward, for the memory of them is forgotten; •also their love,
and their hatred, and their envy is now PERISHED, neither have they any more a
portion for ever in anything that is done under the sun” (Eccies. ix, 5, 6).
How
often we hear the remark concerning the dead, “Ah, well! He knows all now!”
What shall we say about it? If Solomon’s words have any meaning, the remark is
the very opposite of true. What can be more explicit? “The dead know not
anything.” It would certainly be a wonderful feat of exegesis that should make
this mean “The dead know everything.” How common again, to believe that after
death, the dead will love and serve God with greater devotion in heaven,
because freed from the clog of this mortal body; or curse Him with hotter
Pg
58
hatred
in hell, for the same reason; that, in fact, their love will be perfected, and
their hate intensified; in the very face of Solomon’s declaration to the
contrary. “Their love and their hatred, and their envy are now perished.” David
is equally decisive on this point. He says (Psa. cxlvi, 3, 4): -“Put not your
trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there
is
no help; his breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in flint very
day
HIS THOUGHTS PERISH.”
Again
(Psalm vi, 5):- In death THERE IS NO REMEMBRANCE OF THEE: in the grave who
shall
give
thee thanks?”
Hezekiah,
king of Israel, gives similar testimony. He had been “sick, nigh unto death,”
and on his recovery, he indited a song of praise to God, in which he gave the
following reason for thanksgiving : -“For the grave cannot praise Thee, death
cannot celebrate Thee,
they
that go down into the pit cANNOT hope for thy truth. The living, THE LIVING, HE
shall praise Thee as I do this day” (Isa. xxxviii, 18, 19).
This
array of Scripture testimony must be conclusive with those with whom Scripture
authority carries weight. If there is anything decisive in the verdict of
Scripture, the state of the dead ought no longer to be a debatable question.
The Bible settles it against all philosophical speculation. It teaches that
death is a total eclipse of being-a complete obliteration of our conscious
selves from God’s universe. This will do no violence to the feelings of those
who are governed by wisdom of the type inculcated in the Scriptures. Such will
but bow in the presence of God’s appointment, whatever it is. They would do
this if the appointment were harder to receive than it is in this case. Instead
of being hard to receive, it accords with our experience and our instincts. And
still better, it frees all Bible doctrine from obscurity.
It
establishes the doctrine of the resurrection on the firm foundation of
necessity; for in this view, a future life is only attainable by resurrection;
whereas, in the popular view, future life is a natural growth from the present,
affected neither one way nor the other by the “resurrection of the body.” In fact
it is difficult to see any use for resurrection at all if we accept the popular
idea; for if a man “goes to his reward” at death, and enjoys all the felicity
of heaven of which his nature is capable, it seems incongruous that, after a
certain time, he should be compelled to leave the celestial regions, and rejoin
Pg
59
his
body on earth, when without that body he is supposed to have so much more
capability of enjoyment. The resurrection seems out of place in such a system;
and accordingly we find that, now-a-days, many are abandoning it, and vainly
trying to explain away the New Testament doctrine of physical resurrection
altogether, in favour of the Swedenborgian theory of spiritual resuscitation.
We
have cited many Scriptures in proof of the reality of death, and the consequent
unconsciousness of those who are dead. Those Scriptures are not ambiguous. They
are clear, plain, and intelligible. Now, suppose the positive declarations they
make were propounded in the form of interrogations, to any modern religious
teacher, or to any of the intelligent among his flock, would their answers be
at all in harmony with those declarations’? Let us see. Suppose we enquire, “Do
the dead know anything “? what would the answer be? “Oh, yes, they know a great
deal more than the living.” Or let us ask, “When a nian goes to the grave, do
his thoughts perish”? The answer would instantly be, in the words of a
“reverend” gentleman, in a funeral sermon, “Oh no, we rejoice to know that
death, though it may close our mortal history, is not the termination of our
existence-it is not even the suspension of consclous,iess.” Or again, Is there
any remembrance of God in death’? “Oh yes, the righteous dead know Him more
perfectly, and love Him more fully than they did when on earth.” Do the dead
praise the Lord’? “Certainly; if they are redeemed; they join in the song of
Moses and thei Lamb before the throne.” Do babies that die pass away as though
they had never been born? “No! perish the thought! They go to heaven and become
angels in the presence of God.”
Thus,
in every instance, popular belief, in reference to the dead, is exactly
contrary to the explicit statements of Scripture. It is a belief entirely
destitute of foundation. It is opposed to all truth-natural and revealed. In
the last lecture, an endeavour was made to expose the fallacy of the “natural”
arguments on which it is founded. We shall now look at a few of the Scriptural
reasons that are generally put forward in its behalf. Those reasons are based
upon certain passages that occur mostly in the New Testament; and of these
passages it has to be remarked, to commence with, that, although they do bear
on the face of them some apparent countenance to popular belief, not one of
them affirms that belief. The evidence they are supposed to contain is purely
inferential. That is, they make certain statements
Pg
60
which
are supposed to imply the doctrine sought to be proved, but they do not
proclaim the doctrine itself. Now, it is important to note this general fact to
commence with. It is something to know that there is not a single promise of
heaven at death in the whole Bible, and not a single declaration that man has
an immortal soul; and that all the supposed evidence contained in the Bible in
favour of these doctrines, is so decidedly ambiguous, as to be open to
disputation as to its meaning. It is important, because the testimony in favour
of the opposite view (the one set forth in the present lecture), is so clear
and explicit that it cannot be set aside without the grossest violation of the
fundamental laws of the language. This consideration suggests an important
principle of Scriptural interpretation, viz., that plain testimony ought to
guide us in the understanding of what may be obscure. We ought to procure our
fundamental principles from teaching that cannot be misunderstood, and
harmonise all difficulties therewith. It is unwise to found a dogma on a
passage, which, from its vagueness, is susceptible of two interpretations,
especially if that dogma is in opposition to the unmistakable declarations of
the Word of God elsewhere.
Let
us for a moment apply this principle to the Scriptures cited by those who set
themselves to justify the popular theory.
The
first is the answer of Christ to the thief on the Cross (as set out in the
Authorised Version), “To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Luke xxiii,
43). This is thought to establish the common idea at once; but let us see. The
pith of the argument turns upon the date of its fulfilment. Now Jesus was not
in paradise in the popular sense, that day; for we find him saying to Mary
after his resurrection, “Touch me not, for I AM NOT YET ASCENDED TO MY FATHER”
(John xx, 17). Jesus was not in heaven during at least three days after his
promise to the thief. Where had he been? The answer is in the grave. Ay. but
his soul, asks one, where had it been? Let Peter answer (Acts ii, 31). “His
soul was not left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption.” He, or “his
soul,” which is equivalent to “himself,” was in the grave, or “hell” (for the
words are in most cases synonymous in scriptural use, as we shall see by and
by), awaiting the interference of the Father from above to deliver him from the
bonds of death. The conclusion is, that Christ’s promise to the thief is of no
avail whatever as a proof of the heaven-going consciousness of the dead,
inasmuch as it was not fulfilled in the sense in which we would require to view
it before it could constitute such proof.
Pg
61
Has
it been fulfilled at all? Let us consider the question of the thief. It was
quite clear that his mind was not fixed on the idea of going to heaven. He did
not say, “Lord, remember me, now that thou art about to go into thy kingdom,”
but “Lord, remember me, wizen thou comest into Thy kingdom.” He had a coming in
his eye-not a going; and he looked upon it as a future event, and his desire
was to be remembered when that future event should he accomplished-” when thou
comest into thy kingdom.” We shall say something about this “coming” hereafter.
Meanwhile it is sufficient to direct attention to the general fact, as
furnishing a clue to the meaning of Christ’s answer. There is good ground for
the contention of those who say that Christ’s answer is most properly read with
the comma after “today “-“ I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in
paradise.” But in either case, the words are devoid of the meaning attached to
them by those who quote them to support the popular idea.
The
account of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke xvi, 19-31) is the principal
stronghold of the popular belief. It is brought forward with great confidence
on every occasion on which the popular belief is assailed. A little
consideration, however, will reveal its unsuitability to the purpose for which
it is used. We must first realise, if we can, the nature of the passage of
Scripture in question. It is either a literal narrative or a parable. If it is
a literal narrative-that is, an account of things that actually happened, given
by Christ as a guide to our conception of the “disembodied “ state-then it is
perfectly legitimate to bring it forward in confutation of the view advanced in
this lecture. But in that case it would not only upset that view. but it would
upset the popular view also, and establish the view that was entertained by the
Pharisees, to whom the parable was addressed; for it will be found on
investigation that it is the tradition of the Pharisees that forms the basis of
the parable; a tradition which clashes with the popular theory of the
death-state in many particulars.
Look
at the incidents of the parable: see how incompatible they are with the popular
theory. The rich man lifts up his eyes, being in torment, and sees Abraham afar
oft, and Lazarus in his bosom; and cries, “Father Abraham, have mercy on me,
and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water to cool my
tongue.” Does popular theology allow of the wicked in hell seeing the righteous
in heaven? or admit of the possibility of conversation passing between the
occupants of the two
Pg
62
places?
And has the popular immortal soul, finger-tips, tongue, and, other material
members, on which water would have a cooling effect? Abraham denied the rich
man’s request, adding as a supplementary reason, “Between us and you there is a
great gulf fixed, so that they which would pass from hence to YOU CANNOT.” (Is
a “gulf” any obstacle to the transit of an immaterial soul?) The rich man asked
Abraham to send Lazarus to his five brethren, to testify to them lest they
should come to the same place of torment; Abraham answered, “If they hear not
Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one ROSE FROM THE
DEAD.” (What need, according to the popular view, for a rising from the dead,
since a spirit commissioned from the “ vastly deep” would have been sufficient
to communicate the warning?) The whole narrative has an air of tangibility
about it which is inconsistent with the common view of the state of the dead.
Besides, think of heaven and hell being within sight of each other, and of
conversation passing between the two places! If we insist upon the story as a
literal narrative, we are committed to all these particulars, which are so
thoroughly at variance with the popular theory.
Is
it a literal narrative? Even orthodox believers talk of it as a parable, which
it doubtless is. As a parable, it has nothing to do with the question in
dispute one way or other. It was addressed to the Pharisees to enforce the
lesson that in due time the mighty and rich would be brought down, and the poor
exalted; and that if men would not be led by the testimony of Moses and the
prophets, miracles (even the raising of the dead) would fail to move them. The
parable has no reference to the particular view of the death-state which its
literal outlines reflect; it bears entirely on the lesson which it was used to
convey. A parable does not teach itself; it teaches something else than itself,
else it were no parable. But it may be urged that all parables have their
foundation in fact. So they have, but they ,do not necessarily exhibit things
that are possible. Parables in which trees speak, and a thistle goes in quest
of matrimonial alliances, and corpses rise out of their tombs and address other
corpses newly arrived, will be found in the Scriptures (Judges ix, 8; II Kings
xiv, 9; Isaiah xiv, 9, 11). The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is founded
on fact but not necessarily on a literal possibility. That the dead should
speak was necessary for the purpose of the parable, and it would not surprise
the Pharisees to whom it was addressed. For, in fact, it embodies their belief.
This is apparent from the
Pg
63
treatise
on “Hades,” by Josephus (himself a Pharisee), which will be found at the close
of his compiled works, and in which the reader will find a recognition of the
existence of “Abraham s bosom,” and the fiery lake in “AN UNFINISHED PART OF
THE WORLD.” He will find the belief of the Pharisees (reflected in the parable
of Jesus) a very different thing from popular belief in heaven beyond the
skies, and hell as an abyss in the black and dizzy parts of the universe. A
perusal of it will convince him of the wide dissimilarity of the Jewish theory
embodied in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, from the commonly received
doctrine of going to heaven and hell.
It
may be asked, Why did Christ parabolically employ a belief that was fictitious,
and thus give it his apparent sanction? The answer is that Christ was not using
it with any reference to itself, but for the purpose of being able to introduce
a dead man’s testimony. He wanted to impress upon them the lesson conveyed in
the concluding words of Abraham, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead “; and in no more
forcible way could he have done this, than by framing a parable based upon
their own theory of the death-state, which admitted of the
consciousness
of the dead, and, therefore, their capability to speak on the subject he wanted
to introduce. This did not involve his sanction of the theory, any more than
his allusion to Beelzebub carried with it a sanction of the reality of that God
of the heathen (Matt. xii, 27).
When
Christ had occasion to speak plainly, and for himself, of the dead, his words
were in accordance with the truth. Witness the case of Lazarus: “Then said he
unto them plainly (indicating that ‘sleep’ is not ‘plain’ and literal), Lazarus
is DEAD” (John xi, 14-25); “He that believeth on me, though he were dead, yet
shall he live,” that is, by resurrection, for he had said just before, “I am
THE RESURRECTION and the life “; “The hour is coming in which ALL THAT ARE IN
THE GRAVES shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good
unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the
resurrection of condemnation” John v, 28, 29). It is in these plain words of
Christ that we are to seek for Christ’s real ideal on the subject of the dead,
and not in a parabolic discourse, addressed to his enemies for the purpose of
confusion and condemnation and not of instruction.
It
would be strange indeed if so important a doctrine as the heaven-and-hell
consciousness of the dead should have to
Pg
64
depend
upon a parable! Those who insist upon the parable for this purpose have to be
asked what are we to do with all the testimony already advanced in proof of the
reality of death? Are we to make a parable paramount and throw away plain
testimony? Are we to twist and violate what is clear to make it agree with what
we think is meant by that which is admittedly obscure? Is not the opposite
rather the course of true wisdom, determining and solving that which is
uncertain by that which is unmistakable? If it may be urged, as it has been
urged, that it was unlike Christ to perpetuate delusion, and withhold the truth
on such an important question as that involved in the parable used, it is
sufficient to cite the following in reply : -“And the disciples came and said
unto him, Why speakest thou unto
them
in parables? lie answered and said unto them, Because it is given you to know
the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them IT IS NOT GIVEN. For
whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance; but
whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away, even that he hath. Therefore
speak I to them in parables (Malt. xiii, 10-13). “Unto you it is given to know
the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to others in parables, that SEEING
THEY MIGHT NOT SEE, AND HEARING THEY MIGHT NOT UNDERSTAND” (Luke viii, 10).
The
next Scriptural argument in favour of the popular theory is generally advanced
with an air of great confidence. “Didn’t John, in the Isle of Patmos,” says the
triumphant questioner, “see the redeemed of every kindred, and tongue, and
people, and nation, standing before the throne of God, and giving glory? Who
are these, if the righteous don’t go to heaven at death”? This argument is
generally felt to be overwhelming.
Stay,
friend; turn to the first verse of the fourth chapter of Revelation, and see
what you find there: ‘I heard a voice as it were of a trumpet talking with me,
which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee THINGS WHICH MUST BE
HEREAFTER.’ The sights which John witnessed were representations of things
which were to be at a future time, and, therefore, when he saw a great
multitude praising God, he beheld the assembly of the resurrected as they will
appear at the second advent.”
Next
comes Stephen’s dying prayer-(Acts vii, 59)-” Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
This is understood to mean that Stephen expected the Lord to receive his
immortal soul. That this cannot be the meaning becomes manifest on a
consideration of the Scripture doctrine of “spirit.” Stephen’s pneuma, spirit
Pg
65
or
breath, was not himself; it was merely the principle or energy that give him
life, as it gives all other men and animals life. This principle does not
constitute the man or the ammal. It is necessary to give them existence, but it
does not belong to them, except during the short term of their existence.
Stephen’s spirit was not Stephen, though essential to his existence. The
individual Stephen consisted of that combination of power and organism
Scripturally defined as “body and soul and spirit.” His spirit as an
abstraction was God’s and proceeded from Him, as have done the spirits of all
flesh. Thus we read in Job xxxiii, 4, “The spirit of God hath made me, and the
breath of the Almighty hath given me life.” Hence it is said
--(Job
Xxxiv, 14, 15)-” If He (God) set His heart upon man
-if
He gather unto Himself HIS spirit, and HIS breath, all flesh shall perish
together, and man shall turn again unto dust.” The spirit is indispensable as
the basis of a living man, consisting of bodily organism. It is the life
principle of all living creatures. When this life principle, emanating from
God, is withdrawn, it reverts to its original proprietorship, and the created
being disappears. This is the idea expressed in Solomon’s words (EccI. xii, 7),
“Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return
unto God, WHO GAVE IT.”
But,
it may be asked, why should Stephen be anxious about his spirit in this sense?
Well, it must be remembered that Stephen looked forward to a renewing of life
at the resurrection. This was his hope. He hoped to get his life back.
Consequently, when he came to die, he confided it to the keeping of the Saviour
till that day, and, as the narrative adds, “He fell asleep.” If Stephen’s
personality, expressed in the pronoun ‘he’ appertained to Stephen’s spirit, and
not to the bodily Stephen, then this statement would prove that the spirit fell
asleep; and this is just what those who quote this passage deny.
We
next come to the words of Paul, in H Corinthians v, 8, “We are confident, I
say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the
Lord.” This seems at first sight to express the popular idea; but let us
consider it. Orthodox people understand that by this, Paul meant to express the
desire to depart from his body and go to Christ in heaven. If this was the
“absence from the body” that Paul desired, the passage would doubtless stand as
an orthodox proof: but was this the “absence from the body” that Paul desired?
The context answers the question by defining precisely the idea that was before
Paul’s mind. It was not disembodiment, as the
Pg
66
orthodox
idea required : for he says in verse 4 of the same chapter, “Not that we would
be unclothed, but CLO[HED UPON (with our house which is front heaven) that
MORTALITY ought be SWALLOWED up of life.” What Paul desired was deliverance
from the cumbrance of an imperfect sinful body, and the attainment of the
incorruptible body of the resurrection, for, says he (v, 4):--
“We
that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened (v. 2)
earnestly
desiring to be clothed upon wit/i OUR HOUSE which is from heaven.’’
Or,
as lie expresses it in Romans viii. 23:- We ourselves groan within ourselves,
wait for the adoption, to Wit, THE REDEMPTION OF OUR BODY .”
Now,
when does the redemption of the body take place? Not at death, for at death the
body undergoes the very opposite of a process of “ redemption.” It goes into
bondage and destruction. It breaks up in the ground in corruption; not till the
resurrection at the coming of the Lord, is it raised to incorrup tion. Not till
then does “ presence with the Lord “ take place. The testimony is : -The Lord
himself s/tall 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 who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them
in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, AND SO SHALL WE EVER BE WITI-I THE
LORD” (I Thess. iv, 16, 17).
This
“ absence from the (corruptible) body” is synonymous. in the passage quoted,
with “presence with the Lord,” since flesh and blood will, in the case of the
accepted, then be merged in the spirit-nature with which the saints are to be
invested. Says Paul, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (I
Cor. xv, 50). This being the case, he might well desire to be absent from flesh
and blood. But this was not enough: it was necessary to add his desire to be
present with the Lord, for all who are absent from the body will not attain to
the honour of incorruptible existence in his presence. Many will be absent from
the body for ever, and nothing else; that is, they will be without body-without
existence-swallowed up in the second death: only those who are accepted will
“be absent from the body, and PRESENT with the Lord” in the glory of the
spirit-nature.
We
must next look at the 23rd verse of the first chapter to Philippians-” I am in
a strait betwixt two, having a desire to
Pg
67
depart
and to be with Christ, which is far better.” As in the last case, this also
seems, on its face, to give expression to the idea that popular theology
imputes to Paul. In reality, however, it does not do what it appears to do. The
words do not teach that Paul would be with Christ as soon as he departed. It
would require to be shown from other parts of God’s word that a man was with
Christ the moment he “departed,” before the passage could be pressed into that
service. As it stands, it merely expresses a certain sequence of events,
without indicating whether there is any actual interval between the events or
not. Depart, first; then be with Christ, but whether immediately after
departing, or a time after departing, there is nothing in the expression to
tell. If we understand that depart means to die, then the question to settle
is, what is provided in the Christian system as the means of introducing a dead
person to Christ? The answer which all investigation will yield to this
question is, Resurrection. It might seem as if two things so far apart could
not be brought together as they are in Paul’s language; but it must be
remembered that the thing is described from the point of view of the person
dying. Now, if the dead, “know not anything,” which the Scriptures declare
(Eccles. ix, 5), it follows that departing and being with Christ would, to
those dying, appear instantly sequential events, and, therefore, perfectly
natural to be concatenated in the way Paul does here.
Paul
invariably points to Christ’s return as the time of being made present with
Christ. As instanced in I Thess. iv, 17, already quoted, after describing the
coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the transformation of the
living, lie says, “So shall we EVER be with the Lord.” Again in 2 Corinth. iv,
14, he says, “He which raised up the Lord Jesus, shall raise up us also by
Jesus, and shall present us WITH YOU.” Again John says (I Epistle iii, 2), “
When he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” For
this reason Paul tells us in the very epistle in which the disputed words are
found, that he was striving “if by any means he might attain to the
resurrection of the dead” (Phil. iii, 11). In no case does he speak of presence
with the Lord occurring till that event.
Assuming
this to be settled, we have to harmonise this understanding of the text with
the necessity of the context. If it be asked in what sense death would be a
“gain” to Paul, the answer is furnished in the words of Christ: “Whosoever will
lose his life for my sake, shall find it.” Paul was about to be be
Pg
68
headed;
this was the death he refers to in the context. Consequently, he would, in a
special way, stand related to the words of Christ, “Be thou faithful unto
death, and 1 will give thee a crown of life” (Rev. ii, 10). The question as to
when this crown would be given is settled by Paul’s declaration in II Timothy
iv, 8:
Henceforth
there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous
Judge, shall give me AT THAT DAY (Christ’s appearing and kingdom, see 1st
verse), and not to me only but unto ALL THEM also that love, his appearing.” It
was gain to die, also, because Paul would thus be freed from all the privations
and persecutions enumerated in II Cor. xi, 23-28, and would peaceably “ sleep “
in Christ.
There
are arguments advanced on Scriptural grounds in favour of the immortality of
the soul which do not quite come within the category of “passages” quoted, but
are rather in the nature of deductions from scriptural principles. It may be of
advantage to look at some of these before passing on.
“There
is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.”-This is quoted to prove the eternal
torment of the wicked. It surely requires no argument to show that it fails
entirely in this purpose. The statement is true, irrespective of any theory
that may be held as to the destiny of the wicked. While the wicked are in
existence, either in this life or after resurrection, there is no peace for
them. It is impossible there could be peace for them, especially looking
forward to the time when they shall be the objects of God’s judicial and
all-devouring vengeance. But this does not prove (as it is quoted to prove)
that they are immortal Such an idea is utterly precluded by the testimonies
quoted.
The
appearance of Moses and Elias on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. xvii, 3).
As regards Elias, it is testified that he did not see death, but was
translated-bodily taken away (II Kings ii, 11). His appearance would,
therefore, be no proof of the existence of disembodied spirits. As to Moses, if
he were bodily present, he must have been raised from the dead beforehand. That
he was bodily apparent is evident from the fact of the disciples-mortal men-seeing
and recognizing him. But it is an open question whether either Moses or Elias
were actually present. The testimony is that the things seen were “a vision”
(Matt. xvii, 9). Now from Acts xii, 9, we learn that a vision is the opposite
of reality-that is, something seen after the manner of a dream-a something
apparently real, but in reality only exhibited visionally to the beholder. The
audibility of the voices settles nothing one way or the other, because in
vision, as in a
Pg
70
Pg
69
dream,
voices may be heard that have no existence, except in the aural nerves of the
seer. In dreams the illusion is the result of functional disorder; in vision,
it is the result of the will-energy of the Deity, acting upon the hearing
organization of the trance-wrapt seer (vide Acts x, 13; also the song of the
Apocalyptic living creature, and the voice of “souls under the altar “).
Neither does the presence of Jesus (an actual personage) as one of the three,
contribute much to a solution, because there would be no anomaly in causing
Moses and Elias to visionally appear to Jesus, and in association with Jesus.
It is probable Moses and Elias were really present, but the use of the word
“vision” unhinges the matter a little. In no case can the transfiguration be
construed into a proof of the immortality of the soul. It was doubtless a
pictorial illustration of the kingdom, in so far as it represented Jesus in his
consummated power and glory, exalted over the law (represented by Moses) and
the prophets (represented by Elijah), and, therefore, elevated to the position
to which the prophets point forward, when, as the head of the nation of Israel
and the whole earth, he will cause to be fulfilled the prediction of Moses and
the command of the heavenly voice:-” Him shall ye hear in all things “; “Hear
ye him.”
“God
is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. xxii, 32). If the
orthodox believer took a logical view of this statement, he would perceive that
instead of proving the immortality of the soul, it indirectly establishes the
contrary. It recognises the existence of a class of human beings who are not
“living,” but “dead.” Who are they? According to the popular theory, there are
no “dead” in relation to the human race at all; every human being lives for
ever. It cannot be suggested that it means “dead” in the moral sense, because
this is expressly excluded by the subject of which Jesus is speaking-the
resurrection of the dead bodies from the ground (v. 31).
The
Sadducees denied the resurrection. Jesus proved the resurrection by quoting
from Moses the words of Jehovah, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob.” How did Jesus deduce the resurrection from this formula?
By maintaining that God was not the God of those who were dead in the sense of
being done with (see Psalm xlix, 19-20). From God calling Himself the God of
three men who were dead, Jesus argued that God intended to raise them; for “God
calleth those things which be not (but are to be) AS THOUGH THEY WERE” (Rom.
iv, 17). The Sadducees saw the point of the argument, and were put to silence.
But
if, as is usually contended, the meaning of “God is not the God of the dead,
but of the living,” be. that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive, Christ’s
argument for the resurrection of the dead is destroyed. For how could it prove
the purpose of God to raise Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to assert that they were
alive? •The very argument requires that they shall be dead at some time, in
order to be the subjects of resurrection. Thus it is that the fact of their
being dead at a time when God calls Himself their God, yields the conclusion
that God purposes their resurrection. But take away the fact of their being
dead, which orthodox theology does by saying they were immortal, and could not
die, and you take away all the point of Christ’s argument. Looked at the other
way, the argument is irresistible, and explains to us how the Sadducees were
silenced.
“Their
angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. xviii,
10). Whose angels? The angels of
“the
little ones -which believe “ (Matt. xviii, 6). It is customary to synonomise
“spirits “ with “angels,” and to make it out that “their angels” means the
“little ones” themselves; but this is a liberty so entirely at variance both with
the sense and philology of the case, as to be undeserving of reply. The “little
ones “ are those who “receive the kingdom of God as a little chtld,” and “their
angels” are the angels of God who supervise their interests. “The angel of the
Lord encampeth round about them that fear him” (Psa. xxxiv, 7). “Are they (the
angels) not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall
be heirs of salvation”? (Heb. i, 14). This fact is a good reason why we should
“take heed that we despise not one of these little ones “; but adopt the
popular version of the matter, and the reason vanishes. “Take heed that ye
despise not one of these little ones, for their redeemed spirits are in
heaven.” This would involve a paradox. Yet without it, the proof for immortal-soulism
which some see in it, is nowhere to be found.
“In the way of righteousness is
life, and in the pathway thereof there is NO DEATH” (Prov. xii, 28). This is
sometimes quoted to prove that as regards the righteous at any rate there is no
such thing as even momentary extinction of being. If the passage prove this,
the converse is established also, that in the way of unrighteousness is death,
and in the pathway thereof NO LIFE. The terms of an affirmative proposition
have the same value in a negative. Hence, if this passage prove the literal
immortality of the righteous, it proves the literal mortality of the wicked,
which is more than those who use this argument are prepared to accept.
pg 71
The
passage bears out the proposition that the Bible is against the doctrine of the
immortality of the soul.
Fear
not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul” (Matt. x, 28).
This is the orthodox advocate’s great triumph. He feels here he has a foothold,
and he recites the passage with an emphasis entirely absent from his other
efforts. He generally snatches his triumph too early, however. He begins
comment before finishing the verse. He exultantly enquires why this passage has
not been quoted, and so on. If asked to go on with the verse and not leave it
half finished, he is not at all enthusiastic in his compliance. However, he
goes on if somewhat reluctantly, and stumbles over the concluding sentence,
“but rather fear him that is able to
DESTROY BOTH SOUL AND BODY in hell.’’
Instantly
perceiving the disaster which this elaboration of Christ’s exhortation brings
upon his theory of imperishable and immortal-soulism, he suggests that “
destroy “ in this instance means “ afflict,” “ torment.” But there is no ground
for this. In fact, a more unwarrantable suggestion was never hazarded by a
theorist in straits. In all the instances in which appollumi-the word
translated “ destroy.” is used, it is impossible to discover the slightest
approach to the idea of affliction or torment, We append all the New Testament
instances in which it is used:-” The Young child to destroy him “ (Matt. ii,
13): “might destroy him ‘‘ (Matt. xii, 14; Mark iii, 6; xi, 18); “ Will
miserably destroy those wicked men” (Matt. xxi. 41); “Destroyed those murderers
“ (Matt. xxii, 7); “Persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas and
destroy Jesus “ (Matt. xxvii, 20); “Art thou come to destroy” (Mark i, 24; Luke
iv, 34); “Into the waters to destroy him” (Mark ix, 22); “And destroy the
husbandman” (Mark xii, 9; Luke xx, 16); “To save life or destroy” (Luke vi, 9):
“Not come to destroy men’s lives” (Luke ix, 56); “The flood came and destroyed
them all “(Luke xvii, 27, 29); “Of the people sought to destroy him” (Luke xix,
47); “To steal, and to kill, and to destroy” (John x, 10); “Destroy not him
with thy meat” (Rom. xiv, 15); “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise” (I Cor.
i, 19); “Were destroyed of serpents” (I Cor. x, 9); “And were destroyed of the
destroyer (I Cor. x, 10); “Cast down but not destroyed” (II Cor. iv, 9); “Is
able to save, and to destroy” (Jas. iv, 12); “Afterward destroyed them that
believed not” (Jude 5).
In
all these cases “destroy” has a very different meaning from “afflict” or
“torment.” The reader has only to substitute either
Pg
72
of
these words for “destroy” in any of the passages to see how utterly out of
place such a paraphrase of the word would be. If “destroy” in every other case
has its natural meaning, why should an exceptional meaning be claimed for it in
Matthew x! No reason can be given beyond the one already hinted at, viz., the
necessities of the orthodox believer’s theory. This is no sound reason at all,
and, therefore, we put it aside, and enquire what Jesus meant by exhorting his
disciples to “Fear not them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the
soul; but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.’
We
reply, that “life,” in the abstract, which is the equivalent of the word
translated “soul “-the Revisers of the New Testament being witnesses (for they
have substituted “life” for soul in Matt. xvi, 25, 26)-life in the abstract is
indestructible. But life is not the man, nor of any use to him if it is not
given to him. It is God’s purpose to give life back to those who obey Him, and
to give it back immortally. This constitutes the essence of the statement we
are considering. Arising out of this, there comes the special view that life in
relation to those who are Christ’s, cannot be touched by mortal man, however
they may treat the body. ~ this life, Paul says, “IT is HID WITH CHRIST IN GOD”
(Col. in, 3) “and when Christ WHO IS OUR LIFE, shall appear, then shall we
appear with him in glory” (v. 4). This life is the
treasure
in the heavens, which faileth not,” spoken of by Jesus and said by Peter to be
“reserved in heaven.” Now when men kill the saints, they only terminate their
mortal existence. They do not touch that real life of theirs, which is related
to the eternal future, and which has it foundation in their connection with
Christ in the heavens. This is in Christ’s keeping and can be touched by no
man. We are not to fear those who can only demolish the corruptible body, and
cannot do anything to prevent the coming bestowal of immortality by
resurrection. We are to fear him who hath power to destroy BOTH BODY AND SOUL
(LIFE) in Gehenna; that is, in the coming retribution by destructive
fire-manifestation, which will utterly consume the ungodly from the presence of
the Lord. We are to fear God, who has the power to annihilate from the
universe, and who will use the power on all such as are unworthy. We are not to
fear those who can at best only hasten the dissolution to which we are
Adamically liable.
Pg
73
ERRONEOUSNESS OF POPULAR BELIEF IN
HEAVEN AND HELL
This
follows as a conclusion from what has gone before. If the dead are really
dead-in the absolute sense contended for in this lecture-of course they cannot
have gone to any state of reward or punishment, because they are not alive to
go.
We
might well leave the matter in this position, as an inevitable conclusion from
the premises established; but its grave importance justifies us in carrying the
matter further. The belief in question is not only erroneous in supposing that
the dead go to such places as the popular heaven or hell, immediately after death,
but, in thinking that they ever go there at any time.
According
to the religious teaching of the present day, the place of final reward is a
region beyond the stars-remote from the farthest limit of God’s universe,
“beyond the realms of time and space.” The ideas entertained concerning the
nature of this place are very vague. So far as they take shape, whether in
picture or in discourse, they take their cue from the earth. Hence, “The plains
of Heaven.” In these “plains” the inhabitants are generally represented as
singing a perpetual song of praise. The numbers are supposed to be constantly
recruited by arrivals from the earth “below.” A man dies, and according to
orthodox idea, the liberated soul flies with inconceivable rapidity to the
realms above, safely installed in which, bereaved friends console themselves
with the idea that the dead are “not lost, but gone before.” Friends think of
them as better off in that “happy land, far, far, away,” than they were in this
vale of tears.
Doubtless
if it was true, that they were gone to a happy land, the contemplation of their
state would be consoling. Whether true or not, it must strike every reflecting
mind as an exceedingly discordant element in the case that the righteous after
enjoying years of celestial felicity, should have to leave the abode of their
bliss, on the arrival of the day of judgment, come down to earth, re-enter
their bodies for arraignment at the bar of eternal judgment. What is this
judgment, “according to what they have done,” for? It seems natural to suppose
that admission into heaven in the first instance is proof of the fitness and
acceptance of those admitted. Why, then, the trial afterwards? Judgment in such
a case seems a mockery. The same remark applies to those who are supposed to have
gone to the place of woe.
What
is the escape from this distracting inconsistency? It is to be found in the
recognition of the unfounded character of the whole heaven-going idea of
popular religion. This going to
Pg
74
heaven
is a purely gratuitous speculation. There is not a single promise throughout
the whole of the Scriptures to warrant a man in hoping for it. There are,
doubtless, phrases which, to a mind previously indoctrined with the idea, seem
to afford countenance to it, such, for instance, as that used by Peter (1st
Epistle, chap. i, v. 4): “An inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that
fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you “: of which also we have an
illustration in the words of Christ (Matt. v, 12):
“For
great is your reward in heaven “; and more particularly in his exhortation to
“Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth
corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.”
But
the countenance which these phrases seemingly afford to the popular idea,
disappears entirely when we realise they express an aspect of the Christian
hope, viz.: its present aspect. God S salvation is not now on earth; indeed, it
is not yet an accomplished fact anywhere, except in the person of Christ. It
merely exists in the divine mind as a purpose, and, in detail, that purpose is
specially related to those whom Jehovah fore-knowingly contemplates as the “
saved,” who are said to be “written in the book,” that is, inscribed in the
book of His remembrance (Malachi iii, 16). Therefore the only localisation of
reward, at present, is in heaven, to which the eye instinctively turns as the
source of its promised manifestation. This is especially the case when it is
taken into account that Jesus, the pledge of that reward, yea, the very germ
thereof, is in heaven. In his being there, who is our life, the undefiled
inheritance at present iS there; for it exists in him in purpose, in guarantee,
and in germ. Jt has no other kind of existence anywhere else at present; but it
is only in heaven in “ reserve “; “reserved in heaven,” in Peter’s phrase. When
a thing is “reserved,” it implies that when it is wanted, it will be brought
forth. And thus it is that Peter speaks in the very same chapter. He says the
salvation that is reserved in heaven is a “salvation that is to be brought unto
you at the revelation of Jesus Christ “ (I Peter i, 13). We shall see in future
lectures that it is not bestowed upon any until its manifestation at “the
appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ,” of whom it is said that “His reward is
WITH HIM” (Rev. xxii, 12; Isaiah xl, 10).
The
phrases in question indicate in a general way that “Salvation conieth from the
Lord “; and, the Lord being in heaven, it cometh from heaven; and, being yet
unmanifested, can properly be said to be at present in heaven. But, on the
specific
Pg
75
question
of whether men go to heaven or not, the evidence is conclusive, as showing that
no son of Adam’s race is offered entrance to the holy and inaccessible
precincts of the residence of the Deity. “God dwelleth in light which no man
can approach unto” (I Tim. vi, 16). The emphatic declaration of Christ is, “No
man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son
of Man which is in heaven” (John iii, 13).
Agreeably
to this declaration, we have no record in the Scriptures of anyone having
entered heaven. Elijah was removed from the earth; so was Enoch; but Christ’s
statement forbids us to suppose that they were conducted to the “heaven of
heavens” which “is the Lord’s.” The statement that they went “into heaven” does
not necessarily imply that they went to the abode of the Most High. “Heaven” is
used in a general sense as designating the firmament over our heads, which we
know is a wide expanse, while “the heaven of heavens” points to the region
inhabited by Deity. If it be asked, Where are they? The answer is, No one
knows; because there is no testimony on the subject beyond that of Christ’s,
which proves that they did not go to the heaven of which he was speaking.
And
especially is it true that there is no record in the Scriptures of any dead man
having gone to heaven. The record is the other way-that the dead are in their
graves, knowing nothing, feeling nothing, being nothing, awaiting that call
from oblivion which is promised by resurrection. Of David it is specifically
declared that he has not attained to the sky translation which in funeral
sermons is affirmed of every righteous soul. And David, remember, was “a man
after God’s own heart,” and certain, therefore, of admission into heaven at
death, if anybody were. Peter says : -“Men and brethren, let me freely speak
unto you of the patriarch
David,
that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day . .
. FOR DAVID IS NOT ASCENDED INTO THE HEAVENS” (Acts ii, 29, 34).
This
is emphatic enough. If you say Peter is speaking of David’s body, then it
proves that Peter recognised David’s body as David, and the departed life as
the property of God taken back again. Again, let Paul speak of the “great cloud
of witnesses,” who have passed away-the faithful saints of old times, who are
supposed to be before the throne of God, “inheriting the promises,” and he
tells us: -
pg
76
“These all died in faith, NOT HAVING RECEIVED
THE PROMISES, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them and
embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the
earth” (Heb. xi, 13).
And
in the same chapter, verses 39-40, he repeats : -“These all having obtained a
good report through faith, received not the promise. God having provided some
better thing for us, that they without us SHOULD NOT BE MADE PERFECT.”
Let
us now consult those cases in which consolation is administered in the
Scriptures in reference to the dead. You know the doctrines which are enforced
with such peculiar urgency by the religious teachers of the present day, when
they have to discourse of the departed, such as in the funeral sermons, by way
of “improving the occasion.” You will find a great contrast to these in Scriptural
cases of consolation concerning the dead. When Martha told Jesus that Lazarus
was dead, he did not tell her he was better where he was. He said (John xi,
23), “Thy brother shall rise again.”
When
death had removed some of the Thessalonian believers, the survivors, who had
evidently calculated upon their living until the coming of the Lord, were
filled with sorrow. In this condition, Paul writes to comfort them. Suppose a
minister of the present day had had the duty to perform, what would have been his
language? “You must rejoice, my friends, for those who are dead, for they are
gone to glory. They are delivered from the trials and vexatjons of this life,
and are promoted to a felicity they could never experience in this vale of
tears. It is selfish of you to grieve; you ought rather to be glad that they
have reached the haven of eternal rest.”
But
what says Paul? Does he tell them their friends are happy in heaven? This was
the time to say so if it were true, but no; his words are:- “I would not have
you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them who
are
asleep, that ye sorrow not even as others who have no hope. For •tf we believe
that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that sleep in Jesus wilt God
bring with him. (When?) For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that
we who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent (or
precede) them who are asleep: For the
Lord himself shall descend from
heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and the trump of God and
the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain shalt
be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and
so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these
words” (I Thess. iv, 13-18).
Pg
77
The
second coming of Christ and the resurrection are the events to which Paul
directs their minds for consolation. If it be true that the righteous go to
their reward immediately after death, Paul would certainly have suggested such
a consolation, instead of referring to the remote, and (in the orthodox view)
comparatively unattractive event of the resurrection. The fact that he does not
do so, is circumstantial proof that it is not true.
The
earth we inhabit is the destined arena in which Jehovah’s great salvation will
be manifested. Here, subsequently to the resurrection, will the reward be
conferred and enjoyed. There is no point more clearly established than this by
the specific language of Scripture testimony. Old and New Testaments agree.
Solomon declares, “Behold the righteous shall be recompensed IN THE EARTH “
(Prov. xi, 31).
Christ
says : -“Blessed are the meek; for they shall INHERIT THE EARTH” (Matt. v, 5).
In
Psalm xxxvii, 9-11, the Spirit speaking through David, says : -“Evildoers shall
be cut off; but those that wait upon the Lord, they
shall
INHERIT THE EARTH. For yet a little while and the wicked shall not be; yea thou
shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall
inherit the earth, and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.”
Some
corroboration is to be drawn from the following promise to Christ, of which his
people are fellowheirs with him : -“I will give thee the heathen for thine
inheritance, and the UTTERMOST PARTS OF THE EARTH for thy possession” (Psa. ii,
8).
In
celebrating the approaching possession of this great inheritance, the redeemed
are represented as singing : -“Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by
thy blood out of
every
kindred, and tongue, and people and nation, and hast made us unto our God kings
and priests, and we shall reign ON THE EARTH” (Rev. v, 9, 10).
And
the end of the present dispensation is announced in these words : -“The
kingdoms of THIS WORLD are become the kingdoms of our Lord
and
of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever” (Rev. xi, 15).
Finally,
the angel of the Most High God, in announcing to Daniel, the prophet, the same
consummation of things, says : -
Pg
78
“The kingdom and dominion, and the greatness
of the kingdom UNDER the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the
saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all
dominons shall serve and obey him” (Dan. vii, 27).
Without
going into the particular question involved in these passages of Scripture,
which will be considered afterwards, it iS sufficient to remark that they
unmistakably prove that it is on the earth that we are to look for the
development of that divine programme of events, so clearly indicated in the
Scriptures of truth, which is to result in “glory to God in the highest, and ON
EARTH peace, goodwill toward men.”
DESTINY
OF THE WICKED
If
we seek for information on this question at the religious systems, we shall be
told of an unfathomable abyss of fire, filled with malignant spirits of horrid
shape, in which are reserved the most exquisite torments for those who have
been displeasing to God in their mortal state. In the foreground of the lurid
picture, we shall see cursing fiends mocking the damned; men and women wringing
their hands in eternal despair; and stretching away ort all sides, and down to
the deepest depth, a weltering ocean of blackness, fire, and horrible
confusion. We shall be told that God, in His eternal counsels of wisdom and
mercy, has decreed this awful triumph of Devilry!
Do
we believe it? There are certain elementary truths, that, by an almost
intuitive logic, exclude the possibility of its being true. If God is the
merciful Being of order, and justice, and harmony, exhibited in the Scriptures,
how is it possible that, with all His foreknowledge and omnipotence, He can
permit nine-tenths of the human race to come into existence with no other
destiny than to be tortured? The Calvanistic theory has, of course, its answer,
but its answer is mere words; it does not touch, or alter, or even soften the
difficulty; the difficulty-the dreadful difficulty-remains to agonise the
believing mind that really grasps what the popular idea of hell-torments means.
The effect on the majority of reflecting minds is disastrous, in a too easy
revolt against the Scriptures.
Rather
than believe such a doctrine, most men reject the Bible altogether, and even
dispense with God from their creed, and take refuge in the calm, if cheerless,
doctrines of Rationalism.
Pg
79
This
is what many are driven to, in unfortunate ignorance of the fact that the Bible
is not responsible for the doctrine. It is a pagan fiction. It ought to be
known, for the comfort of all who have been perplexed with the awful dogma, and
who have yet hesitated to renounce it, in fear of being also compelled to cast
aside the Word of God, that it is as thoroughly unscriptural as it is
distressingly dreadful.
The
whole teaching of the Bible in regard to the destiny of the wicked is summed up
in four words from the 37th Psalm, verse 20,” The wicked shall PERISH.” Paul
gives the explanation of this in Rom. vi, 23: “The wages of sin is DEATH.”
Death, the extinction of being, is the pre-determined issue of a sinful course.
“He that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption” (Gal. vi, 8).
That reaping corruption is equivalent to death, is evident from Rom. viii, 13:
“If ye live after the flesh ye shall Di1~.” Corruption results in death, so
that the one is equal to the other.
The
righteous die, as well as the wicked; therefore, it is argued, there must be
some other than physical death. The answer is that the death that all men die
is not a judicial death-not the final death to be dealt to those who are
responsible to judgment. Ordinary death but closes a man’s mortal career. There
is a SECOND death-final and destructive. The unjust are to be brought forth, at
Christ’s appearing, for judicial arraignment, and their sentence is, that,
after the infliction of such punishment as may be merited, they shall, a second
time, by violent and divinely-wielded agency, be destroyed in death. To this
Jesus refers, when he says, “He that loses his life for my sake and the
gospel’s, the same shall save it; but he that (in the present life) saveth his
life, shall (at the resurrection) LOSE it”(in the second death). All the
phraseology of Scripture is in agreement on this subject.
We
read in Malachi iv, 1:- “Behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and
all the proud,
yea,
and all that do wickedly shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn
them up, saith the Lord of HOSTS, THAT IT SHALL LEAVE THEM NEITHER ROOT NOR
BRANCH.”
Again,
in II Thess. i, 9 : -“They shall be punished with EVERLASTING Destruction from
the
presence
of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.”
The
Spirit of God by Solomon in the Proverbs uses the following language:-
Pg
80
“As
the whirlwind passeth SO IS THE WICKED NO MORE; but the righteous is an
everlasting foundation” (Prov. x, 25).
And
again, Prov. ii, 22:- “The wicked shall be cut off from the earth, and the
transgressors shall be rooted out of it.”
Zophar
gives the following emphatic testimony : -“Knowest thou not this of old-since
man was placed upon earth- that the triumphing of the wicked is short, and the
joy of the hypocrite but for a moment? Though his excellency mount up to the
heavens, and his head reach unto the clouds, yet HE SHALL PERISH FOR EVER, LIKE
HIS OWN DUNG. They that have seen him shall say, Where is he? He shall fly away
as a dream, and shall not be found, yea, he shall be chased away as a vision of
the night” (Job, xx, 4-8).
David
employs the following graphic figure to the same purport : -“The wicked shall
perish. The enemies of the Lord shall be as the
fat
of lambs. They shall consume: into smoke shall they consume away” (Psa. xxxvii,
20).
And
we read in Ps. xlix, 6-20: -“They that trust in their wealth and boast
themselves in the multitude
of
their riches. . . their inward thought is that their houses shall continue for
ever, and their dwelling places to all generations. They call their lands after
their own names. Nevertheless man being in honour, abideth not:
he
is like the beasts that perish. This their way is their folly: yet their
posterity approve their sayings. Like sheep they are laid in the grave; DEATH
SHALL FEED ON THEM; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the
morning . . . He shall go to the generation of his fathers, THEY SHALL NEVER
SEE LIGHT. Man that is in honour, and understandeth not, is like the beasts
that perish.”
Of
their final state we read in Isaiah xxvi, 14:- “They are dead, they shall not
live; they are deceased, they shall not
rise;
therefore, hast thou visited and DESTROYED them, and made all their ‘memory to
perish.”
The
teaching of these testimonies is self- elucidatory; it is expressed with a
clearness of language that leaves no room for comment. It is the doctrine
expressed by Solomon when he says:
“the
name of the wicked shall rot” (Prov. x, 7). The wicked, who are an offence to
God, and an affliction to themselves, and of no use to any one, will ultimately
be consigned to oblivion, in which their very name will be forgotten. They do
not escape punishment; but of this, and of those passages which seem to favour
the popular doctrine, we shall treat in the next lecture.
It
may seem to the reader that the word “hell” as employed
Pg
81
in
the Bible, presents an obstacle to the views advanced in this lecture. If the
Greek word so translated carried with it the idea represented to the popular
mind in its short, pithy Saxon form, the popular view would be capable of
demonstration, for the word is frequent enough in the Bible, and is used in
connection with the destiny of the wicked. But the original word does not carry
with it the idea popularly associated with the word “hell.” The original word
has no affinity with its modern use. One does not require to be a scholar to
see this. A due familiarity with the English Bible will carry conviction on the
point, though conviction is undoubtedly strengthened by a knowledge of the original
Greek and Hebrew. What, for instance, has the orthodox believer to say to the
following: -“And they (Meshech, Tubal, and all her multitude), shall not lie
with
the
mighty that are fallen of the uncircumcised, which are GONE DOWN TO HELL WITH
THEIR WEAPONS OF WAR; and they have laid their swords under their heads” (Ezek.
xxxii, 27).
It
is but necessary to ask if men’s immortal souls take swords and guns with them
when they “go to hell “? This may sound irreverent, but it shows the bearing of
the passage. The hell of the Bible is a place to which military accoutrements
may accompany the wearer. The nature and locality of this hell may be gathered
from a statement only five verses before the passage quoted. “Asshur is there
and all her company; his graves are about him, all of them slain, fallen by the
sword, whose graves are set in the sides of the pit, and her company is round
about HER GRAVE.” The references point to the Eastern mode of sepulture, in
which a pit or cave was used for burial-the bodies of the dead being deposited
in niches cut in the wall. As a mark of military honour, soldiers were buried
with their weapons, their swords being laid under their heads. They went down
to
“HELL with their weapons of war.”
It
will be seen that hell is synonymous with the grave. This is proved, so far at
least as the Old Testament is concerned.
The,
original word is sheol, which, in the abstract, means nothing more than a
concealed or covered place. It is, therefore, an appropriate designation for
the grave, in which a man is for ever concealed from view. Every use of the
word hell in the Old Testament, will fall under this general explanation. As
regards the New Testament, there is the same simplicity and absence of
difficulty. The original word is, of course, different, being Greek instead of
Hebrew; it is in nearly all cases, hades. That hades is equal to the Hebrew
word sheol is shown by
Pg
82
its
employment as an equivalent for it in the Septuagint (Greek) translation of the
Hebrew Scriptures; and also in its use by the writers of the New Testament when
they quote verses from the Old Testament where sheol in the Hebrew. For
instance, in David’s prophecy of the resurrection of Christ, cited by Peter on
the day of Pentecost ( “Thou wilt not
leave my soul in hell” a.v.), the word in Hebrew is sheol, and in Greek hades.
In this instance, hell simply and literally means the grave, in view of which,
we see the point of Peter’s argument. Understood as the orthodox hell, there is
no point in it at all; for the resurrection of the body has no point of
connection with the escape of a so-called immortal soul from the abyss of
popular superstition. A similar consideration arises upon I Cor. xv, 55; “0
grave (hades), where is thy victory?” This is the exclamation of the righteous
in reference to resurrection, as anyone may see on consulting the context. Our
translators, perceiving this, instead of rendering hades by “hell,” have given
us the more suitable word “grave “; but if hades may be translated “grave”
here, it may, of course, be translated so anywhere else.
There
is another word translated hell, which does not mean the grave, but which at
the same time affords as little countenance to, orthodox belief as hades. That
word is Gehenna. It occurs in the following passages: Matt. v, 22, 29, 30; x,
28; xviii, 9; Xxiii, 15, 33; Mark ix, 43, 45, 47; Luke xii, 5; Jas. iii, 6. The
word ought not to be translated at all. It is a proper name, and like all other
proper names, should only have been transliterated. It is a Greek compound
signifying the valley of the Son of Hinnom. Calmet in his Bible Dictionary,
defining it, has the following : -“GEHENNA or Gehennom, or Valley of Hennom, or
Valley of the Son of Hennom (see Josh. xv, 8; II Kings xxiii, 10), a valley
adjacent to Jerusalem, through which the southern limits of the tribe of
Benjamin passed.”
The
valley was used in ancient times for the worship of Moloch, in which Israel,
lamentably misguided, offered their children to the heathen god of that name.
Josiah, in his zeal against idolatry, gave the valley over to pollution, and
appointed it as a repository of the filth of the city. It became the receptacle
of rubbish in general, and received the carcases of men and beasts. To consume
the rubbish and prevent pestilence, fires were kept perpetually burning in it.
In the days of Jesus it was the highest mark of ignominy that the council of
the Jews
Pg
83
could
inflict, to order a man to be buried in Gehenna. In one of Jeremiah’s
prophecies of Jewish restoration, the obliteration of this valley of dishonour
is predicted in the following words:
“And
the whole valley of the DEAD BODIES, and of the ASHES, and all the fields unto
the brook of Kidron, unto the corner of the horse gate toward the east, shall
be holy unto the Lord” (Jer. xxxi, 40).
This
is the Gehenna to which the rejected are to be given over at the judgment. That
it should be translated “hell,” and thus made to favour popular delusion, is
simply due to the opinion of the translators that ancient Gehenna was a type of
the hell of their creed. There is no true ground for this assumption. It is the
assumption upon which Calmet’s remarks are based, notwithstanding his knowledge
of the subject. He was of the orthodox school, and makes the common orthodox
mistake of begging the question to begin with. Let the orthodox hell be proved
first before Gehenna is used in the argument. If it is a type of anything, it
must be interpreted as a type rather of the judgment revealed, than of one
imagined. And the orthodox “hell” is mere imagination, based on Pagan
speculations on futurity.
The
judgment revealed is indeed related to the locality of Gehenna, and is one that
will take the same form as regards circumstance and result. “They (who come to
worship at Jerusalem in the future age, Is. lxvi, 20-23) shall go forth and
look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me; for their
worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an
abhorring unto all flesh” (v. 24). The reader will observe a similarity between
these words and the words of Christ in Mark ix, 44-48, “Where their worm dieth
not and the fire is not quenched.”
These
words are frequently quoted in support of eternal torments, but they really
disprove them. In the first place, the undying worm and the unquenchable fire
must be admitted to be symbolical expressions. The worm is an agent of
corruption, ending in death. Fire is a means to the same end, but by a more
summary process. When, therefore, they are said to be unarrestable in their action,
it must be taken to indicate that destruction will be accomplished without
remedy. The expression cannot mean immortal worms or absolutely
inextinguishable fire.
A
limited sense to an apparently absolute expression is frequently exemplified
throughout the Scriptures. In Jer. vii, 20,
Pg
84
Jehovah
says, His anger should be poured out upon Jerusalem. and should “burn and
should not be quenched.” He says also in Jer. xvii, 27, “I will kindle a fire
in the gates of Jerusalem, and it shall devour the palaces thereof, and it
shall not be quenched.” This does not mean that the fire with reference to
itself should never go out, but that in relation to the object of its
operation, it should not be quenched till the operation was accomplished A fire
was kindled in Jerusalem, and only went out when Jerusalem was burned to the
ground. So also God’s anger burned against Israel, until it burnt them out of
the land, driving them out of His sight; but Isaiah speaks of a time when God’s
anger will cease in the destruction of the enemy (chap. x, 25).
The same principle is illustrated in
the 21st chapter of Ezekiel, verses 3, 4, 5, where Jehovah states that his
sword will go forth out of its sheath against all flesh, and shall no more
return. It is not necessary to say that in the consummation of God’s purpose,
His loving kindness will triumph over ,all exhibitions of anger, which have for
their object the extirpation of evil. In the absolute sense, therefore, His
sword of vengeance will return to its sheath, but not in the sense of failing
to accomplish its purpose. So that the worm that preys upon the wicked will
disappear when the last enemy, death, is destroyed, and the fire that consumes
their corrupt remains will die with the fuel it feeds on; but in relation to the
wicked themselves, the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. The
expressions were borrowed from Gehenna, where the flame was fed, and the worm
sustained, by the putrid accumulations of the valley.
The statement in Matt. xxv, 46 is
more apparently in favour of the popular doctrine, but not more really so when
examined. ‘These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous
into life eternal.” Even taken as it stands in the English version, this does
not define the nature of the punishment which is to fall on the wicked, but
only affirms its perpetuity. ,The nature of it is elsewhere described as death
and destruction. Why should this be called “aionion” (translated
“everlasting”)? Aionjon is the adjective form of alon,age, and expresses the
idea of belonging to the age. Understood in this way, the statement only proves
that at the resurrection, the wicked will be punished with the punishment
characteristically pertaining to the age of Christ’s advent, which Paul
declares to be “everlasting DESTRUCTION from the presence of the Lord and from
the glory of His power” (II Thess. i, 9). The righteous
Pg
85
receive
the life related to the same dispensation-a life which Paul declares to be
immortality (I Cor. xv, 53).
It
is usual to quote, in support of the eternal torments, a statement from the
Apocalypse, “They shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever” (Rev.
xiv, 11; XX, 10). On the face of it, this form of speech does lend countenance
to the popular idea, but we must not be satisfied with looking on the face of
it in this instance, because the statement forms part of a symbolical vision,
which has to be construed mystically in harmony with the principle of
interpretation supplied in the vision. If Apocalyptic torment “for ever and ever”
is literal, then the beast, the woman with the golden cup, the lamb with the
seven horns and seven eyes, are literal also. Is the orthodox believer prepared
for this? Surely, Christ is not in the shape or a seven-horned lamb, or a man
with a sword in his mouth; surely, the false Church is not a literal
prostitute, or the Church’s persecutor a literal wild boar of the woods. If
these are symbolical, the things affirmed of them are symbolical also, and
torment (or judicial infliction, for this is the idea of basanizo, the Greek
word), “for ever and ever” is the symbol of the complete and restless, and
final triumph of God’s destroying judgment over the things represented.
Failing
Scriptural evidence, the orthodox believer takes refuge among “the ancient Egyptians,
the Persians, Phoenicians, Scythians, Druids, Assyrians, R`omans, Greeks,
etc.,” and among “the wisest and most celebrated philosophers on record.” All
these people-the superstitious and dark-minded heathen of every land, the
founders of the wisdom of this world, which is foolishness with God-all these
believed in the immortality of the soul, and, therefore, the immortality of the
soul is true!
Logic
extraordinary! One would think that the opinion of the ignorant and
superstitious in favour of the immortality of the soul would be rather against,
than for, the likelihood of its being true. The Bible does not rate our
ancestors very highly as regards their views and ways in religious things. Paul
speaks of the period prior to the preaching of the Gospel (and referring to
Gentile nations), as “the times of this IGNORANCE.” (Acts xvii, 30). Of the
wisdom which men had educed for themselves through the reasonings of “the
wisest and most celebrated philosophers,” he says, “Hath not God made FOOLISH
the wisdom of this world?” “The wisdom of this world is FOOLISHNESS with God “
(I Cor. i, 20: iii, 19). Wise men will prefer being on Paul’s side.
Pg
86
The
orthodox believer glories in the wisdom of ancient philosophy and paganism,
which Paul pronounces foolishness. What can we do but stand with Paul? Paul
says that immortality was brought to light by Christ in the Gospel (II Tim. i,
10). If 5O~ how can we believe in the version of it put forward by the “wisest
and most celebrated philosophers,” centuries before Christ appeared, and whose
wisdom Paul, speaking by the Spirit, pronounces “foolishness “? Either Christ
brought the truth of the matter to light, or he did not. If he did, the
doctrines before his time were darkness; if the doctrines before his time (rejoiced
in by the orthodox believer) were not darkness, but light, then Christ did not
bring the truth to light in the Gospel, for in that case it was brought to
light before the gospel was preached,
But
many who were once orthodox are losing their orthodoxy, and are beginning to
see that the teaching of the Bible is one thing and popular religion another.
The following extract, from a work published in America “The Theology of the
Bible, (by Judge Halsted), will illustrate this : -“The Rev. Dr. Theodore Clapp,
in his autobiography, says
he
had preached at New Orleans, a zealous sermon for endless punishment; that
after the sermon, Judge W., who, says he, was an eminent scholar, and had
studied for the ministry, but relinquished his purpose, because he could not
find the doctrine of endless punishment and kindred dogmas, asked him to make
out a list of texts in the Hebrew or Greek on which he relied for the doctrine.
The doctor then gives a detailed account of his studies in search of texts to
give to the judge; that he began with the Old Testament in the Hebrew; and
prosecuted his study during that and the succeeding year; and yet he was unable
to find therein so much as an allusion to any suffering after death; that, in
the dictionary of the Hebrew language, he could not discern a word signifying
hell, or a place of punishment in a future state; that he could not find a
single text, in any form or phraseology, which holds out threats of retribution
beyond the grave; that to his utter astonishment it turned out that orthodox
critics of the greatest celebrity were perfectly familiar with these facts;
that he was compelled to confess to the judge that he could not produce any
Hebrew text; but that still he was sanguine that the New Testament would
furnish what he had sought for without success in Moses and the prophets; that
he prosecuted his study of the Greek of the New Testament eight years; that the
result was that he could not name a portion of it,
pg
87
from
the first verse in Matthew to the last of Revelation, which, fairly
interpreted, affirms that a portion of mankind will be eternally miserable. The
doctor concludes by saying it is an important, most instructive fact, that he
was brought into his present state of mind (the repudiation of the dogma) by
the Bible only-a state of mind running counter to all the prejudices of his
early life, of parental precept, of school, theological seminary, and
professional caste.”
Yes,
the Bible and the seminaries are at variance on this important subject. The
seminaries light up the future of the wicked with a lurid horror, which the
worthy of mankind even now feel to be a great drawback from the satisfaction of
the prospects ot the righteous. How can there be perfect joy and gladness with
the knowledge that fierce Despair reigns among tormented millions in another
place? The Bible gives us a glorious future, unmarred by such a blot. It
exhibits a future free from evil-a future of glory and everlasting joy to the
righteous, and of oblivion to all the unworthy of mankind-a future in which the
wisdom of God combines the glory of His name with the highest happiness of the
whole surviving human race.
Pg
88
LECTURE 4
IMMORTALITY A
CONDITIONAL GIFT TO BE BESTOWED AT THE RESURRECTION
IF
HUMAN nature be essentially mortal, and if death in relation to it be the
destruction of all its manifested powers, what is the true relation of a future
life to our perishing race? Many jump to the conclusion that the position taken
in the two previous lectures involves a denial of future retribution, and even
the rejection of the existence of God. That this is a great mistake will
presently be made apparent. The view of man’s mortality certainly leads to a
modification of popular views, but not with the effect stated. And the
modification it leads to is borne out by the testimony of the Bible with an
explicitness that removes all difficulty from the path of a devout mind,
There
is a natural aspiration for immortality in the human breast. The lowest forms
of human nature, such as idiots, and barbarous races, may be destitute of it,
but where human nature has developed to anything like its natural standard,
there is a craving after the perfect and unending. We seem mentally constituted
for them. Death comes as an unnatural event in our experience. We dislike it;
we dread it; we long for immortality; we aspire to live for ever,
It
is customary to argue from our desire for immortality that we are actually
immortal. This is the principal argument used by Plato, who may be said to be
the father of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. The argument is
universally employed by believers in the immortality of the soul to the present
day. It is astonishing that its logic should pass unquestioned. It would
readily appear absurd in the case of any other instinct or desire. A hungry
man, for example, desires food; is this a proof he has had his dinner? The
argument turns the other way. If we desire a thing, our desire is evidence that
we are yet
Pg
89
without
the object of desire; for, as Paul says, “What a man seeth, why doth he yet
hope for”? If we experience a longing for immortality, it is a proof we are
destitute of it.
The
existence of such a desire, however, proves a great deal in its place. It
proves immortality as a possibility in the economy of the universe. No instinct
or desire exists in nature without a corresponding object on which it acts. Are
we hungry? There is food to be eaten, Are we curious? There are things to be
seen and known. Have we benevolence? There is benefit to be conferred, need to
be supplied, and suffering to be alleviated. Have we conscience? There is right
and wrong. Have we marvellous-ness? There is incomprehensibility in heaven
above and earth beneath. Have we veneration? There is God to adore. And so on,
with every feeling throughout sentient nature. On this principle, the
spontaneous craving for immortality and perfection proves the existence of the
conditions desired, and the possibility of their attainment; and though we may
be ignorant as Hottentots of the “where,” “when,” “how,” etc., relating to
them, there remains the strong natural presumption that the condition thus
desired cannot be altogether a dream, though at present beyond our reach,
Still,
we must use proper discrimination in the application of the argument. It does
not prove the necessary attainment of immortality by any. The existence of a
desire is no guarantee of its gratification, A man of great alimentive capacity
may be in circumstance where food cannot be obtained. He may be shut up in a
Hartley colliery, with death as the consequence. His alimentiveness points to
food as its proper object, but does not insure possession of it; that is a
question of proper circumstance. The logical deduction from this longing for
immortality is, that as it is inconceivable that an instinct could exist which
it was impossible to gratify, immortality and perfection must be attainable
conditions; but that the gratification of a desire being dependent upon proper
relative circumstances, it all depends upon the nature of the circumstances
governing the possession of immortality as to whether immortality will be
attained or not, This cuts between the orthodox believer and the infidel,
refuting the immortal soulism of the one, and demolishing the irrational belief
of the other.
What
is immortality? We can best comprehend a thing by contrast. We know something
of mortality, from which the idea of im (not) mortality comes. The word
“mortality” comes from the Latin root “men’s,” death, and signifies
deathfulness. To say
Pg
90
of
anything that it is mortal, is to affirm that it is limited in its power to
continue in life, owing to inherent tendency to dissolution. We say of man that
he is mortal; and he is so. We behold him daily perishing. He comes into
existence as an organised being, inheriting and exhibiting all the qualities of
the stock from which he is derived. We see him go out of existence as regularly
as we see him come into it. The death list is the universal corollary of the
birth list, No man of woman born is exempt from the law of death; however
superior to his fellows he may be, however lofty the genius, however far-seeing
the intellect, however genial the friendship, however lovely the general
character, the hand of death stays not; the end must come; the law of sin and
death working in his members takes his life at last, and he sinks to the
oblivion from which he emerged. This is the mortality of actual experience,
whatever theory people may entertain on the subject.
Popular
theory says that the mortality of common experience is related to condition,
not to being; that it changes a man’s place
of
existence, but does not touch the fact of his existence. Let us consider this a
moment. It is a manifest truth that life in the abstract is indestructible; but
are we to say that, therefore, a living being is indestructible? If so, it
would prove the immortality of beasts, for they certainly live, as really as
man, though, their nature is inferior, Life is not a thinking individual power
in its abstract condition, unless we take the sum total of all life as it
exists in God, “the fountain of life.” Subordinately to Him, the power or
capacity of individual manifestation exists in the vast ocean of life-power
that subsists in the Great Eternal Fountain: but it is latent there, and can only
be developed by what men have been pleased to call “ organisation.”
The
thing may seem a mystery; but certainly it is not more a mystery than the
metaphysical view which attempts to explain a mystery by a greater mystery
still. Mystery or no mystery, it is the teaching of experience and the
declaration of the word
God.
“They have all one breath” (or spirit-the same word) is Solomon’s statement
concerning men and animals (Eccies. iii. 19). Moses is equally decisive.
Speaking of the flood, he says (Gen. vii, 23), “And every living substance was
destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both MAN, and cattle, and the
creeping things.” Again (Gen. vii, 21, 22), “And all flesh died that moved upon
the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping
thing. . . and every man; ALL in whose nostrils was the breath of life. . .
died.” Here man is categorised
Pg
91
with
animals, as belonging to the same class of existence-being a creature of
“living substance” inhaling the universal “breath of life” shared by ALL. “The
spfrit of God is in my nostrils,” says Job (chap. xxvii, 3). “Cease ye from man
whose breath is in his nostrils,” is the command of inspiration in Isaiah ii,
22. God “gathering unto Himself HIS spirit and HIS breath,” is Zophar’s
description of death in Job xxxiv, 14. Mark, the “spirit” is spoken of as the
Almighty’s; and man-the substance creature
-as
the possessor of spirit; but philosophy has inverted this order of ideas. It
has made the spirit into the possessor, and the body the thing possessed; and
has opened the door for the concomitant doctrines of disembodied sky-kingdom
rewards, hell punishments, etc., etc.
The
theory falls to the ground on the reception of the simple doctrine of the
Scriptures that “God formed MAN of the dust” (Gen. ii, 7); that “the first man
is of the earth, earthy,” and that, “As is the earthy, such are they also that
are earthy” (I Cor. xv, 47, 48); that the life that is in him is God’s and
returns to God when the man dies (Eccles. xii, 7). The opposite doctrine, which
is but the offspring of human speculation, and not the teaching of the
Scriptures-for whoever read of “immortal souls” in the Bible?-is a delusion
which binds the understanding of all who labour under it, giving rise to many
gratuitous difficulties as to God’s moral government of the world, and
preventing a proper apprehension of the doctrines of Christianity, which have
for their very foundation the truth that man is an evanescent form of conscious
life, to whom the day of death is appointed because of sin,
How
comes it to pass that man, having strong instinctive desires for immortality
and perfection, shall be found in a state so much the reverse, in all respects?
There is an explanation. This explanation “nature” refuses to furnish. The
condition of man as a natural accident is an impenetrable mystery. Nature
establishes the strictest correspondence between instinct and condition in the
case of every other species throughout her wide domain, but she refuses this
happiness-producing adaptation in the case of her noblest production-man,
leaving him to the wretchedness of disappointed noble aspiration. It is
impossible to account for this fact on natural principles. Unaided by
revelation, human condition and destiny must ever remain an insoluble enigma.
Turning
to the Bible, the mystery is explained. We are taken away back to the origin of
our species. We are shown Adam and
Pg
92
Eve,
our first parents, in primeval innocence, the happy occupants of a paradise of
heavenly planting. We need not be frightened away from the contemplation of
this picture by Darwirnsm. The evolution of species is not only an
undemonstrated, but an undemonstrable scientific guess. Nay, more; it is an
untenable and self-stultifying hypothesis. Though many scientific men endorse
it, many other scientific men reject it altogether, on scientific grounds.
Professor Owen, for example-a name great in science-is in the front rank of the
rejectors of Darwinism
There
is a short way of disposing of antagonistic speculation. If Christ is true, so
is the Mosaic presentation of Adam in the garden of Eden; for Christ endorsed
the Mosaic writings; and the ,New Testament, in more places than one, ties Adam
and Christ together as the two poles in the divine scheme (I Cor. xv, 20-21;
Rom, v, 12-20), It is no childish relapse, therefore (though it is so esteemed
in many quarters), that goes back for information on a problem of human
condition to the episode of Eden. Let us go thither a moment; we behold Adam
and Eve pursuing the pleasant occupation of dressers of that magnificent garden
of a thousand hues, spreading itself below the warming rays of an Asiatic sun.
We contemplate them spending their days in the sweetness of innocence, and
drinking in, with virgin faculty, the pure delights of nature, When we think
of, what follows, we are taught the lesson that man exists not for him
self
alone-that mere sensuous enjoyment is not the supreme object of existence-_that
there are higher actions of the mind, more serious responsibilities, more
exalted obligations, which exercise alone can wake us up to-that God is the
highest, and demands the absolute submission of our wills and affections to Him
as the essential condition of our happiness and His pleasure.
Adam
is prohibited from touching a certain tree in the midst of the garden, not
because the tree was intrinsically bad, or that there was any sin in the act
itself apart from interdict, but because such a prohibition was, in the
circumstances, the simplest and most convenient mode of educating him in regard
to his relations to the Almighty. “Where no law is, there is no transgression,”
says Paul. So long as the tree was free from prohibition, Adam was at liberty
to use it as freely as the others; but, the prohibition having been enjoined, it
became unlawful for him to touch it. How long Adam continued to obey, we are
not informed; but we know that in the course of time he infringed the divine
enactment
pg 93
“When the woman saw that the tree was good for
food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make
one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her
husband with her, and he did ear” (Gen. iii, 6).
The
consequence of this act was most calamitous : -“Because thou hast hearkened
unto the voice of thy wife, and hast
eaten
of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed
is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy
life; thorns also and thistles shall it bnng forth to thee, and thou shalt eat
the herb of the field, In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou
return unto the ground, for out of it Wast thou taken, for dust thou art, and
unto dust shalt thou return” (Gen. iii~
17-19),
Here
is an explanation of the present exceptional condition of the human race. Adam,
originally created with ,a view to possible immortality, was doomed to return
to his original nothingness, and there then commenced in him that process of
physical decay which terminates all in death. Having all sprung from Adam, we
have, of course, inherited the death-tending qualities of his nature, because
the clean cannot come out of the unclean (Job xiv, 47), On this principle,
death has passed upon all men through Adam; and so we find ourselves mortal.
It
is no uncommon thing nowadays to jest upon the subject, and to mockingly
enquire why God did not prevent this result. It is useless to attempt an answer
to those who are guilty of this folly, because they are not in a frame of mind
to appreciate it. The very question evinces a flippancy of thought and, in most
cases, a shallowness of moral nature which it is hopeless to deal with. To
answer is like throwing pearls before swine; they are certain to “turn again
and rend.” The deep-thinking and the devout will have no difficulty in
perceiving that the occurrence 9~ such a bitter chapter in human history was
incidental to the investiture of man with the God-like prerogative of free
agency; and, further, that its occurrence was foreseen by the Almighty, and
intended by Him to be the basis on which He should establish the triumph of
eternal benevolence and eternal wisdom.
It
requires no very profound discernment to see that the introduction of evil will
lead to ultimate results, so perfectly glorious
as to
show the infinite wisdom and mercy of God in permitting
After
the occurrence of the transgression, and the passing of the sentence consequent
upon it, a precaution was taken for the purpose expressed in these words, taken
from the 3rd chap. of Genesis (verses 22 and 23) : -
Pg
94
“And now, lest he (Adam) put forth his hand,
and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever: therefore the
Lord God sent him forth from the garden
of Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Let
those who believe in the natural immortality of man ponder the import of these
words. What necessity would there have been for preventing Adam from eating of
the tree of life “lest he eat and live for ever,” if he were already and
essentially immortal? Adam being mortal, the precaution was a merciful one; for
had Adam, in his fallen and unhappy state, become invested in immortality, the
earth would have become peopled with undying sinful men, who in the course of
ages would have multiplied and overcrowded the globe, and developed a scene of
indescribable confusion and misery. But this terrible calamity was averted.
Adam was excluded from access to the other tree, which, under a provisional
arrangement, had been endowed with life-giving virtue; and so continued mortal:
and his descendants, innumerable, sin-stricken, and wretched, are mercifully
swept away, generation after generation, like grass before the mower.
It
is easy here to realise how unfounded are the popular hopes of salvation based
on “being good,” as they phrase it. Adam by one offence, and that, too, an
offence inspired by the good motive, as men would say, of doing himself good,
viz., that he might become wise, and be as the Elohim-by one offence, came
under sentence of death, If one offence was fatal in the case of Adam, how can
his descendants, laden with sins, hope to escape by any amount of poor
goodness? No, no! men must be forgiven and justified before they can be saved:
and how they are to attain to this state may be learnt in the teachings of the
Apostles-apart from which there is “no hope” (Eph. ii, 12).
As
it is from the Scriptures alone that we derive any rational account of the
present mortal and afflicted condition of mankind, so are they the only source
of information concerning our future destiny. Job asks, “If a man die, shall he
live again”? This is the question which it is the special function of the Bible
to answer, From no other source can we procure an answer. If we speculate upon
it as a philosophical problem, we grope in the dark. There is no process in
nature from which we can reason on the subject. There is no real parallel to
resurrection. A seed deposited in the ground springs again, and renews its
existence by the law of its nature. The power to spring again is part of itself.
Not so with man, To use the words of Job (chap. xiv, 7-10):-
Pg
94
“There is hope of a tree, if it be cut down,
that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Though the root thereof wax old in the earth, and the stock thereof die in the
ground, yet through the scent of water it will bud and bring forth boughs like
a plant.
But
man dieth and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and
WHERE
IS HE?”
Where
is he? The answer is a simple one; he is nowhere. The dust has returned to the
earth as it was, and his life-spirit has returned to God who gave it: and
though both dust and life continue to exist as separate elements, the man who
resulted from their organic combination has ceased to be; and if he ever “live
again,” it will be the result of a fresh effort on the part of Almighty power.
That
he will live again, is one of the blessed teachings of the Word of God. “Since
by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of tile dead” (11 Cor. xv,
21). It was the peculiar mission of Christ to bring this truth to light. He
proclaimed himself the “Resurrection and the Life” (John xi, 25), adding, “He
that believeth in me, though he were dead, YET SHALL HE LIVE.” He came, not
simply to re-infuse spiritual vigour into the deadened moral natures of men,
but to open a way of deliverance from the physical law of death which is
sweeping them into the grave, and keeping them there. He came, in fact, to
raise the bodies of men-which are the men themselves-from the pit of corruption,
and to endow them, if accepted, with incorruptibility and immortality. Paul
says: -“ He will change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His
glorious body” (Philip. iii, 21). This is connected with the resurrection, for
Jesus himself says, “This is the Father’s will, which hath sent me, that of all
which He bath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at
the last day” (John vi, 39). Thus, life and immortality are said to have been
“brought to light by Jesus Christ, through the Gospel “ (TI Tim. j, 10). In
fact, this very aim of the sacrificial work of Christ, as the Saviour of the
world from sin, and as the reconciler of the world to God, from whom all men
have gone astray, was to offer men everlasting life, This will appear from the
following citations from the New Testament: -
“I
am come that they might have LIFE, and that they might have it
more
abundantly” (John x, 10).
“God
sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might LIVE
through
him” (I John iv, 9).
“Ye
will not come to me, that ye might have LIFE” (John v, 40).
I
am the resurrection and the LIFE” (John xi, 25).
Pg
96
“God so loved the world, that He gave His only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
EVERLASTING LIFE” (John iii, 16).
“Thou
(the Father) hast given him (the Son) power over all flesh, that he should give
ETERNAL LIFE to as many as Thou hast given him (John xvii, 2).
“My
sheep hear my voice . . . . I give unto them ETERNAL LIFE; and they shall never
perish; neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand” (John x, 27, 28).
This
is the record, that God hath given to us ETERNAL LIFE, and this LIFE is in His
Son” (I John v, 11).
“This
is the promise that He hath promised us, even ETERNAL LIFE” (I John ii, 25).
“The
wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is ETERNAL LIFE through Jesus Christ
our Lord” (Romans vi, 23).
“That
being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of
ETERNAL LIFE” (Titus iii, 7).
“Keep
yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ
unto ETERNAL LIFE” (Jude 21).
There
is one obvious reflection on the reading of these passages; if immortality be
the natural attribute of every son of Adam from the very moment he breathes,
there is little meaning in testimonies which, one and all, speak of immortality
as a future contingency, a thing to be sought for, a reward, a thing to be
given, a thing brought to light through the gospel, etc. There is complete
obscurity in such language if immortality be a natural and present possession.
How can a man be promised that which is already his own? The divine promise is
that God will award eternal life to those who seek for glory, honour, and
immortality. This is the strongest proof that human nature knows nothing of
immortality at present.
What
is this immortality? Modern talk on the subject would lead us to suppose it was
a mental quality, like conscience, or benevolence-a thing of spiritual
condition-an essence which is itself without reference to time or space. As
death has come to have an artificial theological significance, so immortality
itself, the promised gift of God through Jesus Christ, has been frittered away
into a metaphysical conception-beyond the comprehension, as it has been placed
beyond the practical interest of mankind. Bringing commonsense and Scripture
teaching to bear on this point, we find that im-mortality is the opposite of
mortality. The one being deathfulness in relation to being, as such, the other
is deathlessness in the same relation. Both are terms definitive of duration
rather than of quality, of life, although quality is implied in both cases. A
mortal is a creature
Pg
97
of
terminable existence; an immortal, one so constituted that his life is endless.
Yet the terminability of the one, and the endlessness of the other, are the
result of the established conditions of their natures respectively. Man is
mortal, because his organism tends to decay. If that organism could go on
working from year to year, without deterioration or liability to disorder, he
would be immortal, apart from violence, because life would be constantly
sustained and manifested. But it is not so as we know to our sorrow; his nature
contains within it the seeds of corruption, and hence it runs down to unavertable
dissolution. The finest constitution will succumb at last to the gradual
exhaustion going on from year to year. To be immortal. we require to be
incorruptible in substance; because that which is incorruptible cannot decay;
and an incorruptible living organism will live for ever. Hence the immortality
of the New Testament is a promise of resurrection to incorruptible bodily
existence.
“It
is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonour,
it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is
sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body” (I Cor. xv, 42.44).
Again
(Phil. iii, 20, 21):- “Jesus Christ ... shall change our vile body, that it may
be fashioned
like
unto his glorious body.”
To
obtain immortality, is to be transformed from our present weak, frail,
corruptible condition of body, into a perfect, incorruptible, powerful
condition, in which we shall no more be the subjects of weakness, pain, sorrow,
and death, but shall be like the Lord Jesus Christ in his present exalted state
of existence.
This
transformation occurs at the return of Jesus Christ from heaven, as is evident
from the following testimonies : -“Jesus Christ shall judge the quick and the
dead at HIS APPEARING AND HIS KINGDOM” (II Tim. iv, 1).
“But
every man in his own order (of resurrection): Christ the first-fruits;
afterward they that are Christ’s AT HIS COMING” (I Cor. xv, 23).
“Your
life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear,
THEN shall ye also appear with him in glory” (Col. iii, 3, 4).
“Behold,
I show you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall
sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For
this corruptible must put on in-corruption, and this mortal must put on
immortality. So WHEN this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this
mortal shall have put on immortality, THEN SHALL BE EROUGHT TO PASS THE SAYING
THAT IS
WRITTEN,
Death is swallowed up in victory” (I Cor. xv, 5 1-54).
Pg 98
From
the last testimony, taken along with one from the 4th chapter of I Thess.,
previously quoted, we learn that the faithful in Christ Jesus who are in the
land of the living at the second advent of their Lord and Saviour, will -(after
they have been judged)-undergo an immediate transformation into the
incorruptible nature of the spiritual body, without going through the process
of death. Hence the statement “we shall not all sleep.” So that some perhaps
now living, like Enoch and Elijah, will be exceptions to the general rule of
mortality, and shall not taste of death.
As
to the nature of the resurrected body, we find in one of the passages quoted
from Paul’s epistles, the words, “It is raised a spiritual body.” Some think
this means a gaseous, shadowy, spectral body, that a man could drive his hand
through. On the contrary, the righteous in the perfected state will be as real
and corporeal as mortal men in the present life. We learn this in the most
unmistakable manner. Look at the following statements : -“He shall change our
vile body, that it may be fashioned LIKE UNTO HIS OWN GLORIOUS BODY” (Phil.
lii, 21). “We know that when Christ shall appear, we shall be LIKE HIM; for we
shall see him as he is” (I John iii, 2). Here is a starting point:
Christ
is the pattern after which his people are to be fashioned. If, therefore, we
would learn knowledge in regard to the nature of the righteous in the future
state, we must contemplate the nature of Christ subsequent to his resurrection.
We are enabled to do this, because Christ appeared to his disciples after his
resurrection, and had several interviews with them. We find him aiming to give
evidence to his disciples of his reality, when they were terrified by his
sudden appearance, thinking him an illusion before their eyes.
He
said:- “Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
Behold
my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me and see; for
a
spirit (Pneuma, apparition) hath not FLESH AND BONES, AS YE SEE ME HAVE. And
when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they
yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto
them,
Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an
honeycomb; and he took it and did eat before them” (Luke xxiv, 38-43).
Here
is positive proof that Christ was as real and corporeal after his resurrection
as he was before. The body that was laid in the tomb by Joseph of Arimathea was
the body that afterwards arose and appeared as “the same Jesus “-“ I myself “
Pg
99
to
the disciples, who handled him, and who ate with him. This is proof that the
righteous in the resurrection will be as tangible and bodily as he was then,
seeing that they are to be “fashioned like unto his glorious body.”
It
is suggested that Christ’s nature was transformed into intangible essence after
his ascension; but there is nothing to support such a suggestion. The
supposition is simply gratuitous and undeserving of consideration. It is
excluded by the evidence of Christ’s reality and identity after his ascension.
Even if this were not so, the suggestion would be without standing ground.
Since there is no statement to the effect that Christ ceased to be bodily after
his ascension, the only rational alternative would be to assume that no such
change took place, and that Christ remained, and continues to be the same real
though glorified personage who exhibited his hands and feet to his assembled
disciples. But the fact of his bodily continuance is borne out in the statement
made by the angels to the disciples, just after the ascension:
“Why
stand ye gazing up into heaven? THIS SAME Jesus, which is taken up from you
into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven”
(Acts i, 11).
What
would the disciples understand by “this same Jesus “? Would they not think of
the blessed Saviour, who, a few days before, had eaten bread in their sight,
and said to them, a “spirit (or phantasm) hath not flesh and bones AS YE SEE ME
HAVE “? Undoubtedly; and they would look forward to the time of his
re-appearance, with the prints of the nails in his hands, and the mark of the
wound in his side, which it is evident, from Zech, xiii, 6, will be the subject
of anxious and interesting curiosity to Jewish beholders at his coming.
Therefore, the proof remains that the righteous in the resurrected state will
be substantial as their Lord and Master, instead of the bodiless entities
generally imagined.
Though
not less real than mortal man, the glorified saints will possess a different
kind of nature. They are, in the present state, “natural bodies,” but then,
they will be “spiritual bodies,” Here is the destinction. Natural or animal
bodies are sustained in life by the blood, as saith the Scriptures in Leviticus
xvii, 14, “The life of all flesh is the blood thereof.” The blood is the medium
of animal vitality, with which it becomes charged by the action of the air on
the lungs. The life principle or
spirit”
is thus applied only in an indirect manner. The blood is
pg
100
proximately
the life-giving agent: bodies sustained by it are simply blood bodies. Their
life is not inherent: it is dependent on a complex function which is easily
interfered with. It is applied by a process so delicate as to be easily marred
by external influences and accidental circumstances. Therefore, life is
uncertain, and constant health and vigour almost impossible. Our constitutions
are easily impaired, and we are liable to be afflicted with distressing
infirmities and pains which easily become dangerous: hence the lucrative
profession which is accredited with the skill to “cure” unfortunate humanity.
Ah. they cannot “cure.” The disease is too deep for their skill. It is in the
constitution: it is in the blood; it is deep-grained and incurable. All that
the doctor can do is to patch a humanlyunmendable mortality.
The
Lord Jesus Christ is the only true physician. He offers us resurrection to
spirit-body existence. He promises to fashion us like unto his own glorious
body. He undertakes that though we may be afflicted with all the pains that
flesh is heir to in this present life, yea, disfigured by all the distortions
of disease; though we may die loathsome deaths and be laid in the grave a mass
of festering corruption, we shall be raised to a pure and incorruptible state,
in which our bodies shall be “spiritual bodies “; not because ethereal, which
is not their characteristic, but because directly energised by the spirit of
God, and filled in every atom with the concentrated inextinguishable life-power
of God himself. This is the testimony of Christ (John iii, 6): “That which is
born of Spirit is SPIRIT.” He had said, “that which is born of the flesh is
flesh.” Mortal men and women are born of the flesh; therefore, they are but
flesh-a wind that passeth away and cometh not again; but let a man be “born of
the spirit,” and he is no longer the frail and perishable offspring of Adam.
His corruptible has put on incorruptibility. He is an invincible, all-powerful,
immortal son of God. “They are the children of God,” says Jesus, speaking of
the resurrection which is unto life, “BEING the
children of the resurrection.”
Paul
says (Rom. viii, 11), “He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies BY HIS SPIRIT
that dwelleth in you.” Here is a second birth to be effected by the spirit of
God; and on the principle laid down by Christ, all who are the subjects of this
operation of the spirit upon their mortal bodies, will be “born of the spirit,”
and will, therefore, be
spirit”
in nature or “spiritual” bodies-bodies sustained in life by the direct
operation of the spirit of life, without the inter-
pg
101
mediate
agency of the blood-immortal, bloodless embodiments of the spirit of life in
flesh and bones, like the Lord Jesus; not pale and ghastly as a human body
would be without blood, but beautiful with the electrical radiance of the
Spirit which can show colour otherwise than by blood, as witness the jasper and
the ruby, and the rainbow. Living by the thorough permeation of the life-spirit
in the substance of their natures, they will be glorious and powerful, “pure as
the gem, strong as adamant, and incorruptible as gold,” glorious in the sense
of physical luminosity, as exemplified in the Lord Jesus when he shone with the
lustre of the sun on the mount of transfiguration, and, according as it is
Written : -“They that be wise shall shine
as the brightness of the firmament, and
they
that turn many to righteousness as the
Stars for ever and ever” (Dan. xii, 3).
Powerful,
in the sense of being vigorous and inexhaustible in the power of the faculties,
as it is written : -:‘ The everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends
of the earth,
fainteth
not, neither is weary. There is no searching of His understanding. He giveth
power to the faint, and to them that have no might He increaseth strength. Even
the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall; but
they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up
with wings as eagles; they shall run and
not be weary, and they shall walk and not faint” (Isa. xl, 28-31).
Incorruptible
in the sense of being undecaying and imperishable in nature, and therefore
entirely free from any liability to pain or disease. In this perfect condition,
the righteous will have a boundless eternity before them-everlasting joy upon
their heads; no more dullness of mind; no more fretting and heart-failing at
the afflictions of mortal life; no more sorrow, no more growing old; no more
passing away; but all perfection, harmony unbroken, love unquenchable, joy
unspeakable, and full of glory. This will be the happy state of the righteous;
this the consummation of that blessed promise, “He will swallow up death in
victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces.” (Isa. xxv,
8).
This
precious life and immortality, brought to life by Jesus
Christ
through the gospel, is not to be indiscriminately bestowed.
All
men will not attain to it; only a few will be counted worthy.
The
precious gift is freely offered to all; but it is conditional. It
is
not to be given to the faithless and the impure. Perfection of character must
precede perfection of nature. Moral fitness is the
Indispensable
pre-requisite, and God is the judge and the pre
pg
102
scriber
of the peculiar moral fitness necessary in the case. This is proved by the
following passages -“To them who by patient
continuance in well doing seek for
glory, honour and immortality, eternal life” (Rom. ii, 7).
“If
thou wilt enter into life, keep the
commandments” (Matt. xix, 17).
“Except ye eat the flesh of the Son
of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you” (John vi, 53).
“He that believeth on the
Son hath
everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life” (John
iii, 36).
“These
are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life
through his name” (John xx, 31).
“Go
ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He 1/lot believeth and is baptised shall
be saved” (Mark xvi, 15, 16).
“He that heareth my word,
and believetth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into
condemnation” (John v, 24).
“He that believer/i in me, though he were dead, yet
shall he live” (John xi, 25).
I
will give unto him that is athirst of
the fountain of the water of life freely” (Rev. xxi, 6).
These
testimonies give the deathblow to Universalism. They predicate salvation upon
conditions which exclude the majority of mankind. They restrict it to a class
which has always been small among men, and effectually disprove the mistaken
theory of benevolence which proclaims the “ universal restoration” of every
human being. This may represent Christianity as a very “narrow” affair, but no
narrower than its divinely-intended scope. “Strait is the gate, and narrow is
the way “; this is its characteristic, and not without wisdom. The development
of an approved family from the sons of men is its object. The world’s vast populations
are merely incidental to this plan. They come, and they go; and, as flesh, they
profit nothing. They come from nothing, and go whence they came. It is only the
theory of universal human immortality that gives rise to the idea of universal
human salvation. When human nature is looked upon at its true standard of
vanity, the difficulty vanishes.
Those
who are excluded from eternal life are divided into two classes-ist, those who
hear the word, and reject it; and .2nd, those whom circumstances preclude from
hearing it at all-such as the pagans of ancient times, and the natives of
barbarous countries. The second class includes a third, viz., those whose
Pg
103
misfortunes
prevent them from believing, even if they hear the word, such as idiots, and
very young children. The fate of the first class (those who hear the word, and
reject it) is plainly stated. They are to be reserved for punishment:-
He
that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words . . . the word that I have spoken,
the same shall judge him in the last day” (John xii, 48). ‘He that believeth
not shall be damned” (Mark xvi, 16).
The
punishment is inflicted at the resurrection, as Jesus says:
“They
that have done evil (shall come forth) unto
the resurrection of damnation.” This “resurrection of damnation,” however,
is not a resurrection to unending life, or to hell fire in the popular
acceptation. It is a resurrection to judicially administered shame and
corruption. They shall of the flesh, to which they have sown, reap corruption
(Gal. vi, 8), which ends in the triumph of the worm and fire over their
being-that is, in death. They rise to the shame and confusion of a divine and
frowning rejection, in which “few stripes” or “many stripes” are inflicted,
according to desert-differences in the duration and intensity of suffering as
justice may demand, after which the wicked are finally engulfed in the “second
death,” which obliterates their wretched existence from God’s creation. Being
of no use, they are put out of the way, and disappear for ever, “where the
wicked cease from troubling.”
This
must have been evident from the numerous testimonies quoted in the last
lecture. A paganised theology delights in assigning them to endless existence
of torment. This idea is based upon certain obscure New Testament expressions
which are supposed to countenance it, but which, when properly understood, have
no such terrible significance. “Unquenchable fire” is of those expressions; it
seems to imply the eternal conscious existence of the wicked, but reflection will
show it involves the Opposite. If the fire is not quenched, there is no escape
from consumption This phrase is used
in this sense in Jer. xvii, 27, Ezek. xx, 47, and other places. The same is
true of “worm dieth not.” Herod’s worms died not, and the consequence was that
HE died (Acts xii, 23). If they had
died, he would have recovered.
“Everlasting punishment” is affirmed of the wicked; but this does not teach
eternal torment. Aionian translated
“everlasting,” does not necessarily import unending perpetuity. Of aion, age, from which it is derived,
Parkhurst observes, “It denotes duration or continuance of time, but with great variety.” Aionian, therefore,
means age-pertaining, without fixing duration,
Pg
104
which
is determinable by the scope of that of which it is affirmed. In the case
before us, it is spoken of the punishment of the wicked. As we know, from other
parts of Scripture, that the punishment of the age of retribution terminates in
death, we are enabled to see the “aion” of the punishment is only co-extensive
with the duration of that punishment.
Some
imagine that the application of this principle to the phrase “eternal life”
destroys the hope of immortality, by making it a thing of possible
terminability. If there were nothing beyond the phrase “eternal (aionian) life,” we should have
uncertain
foundation for the hope of endless life. We should in that case simply be
informed that there was an age-pertaining life-a life pertaining to the coming
age of God’s intervention in human affairs, but should not, by the phrase,
receive any information as to the nature of that life or the extent of its
duration. But the case stands not in this uncertain state. We are explicitly
informed by other testimonies, that while aionian
punishment ends in death, the life to be conferred in that same aion is inextinguishable. “They which
shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world . . . neither marry nor are
given in marriage; NEITHER CAN THEY DIE ANY MORE, for they are equal unto the
angels’ (Luke xx. 35-36). “There
shall be NO MORE DEATH” (Rev. xxi, 4). “They shall never perish” (John x, 28). “He will swallow up death in victory” (Isaiah xxv, 8). “This mortal must put
On IMMORTALITY “(I Cor. xv, 53). If immortality had an end, it would not be
immortality. Aionian life is unending
life. We know this, not from the use of the word aionian, which would tell us nothing on the subject, but from
testimonies like those quoted.
The
second class of those who do not attain to life, are those who, never having
seen the light, have never rejected it, and for that reason cannot be liable to
the judgment that awaits those who have. What is to be done with them? It is
common to suppose they will be among the saved. Who can entertain such a
supposition in view of the fact that they are sinners, and already excluded
from life? Besides, if darkness and unenlightenment be a passport into the
kingdom of God, why did Jesus send Paul
to
turn the Gentiles from darkness to
light. . . THAT THEY MAY RECEIVE - . . INHERITANCE among them which are
sanctified”? (Acts xxvi, 18). If salvation in barbarism is certain, it would be
better to let men remain in ignorance than imperil their eternal destiny by the
responsibilities of knowledge. We must remember that the very circumstances
that preclude the class in question from being rejectors of the Messiah, also
prevent them from
pg
105
accepting
him in whom alone is hope and life. They have none of the responsibilities of
the rejectors of the gospel, but they have also none of the privileges of its
enlightened and obedient believers. What, then, is to become of them? Paul
answers the question in Romans ii, 12:.- “As many as have sinned without law
shall also perish without law.” Paganism,
heathenism, idiocy, and infantile incapability are amenable to no law.
Therefore, resurrection does not take place in their case. Death has passed
upon them under the only law they were ever related to, viz., the law of Adam;
and they sleep, never to be disturbed. Their position is described in the
following passage from Isaiah xxvi, 14:- “They are dead, they SHALL NOT LIVE;
they are deceased, they SHALL..NOT RISE; therefore hast thou visited and
DESTROYED them, and made all their MEMORY
TO PERISH.”
A
similar declaration is made in Jeremiah li, 57,
in regard to the aristocracy of Babylon, who belonged to the identical
class of whom we are speaking : -I will make drunk her princes and her wise
men, her captains and her
rulers,
and her mighty men, and they shall sleep A
PERPETUAL SLEEP, and not wake, saith
the King, whose name is the Lord of Hosts.”
God
is just, and in this His justice is made manifest. He could not punish them
with justice, and He could not reward them with Justice; therefore He puts them
aside.
This
completes the sum of what has to be advanced in reference to the conditional
nature of immortality, as a gift to be bestowed at the resurrection. The
proposition is plain, and the evidence conclusive. May it be the happy lot of
all who read these pages to inherit the glorious gift.
Pg
106
LECTURE 5
JUDGMENT TO COME; THE
DISPENSATION
OF DMNE AWARDS TO
RESPONSIBLE
CLASSES AT THE RETURN
OF
CHRIST
AN
EXAMINATION of the Bible will show that Christendom is astray on nothing more
than on the subject of judgment to come. The common idea of “judgment to come,”
is that at a certain time popularly known as the “last day,” God will bring
every human being to individual account-that heaven will be emptied and hell emptied, of their countless myriads
of souls, which will be reunited to their former bodies (resurrected to receive
them) and added to earth’s living population and brought to judgment.
There
is no exception to this rule in orthodox minds. It does not seem to strike them
as a strange thing that there should be a judgment day for anyone, if every
case is settled at the occurence of death. Neither does it appear to them any
difficulty that the manifestly irresponsible classes of mankind should be
brought to judgment. “Heathens,” pagans, barbarians of the lowest type, human
brutes of all sorts, idiots, infants-everyone-absolutely every human soul that
has ever had a being, in what condition soever it may have existed-according to
current theology, will be resuscitated, and brought to account.
That
there are difficulties-great and insuperable-in the way of such an idea, can be
attested by the agonising efforts of many a thoughtful mind. That the idea
itself is thoroughly unscriptural we propose now to show.
We
have in reality done so in previous lectures. But the matter is deserving of a
closer and more systematic consideration. We have quoted statements that
declare the non-resurrection of those who, being unenlightened, are
non-responsible. Further evidence is found in David’s description of the
position occupied by the class in question (Psalm xlix, 6-20) : -106
Pg
107
“They that trust in their wealth, and boast
themselves in the multitude of their riches, none of them can by any means
redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him (for the redemption of
their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever); that he should still live for
ever, and not see corruption. For he seeth that wise men die, likewise the fool
and the brutish person perish, and leave their wealth to others. Their inward
thought is, that their houses shall continue f or ever, and their dwelling places
to all generations . . . nevertheless man being in honour abideth not: he is like the beasts that perish. This
their way is their folly; yet their posterity approve their sayings. LIKE SHEEP
THEY ARE LAID IN THE GRAVE; death shall
feed on them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning.
(You that fear my name . . . shall tread down the wicked, for they shall be ashes under 1/ic soles of your feet-Mal. iv, 3). And their beauty shall consume in
the grave from their dwelling. But God will redeem my soul from the power of
the grave; for he shall receive me. Be not thou afraid when one is made rich,
when the glory of his house is increased; for when he dieth he shall carry
nothing away
-his
glory shall not descend after him. Though while he lived, he blessed his soul:
and men will praise thee when thou doest well to thyself, he shall go to the generation of his fathers; THEY SHALL NEVER SEE
LIGHT-if. Man that is in honour and
undersran4eth not, IS LIKE THE BEASTS THAT PERISH.”
This
is reasonable. It would be unreasonable to bring the brutish of mankind to
individual account. Judgment has its basis in responsibility, and
responsibility is a question of circumstances and capacity. Human beings in a
state of barbarism may have the latent capacity to be responsible; but this
does not make them responsible for the simple reason that the capacity is
latent. The actual condition of mind which gives the ground of responsibility
does not exist. This is the case with children. They possess reason and moral
capacity in the germ, but because these qualities are not developed, by
universal law they are held not responsible in human matters Is God less just
than man?
Human
responsibility to the Deity primarily arises from human capacity to discern
good and evil, and power to act upon discernment Beasts are not accountable
either to man or God, because they are destitute of the power to discriminate
or choose. They act under the power of blind impulse. Idiots are in the same
category of irresponsible agents in the degree of their incapacity, and many
men not considered idiots are little better as regards their power of acting
from rational choice.
The
nature and extent of human amenability to a future account can only be
apprehended in view of the relations subsisting between God and man, as
disclosed in the history presented to us in the Scriptures. Apart from this,
all is speculation, theory, and uncertainty Philosophy is at fault, because it
disregards the record. Accept the record, and all is simple and
Pg108
intelligible.
The progenitor of the race was made amenable to consequences placed within the
jurisdiction of his will in a certain matter. Disobedience occurred and the law
came into force:
Adam
and all his posterity came under the power of the law of sin and death, which
was destined in their generations to sweep them away like the grass of the
earth. Had God intended no further dealings with the race, responsibility would
have ended here. The grave-penalty would have closed the account; and human
life, if indeed it had continued on the face of the earth in the absence of
divine interposition, would have been the unredeemed tale of sorrow, which it
is in the experience of all who are “without God and without hope in the
world,” unburdened, it may be, with the responsibilities but unalleviated by
the hopes and affections with which the day-spring from on high hath visited
us, and lightened this place of darkness.
But,
in His great mercy, Jehovah conceived intentions of benevolence which He is
working out in His own wise way. He did not-in haste and blunder, as our
short-sighted philosophers insist His goodness ought to have prompted Him to
do-at once and summarily, and without condition, reprieve the sentenced
culprit. This would have been to violate those deep-laid principles of law
which guide all the Deity’s operations, “in nature” and in “grace,” and
preserve the conditions of harmony throughout the universe. It would have been
to perform a work not of mercy, but of destruction, confusion, and anarchy. The
method of benevolence conceived in the divine mind was intended to work
beneficence toward man conformably with the law that had constituted him a
death-stricken sinner, a law which involves glory to God in the highest” as
well as “goodwill toward men.”
This
intention necessitated those successive dispensations of His will which the
world has witnessed in times past, and which have rescued both human existence
and human responsibility from the bottomless profound to which the law of Eden
consigned them. The enunciation of His purpose in promise and prediction, and
the declaration of His law in precept and statute, reopened relations between
God and man, and revived the moral responsibility which otherwise would have
perished, it is, however, a divine
principle that this result is limited to those who come within the actual
sphere of operations.
“Where
no law is, there is no transgression” (Rom. iv, 15).
Pg109
“If ye were blind (that is, ignorant), ye should have no sin” (John ix,
41).
“The
times of this ignorance God winked at”
(Acts xvii, 30).
“Man
that is in honour and understandeth not, IS
LIKE THE BEASTS THAT PERISH” (Psa. xlix, 20).
“This is the (ground of) condemnation, that light is come into
the world, and men loved darkness rather than light” (John in, 19).
Hence,
in the absence of light-that is, when men are in a state of ignorance-they are
not amenable to condemnation; God “winks at” their doings (Acts xvii, 30), just
as He winks at the actions of the brutes of the field. Barbarous nations are in
this condition. They are without light and without law, and Paul’s declaration
on the subject is in harmony with the general principles enunciated in the
Scriptures quoted : - “ As many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law” (Rom. ii. 12). If
from him to whom much is given, much is required (Luke xii. 48), it follows
that from him to whom nothing is given, nothing shall be required, and from him
to whom little is given, little is required in all the area over which the judgment
operates.
This
principle of absolute equity in the matter of responsibility is exemplified in
the words of Jesus : - “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin” (John xv, 22).
“That servant which knew his lord’s will and prepared not himself, neither did
according to his will, shall be beaten with many
stripes; but he that knew not and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes’? (Luke xii,
47). “He that REJECTETH me, and
receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that 1 have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last
day” (John xii, 48).
The
operation of these principles Is illustrated in the history of human
experience. From Adam to Noah, there was but a little light. The promise of a
seed, by the side of the woman, to crush out the serpent principle of
disobedience and its results, was almost the only star that shone in the
darkness of that time. Prophetic glimpses of the coming interference in its
ultimate shape, such as those vouchsafed to Enoch (Jude 14), and the precepts
of Noah, the preacher of righteousness, through whom the Anointing Spirit
promulgated the divine principles to those who were disobedient (I Peter iii,
18-20), added a little to the light of these times, but, apparently, not more
than was sufficient to confer a title of resurrection on those who laid hold on
it by faith. So far as we have any information, few became responsible to a
Pg
110
resurrection
to condemnation in pre-Noachic times. Human wickedness, culminating in
universal corruption, was visited with the almost total destruction of the
species by a flood, which may be regarded as having been a winding-up of all
judicial questions arising out of the preceding period, so far as condemnation
is concerned, and, therefore, as precluding from resurrection to judgment those
who were the subjects of it.
On
this point, however, positive ground cannot be taken. Since resurrection unto
life will take place in several cases belonging to that dispensation, it is not
improbable that resurrection to condemnation may also take place among those
who were obnoxiously related to that which gave the others their title,
including the class specified in Enoch’s prophecy-” the ungodly,” who were
guilty of “ungodly deeds” and “hard speeches” against Jehovah, and who must,
therefore, have possessed the amount of knowledge necessary to constitute a
basis of responsibility. This must remain an open question, not because the
principle upon which judgment will be administered is obscure, but because we
have not a sufficient amount of information as to the facts of the time in
question to enable us accurately to apply the principle.
The
principle itself, that responsibility Godward, is only created by contact with
divine law in a tangible and authorised form, holds good in every form of human
relation to the Almighty. Noah’s immediate family were within the pale of the
divine cognition, and responsibility in reference to another life may arise out
of that; but their descendants wandered far out of the way of righteousness and
understanding, sinking below moral responsibility, degenerating to the level of
the beast, and establishing those “times of ignorance “throughout the world
which we have Paul’s authority for saying were “winked at.”
In
the call of Abraham, the member of an idolatrous family, but who possessed the
latent disposition to be faithful, God arrested the tendency to repeat the
universal corruption of antediluvian times. The germ of a more direct
responsibility was planted among men by his election, and by the bestowal of
promises upon him which had ultimate reference to the whole of the race.
Abraham individually, while constituted a man of privilege, was also
constituted a man of responsibility. Abram, the idolater, was his own-his own
to live, like the insect of the moment his own to die and disappear like the
vapour. Abraham, the called of God, was no longer his own, but bought with the
price of God’s promise. He entered upon a higher relation
Pg
111
of
being. He was exalted to a higher destiny, and had imposed upon him Godward
obligations, unknown to his former condition. Success or failure in the
ordering of his life, was of much greater moment than before. Faith and
obedience would constitute him the heir of the world, and the subject of
resurrection to immortality: unbelief would make him obnoxious to a severer and
farther-reaching displeasure than fell upon Adam.
In
this respect, the children of Abraham by faith, that is, those who walk in the
steps of the faith which Abraham had being yet uncircumcised (Rom. iv, 12),
who, being Christ’s, are Abraham’s seed (Gal. iii, 29) through believing the
gospel, and being baptised into Christ, are like their father. By nature
children of wrath, even as others, they were in the days of their ignorance
“without God and without hope in the world” (Eph. ii, 12), “strangers from the
covenants of promise” (ibid), “alienated from the life of God through the
ignorance that is in them” (Eph. iv, 18), living without law, and destined, as
the result of that condition, to perish without law in Adam; inheriting death
without resurrection death without remedy; having neither the privileges nor
the responsibilities of a divine relationship.
When
called from darkness to light, by the preaching of the gospel, whether they
submit to that gospel or refuse submission, they are “not their own.” They
neither live nor die to themselves as formerly. They have passed into a special
relationship to. Deity, in which their lives, good or evil, come under divine
supervision, and form the basis of a future accountability, unknown in their
state of darkness, at which God winked.
The
law of faith established by the promises made to Abraham, Constituted a centre,
around which responsibilities of this description developed themselves. All who
acquired Abraham’s faith came under Abraham’s responsibilities. Doubtless, many
entered this position in the course of the Mosaic ages. The law was added
because of transgression (Gal. iii, 19), and the purpose of its addition is
indicated in its being styled a
schoolmaster. Its mission was to teach the
first lessons of Jehovah’s supremacy and holiness. It was not designed as a
system through which men might acquire deliverance from Adamic bondage. Its
purpose was purely preliminary and provisional, having reference to that result
in its ultimate bearings, but not intended directly to develop it.
Paul
s comment on it is as follows: “If there had been a law given which could have
given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law” (Gal, iii, 21).
It was impossible life could Come by a law which required moral infallibility
on the part of
Pg
112
human
nature. For this reason, the law, though “holy, and just, and good” (Rom. vii,
12), was “weak through the flesh,” and though “ordained to life,” Paul found it
(from this cause) “to be unto death” (verse 10). The consequence was, that “all
the world stood guilty before God “; and in that moral relation to the Deity,
they were precluded from boasting, that is to say, precluded from attaining to
eternal life on a principle which would have left it open to them to think, and
to say, that their life was their own by right as against the Deity.
Prospectively considered, this was a mighty triumph of divine wisdom; for had
immortal existence been attainable by self-acquired title, room would have been
left for the admission of an element in the relations of God and man which
would have disturbed the perfect harmony that will exist where God is
absolutely supreme, both in law and benevolence, and man is in the position of
a love-saved brand from the burning.
The
law of righteousness by faith is the principle on which men are saved-that is,
saving righteousness is recognised or imputed by God where He is honoured by
faith being exercised in what He has promised. This law came into operation
with Abraham. Actually, it had its origin in Eden, for we read of Abel that by
faith (the substance of things hoped for), he offered an acceptable sacrifice
(Heb. xi, 4). The prediction of the woman’s serpent-destroying seed formed a
pivot on which faith could work even then, and doubtless was the subject-matter
of the faith which saved Abel, Enoch, and Noah; but the full and official
initiation of the law of faith, as the rule of salvation, occurred in the
history of Abraham. This law was the basis of resurrectional responsibility.
The
Mosaic law was national. Its rewards and penalties were confined to the
conditions of mortal life. It took no cognisance of, and made no provision for,
life beyond the natural term of human existence. In its ceremonial forms and
observances, it symbolised the truth in relation to Christ and his mission, but
in its proximate bearing upon the nation, it subserved no spiritual purpose
beyond the continual enforcement of the schoolmaster lesson of Jehovah’s
supremacy and greatness. In this, however, it established the greatest of first
principles, and laid a foundation on which the Abrahamic law of faith could
have its perfect work.
Out
of the law, as a national code, it does not appear any resurrectional
responsibility arose. Yet, concurrently with its jurisdiction, it is evident
that a dispensation of God’s mind, having reference to resurrection, was in
force. Undoubtedly this
Pg
113
was
subordinate, and occupied the place of an undercurrent; but, its existence is
unquestionable, else how are “Abraham, Isaac. and Jacob, and all the prophets,”
to appear in the Kingdom of God? If it be recognised that God’s purpose from
the beginning had reference to the mission of the Christ as “The Resurrection
and the Life,” there will be no difficulty in apprehending this conclusion.
Obscurely it may be, but really it must be, that resurrectional responsibility
was contemplated in all Jehovah did through His servants, from righteous Abel
to faithful Paul. Jesus has shown us that the very designation assumed by the
Deity in converse with Moses at the bush, though apparently used for the simple
purpose of historical identification, expresses the doctrine of resurrection in
relation at any rate to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God called Himself the God
of men that were dead; therefore, reasoned
Jesus-and that convincingly, for the Sadducees were put to silence-He intends
to raise them from the dead.
If
so great a conclusion can warrantably be deduced from so apparently slim a
foundation, what may we not legitimately infer from the promise of a country to
them they never possessed, and the assurance of the universal blessing of
mankind in connection with them, which has never yet been realised! ‘What but
the conclusion affirmed by Paul that they “died in faith, not having received the promises,” and, therefore, that they must
rise from the dead to realise them? With this general argument in view, it is
easy to recognise resurrectional responsibility in many expressions which a
forced method of explanation alone can apply to the judgment of the present
limited experience (Psalm xxxvii, whole of the chapter: xlix, 14: lviii, 10:
lxii, 12; Prov. xi, 18-31; Ecclesiastes iii, 17: v, 8: xi, 9: xii, 14; Isaiah
iii, 10: xxvi, 19-21: xxxv, 4: lxvi, 4,5,
14; Malachi iii, 16-18:
iv,
1-3, etc.).
Jewish
responsibility was greater than that of the cast-off descendants of the
rejected groundling of Eden, because their relation to Deity was special,
direct, and privileged. The responsibility originating in natural constitution,
was supplemented by the obligations imposed by divine election, and arising out
of tue national contract entered into at Sinai, to be obedient to all that the
Deity required (Ex. xxiv, 3, 7). This is recognised in the Words of Jehovah by
Amos, “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; THEREFORE I will punish you for all your iniquities (Amos
iii, 2). The national sufferings of the Jews, in dispersion and privation, are
evidently (both on. the face of the
Pg
114
testimony,
and on a consideration of the moral bearing of the case) a full discharge of
the responsibility arising from national election.
A
responsibility lying in degree between that of the Jews and the outlying
Gentiles, attached itself to those nations that were in contact with the Jewish
people. This is evident on many pages of the prophets. Take, for instance, the
words addressed to the king of Tyre:- “Thou hast been in Eden the garden of
God; .. . thou wast upon the
holy
mountain of God. Thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the ‘stones of
fire’ , . . Because thai Tyrus hath said
against Jerusalem, Aha, she is broken that was the gates of the people; she
is turned unto me; I shall be replenished now she is laid waste. Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I am against thee, 0 Tyrus, and
will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves
to come Up” (Ezek. xxviii, 13-14: xxvi, 2-3).
Take,
also, similar words addressed to Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Philistia : -To AMMON: “Because thou hast said, AHA, against my sanctuary when
it was profaned, and against the land of
Israel when it was desolate, and against the house of Judah when they went into
captivity, Behold therefore, I will
deliver thee to the men of the east for a possession,” etc. (Ezek. xxv,
3-4).
To
MOAB: “Because thai Moab and Seir do say,
Behold, the house of Judah is like unto all the heathen, therefore, . . . I will execute
judgments upon Moab” (Ezek. xxv, 8-11).
To
EDOM: “Because that Edom hath dealt
against the house of Judah by taking vengeance, and hath greatly offended
and revenged himself upon them, therefore, thus said the Lord God, I will
stretch out mine hand upon Edom,” etc. (Ezek. xxv, 12-13).
To
PHILISTIA: “Because the Phitistines have
dealt by revenge, and have taken vengeance with a despiteful heart, to
destroy it for the old hatred, THEREFORE thus saith the Lord God, I will
stretch out mine hand upon the Philistines,” etc. (Ezek. xxv, 15-16).
In
these cases, it does not appear that God intends to mete out individual
judgment by resurrection from the dead. It requires a high state of privilege
before such can with justice be done. The majority of mankind, particularly in
the rude and barbarous times that required the schoolmaster lessons of the
Mosaic law, were in circumstances of pure misfortune. Born under condemnation
in Adam, and left to the poor resources of the natural mind, which in all its
history has never originated anything noble apart from the ideas set in motion
by “revelation,” they were as unable to elevate themselves above the level
Pg
115
on
which they stood as any tribe of animals. How just and merciful it was then, of
the Deity to “wink at” “the times of this ignorance” (Acts xvii, 30), which
alienated from the life of God (Eph. iv, 18), and allow flesh, under such
circumstances, to pass away like the flower of the field, that the place
thereof might know it no more (Psa. ciii, 15,
16).
On
the supposition that every human being is an immortal soul, such a line of
action would, of course, be excluded, and the circumstances of the early
“dispensations” would be altogether inexplicable. An immortal soul, in the
times of antiquity, would be worth as much as one now; and if it be wise and
kind to save immortal souls now, there would seem a strange absence of wisdom
and beneficence in the arrangement, which in these early ages, put salvation
beyond their reach, and made their doom to hell-fire inevitable by the lack of
those means of knowledge which are in our day accessible.
If,
to get out of this difficulty, it be suggested that man, in such a plight, will
in mercy be permitted to enter heaven, we are instantly compelled to question
the value of our own privileges. nay, to doubt and deny the wisdom of the
gospel, which, on such a theory, is not only necessary to salvation but a
positive hindrance to it; since by its responsibilities, it imperils a
salvation which, in its absence, would be certain. We should also be compelled
to deny the testimony of Scripture, that man having no understanding is like
the beasts that perish, and that life and immortality have been brought to
light by Christ through the
Gospel.
But
we are not now dealing with the monster fiction of Christendom. We leave the
immortality of the soul out of the account, and deal with the question of
judgment in the light of the fact that mankind is perishing under the law of
sin and death, and, ~n Adam, has no more to do with a future state than the
decaying vegetation which, year by year, chokes the forests, and passes away
with the winter The endeavour is to realise, in the light of reason and
Scripture testimony, the varying shades of responsibility created by the
dealings of the Almighty with a race already exiled from life and favour under
the law of Eden.
We
have seen that resurrectional responsibility was limited to those who were
related to the word of the God., of Israel The Promises and precepts
conferred privilege and imposed responsibility having reference to
resurrection. They formed a basis for that awakening from the dust to
everlasting life, and shame and everlasting contempt, foretold to Daniel, and
implied in many
Pg
116
parts
of the writings of Job, David, and Solomon. The extent to which they operate,
it is neither possible nor important for us to determine. ‘The law of
resurrectional responsibly operates much more vividly upon our own times, and
it is the relation of this law to ourselves that we are more especially
concerned to elucidate.
It
was left for him who proclaimed himself the “Resurrection and the Life” to
define clearly the relation of judgment to the great scheme of which he was the
pivot and the means. He appears before us as the solution of the great
difficulty which must have haunted the minds of the faithful men of ancient times,
in reference to the declaration that “God shall judge the righteous and the
wicked” (Eccles. ili, 17). He exhibits in himself the method by which the
arbitration of the unapproachable and immeasurable Deity is to be brought to
bear upon mortal and finite man. The “Word made flesh” proclaims himself the
instrument and vehicle of divine judgment. He tells us that “the Father hat/i committed ALL JUDGMENT
unto the Son” (John v, 22), and that
as no man can come to the Father but by him, so no one will be judged by the
Father but in the light of the word which operates through him (John xii, 48).
It
is highly important that this fact should be distinctly recognised, because it
is part of the truth concerning Jesus, which forms a prominent feature in the
proclamation of the gospel. This is evident from these testimonies: 1st, that
in which Paul comprehends the doctrine of eternal (aionian) judgment among first principles (Heb. vi, 1,v); 2nd, the
declaration of Peter: “He commanded us to
PREACH UNTO THE PEOPLE and to testify
that it is he which was ordained of God to be THE JUDGE OF QUICK AND DEAD ‘
(Acts x, 42); 3rd, the statement of Paul that there is a
day
when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my (Paul’s) gospel”
(Rom. ii, 16). These general evidences are strengthened by the following
testimonies, which we submit in detail on account of the importance of clear
and Scriptural views on the subject : -“He that rejecteth me and receiveth not
my words, hath one that
judgeth
him; the word that I have spoken, the
same shall judge him in
the last day” (John xii, 48).
“As
many as have sinned in the law shall be judged
by the law” (Rom. ii, 12).
“Every
man’s work shall be made manifest, for the day shall declare it, because it
shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort
it is” (I Cor. iii, 13).
Pg
117
“The Father who, without respect of persons, judgeth according to every man’s work” (I
Pet. i, 17).
“The
day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render
to every man according to his deeds . . . in
the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ” (Rom. ii,
5, 6, 16).
“We
shall all stand before the judgment seat
of Christ ... Every one of us shall give account of himself to God” (Rom.
xiv, 10, 12).
“Judge
nothing before the time, until the Lord
come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will
make manifest the counsels of the hearts” (I Cor. iv, 5).
“ We must all appear before the judgment-seat
of Christ, that everyone may receive the things done in his body, according
to that he hath done, whether good or bad” (II Cor. v, 10).
“The Lord Jesus Christ shall
judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom” (II Tim. iv, 1).
“It
is appointed unto men once to die, but after this (that is when the death-state
ends in resurrection) the judgment” (Heb.
ix, 27).
“Who
shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead “ (I
Pet. iv, 5).
“That
we may have boldness in the day of
judgment” (I John iv, 17).
“The
time of the dead that they should be
judged” (Rev. xi, 18).
The
proposition that judgment is one of the prerogatives and functions of the
Messiah, thus stands upon a very broad Scriptural foundation, not merely as a
fact, but as a constituent of the truth as it is in Jesus. The bearing of the
fact is apparent in connection with the mission of the Messiah, as related to
our particular dispensation. This is briefly defined by Paul to be to purify
unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works” (Titus ii, 14), and by
James, “to take out of the Gentiles a people for His name.” The mode of
accomplishing this work is the Preaching of the Gospel. An invitation has gone
out to the ends of the earth, for people of any “kindred, nation, people, or
tongue” to become servants of the Messiah, and heirs of the kingdom which God
has promised to them that love Him.
Over
the whole period of the times of the Gentiles the number of these who respond
to His call is considerable; but all who are thus called are not chosen (Matt.
xxii, 14), because many who accept the word preached are not influenced by it
to “present their bodies living sacrifices, holy and acceptable.” As in the
case of the Israelites under Moses, “the word preached does not
Pg
118
profit
them, not being mixed with faith” in
all who hear it (Heb. iv., 2). The soil being bad, the seed produces no result
of any consequence. The net of the kingdom (Matt. xiii, 47) submerged (by
preaching) in the ocean of “peoples and multitudes, and. nations, and tongues,”
encloses bad fish as well as good. The. propagation of the gospel results not
only in rejectors, but in:
servants,
and not only faithful servants, but unfaithful also.
Not
only so, but there are different degrees of merit among those who are faithful.
Some sow bountifully, others sparingly. Some bring forth fruit thirty fold, and
some a hundred fold. No man can assess the degrees. None of the servants can
say, “This shall be accepted much, and that little, and the other not at all.”
In this matter, they are commanded to “judge not” (Matt. vii, 1), and indeed
they cannot do it; though, if censoriously inclined, I they may attempt it, and
sin. There are secrets unknown (good and evil), which require to be known most
accurately, before a Just judgment can be given. “Man looketh on the outward
appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart” (I Sam., xvi 7).
Here,
then, is a great community, living and dead, every member related to the rest
by the closest of ties, and yet each sustaining a problematical relation to the
finality upon which they have set their hearts-the attainment of immortality,
and the inheriting of God’s kingdom; each having a right to the promised
blessing, so far as the judgment of the rest is concerned, and yet each so
situated with reference to God, that unfaithfulness will bring his damnation,
though all his comrades approve.
When
and by what means is this endless variety of causes to be adjusted? When and
how is there to be a settlement of the account still open between the Deity and
His servants? which to a man is simply inextricable, and impossible if
extricated? Has God made any provision by which this superhuman task shall be
accomplished? _this balancing of good and evil in the infinite diversity of
millions of “quick and dead “?-this determination of the minute shades of merit
and demerit, attaching to the responsible dead and living of a hundred
generations?-this rewarding, in just ratio, of unknown and forgotten deeds of
constancy and mercy?-this exposure and retribution of evil thoughts, hidden
malice, hard speeches, and deeds of darkness? Has He arranged for such a
scrutiny of the affairs of His people as shall result in the separation of the
evil from the good, the reward of the righteous, and the punishment of the
wicked among them?
The
answer sometimes given to this question is true in the
pg119
fact
upon which it is built, but wrong in the construction of the fact. It is said
that “the Lord knoweth them that are His,” and that, therefore, there is no
necessity for a judgment; that “He discerneth the thoughts and intents of the
heart,” and “needeth not that any should tell Him what is in man.” This is
true, and marks the difference between the “ judgment seat of Christ” and a
human judicature which makes inquisition for
the purpose of ascertaining the facts. But when this truth is made the
means of displacing the necessity for the revealed purpose of judging the quick
and the dead, it is applied with an illogical and pernicious result. It is
illogical, because it by no means follows that the Deity’s omniscient
perceptions are not to have official
expression, especially when, as in this case, those perceptions affect the
standing of those who are the subjects of them, and determine in the expression of them, their
destiny.
In
all transactions between man and the Deity, there is an invariable
accommodation on the part of the latter to the necessities and finite
apprehensions of the former. Why did Jehovah allow a faithless generation of Israelites
to escape from Egypt under Moses, and go through the miraculous experiences of
the desert, and finally pronounce condemnation on them, instead of acting on
His knowledge, and summarily destroying them in a night, like the Assyrians,
without warning or explanation? Because He was anxious to bring down to human
apprehension the methods of His moral procedure, which He could only do by
acting on human modes and processes. Why did He allow Korah, Dathan, and Abiram
to lurk in the camp for a season, and trouble the congregation by attempting a
rebellion against Moses and Aaron, instead of acting upon His omniscience, and
weeding them out at the beginning of the journey, and so save the nation from
turbulence Because such a mode of procedure, instead of Illustrating and
justifying the ways of God to man, would have wrapped them in mystery, and
clothed them with the appearance of caprice and injustice.
Why
did He so long forbear with the Jews in their obstinacy, foreknowing their
ultimate rejection of all His messengers and His OWN Son? Why did Jesus, who
discerned “spirits,” tolerate Judas till he convicted himself by betraying his
master? Why did the Spirit suffer Ananias and Sapphira to come into the
Presence of the apostles, and go through the formality of hearing
their
Own condemnation, before their mendacity was punished death? In fact, why do
things happen at all as they do? Why
i
not the Deity frame the terrestrial economy of things on such
pg
120
a
basis that obedience and not disobedience should have been the law? The whole
history of divine procedure, in relation to human affairs, shows that divine
omniscience is never all9wed for a moment to forestall or displace the natural
order of events, but rather sets up and enforces the law by which everything
has its full and logical course, before the culminating consequence is reached.
To
say that because God knows the righteous from the wicked, He will not bring
them to the formality of a judgment, is to reason against every operation of
the Deity on record. It is true the Deity knows; but is it not necessary that
the righteous and the wicked themselves should know? How shall the righteous
know themselves approved, and the wicked condemned, and the Deity be justified
in the eyes of both, without the declaration of what He knows?
The
conclusion is also pernicious, because it evolves the rejection of one of the
doctrines which are defined as the first principles of the doctrines of the
Christ. We have quoted testimony sufficient to show that the doctrine of the
judgment of the living and dead by Christ is part and parcel of the
gospel-proclamation about Him. We further submit, on the strength
of
considerations already passed in review, that logically viewed, it is a natural
and necessary part of the glad tidings. It is one of the finest sources of
relief which the truth affords, the knowledge that the disputes,
misunderstandings, and wrongs of the present maladministration of things, are
destined, in the purpose of God, to come before an infallible tribunal, at
which every man shall have praise or condemnation, according to the nature of
the disclosure.
It
is gladdening to know that there lies between this corrupt state of things and
the perfection of the kingdom of God, an ordeal which will prevent the entrance
of” anything that defileth,” which, as fire, will try every man’s work, and
thin down, by a process of purification, the crowd of those who do no more than
say “Lord, Lord!” It is comforting to know that wrongful suffering will then be
avenged, that secret faithfulness will then be openly acknowledged, that
unappreciated worth will be recognised, and that evil doing, unpunished,
unsuspected, and unknown, will be held up for execration, in the face of so
august an assembly as that of the Elohim, presided over by the Lion of the
tribe of Judah. This is part of the glad tidings concerning Jesus Christ.
In
these remarks, we assume that the object and effect of the
pg121
judgment
is to mete out to every man who is summoned to it, according to his deeds, WHETHER GOOD OR BAD. This is apparent from
the testimony quoted to prove that judgment will be executed by the Son of Man
at his coming. We append further and more specific evidence on this point :
-“Many will say to me in that day, Lord,
Lord ... And then will I
profess
unto them, I never knew you: DEPART FROM ME, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. vii,
22-23).
“Every
idle (evil) word that men shall speak, they
shall give account thereof in the day of judgment” (Matt. xii, 36).
“The
Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to
his works” (Matt. xvi, 27).
“Every
one of us shall give account of himself to God” (Rom. xiv,12).
“Whose
fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge His floor, and gather His
wheat into the garner, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire”
(Matt. iii, 12).
“Behold,
I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to
give every man according as his work shall be” (Rev. xxii, 12).
“The
work of a man shall He render unto him, and cause every man to find according
to his ways” (Job xxxiv, 11).
“Doth
not He that pondereth the heart consider it? and He that keepeth thy soul, doth
not He know it? and shall not He render to every man according to his works?”
(Prov. xxiv, l2-See also Psa. lxii, 12).
“I
the Lord search the heart; I try the reins, even to give every man according to
his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings” (Jer. xvii, 10).
Another
important evidence of the conclusion to which these testimonies lead us, is to
be found in the parables of Christ, in many of which he illustrates the
relation between himself and his servants in connection with his departure from
the earth. In all of these, he presents the fact that at his return he will
“take account” of them, and deal with them according to their individual
deserts Thus, in the parable of the nobleman (Luke xix, 15), It came to pass
that when he was returned, having
received the kingdom, he commanded these
servants to be called unto him to whom he had given the money, THAT HE
MIGHT KNOW HOW MUCH EVERY MAN HAD GAINED BY TRADING.” Those servants are given
as three in number, and, doubtless, represent the several classes of which the
bulk of Christ’s professing servants are
Pg
122
composed.
The first gives a satisfactory account of himself, having increased five
talents to ten, and receives jurisdiction over ten cities. The second has made
two talents into four, and entitles himself to meritorious recognition, and the
allotment of four cities. The third, who, though less privileged, might have
stood equally well, had he turned his single talent into two, justifies his
indolence on the plea that he dreaded a service where more was expected than
was given in the first instance. This man, who stands for the unfaithful, is
rejected. The decree is, “Take the talent from him, and give it unto him that
hath ten talents.
Cast
ye the UNPROFITABLE SERVANT into outer darkness” (Matt. xxv, 28-30). Here the
unprofitable servant figures in the judgment of the king’s household, at his
return, as well as the approved.
In
Matt. xxii, 1-14, we have another parable in which the same feature is
introduced. A certain king issues invitations to his son’s marriage, but the
parties invited make various excuses for not coming. The king then orders a
general invitation to all and sundry whom his servants may find on the
highways, and his servants execute the orders, and “gather as many as they
found, bad and good.” The king then
comes in to see the guests, and “saw
there a man which had not on a wedding garment,” whom he ordered to be “bound hand and foot, and taken away.” This
shows that the judgment to be carried out by Jesus at the time of reckoning has
the practical effect of “severing the
wicked from amongst the just.” To the same purport is the parable of which
the latter italicised words are an explanation. “The kingdom of heaven is like
unto a net that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: which, when
it was full, they drew to the shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into
vessels, but cast the bad away” (Matt.
xiii, 47, 48). Also the following: “The Son of Man is as a man taking a far
journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every
man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. Watch ye therefore . . . lest
coming suddenly, he find you sleeping” (Mark
xiii. 34, 36).
Further,
“Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning, and ye yourselves
like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return . . . Blessed are
those servants whom the Lord when he cometh shall find watching . . . But, and
if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming, and shall begin
to beat the men-servants and maidens, and to eat and to drink and to be
drunken, the lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for
him, and in an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion
Pg
123
with the an believers” (Luke xii, 35-37, 45, 46). The parable of the ten
virgins enforces the same fact, viz., the unworthy portion of his servants will
be publicly and officially rejected at the time the others are acknowledged.
This
is in harmony with the reason of the thing, as well as with the numerous
testimonies already cited from the apostolic writings. Many are called, but
only few out of the many are “chosen.” When should the choice take place, but
at the time represented in these parables, viz., “When the lord of those
servants cometh” to develop the state of things with reference to which the choice
is to be made? (Matt. xxv, 19). The present is not a time for dividing the
wicked from the righteous. Both go to the grave, and “rest together in the
dust,” and their merits and demerits would sleep for ever with them in the
silence of the tomb, were it not for the awaking voice that calls the just and
unjust, at the appointed time, from the oblivion of hades, to give an account before the “judgment-seat of Christ.” Now
is not the time for Jesus to execute judgment. He is a priest over his own
house. The great question of account is left over till he returns. “He shall judge the quick and the dead AT
HIS APPEARING AND HIS KINGDOM.” He shall open the dread book of God’s
remembrance, wherein are indelibly recorded the thoughts and transactions of
those who shall come to judgment, and the dead shall be judged out of those
things that are written in the hook.
Shall
the wicked be absent at such a moment? The suggestion is precluded by the
testimony and by the sense of the thing. A mockery of a judgment-seat it would
be if its operations were confined to the allotment of rewards to the accepted.
To judge, in the executive sense, is to enforce the division of good from evil.
This is the function of Jesus in relation to His servants at His Coming. True,
says the suggester, but it will only be the living wicked that he will reject;
the dead wicked will sleep on to another period Is it so, then, that the
accident of death a day before the advent will shut off a wicked man from the
jurisdiction of the Judge of the quick and
dead? Is it so that Jesus will only judge the living and not the dead at his appearing? Is it so that he is not “lord
both of the dead and living?” (Rom.
xiv, 9). The answer is self-evident; life or death makes no difference in our
relationship to the judgment-seat. The Son of Man has power to call from the
dead at his will, and, therefore, virtually, the dead are as much amenable to
his judicature as those who may happen to be in the flesh when he is revealed.
Pg
124
The
constituted servants of Christ-by belief of the gospel:
and
baptism-are candidates for the kingdom to be manifested at the appearing of
Christ, which is to exist thereafter a thousand years; and it is meet that they
should be arraigned in his presence to have it decided, as between them and
him, when the time comes to enter the kingdom, which of all the number are
worthy of the honour sought. This, it is declared, in the testimonies quoted,
he will do. To do otherwise-to leave over the underserving of them for
adjudication at a subsequent period, would both violate the fitness of things,
and contravene the express declarations which we have quoted on the subject.
Jesus has declared that he will confess or deny men in the presence of the
angels at his coming, according to the position taken by them in his absence
(Luke ix, 26; Matt. x, 32, 33). Does not this necessitate their presence on the
occasion? Where would be the shame of a denial if the one denied were not there
to witness his own disgrace? Some will be “ashamed before him at his coming” (I John ii, 28). Daniel
says that at that time “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall
awake, some to everlasting life, and some
to shame and everlasting contempt.” This agrees with Paul’s statement that
“indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish,” shall be the lot of every
soul of man that is contentious and disobedient to the truth, “in the day when God shall Judge the secrets of
men by Christ Jesus” (Rom. ii, 8, 9, 16); and with his exhortation in
another place, to “judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who will bring to light the hidden things of
darkness” (I Cor. iv, 5).
With
the general conclusion before us, that the judgment-seat is the appointed
tribunal for determining the great question Of
individual
desert, in relation to the dispensation of God’s favour in Christ, we come to
the minor but involved question of the nature and position of the dead, during
the interval elapsing between their emergence from the death-state and their
adjudication by the judge. The object of that adjudication is defined by Paul
in the following words: “We must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ,
that every one may receive in body according to that we have done, WHETHER
GOOD OR BAD” (II Cor. v, l0) What shall those “receive in body,” who have in
the sense of those words, “done good”? and what, those who have “done bad’ ?
Paul, in another place, answers these questions. He says God “will render to
every man according to his deeds: to them
who by patient continuance in well doing (he will render) ETERNAL
pg
125
LIFE.
But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, indignation and
wrath, tribulation and anguish . . . in
the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ” (Rom. ii,
6-9, 16). The same fact he announces in more specific terms to the Galatians
(vi, 7, 8), “Be not deceived; for God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man
soweth, that shall he also reap. He
that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap
corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap LIFE EVERLASTING.”
Paul
does not mention the judgment in this testimony; but it is evident that it
relates to the judgment, since life everlasting is not “reaped “ in the present
state of existence, and “corruption” befalls all alike, without reference to
the “sowing.” It is evident that the results of the present life are to be
dispensed at the judgment-seat. Paul, indeed, expressly declares it in the
words already quoted, “that we may receive,” etc. This is reasonable, and
befitting of the Deity, who is “a God of order” to the utmost exactitude in all
things.
If
this be so, does it not follow that prior to the judgment-seat, both classes of
those subject to judgment .occupy the neutral position they hold in the present
life, commingling indiscriminately, awaiting the tribunal, none knowing who is
who? Is it not evident that the judgment-seat forms the great natural boundary
line between probation and exaltation: the great crisis for determining the
standing of the many who have been “called “:the time for that disclosure of
divine secrets, which results in the severing of the wicked from among the
just, and the rejection and the, condemnation of the one, and the acceptance
and glorification of the other? If so, it follows that up to the appearance of
the dead before Christ to give an account, these questions are undecided so far
as their effect in relation to them is concerned, They are, of course, known to
the divine mind, as we have already had occasion to consider, but not declared
or enforced, Christ, as the judge of the quick and dead, is entrusted with that
very office.
What
is the conclusion from these Scriptural premises? There is only one: that the
dead assembled for judgment are men and
women in the flesh recovered from the grave, reproduced, and made to STAND
AGAIN” (anastasis) in the presence of
their Lord and Judge, to have it determined whether they are worthy of
receiving ,the “hidden manna” of eternal life, for which they are all
candidates, or deserving of reconsignment to corruption and death, under the
special solemn circumstance of rejection by
Pg
126
him
who is “altogether lovely.” Thus, those who are alive when the Lord comes, and
those who emerge from the grave at that period, will be on a footing of perfect
equality. They will all be gathered together into the one Great Presence, for
the one great dread purpose of inquisition. Not until they hear the spoken
words of the King will they know how it is to fare with them., All depends upon
the “account.” This can only be accurately estimated by the Judge. A righteous
man will tremble and underrate his position; on the other hand, “the wicked”
may venture with coolness and effrontery before that august tribunal, to
recount with complacence and confidence the list of their claims to the
Messiah’s consideration : -“ Have we not prophesied [preached] in thy name, and
in thy name done many wonderful works?”
It
is evident from three things-from the reason of the thing from Christ’s
parables, and Paul’s and Peter’s statements-that the judgment will be no dumb
show, no wholesale indiscriminate division of classes, but will be an
individual reckoning “Everyone of us shall give account of himself to God”
(Rom. xiv, 12). It might naturally be fancied that persons before the
judgment-seat would simply be paralysed and rendered powerless to utter their
minds: but it must be remembered that the power is then and there present that
touched Daniel, and made him stand on his feet, when he was felled to the earth
by the terrors of angelic presence; and, doubtless, this power will be put
forth to enable all calmly, clearly, and with deliberation to manifest
themselves as they are. Enswathed by the human spirit “mesmerically” applied,
this result can now be partially achieved; how much more when the power of the
Highest sustains, Will those who are acted upon by it, feel isolated from all
perturbing influences, and be enabled to concentrate their minds upon the
solemn task they have to perform.
The
idea that the righteous dead will spring into being in a state of incorruption,
and that the living faithful will be instantaneously transformed, in their
scattered places throughout the earth, and changed into the spiritual nature
before appearing in the presence of Christ (though apparently countenanced by
testimonies which are superficially construed by those who read them) is an
error of a serious complexion, since it practically sets aside the New
Testament doctrine of the judgment (itself a first principle), and tends to
destroy the sense of responsibility an circumspection induced by a recognition
of the fact that we must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, that we
may receive
Pg 127
In
body according to that we have done, whether good or bad. To profess a belief
in the judgment while holding this view, is only to retain a form of words out
of deference to New Testament phraseology while having lost that which is
represented by the words. If the dead are to awake to incorruptibility or
death, according to their deserts, Jesus is robbed of his honour as judge, and
the judgment-seat is robbed of its utility and its terror. If the living are to
be subject to immortalisation, say in their own houses, before Christ
pronounces them blessed, is the judgment-seat not a mere empty form? If (worse
than all) the wicked are not to be there to hear and receive their doom, it is
no judgment at all, but a mere muster of the chosen; no terror at all, but a
ceremony divested of every element of anxiety, since to have a part in it,
according to this theory, is to be safe beyond miscarriage; no rendering to every man according to his deeds,
whether good or bad; but a mere
bestowal of gifts and honours upon the King’s assorted friends. Yet this is the
mistaken view which many are led to entertain by a superficial reading of
certain parts of the apostolic testimony. We shall consider those passages in
detail.
I
Thess. iv, 16. The Dead in Christ SHALL
RISE FIRST.-On this it is contended that the accepted will come forth from the
grave first; but a reference to the context will show that the comparison
implied in these words, is between the
dead righteous and the living
righteous, and not between the righteous dead and the wicked dead. The
Thessalonians were apparently mourning the death of some of their number in a
way that indicated a fear on their part that the deceased had lost something by
dying. Paul assures them that this was a mistake. “We which are alive and
remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent (or go before) them which
are asleep. For 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 (or second) we
which are alive and remain shall be caught up,” etc. Paul simply means to teach
that the dead are restored to life and perfected before the living enter upon
the inheritance, and that, therefore, the dead lose nothing by dying.
“Wherefore,” says he, “comfort one another with these words.”
“Blessed and holy is he that
bath part in the first resurrection; of such the second death hath no power” (Rev. xx, 6). It is
pg
128
argued
upon this that none of the wicked can be raised at C time. The question turns
upon the words “have part in the resurrection,” What is it “to have part in the first resurrection” The word
translated “part” is meros, and this
is defined Parkhurst to mean “a piece, part, portion, fellowship, lot,” hence,
to have part in the first resurrection, is to have “a piece part, portion,
fellowship, or lot,” at the coming of Christ. ~J merely come forth is not to
have a portion in the resurrection C takes place. There will be many at the
judgment-seat who be dismissed without a “piece, part, portion, lot, or f The
King will refuse to own them. On such the second death hath power, but on those
who attain to the condition of thins that John witnessed and described as “the
first resurrection,’ viz., a living and reigning with Christ a thousand years”
the second death hath no power.” As Jesus says, “Neither can die any more, for they are equal unto the angels.”
“They who shall be accounted
worthy to obtain that v and the RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD, neither marry nor a..., given in marriage,” etc. (Luke xx, 35). On the strength of this it is
contended that the unworthy will not come out of the grave at the time the
worthy come forth to “obtain that world.” The argument is based on a
misconstruction of the verse. “The resurrection from the dead” is something
more than the act of rising from the grave. “Resurrection” involves the act of
rising from the dust, but comprehends more than this in many parts of the New
Testament. For instance, the Sadducees asked Jesus, “IN THE RESURRECTION whose
wife shall she be?” (Matt. xxii, 28)-’ that is, in the state to which the dead will rise. How would the question read
if construed “whose wife shall she be in the act of rising from the grave”?
Again, “IN THE RESURRECTION they neither
marry nor are given in marriage” (Malt xxii, 30)-’ is, in the state to which the dead rise. Again,
“they that have d good (shall come forth) unto
the resurrection of life, and they t have done evil unto the resurrection of condemnation “; that
ii one class come out of the grave to one resurrection-state,
and t other to another resurrection-state.
It is testified that r preached Jesus and the resurrection (Acts xvii, 18).
This c~ not mean that Paul simply preached the act of rising from ti grave. The
mere act of rising from the grave is not necessarily -. good thing. Lazarus and
the son of the widow of Nain rose from the grave, but not to the resurrection
(state) preached by Paul They merely received a renewal of mortal life. The
wicked C certain class will rise from the grave, but the act of rising will not
pg
129
be
to them a gladsome event, but the contrary: they would prefer to be left in the
oblivion of the tomb. Everything depends upon THE STATE. to which the rising
from the grave is the introduction. Paul preached the resurrection-state of incorruption and immortality. To this
state, the dead have to rise. The mere act of rising is not the resurrection.
It is involved in it; it is a part, but as employed in the Scriptures, it
requires the state after coming out of the grave to be added, before the idea
expressed by the word resurrection is complete.
Another
illustration of this is to be found in a passage on which the opponents of this
idea rely: “/ saw thrones, and they sat
upon them, and judgment was given unto them; and I saw the souls of them
that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the Word of God, and which
had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark
upon their foreheads or in their hands, and
they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the
dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. THIS (what? The
state of things that John witnessed-the reigning of the accepted for a thousand
years)-THIS IS THE FIRST RESURRECTION” (Rev. xx, 4, 5). There is no mention of the act of coming out of the grave. John
merely sees certain persons who had been dead, occupying a certain position
with Christ; and, describing the scene as a whole, he calls it THE FIRST
RESURRECTION. Evidently the word resurrection cannot here be restricted to the
act of rising from the grave. Many will have a part in this “first
resurrection” who will never go into the grave at all, viz., “those who are
alive and remain.” “Resurrection” here broadly covers a state and a time to
which the persons seen are introduced by rising from the death-state, whether
in that state they are below the sod, or walking above it in mortality. But
both living and dead will have to appear before the judgment-seat, before they
take the position in which John saw them, and when they appear at the
judgment-seat they will have companions whom they will never see again, for to
some, Christ will “say unto them in that day. . . I never knew you: depart from
me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. vii, 22. 23). Such will be “ASHAMED before
him at his coming” (I John ii. 28;
Dan, xii, 2).
A
principle obstacle is found in the words, “The rest of the dead lived not again
until the thousand years were finished.” This is made an obstacle by assuming
that it applies to the unfaithful servants of Christ. This assumption is
evidently a mistake, because the vision of John comprehended only the
resurrection of
pg 130
the
just, who “lived and reigned with Christ.
//////BEGIN HERE
THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN EDITIED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL 1899 EDITION///ALL
HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW
NOTE
Complete
copy of pages 108-111 original 1899 Edition are at the end of the book, and
included is a word for word compareson.
A
principal obstacle is found in the words “The rest of the dead lived not again
till the thousand years were finished.” This is made art obstacle by assuming that
it applies to the unfaithful servants of Christ.
This
assumption is evidently a mistake, because at the time when that is developed
which John styles the “first resurrection,” viz., a living and reigning with
Christ, the judgment which disposes of the unfaithful and rewards the worthy is
past. The “rest of the dead” cannot apply to the unfaithful persons amenable to
the judgment seat of Christ, inasmuch as if raised at that time, their
resurrection and condemnation are accomplished facts at the time when these
words are used. If they apply to a
specific class, it is a class not amenable to the judgment which Christ brings
to bear on his household, and a class undealt with till the close of the
thousand years. Possibly, it may refer to men like Nero, and others great in
wickedness, who are unpunished in the present life, and who, though outside of
specific law to God, have acquired a degree of moral responsibility by external
contact with divine things. Rejectors of the Word, who do not come under the law
to Christ by belief and obedience may be reserved till the close of the
thousand years. It does not seem reasonable that those who put away the counsel
of God from themselves should be passed over without judgment, and yet, since
they do not become constituents of the household of faith, their resurrection,
at the time when account is taken of that household, would seem
inappropriate. May they not be dealt
with at the end? ON the other hand, the
language under consideration may have a
more general meaning than this, viz, that is to be no further resurrection of
dead people till the end of the thousand years
pg
109
that
though power to raise the dead is upon the earth for a thousand years, it is
not to be exercised till the close of that period. In that case it may only be
intended to teach that the dead, or mortal population of the earth, left over
after the advent, and, therefore, a remainder, or “the rest” divided from this
dispensation by the advent, and related entirely to the dispensation of the kingdom,
will not be dealt with till the close of the kingdom, when those who live and
die under the reign of Christ will rise again
”
All that the passage really proves is, that there is to be no more resurrection
Of dead people after Christ has come till the end of the thousand years.
/////
We
cannot be certain whether its bearing is retrospective or prospective, whether
it relates to people actually in death when the saints begin to reign, or to
the dead comprehensively, of whom a remainder will exist during all the
thousand years. This much is
certain
(This
much is certain)
It is certain that it is not intended to
teach, and, as we have seen, does not teach, that there will be no resurrection
of unjust at the coming of Christ. No one part of the Scriptures can violate
the unequivocal testimony of other parts. To admit of the common interpretation
of Rev. xx, 6, would be to abandon the New Testament doctrine of judgment with
which the Scriptures (the New Testament more particularly) teem in an emphatic form..
But
the greatest stumbling-block with those who deny the judgment of the saints consists of Paul’s statements on the
subject of resurrection in I Cor. xv: So
also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in
incorruption; it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in
weakness, it is raised in power, it is sown a natural body, it is raised a
spiritual body. . . . The dead shall
he raised incorruptible” (verses 42-44, 52). Restricting these words to the
mere act of emergence from the ground, they naturally seem an express
affirmation, that the body is incorruptible, spiritual, and immortal from the
first moment of its restoration; and that, therefore, judgment is anticipated
and superseded by this silent proclamation of acceptance, and that nothing lies
between those thus rising incorruptible and perfected salvation, but a joyous
reunion with the Lord.
The
mistake consists in construing Paul’s words too narrowly, and reading them as
if he were dealing with the dramatic incidents of the resurrection, instead of
the state of existence to which the act of resurrection leads. Paul is not
discussing the scientific aspect of the subject. He is not defining the process
by which a dead man ascends from the depths of corruption to the nature of the
angels; the literal details are foreign to the subject before his mind. He is
dealing with the broad question propounded by the objector; first, how-as a
question of possibility-are the dead raised? and second, for or to (“ with” not being in the original) what
body do they come?
/////
The
first point he disposes of by an appeal to a phenomenon, which exemplifies the
power of resurrection organically exerted; and the
Pg
110 CHRISTENDOM
ASTRAY {
LECT. V.
second
he meets by challenging attention to the fact that there is a great diversity
of power and glory in the universe of God, and that dead people, in a future
state, need not necessarily, therefore,
be the corruptible flesh and blood they are in mundane life. This being so,
raise”
must be taken in its widest sense, including, of necessity, the act by which
the dead first resume bodily form and consciousness, but, at the same time,
covering the whole process, whatever it
may be, which leads to incorruption. It could not he that Paul intended to
exclude any part of the process. It is doubtful if the question of process was
at all present to his mind. This is suggested by the entire absence of allusion
either to the judgment or the unfaithful. It was the broad question he looked
at, viz., the position of those
destined to be accepted, in relation to the two facts, that they are to see
corruption, and that God intends to promote them, in a renewed existence, to an
incorruptible and immortal state. Paul affirms that as there is a difference of
nature in different orders of being, and a difference between heavenly and
earthly glory, so there is a difference between the present and the future
constitution of the saints, because the present is the earthly and the future
the heavenly; the present the animal and the future the spiritual. The
characteristics of the present state-of’ which death is but the conclusion-are
corruption, dishonour, weakness, and naturally: from this the body will emerge
at the resurrection, in incorruption, glory, power, and spirituality. This is
true, without at all involving the conclusion that at the precise moment
existence is resurrectionally renewed, the saints will be in possession of
these qualities. The resurrection, as a complete transaction, inclusive of the
judgment seat of Christ, will, in the case of the righteous, ultimate in
incorruption, glory, power, and immortality. In a sense, they will attain to
these on emerging from the ground, since they will never return to corruption;
but actually, they will he in the neutral state, to be determined for good or
evil by judgment. Paul, however, does not take this into account. He is not
treating of details. He overleaps every item in the programme, and looks
broadly at the fact that the destiny of the righteous, by resurrection, is the
swallowing up of death in the victory of immortality.
The
word “raised” is used elliptically, or as an act covering details not
expressed, in Matt. iii. 9; Luke i. 69; and Acts xiii. 22. 23. That Paul is
dealing with his subject elliptically is evident from other parts of the
chapter. He introduces .Adam and Christ in proof of his proposition that “there
is a natural body and a spiritual body.’
resume
pg 130
He
introduces Adam and Christ in proof of his proposition that “there is a natural
body and a spiritual body.” He quotes the record of Moses with reference to
Adam in proof of the existence of a natural body. “The first man, Adam, was
made a living soul” (or natural body). His proof of the second lies in this:
“the last Adam was made a quickening
spirit.” Now supposing a person, ignorant of the history of Christ, were to
receive his impressions of Christ’s history from this statement-supposing he
had no other source of information-would he not come to the
Pg
131
conclusion
that “the last Adam” was a spiritual body from the first moment of his
existence? Would he ever conclude from it that “the last Adam” was first a
helpless babe at Bethlehem, clad in the flesh-and-blood-nature of his mother;
then a boy, submissive to his parents; then a carpenter, helping in the
workshop to earn a livelihood for the family; then anointed with the Holy
Spirit and power, going about doing good, and performing works “which none
other man did,” and that, finally, he was abandoned of the power of God, and crucified through weakness, even the
weakness of frail human nature? Would the uninformed and the superficial reader
of Paul’s allusion to the last Adam learn from it that not only the first Adam,
but the last Adam also, was a natural body for thirty-three-and-a-half years,
and that he only became a life-giving spirit, by the power of God, in his
resurrection?
By
no means. All these facts, so familiar to us, are elliptically compressed into
the words “was made.” A process with so many striking features is expressed in
a way which, if there were no other information, would conceal it. If this is
the case with reference to Christ-if we are at liberty to believe against the
appearance of things in I Cor. xv that Christ was first a living soul and then
a quickening spirit, why need there be a greater difficulty in reference to his
people, whose re-awakening in the flesh and appearance at the judgment-seat is
kept out of sight, in a phrase which its use in other cases admits to the
possibility of covering the whole ground?
Coincidentally
and elliptically speaking, “the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we-the
living-shall be changed.” Both
events
will occur at the advent. This is true, speaking broadly of the subject, without
reference to details; but it is not, therefore, untrue that both classes will
“appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, to receive in body according to
what they have done, whether good or bad” (II Cor. v, 10). A general statement
of truth cannot exclude the involved particulars, though it may appear to do
so.
The
course of true wisdom is, not to set one part of the Word against another part,
but to harmonize apparent conflict, by giving effect to all details, and
finding a place for these in all general forms of the same truth. This course
is not taken by those who, on the strength of the chapter discussed, would deny
that the dead come forth to judgment with reference to their candidature for
immortality. On the contrary, they put Paul herein conflict with Paul
elsewhere. They erect his general and elliptical declarations on the subject of
the resurrection, as
pg
132
barriers
to his own particular statements in other places, and those of Christ and his
apostles generally.
In
opposition to this course, we have endeavoured to find, in I Cor. xv, a place
for all these features; a place unseen by the unacquainted reader, but
detectable by those having Paul’s general teaching in view. Paul is in harmony
with himself. The resurrection includes all that is divinely associated with
it. The upshot is incorruption, glory, power, and spirituality of nature, but
these are only reached through the tribunal which will “make manifest the
counsels of the heart.” Prior to this, the future is a sealed book, except in
so far as it is reflected in a man’s conscience. The judgment will settle all,
separating the chaff from the wheat, and determining who are the saints, in
deed and in truth, and who the unprofitable servants, who have had but a name
to live, and are dead.
We
commend to the serious consideration of every one interested, the sobering fact
that there is a day appointed when God shall judge the secrets of men by Christ
Jesus, justifying the righteous and condemning the wicked. It is a fact that
will encourage, strengthen, and sustain every person who, having been
enlightened and joined to the brotherhood of Christ, is working with a single
eye, as seeing him who is invisible; and it is a fact that, vividly realised,
will correct and purify those who, in a similar position, may be suffering
themselves to be diverted from the path of truth and duty by considerations of
a temporal nature. The record exhibited at the judgment-seat is written now in
the lives of those who will appear there. The one will be an exact reflex of
the other. A faithful stewardship sustained now will be honoured then with
praise, recognition, and promotion:
while
an opposite course will bring exposure, shame, condemnation, and death. “The
wise shall inherit glory, but shame shall be the promotion of fools.”
Pg
133
LECTURE 6
GOD, ANGELS, JESUS CHRIST, AND THE
CRUCIFICION
WITH
REVERENCE, we approach the subjects proposed for consideration in the present
lecture.
That
Christendom is astray in its conceptions of God will, unhappily, be but too
evident. That we must possess Scriptural knowledge of the subject will also be
evident. The “knowledge of God” is an essential feature of Christian
attainment, according to the apostolic standard. Those “who know not God” are among those whom
vengeance is to overtake (II Thess. l~ 8). Knowledge of God is the basis of
sonship to God. Without it, we cannot enter the divine family. How can we love
and serve a being whom we do not know? Knowledge
is the foundation of all. It is the rock upon which everlasting life itself is
built. “This is life eternal, that they
might know Thee, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent”
(John xvii, 3).
Where
shall we find this knowledge? We cannot find it where we please. It is to be
found only where God has placed it. It is to be found in the Scriptures. We
cannot get it anywhere else. Nature tells us something. The consummate wisdom
of all her arrangements-the ineffable skill displayed in the construction of
even the smallest animalcule, show us the presence, in the universe, of a
supreme designing and perfect intelligence, but nature can do no more. It can
tell us God is, because He must be, but it can tell us nothing of His being,
His character, His purpose, His will with regard to man, or His object in forming
the universe. Speculations on these points only lead to the monstrosities of
ancient and modern heathenism.
That
a revelation of Himself has come from the Creator of all things will excite the
highest admiration and gratitude in every mind that is enabled to realise what
this stupendous privilege means. Peace now and life everlasting for the endless
ages coming
Pg
134
is
easily spoken of: but who can measure the wealth of wellbeing involved in the
words? This wealth comes with the~ knowledge God has given us: and the
knowiedge he has given us comes to us through the Bible, and through no other
medium-ship in our day.
But
we are in a peculiar position with regard to this knowledge. It no longer
shines before us in its pristine simplicity and glory. Along with almost every
other item of divine truth, it has been covered up in the most dangerous way by
the organised Apostasy from original truth, which obtained ascendancy in
Christendom very early in the Christian era. The Apostasy does not professedly
deny the God revealed in the Bible. On the contrary, it makes an ostentatious
profession of belief in Him. It holds up the Bible in its hand and declares it
to be the source of its faith-that the God of Israel is its God. In this way,
the impression is made universally that the God of popular religion is the God
of the Bible, so that in reading the Bible, people do not read critically on
the subject, but necessarily and as a matter of course, recognise the popular
God in the phrases by which the Bible designates the God of Israel. If the case
were otherwise- if popular theology in words denied the God of the Jews, and
asserted its own conceptions in opposition to Hebrew revelation, there would be
a greater likelihood that people would come to a knowledge of what God has
truly revealed concerning Himself, because they would be prepared to sit down
clear-headedly, discriminatingly, and independently to ascertain what the Deity
of Hebrew revelation is. As it is, people are misled, and find the greatest
difficulty in rousing themselves to an apprehension of the difference between
the orthodox God and the Bible Deity, and the importance of discerning it.
Popular
theology says that God is three eternal elements, all equally increate and
self-sustaining, and all equally powerful, each equally personal and distinct
from the other, and yet all forming a complete single personal unity. There is,
say they,
God
the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost,” each very God,” each without
a beginning, each omnipotent and separate from the other, and yet all ONE.
If
we ask why one of these elements should be called the Father, not having
preceded or given existence to the others; and why another should be called the
Son, not having been brought into existence by the Father, but co-eternal with
Him; and why the third should be called the Holy Ghost (or Spirit), since both
“God the Father,” and “God the Son” are holy and
Pg
135
spiritual,
we are not met with an explanation. Popular theology contents itself with
saying that the truth is so-that there are three in one and one in three: that
as to how such a thing can be. it cannot say, as it is a great mystery.
Mystery
indeed! There are mysteries enough in creation- things, that is, that are
inscrutable to the human intellect, such as the ultimate nature of light and
life; but Trinitarianism propounds-not a mystery, but a contradiction-a
stultification- an impossibility. It professes to convey an idea, and no sooner
expresses it than it withdraws it, and contradicts it. It says there is one
God, yet not one but three, and that the three are not three but one. It is a
mere juggle of words, a bewilderment and confusion to the mind, all the more
dangerous, because the theory for which it is an apology, employs in some
measure the language of the Bible, which talks to us of the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit.
We
will look at the Bible representation of the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” We
shall find that representation in accord with a rational conception of things,
enlightening the understanding as well as satisfying the heart-agreeing with
experience, as well as revealing something beyond actual observation. We shall
find it to supply that consistent and intelligible information of the First
Cause of all things which the intellect of the noblest creature He has formed
in this sublunary creation craves, and information of a character such as would
be expected to come from such a source.
To
begin with “The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. iii, 14), as God is
apostolically described, who was made known to Israel by the angels, revealed
through the prophets, and manifested in Jesus. The first thing revealed about
Him is His absolute unity. He is declared to be ONE. This is one of the most
conspicuous features of what is revealed on the subject. We submit a few
illustrations of the testimony : - Moses to Israel (Deut. vi, 4):- “Hear, 0
Israel, the Lord our God is ONE Lord.”
Jesus
to one of the Scribes (Mark xii, 29):- “Jesus answered him, The first of all
the commandments, is, Hear, 0
Israel,
the Lord our God is ONE Lord.”
Paul
to the Corinthian believers (I Cor. viii, 6):- “To us there is but ONE GOD, the Father, of whom are all things,
and we in Him.”
Pg
136
“There
is ONE GOD and Father of ALL, who is
ABOVE ALL, and through all, and in you all.”
Paul
to Timothy (I Tim. ii, 5):- “There is ONE GOD, and one mediator between God and
men, the
man
Christ Jesus.”
With
these statements agree the Almighty’s declarations of Himself, of which the
following are examples : -“I am God, and THERE iS NONE ELSE ... and there is
none like me,
declaring
the end from the beginning and from ancient times the things that are not yet
done” (Isa. xlvi, 9, 10).
“I
am the Lord, and there is none else: THERE
IS NO GOD BESIDE ME” (Isa. xlv, 5).
“Thus
saith the Lord, the King of Israel, and His Redeemer, the Lord of Hosts: 1 am the first and I am the last, AND
BESIDE ME THERE IS NO GOD . . . Is there a God beside Me? Yea, there is no God;
I know not any “ (Isa. xliv, 6, 8).
The
only statement in the New Testament that amounts to a plain inculcation of the
Trinitarian view, is unanimously renounced by Bible critics as a spurious
interpolation upon the original text. On this ground is has been omitted
altogether from the Revised Version of the New Testament. It is in the 7th
verse of the 5th chapter of I John: “For there are three that bear record in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and
these three are one: and there are three that bear witness in earth, the
spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.” The
interpolation is enclosed in brackets. The verse reads intelligibly without the
interpolation, and affirms a fact patent to the early believers. The
interpolation bears its condemnation on its face; for it would confine the
presence of
Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit “-that is, God in every form according to
Trinitarianism-to heaven, and thus upset the Scriptural and obvious fact that
the Spirit is everywhere, and that God’s presence, by it, fills the universe.
This
text is not contained in any Greek MS. which was written earlier than the fifth
century. It is not cited by any of the
Greek
ecclesiastical writers, not by any of the earlier Latin fathers, even when the
subjects upon which they treat would naturally have led them to appeal to its
authority. It is, therefore, evidently spurious, and was first cited, though
not as it now reads, by Virgilius Tapsensis, a Latin writer of no credit, in
the
Pg
137
latter
end of the fifth century; but by whom forged is of no great moment, as its
design must be obvious to all.” Such is a statement of the grounds upon which
the passage has been omitted from the Revised Version.
The
revelation of the Deity’s unity, set forth in the testimonies quoted, agrees
with the one great induction of modern science. Nature is seen to be under one law and one control throughout its
immeasurable fields. There is no jar, no conflict; the power that constitutes,
sustains, and regulates all is seen to be ONE. Cold freezes and heat dissolves
in all countries alike. The light that discloses the face of the earth,
irradiates the moon and illuminates the distant planets. The power that draws
the moon in circular journey round the earth, impels the earth around the sun,
and drags even that stupendous and glorious body, with all its attendant
planets, in a vast cycle, with the rest of starry creation, around AN UNKNOWN
CENTRE; that is, a centre distinctly indicated in the motion of the stellar
universe, but whose locality cannot even approximately be determined on account
of the vastness of the motion, and the impossibility of obtaining data for
calculation in the compass of a human lifetime.
The
suggestion that this Unknown Centre is the source of all power is in
significant harmony with what the Scriptures reveal concerning God. There is a
source-there must be a source-and this source must be a centre, because all
power is manifested at centres. The earth draws every object on it to its
centre, and pulls the moon round it as well. The earth in its turn is attracted
towards the sun and drawn around it; and the sun itself with the whole
framework of creation is drawn round A CENTRE. These are facts in the economy
of things, and they are therefore divine facts, because the economy of things
is the handiwork of God.
The
testimonies quoted say that all things are OUT OF the Father. But where is THE
FATHER? Does His name not imply that He is THE SOURCE? And, being the Source,
is He not the Centre of creation? Some shrink from the suggestion that Deity
has a located existence. Why should they? The Scriptures expressly teach the
located existence of Deity. We submit the evidence: Paul says in I Tim. vi, 16.
God dwells “IN THE LIGHT which no man can approach unto.” Here is
a localisation of the person of the Creator. If God were on earth in the same
sense in which He dwells in LIGHT UNAPPROACHABLE, what could Paul mean by
saying that man cannot approach? If God dwells in UNAPPROACHABLE LIGHT, He must
have an existence there, which
Pg
138
is
not manifested in this mundane sphere. This is borne out by Solomon’s words:
“God is IN HEAVEN, thou upon earth” (Ecciesiastes v, 2);
“therefore let thy words be few.” Jesus inculcates the same view in the prayer
which he taught his disciples: “Our Father which
art IN HEAVEN.” So does David, in Psalm cii, 19, 20: “He (the Lord) hath
looked down from THE HEIGHT of His
sanctuary; from HEAVEN did the Lord behold the earth, to hear the groaning
of the prisoner.” And again, in Psa. cxv, 16: “The HEAVEN, even the HEAVENS,
are the Lord’s; but the earth hath He
given to the children of men.” Solomon in the prayer by which he dedicated the
temple to God (recorded in the 8th chapter of I Kings), made frequent use of
this expression: “Hear Thou IN HEAVEN Thy
dwelling place.” It is impossible to mistake the tenor of these
testimonies: they plainly mean that the Father of all is a person who exists in
the central
HEAVEN
OF HEAVENS” as He exists nowhere else. By His Spirit in immensely-filling
diffusion, He is everywhere present in the sense of holding and knowing, and
being conscious of creation to its utmost bounds; but in His proper person,
all-glorious, beyond human power to conceive, He dwells in heaven.
Consider
the ascension of our Lord, after his resurrection, and mark its tendency in
this direction. Luke says (chap. xxiv, 51),
He
was parted from them, and carried up into
HEAVEN,” and Mark reiterates the statement: “He was received up INTO
HEAVEN, and sat opt the right hand of
God” (Mark xvi, 19). These statements can only be understood on the principle
that the Deity has a personal manifested existence in “THE HEAVENS.” What part
of the wide heavens this honoured spot may occupy, we cannot and need not know.
Probably it is that great undiscovered astronomical centre to which allusion
has already been made.
There
is great and invincible repugnance to this evidently Scriptural and reasonable,
and beautiful view of the matter. It is the popular habit, where serious views
of God are entertained at all, to conceive of Him as a principle or energy in
universal diffusion-without corporeal nucleus, without local habitation,
without
body or parts.” There is no ground for this popular predilection, except such
as philosophy may be supposed to furnish. Philosophy is a poor guide in the
matter. Philosophy, after all, is only human thought. It can have little weight
in a matter confessedly beyond human ken. The question is, What is revealed? We
need not be concerned if what is revealed is contrary to philosophical
conceptions of the matter. Philosophi-
pg139
cal
conceptions are just as likely to be wrong as right. Paul warns believers
against the danger of being spoiled through philosophy (Col. ii, 8). Philosophy
or no philosophy, the Scriptures quoted plainly teach that the Father is a
tangible person, in whom all the powers of the Universe converge.
There
is other evidence in the occurrences at Mount Sinai. There Moses had
intercourse with the Deity. We will not say that the Being with whom he had
this intercourse was actually THE ETERNAL ONE, because it is evident, from what
Stephen and Paul teach, that it was an angelic manifestation (Acts vii, 38, 53;
Heb. ii, 2); and because Christ declares no man hath seen God at any time (John
i, 18). Yet it is affirmed that to Moses it was a similitude of Jehovah (Num.
xii, 8). It was, therefore, a manifestation
of the Deity; and, if so, it illustrated the reality of the Deity; for the
Deity must be higher, greater, and more real than His subordinate
manifestations. The testimony is as follows : -“The Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I
COME UNTO THEE IN A THICK CLOUD,
that
the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. . . . Be
ready against the third day: for the third day THE LORD WILL COME DOWN in the sight of all the people upon Mount
Sinai
And
it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were THUNDERS AND
LIGHTNINGS, and a thick cloud upon the
Mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud, so that all the people
that were in the camp trembled. And Moses brought forth the people out of the
camp to meet with God, and they stood at the nether part of the Mount.
And Mount Sinai was
altogether on a smoke, BECAUSE THE LORD DESCENDED UPON IT IN FIRE, and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole
mount quaked greatly. . . . And God spake all the~ words (the ten
commandments) . . . And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings,
and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw
it, they removed and stood afar off. And they said unto Moses, ‘Speak thou with
us and we will hear; but let not God speak with us lest we die’. . . . And the
people stood afar off, and Moses drew
near unto the thick darkness, WHERE GOD W~. And the Lord said unto Moses,
Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven,” etc. (Ex. xix, 9, 11,
16-18: xx, 1, 18-22).
Further
on this subject, we have the following in
Ex.
xxiv, 1, 2, 9-12, 15-18:- “And He
(Jehovah) said unto Moses, come up unto the Lord, thou,
and
Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and Worship ye
afar off. And Moses alone shall come near
the Lord; but they shall not come nigh, neither shall the people go up with
him. . . Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the
elders
of Israel, AND THEY SAW THE GOD OF ISRAEL. And there was under
pg
140
His
feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of
heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid
not His hand; also they saw God, and did eat and drink. And the Lord said unto
Moses. Come up to Me into the Mount, and be there, and I will give thee tables
of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written, that thou mayest
teach them. .. . And Moses went up into the Mount, and a cloud covered the
Mount. And th9 glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered
it six days. And the seventh day He called unto Moses out of the midst of the
cloud; and the sight of the glory of the
Lord was like devouring fire on the top of the Mount in the eyes of the
children of Israel. And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him
up into the Mount; and Moses was in the Mount forty days and forty nights.”
All
subsequent reference to these things is founded on the idea that they are
related to a real person and presence. Thus we read in Numbers xii, 8:- “With
(Moses) will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not
in
dark speeches, and the SIMILTUDE of the
Lord shall he behold.”
Again
(Exodus xxxiii, 11):- “And the Lord spake unto Moses FACE TO FACE, as ci man speaketh
unto his friend.”
Again
(Deut. xxxiv, 10):- “And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto
Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.”
Now,
though the manifestation witnessed in these cases was a manifestation through
angelic mediumship, yet the manifestation speaks to us of a Being higher and
more real than that manifestation. It helps the mind to climb to some
conception (though necessarily superficial and inadequate) of Him “who maketh
His angels spirits; His ministers a flaming fire” (Psa. civ, 4)-who is “light,
and in whom is no darkness at all” (I John i, 5)-who “inhabiteth eternity”
(Isa. lvii, l5)-who is a “consuming fire” (Heb. xii, 29)-whom no man hath seen,
nor (on account of our grossness and weakness of nature) can see; who only bath
immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto (I Tim. vi,
16)-who is of purer eyes than to behold the iniquity of the children of men
(Hab. i. 13)-the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the
earth, who fainteth not, neither is weary, and there is no searching of His
understanding (Isa. xl, 28).
Who
hath measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, and meted out heaven with a
span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the
mountains in scales,
Pg
141
and
the hills in a balance? Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or, being His
counsellor, hath taught Him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed Him
and taught Him in the path of
judgment, and taught Him knowledge, and showed to Him the way of understanding?
. . . All nations before Him are as nothing, and they are counted to Him less
than nothing, and vanity. To whom, then, will ye liken God? or what likeness
will ye compare unto Him?” (Isa. xl, 12-18). Who can, by searching, find out
God? (Job xi, 7). Behold, God is great, and we know Him not; neither can the
number of His years be searched out (Job xxxvi, 26). His eyes are upon the ways
of man, and He seeth all his goings.
The
testimony before us is, that God is the only underived and self-sustaining
existence in the universe. All other forms of life are but incorporations of
the life which is in Him-so many subdivisions of the stream which issues from
the great fountainhead. The following statements affirm this view : -“The King
of kings, and Lord of lords, who ONLY hath
immortality,
dwelling
in the light which no man can approach unto” (I Tim. vi, 15, “IN HIM we live, and
move, and HAVE OUR BEING” (Acts xvii,
28). “For out of Him (ex autou), and through Him, and to Him
ARE ALL THINGS” (Rom. xi, 36).“To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom ARE ALL THINGS” (I Cor. viii,
6).
Popular
theology teaches that God made all things “out of nothing.” This is evidently
one of many errors that have long passed current as truth. It has proved an
unfortunate error; for it has brought physical science into needless collision
with the Bible. Physical science has compelled men to accept it as an axiomatic
truth that “out of nothing, nothing can come,” and having been led to believe
that the Bible teaches that all things have been made out of nothing, they have
dismissed the Bible as out of the question on that ground alone. They have
taken refuge by preference in various theories that have recognised the eternity
of material force in some form or other.
The
Bible teaches that all things have been made out of God-not out of nothing. It
teaches, as the passages quoted show, that God, as the antecedent, eternal
power of the universe, has elaborated all things out of Himself. “Spirit,”
irradiating from Him, has, under the fiat of His will, been embodied in the
vast material creation which we behold. That Spirit now constitutes
Pg
141
the
substratum of all existence-the very essence and first cause of everything. All
things are “in God,” because embraced in that mighty effluence which radiating
from Himself, fills all space, and constitutes the basis of all existence. In
this way God is omnipresent~ His consciousness is en rapport with all creation by reason of the universal prevalence
of His Spirit, which is one with His personal Spirit-substance, in the way that
light is one with the body of the sun. The idea of God’s omniscience is too
high for us to readily grasp, but we see it illustrated on a small scale in the
fact that the human brain in certain sensitive states is conscious of
everything within the radius of its own nervous effluence. Though located in
the heavens, the Creator, by His universal Spirit, knows everything; and His
infinite capacity of mind enables Him to deal with everything, contemplatively
or executively, as the case may require.
THE
SPIRIT
So
much at this time concerning THE FATHER-the Root and the Rock of creation. We
next introduce the subject of “the Spirit “ for investigation.
We
have had to say much of this in speaking of the Father, but it calls for
separate consideration. The Spirit is much spoken of throughout the whole
course of Scripture. We are introduced to it as early as the first chapter of
Genesis, and only part from its company in the last chapter of Revelation. We
get a key to the subject in the fact testified, that the Father is “spirit” in
His personal substance (“ God is spirit “-John iv, 24), and that the Spirit in
its diffusion has to do with the Father, for He styles it “My spirit” (Gen. vi, 3). Nehemiah says, Thou “testifiedst against
them (our fathers) by THY SPIRIT in Thy
prophets” (Nehem. ix, 30). The Father and the Spirit are one. Yet there is
a distinction between the Father and the Spirit as to the form in which they are
presented to our apprehension. Of the former, as we have seen, it is testified
that He dwells “in heaven-in unapproachable light,” and is therefore, located;
while of the latter, it is declared that it is everywhere alike.
“Whither
shall I go from Thy spirit? or
whither shall I flee from Thy presence? If
I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there; if I make my bed in hell (or the
grave, or unseen place), behold, Thou art there; if I take the wmgs of the
morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
pg
143
even
there shall Thy hand lead me, and Thy right hand shall hold me; if I say,
Surely the darkness shall cover me, even the night shall be light about me.
Yea, the darkness hideth not from Thee, but the night shineth as the day. The
darkness and the light are both alike to Thee” (Psa. cxxxix, 7-12).
But,
in addition to its universality of diffusion, the Spirit is also presented in
the aspect of an agency used by the Father in the accomplishment of His
designs. Thus, in speaking of the origin of the various tribes of living
creatures that inhabit the earth, David says, “Thou sendest forth THY SPIRIT, they are created: and Thou renewest
the face of the earth” (Psa. civ, 30). Again, “By His spirit He hath garnished the heavens” (Job xxvi, 13).
Again, “The spirit of God bath made
me; and the breath of the Almighty hath
given me life” (chap. xxxiii, 4). “The
Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” (Gen. i. 2). Also, how
frequently throughout the history of Israel we read the words that the “Spirit
of God came upon” this and that prophet, when anything wonderful was
accomplished (e.g., Jud. xv, 14). All
prophecy and revelation were communicated in the same way. “Thou testifiedst .
. . by Thy spirit in Thy prophets”
(Nehem. ix. 30). “1 am full of power by
the spirit of the Lord” (Micah iii, 8). “Holy men of God spake
~ they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (II Pet. i, 21).
It
will occur to every reflecting mind that if this spirit is an actual element in
universal creation, its presence ought to be detected in the course of the
extensive and relentless researches now and for many years going on into the
secrets of nature, in the laboratory of the experimental chemist. It may shock
the Current theological mind to suggest so intimate a relation between the
Deity and His works. But the higher forms of intelligence cannot exclude the
perception that if God has evolved the material universe out of His own energy,
and sustains and controls it by His power, that energy cannot be a nullity, but
must be an actually present force in the economy of things.
Now,
it is a fact that in our day, there has been discovered a subtle, unanalysable,
incomprehensible principle, which, though inscrutable in its essence, is found
to be at the basis of all the phenomena of nature-itself eluding the test of
chemistry or the deductions of philosophy. Scientists have called it
ELECTRICITY. This is everywhere, and is the foundation of all organisation, ill
fact, of all substance, whether organised or unorganised. MATTER in every form
is but a combination of grosser elements held together by electricity.
Electricity governs the laws of an animal’s
Pg
144
life
and a planet’s motion-omnipotent under the hand of intelligence to destroy or
build up.
What
is this? The name “Electricity “ tells nothing; that really means “amber-icity”
(electron being the Greek word for
amber), and was adopted as the name of the inscrutable element from the
circumstance that its existence was first discovered from the friction of
amber. Could a better name be devised than what the Scriptures have given
it-SPIRIT? it is one of the highest proofs of the truth of Jewish revelation,
that its disclosure of the Deity in His relation to the universe coincides with
the facts brought to light by the researches of the human intellect in the
field of nature.
The
employment of this element in accomplishing the designs of intelligence, is
illustrated in the facts of animal magnetism, mesmerism, biology, table
rapping, clairvoyance, and “spiritualism.” In these sciences and systems-(some
of them ignorantly made the basis of pretensions to divine prescience and
authority)
-men
make use of the divine “ruach” which
they naturally possess, to accomplish results which cannot be developed apart
from the action of willpower. Though animals have the same spirit, they lack
the intelligence to use it in this form. They use it all up in the mere process
of existence. Men having intelligence, find this wonderful agent at their
command to a limited degree. One man can influence another by it. Inanimate
objects can be moved. Distant facts and occurrences can, in a high state of
nervous susceptibility, be perceived by it. Unopened letters can be read; and
numberless other prodigies accomplished, made familiar by science and the facts
of “spiritualism “-a false and absurd system, based upon misunderstood facts of
nature.
We
are thus enabled to comprehend the relation assigned in the Scriptures to this
universal, invisible agent, in the operations of Deity. If a human being, who
is but the faint image of the divine, can in certain stages, have his powers of
cognition extended beyond his material person by the action of spirit, it is
easy to conceive that the Deity’s observation and presence are as universal and
infinite as spirit itself. If a human being can move a needle, lift a table,
and compel another to act without the intervention of material instrumentality,
by the employment of this invisible fluid as the medium of his will, what
difficulty
is
there in understanding the Deity, who is infinite, doing anything He may will
to do, and communicating a revelation of Himself to chosen men in the way
recorded in the Scriptures?
Spirit
concentrated under the Almighty’s will, becomes Holy
Pg
145
Spirit,
as distinct from spirit in its free, spontaneous form. In the one, we are in
the domain of fixed law; in the other, God is in communion with us for words of
wisdom or works of power, independently of fixed law. It is given to but few to
experience this form of the Spirit’s manifestation. It is given to none in the
present day. The apostles were the recipients of it on the day of Pentecost.
Its power was real and felt. Its influx was accompanied with the sound of a
mighty wind, that shook the material fabric of the building in which they were
assembled. Its results were manifest, God’s hand was -upon the apostles, and
they were endowed with powers above natural law. Their faculties were
preternaturally exercised. They were enabled by the Spirit to speak fluently in
languages they had never learnt; not in unknown tongues, but words which were
identified by the bystanders as the current languages of the time. These
bystanders were Jews and proselytes from the various countries of the globe,
assembled to keep the feast of Pentecost at Jerusalem. When they heard the
apostles, they said : -“Are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear
we every
man
IN OUR OWN TONGUE wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and
the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia,
Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and
strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them
speak in our tongues the wonderful
works of God” (Acts ii, 7-11).
By
the same power, the apostles were instructed in things they did not know
naturally, according to the promise of Christ.
When
he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will
guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever
he shall hear, that shall he speak, and
he shall show you things to come ‘ (John xvi, 13). It also endowed them
with miraculous power, evinced in the instantaneous cure of disease, the
raising of the dead, and other wonderful works. The Spirit was the medium,
instrumentality, or power by which these things were done. it was a reality, a
palpably present something pervading the persons of the apostles. Thus, from
the body of Paul “were brought unto the sick, handkerchiefs, or aprons, and the
diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them” (Acts xix,
11, 12). The healing spirit-power in Paul could be Conveyed in conducting
media, and brought medically to bear on the afflicted Thus, also the shadow of
Peter crossing the sick was efficacious for cure (Acts v, 15). The same peculiarity is apparent in the case of Jesus, to whom
the Spirit was given
pg146
without
measure (John ~ 34). When a certain afflicted woman in a crowd came stealthily
behind him and touched the hem of his garment, that she might receive benefit,
Jesus “perceived that virtue had gone out
of him “ (Luke viii, 46; Matt. xiv. 35,
36).
These
miraculous powers were necessary to qualify the apostles for the performance of
the work they had to do. That work was to bear witness to the resurrection of
Christ (Acts i, 22), as the basis of the truth built upon that fact. Now, how
could they have done this with any effect if their testimony had not been
miraculously confirmed? How could they have obtained credence to the naturally
incredible announcement that a man publicly exe. cuted by the Romans, had been
secretly raised from the dead, unless their words had been confirmed by the
power alleged to be on their side? It is true the apostles were witnesses, in a
natural sense, of the fact that Christ was alive, and would have steadily
maintained their testimony to the fact, even if God had not worked with them,
but how could the work of getting many to believe their testimony have been
accomplished? The earnest protestation of belief on the part of the apostles,
though it might have influenced a few, could not have produced that widespread
conviction which was necessary to the creation of the Body of Christ.
The
effusion of the Holy Spirit did this. By the manifestation of supernatural
powers, it bore witness to the truth of what the apostles declared. It is said,
“They went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs
following” (Mark xvi, 20). Paul describes the case in similar terms : -
“The great salvation which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was
confirmed unto us by them that heard him, God
also bearing them witness with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and
gifts of the Holy Spirit” (Heb. ii, 3, 4). In this sense, the Holy Spirit
is styled a witness of Christ’s resurrection; “The God of our fathers raised up
Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree, . . . and we are His witnesses of
these things, and so is also the HOLY
SPIRIT, whom God hath given to them that obey Him” (Acts v. 30-32). This ~s in accordance
with what Christ had said: “When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto
you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the
Father, he shall testify of me. And ye
also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning”
(John xv, 26, 27).
The
power granted to the apostles for the confirmation of
Pg
147
their
testimony, was deposited in them as heavenly treasure in an earthen vessel, and
they had the power of imparting it to others. This is evident from an incident
recorded in Acts viii. Philip, the evangelist, went down to Samaria, and so
proclaimed the truth (of which miraculous attestation was produced by him),
that many believed and were baptised; but these did not at the time receive the
gift of the Holy Spirit : -“Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard
that Samaria
had
received the Word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John, who, when they
were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them:
only they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus). Then laid they
their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.* And when Simon saw
that through laying on of the apostles’
hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me
also this power, that, on whomsoever
I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit “ (Acts viii, 14-19).
This
power of bestowing the Spirit was invariably exercised where the truth was
received. In almost every case recorded, the reception of the Spirit followed
the reception of the truth. It was, indeed, a matter of promise that this
should be so. On the day of Pentecost, Peter said, “Repent, and be baptised
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit; for the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that
are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts ii. 38, 39).
This promise was realised in the experience of the churches founded in the days
of the apostles. The spirit distributed to believers its preternatural powers
in different forms and degrees. Paul says : -“There are diversities of
operations, but it is the same God which
worketh
all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit
withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the
word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to
another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of
miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another
divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all
these worketh that one and the seif-same Spirit, dividing to every man
severally as he will” (I Cor. xii, 6-I I).
The
object of this general diffusion of spiritual power in apostolic times, is thus
stated by Paul : -“He gave some apostles; and some prophets; and some
evangelists;
* In the common version,
“ghost” is given as the translation of
Pneuma; this ought in every case to
be rendered spirit; “ghost” is an
obsolete Saxon term, which needlessly mystifies the idea expressed by Pneuma
and ruach.
Pg
148
and
some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of
the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the
Son of God, Unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness
of Christ, that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and
carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and Cunning
craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph. iv,11-14)
This
is perfectly intelligible. if the early churches, consisting of men and women
fresh from the abominations and immoralities of heathenism, and without the
authoritative standard of the completed Scripture which now exists, had been
left to the mere power of apostolic tradition intellectually received, they
could not have held together. The winds of doctrine, blowing about through the
activity of “men of corrupt minds,” would have broken them from their moorings,
and they would have been tossed to and fro in the billows of uncertain and
conflicting report and opinion, and finally stranded in hopeless shipwreck.
This catastrophe was prevented by the gifts of the spirit. Properly qualified
men, as to moral and intellectual parts, were made the repositories of these
gifts, and empowered to “speak and exhort, and rebuke wit/i all authority.” They “ruled”
the communities over which they were placed, feeding the flock of God over
which the Holy Spirit had made them overseers, taking the oversight thereof,
not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind,
neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock
(Acts xx, 28; I Peter v, 2, 3). In this way the early churches were built up
and edified. The work of the apostles was conserved, improved, and carried to a
consummation. The faith was completed and consolidated by the voice of
inspiration, speaking through the spiritually-appointed leaders of the
churches.- By this means the results of gospel-preaching in the first century,
when there were no railways, telegraphs, or other means of a rapid circulation
of ideas, instead of evaporating to nothing, as, otherwise, they would have
done, were secured and made permanent, both as regards that generation and
succeeding centuries.
But
it must be obvious that the case stands very differently now. There is no
manifestation of the Spirit in these days. The power of continuing the
manifestation doubtless died with the apostles; not that God could not have
transferred it to others, but that He selected them as the channels of its
bestowment in their age, and never, so far as we have any evidence, appointed
successors.”
There are many who claim to be their successors;
pg
149
but
it is not the word but the power of a man that must be taken as the test in
this matter. Let those who think they have the Spirit produce their evidences.
There is a great outcry about the Holy Spirit in popular preaching; but nothing
more. There are phenomena which are considered outpourings of the Holy Spirit;
but they bear no resemblance to those of apostolic experience, and, therefore,
must be rejected. They are explicable on natural principles.
When
an exciting and highly mesmeric preacher gets a crowded audience, it is not a
great wonder if his inflammatory exertions are successful in stimulating the
susceptible among his hearers, to a state of mind corresponding with his own.
He but uses a natural means, which evokes a natural result. If any of the
natural conditions are wanting, the result is impaired to that extent. The
“spirit,” for instance, never descends to the same extent at an outdoor meeting
as in a crowded chapel, especially if the day be windy. It is not dispensed so
liberally to half-filled as to well-occupied pews. It does not come so quickly
at the bidding of a dull temperament and barren imagination, especially if the
man be of small stature-as it does to that of a lusty, excitable, well-built
man, or a nervous, wiry, emphatic man. The reason is, that all these conditions
are unfavorable to the play of the latent magnetism of the human system.
Were
it the Holy Spirit that attended these operations, it would overleap all
barriers, and not only so, but its result would be of a more worthy and
permanent character than the impressions made at “revival meetings,” and rather
more in harmony with what the Spirit has said through its ancient media, than
the sentiments induced at these gatherings. But the fact is, it is not the Holy
Spirit at all. It is the mere spirit of the flesh worked up into a religious
excitement, through the influence of fear-an excitement which subsides as
rapidly as the agency of its inception is withdrawn.
The
result of an intelligent apprehension of what the word of God teaches and
requires, is different from this; this has its seat in the judgment, and lays
hold of the entire mental man, creating new ideas and new affections, and, in
general, evolving a “new man.” In this work, the Spirit has no participation,
except in the shape of the written word. This
is the product of the Spirit- the ideas of the Spirit reduced to writing by the
ancient men who Were moved by it. It is, therefore, the instrumentality of the
Spirit, historically wielded: the sword of the Spirit by a metaphor which
contemplates the Spirit in prophets and apostles in ancient
Pg
150
times,
as the warrior. By this, men may be subdued to God- that is, enlightened,
purified, and saved, if they receive the word into good and honest hearts, and
“bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred.” By this
they may become spiritually minded,” which is “life and peace” (Rom. viii, 6).
The present days are barren days, as regards the Spirit’s direct operations
They are the days predicted in the following language:
“I
will send a famine in the land; not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord. And
they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east; they
shall run to and fro to seek the word of
the Lord, AND SHALL NOT FIND IT” (Amos viii, 11-12).
“Therefore
night shall be unto you, that ye shall
not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine;
and the sun shall go down over the
prophets, and the day shall be dark over them. Then shall the seers be
ashamed and the diviners confounded; yea, they shall all cover their lips, for there is no answer of God” (Mic.
iii~ 67).
THE
ANGELS
Jesus
says, “No man hath seen God at any time “; yet in Genesis xxxii, 30. Jacob
says, “I HAVE SEEN Goo FACE TO FACE, and my life is preserved.” There are other
places in scripture in which God is said to have appeared, and to have been seen
and talked to, which is in seeming contradiction to the statement of Jesus, and
requires explanation.
The
explanation introduces us to THE SUBJECT OF ANGELS: for it so happens that the
difficulty has been created by the improper translation of terms employed in
connection with God’s angelic manifestations God’s manifestations have chiefly
been by angelic mediumship. This will be evident to the ordinary New Testament
reader from Paul’s description of the law given to Moses as “the word spoken by angels” (Heb. ii, 2); and Stephen’s
remark that God, who spoke to Moses in Sinai, was “the angel that spake to him” (Acts vii, 38). This feature will be
found constantly
recurrent.
Now,
the names by which these angelic beings are designated are appropriate to them
as the subordinate agents of the Deity. But this fact is concealed in the
English version of the Scriptures by the translation of all divine names
uniformly by the terms
Lord
“and “God.” Dr. Thomas says: -
Pg
151
“The names of God which occur in the Bible are
not arbitrary sounds; and one of the chief imperfections of the English
authorised translation, or rather version, is the slovenly manner in which all
the names by which God has been pleased to make Himself known to His people,
have been rendered after the fashion of the Septuagint, by the two words,
‘Lord’ and ‘God’. These words do not convey the ideas of the spirit in its use
of terms. ‘Lord’ is of Saxon origin, and signifies monarch, ruler, governor,
something supreme or distinguished
“It
fails to represent the meaning of Ail, Eloah, Elohim, Shaddai, and Yahweh; for
all of which it is often, or rather most frequently, and almost generally used.
The word Adon [another of the names of God employed in the original] is
properly enough rendered by ‘Lord’, but not the other words, for which it
should never be used. The common use of God in the English language is as
little justifiable as that of the word Lord. God, in Saxon, signifies good, a
meaning which cannot possibly be extracted from any of the names recited above;
God is indeed good, but that word is not a translation of any of the words
before us, and when used in their stead, leaves the mind in the dark concerning
the things which they were intended to convey.”
He
then goes on to give a definition of each of the various words referred to. Au,
signifying strength, might, or power: Eloah, having the same signification; and
Jehovah, or, more properly, Yahweh, literally He who will be, are all names
appropriated to the uncreated Deity; but
Shaddai and Elohim are plural names otherwise applied. Shaddai signifies mighty
or powerful ones, from Shahdad, to be strong or powerful; while Elohim is the
plural of Eloah, and means gods or powerful ones. Now these plural names are
very frequently employed in ilie record of God’s transactions with men; and it
will be found they are descriptive of the angels. In Hebrews i, 6, Paul quotes
a statement from Psalm xcvii, 7, in which the word “Elohim” occurs. In the
Psalm it is rendered “gods “-“ Worship him, all ye gods “; in Hebrews, it is
rendered as follows:-” Let all the angels
of God worship Him.” Here, to Paul’s mind, Elohim represented angels.
Again,
in Exodus iii, we have an account of the unconsumed burning bush, which God
selected as a medium of communication with Moses. It is stated that Moses hid
his face and was afraid to look upon God,
who announced Himself from the bush as “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob “; yet in the second verse, we read that “the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of
the midst of the bush “; so that the agency was angelic, though the power was
of God.
Again,
in the instance already cited, Jacob says that he had “seen God face to face “;
while from Hosea we find that it was
Pg
152
not
the Most High God that Jacob saw, but
one of the Elohim, or angels. The prophet (Hosea xii, 3, 4) referring to the
incident, says, “Jacob by strength had power with God; yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed.”
These
instances prove that “Lord” and “God,” as employed in the English version, do
not always signify the great Increate, but sometimes, in fact almost generally,
those glorious beings who act and speak in His name and with His authority.
Keeping this in view, many seeming difficulties made much of by unbelievers entirely
disappear.
The
angels are referred to by David in these words : - “Bless the Lord, ye His
angels, that excel in strength, that do His commandments, hearkening unto the
voice of His word” (Psalm ciii, 20). Who are these angels? Popular theology
represents them in books and on hearses, tombstones, etc., as baby cherubs with
wings. Many believe that their ranks are greatly recruited from time to time by
arrivals from earth of baby-spirits, who, thenceforth, become their mothers’
guardians-a beautiful poetical fancy, and very pleasing to maternal instincts;
but as a matter of serious teaching, to be dismissed from the rational mind. It
is simply untrue. The whole of popular belief concerning the nature of angels
is characterised by the same mysticism and misconception which we have seen to
pertain to other doctrines. The angels of the Bible are as real as ourselves,
though of a much more exalted order of being: and, instead of babyhood, are
distinguished by all the maturity and dignity which belong to perfect
intelligence. Three of them appeared to Abraham (Gen. xviii, 1-5):- “He sat in
the tent door in the heat of the day, and he lift up his
eyes,
and looked, and lo! three men stood
by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed
himself toward the ground, and said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy
sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: let a little water, I pray
you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree; and I
will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall
pass on.”
Abraham
thought they were ordinary wayfarers, and desired to extend his hospitality
towards them. Paul, referring to the circumstances in Heb. xiii, 2, says: “Be
not forgetful to entertain strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels UNAWARES.”
“And
the men said unto Abraham, So do as thou hast said. And Abraham took butter and
milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and
pg
153
set
it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.”
In
the next chapter, we read : -“There came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot
sat in the gate of
Sodom:
and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face
toward the ground, and he said, Behold, now, my lords, turn in, I pray you,
into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet; and ye
shall rise up early and go on your ways. And they said, Nay, but we will abide
in the street all night. And he pressed upon them greatly, and they turned in
unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake
unleavened bread, and they did eat.” (vv.
1-3).
Lot,
also, like Abraham, supposed his angelic visitors to be ordinary men, and was
among the number of those who “entertained angels unawares.” He was only
brought to a knowledge of their true character when they said : -“Bring all
that thou hast out of this place, for we will destroy this
place,
because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the Lord; and the Lord hath sent us to destroy it.”
(Gen. xix, 12, 13).
Manoah,
the father of Samson, fell into a similar mistake (Judges xiii, 15). He pressed an angel-visitor to
partake of his hospitality; and it is added (verse 16), “for Manoah knew not that he was an angel of the Lord.” These
narratives prove that the angels of God are like ourselves, so far as figure is
concerned; and that they are not the ethereal beings of popular theology.
Eating and having their feet washed takes them out of the category of “orthodox”
angels. They are as real and substantial as mortal men, but of a higher nature.
Like the glorified righteous of the future age, they are incorruptible in
substance, and, therefore, immortal, and luminous in appearance when that
quality is not restrained. We read in the account of Christ’s resurrection
(given by Matthew, chapter xxviii, 2, 3), that “the angel of the Lord descended
from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
His countenance was like lightning, and
his raiment white as snow “; and Cornelius, when describing the vision of
an angel which he had seen, says (Acts x, 30), “A MAN stood before me in
bright clothing.”
The
angels, in form and feature, resemble human beings. They eat and drink, and
walk and talk, and deport themselves in general like ourselves; but unlike us,
they are incorruptible, deathless, perfect, and strong in the might with which
God has invested them for the execution of His purposes. They have power to
traverse space; but it does not require wings to do this,
Pg
154
for
the Lord Jesus ascended to heaven without the aid of such appendages. It is
only necessary to possess power to counteract the influence of physical
gravitation, and the ability to command it at will. This power dwells in the
angels and in the Lord Jesus Christ, and seems generally to be the
characteristic of spirit-bodies. In the angels we behold an exemplification of
what the saints will be after the resurrection; for Jesus says:- “They which
shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the
resurrection
from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; neither can they die any more FOR THEY ARE EQUAL UNTO THE ANGELS,
and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection” (Luke xx, 35, 36).
At
present, the righteous are “a little
lower than the angels” (Heb. ii, 7); then, they will be on the same level.
This is a confirmation of all that was advanced in the last lecture regarding
the state of the righteous after they have attained to immortality. It is a
state in which they will be real, substantial, human-like in form, of flesh and
bone, yet incorruptible, glorious, powerful, never-dying, perfect in happiness,
uncloyed in the exercise of the functions of their exalted condition.
ON
THE NATURE OF JESUS CHRIST
If
Christendom is astray as to the Father and the Holy Spirit, it is not wonderful
that we should find it astray in its conception of the Lord Jesus who is the
manifestation of the Father by the Spirit. Christendom believes Christ to be
the incarnation of one of three distinct essences, or personalities, which are
supposed to constitute the God-head; and that though clothed in human form, he
was God in the absolute sense of being the Creator.
This
is the doctrine of the Trinitarian section of Christendom, in opposition to
which, another section believes that Christ was a mere man, begotten in the
ordinary process of generation, and distinguished above his fellows by a
pre-eminent endowment of the “virtues” of human nature, which fitted him to be
an example to mankind. This (the Unitarian) view regards him as a teacher sent
from God, and is in some sense the Son of God; but denies the essential
divinity of his nature. Both these views will be found equally removed from the
truth. The truth lies between.
The
testimonies which teach the indivisible unity of the Deity,
Pg
155
as
the One Father, out of whom ALL things have proceeded, and who is supreme above
all, even above Christ (I Cor. xi, 3), are inconsistent with the Trinitarian
representation of God. The supremacy and unity of the Father would not be
affirmable if there were three co-equal personalities in His One personality- a
doctrine which presents us with a contradiction in terms as well as in sense.
Jesus emphasises the distinction between himself and the Father, in the
following statements : -“I can of mine
own self do nothing: as I hear I judge, and my judgment is just, because I
seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me” (John v, 30).
Again
: -My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me” (John vii, 16).
Again
: -“It is written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am
one that bear witness of myself;
and the Father that sent me (the other witness), beareth witness of me” (John
viii, 17-18).
Again:-
“This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God,
AND
Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent” (John xvii, 3).
The
marked distinction recognised and affirmed in these statements is incompatible
with the doctrine which regards the Son as an essential constituent of the one
“triune” Father. There are “the Father,” “the Son,” and “ the Holy Spirit.” The
question is, what is the relation between the three, as taught in the
Scriptures? The objection now urged is against the relation which Trinitarianism
teaches to exist between these three. The endeavour is to show that they are
not three co-equal powers in one, but powers of which one is the head and
source of the others. The Father is eternal and underived; the Son is the
manifestation of the Father in a man begotten by the Spirit; the Holy Spirit is
the focalisation of the Father’s power, by means of His “free spirit,” which
fills heaven and earth. There is, therefore, a trinity of existences to
contemplate, and a certain unity subsisting in the trinity, inasmuch as both
Son and Spirit are manifestations of the one Father; but the Trinitarian
conception of the subject is excluded.
But
the Unitarian view, still more so. Joseph was not the father of Jesus. He
himself repudiated his paternity, and was about to put away Mary, his
betrothed, when an angel came to him with this message : -
Pg
156
“Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take
unto thee Mary thy wife. For that which is conceived in her is of the Holy
Spirit” (Matt. i, 20).
This
marvel had been previously intimated to Mary by the angel Gabriel, as recorded
in Luke i, 35 : -“The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee; and the power of the
Highest
shall
overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee
shall be called the Son of God.”
The
Unitarian evades these testimonies by denying the authenticity of the first two
chapters of Matthew and Luke. The reasons for this denial are altogether flimsy
and insufficient: nay, they are bad. The evidence in proof of the genuineness
of the (by them) rejected chapters is more than decisive: it cannot be
answered: it is irresistible. It leaves no room for doubt or gain-saying. There
is the united evidence of all the accessible ancient MSS. and versions,
supported by the recognition of the very earliest Christian writers, confirmed
by the internal character of the chapters and the necessity for the event which
they narrate, to explain the character and mission of Jesus of Nazareth.
Against this, there is the merely negative fact that the disputed chapters are
absent from the Ebionite gospel, which at the time of its production was
pronounced a corruption; and from the Evangelium of Marcion, a gospel which he
wrote to suit his own heathenish notions, and from which he recklessly omitted,
not only the disputed chapters, but everything that interfered with his
peculiar ideas.
The
first writer who mentions the Ebionites is Irenus, who speaks of them as a sect
not only separated from the general body of Christians, but who opposed the doctrines
preached by the Apostles, and rejected, not only the disputed chapters, but the greater part of the books of the New
Testament, rejecting all the epistles of Paul, whom they called an apostate
from the law. They only made use of a Hebrew gospel, which they called
Matthew’s, but which differs from Matthew in many particulars besides the two
chapters. Here is a sect which rejected whole books of authentic Scripture,
because they were inimical to their notions. How can a reasonable man accept
such a sect as affording guidance on the question of the authenticity of two
particular chapters absent from their version, but present in almost all other
MSS. throughout the world? Their “Matthew” was impugned at the time. It was
proclaimed a corruption of the genuine gospel, while the “canonical” Matthew,
as we have it, was never called In question. Epiphanius thus speaks : - “In
that gospel which
Pg
157
they
(the Ebionites) have called the gospel according to Matthew, which is not
entire and perfect, but corrupted and
curtailed, and which they call The
Hebrew Gospel, it is written” (and he quotes), “Thus,” says he, “they
change the true account into a falsehood . . . They have taken away the
genealogy from Matthew, and accordingly begin their gospel with these words:
‘It
came to pass, in the days of Herod, King of Judea.’” Origen alludes to it thus
: - “It is written in a certain gospel, which is called, ‘according to the
Hebrews,’ if indeed any one is pleased to
receive it, NOT AS OF AUTHORITY, but for illustration of the present
question” (and then he quotes). He afterwards quotes this as a specimen of the
same gospel according to the Hebrews: “Just
now my mother, the Holy Ghost, took me by one of my hairs, and carried me to
the great mountain Tabor.” This absurdity, and another passage, quoted by
Origen, prove that the text of the Hebrew gospel, read by Origen, was not the
same as our Greek gospel of Matthew, with which its friends suppose it to be
identical. It differed on many points besides the first two chapters. The
absence of the first two chapters of Matthew from the Ebionite and Nazarene
gospels is of no weight in view of their rejection of Paul’s epistles, which
even the Unitarians accept. The omission is accounted for in the way the
rejection of Paul’s epistles is accounted for; the two first chapters did not
coincide with their notions, and therefore they struck them out. The Nazarene
and Ebionite copies of Matthew’s gospel not only omit the first two chapters,
but in several instances they contradict the other three gospels of Mark, Luke,
and John, whereas the corresponding passages in our Greek copy of Matthew agree
with them, which shows which way the tampering has occurred.
As
to Marcion, he omitted the two disputed chapters; but he also rejected the
whole of the Old Testament, both the law and the prophets, as proceeding from
the God of the Jews, whom he regarded as the creator of this world, in contrast
to a higher Creator. As to the New Testament, he made one for himself
consisting of only one gospel, supposed to be compiled chiefly from Luke, and
only ten of Paul’s epistles, which are altered from the received version in
numerous instances, in order to make the text more pliable to his gnostic
notions. People who quote him against the miraculous conception are bound
consistently to follow him in these variations as well. He did not admit Christ
to have been born at all. Consequently, be begins his gospel thus : - “In the
15th year of the reign of Tiberius, God des
Pg
158
cended
into Capernaum.” He not only omits the first two chapters of Luke; he omits
also the account of John the Baptist, the baptism of Christ, and his visit to
Nazareth. He also omits part of chapter viii, 19: x, 21: xi, part of verse 29,
and all of verses 30, 31, 32, 49, 50,51: xii,
6, 28, part of verses 8, 30, 32: xiii, 1-5:
altered
verse 28, omitted from 29 to end of chapter: xv, 11-32:
xvii,
part of 10-12: whole of verse 13: whole of xvii, 31-33; xix, 28-48: xx, from 9
to 18: also 37, 38: xxi, 18, 21, 22: xxii, 16, 35, 37, 50, 51: xxiii, 43: xxiv, 26-7, and verse 25 altered.
Those
who quote Marcion as an authority in the case of the first two chapters, ought
to accept him as such in all these cases. That they disregard him in these
cases is a proof that, even in their opinion, his authority is of no weight.
The
divine paternity of Jesus would stand an unassailable truth, even if the
records of Matthew and Luke had no existence. These records are, however,
invaluable. They are the circumstantial illustrations of a truth which, though
the nature of the case, and the prophetic testimony necessitate it, we could
not have so clearly and satisfactorily comprehended without them. They explain
to us the appearance and character of Christ, and make us privy to the divine
method of procedure, from its incipiency onwards, in the most wondrous work of
God among men.
That
Christ was an example in the sense of being “holy, harmless, and undefiled” is
beyond doubt; but it is also true that he was a great deal more. the speciality
of his mission is so plainly stated as to leave no room for the Unitarian
doctrine of moral example. “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world,” said John the Baptist, on
seeing Jesus (John i, 29). How did he take it away? The answer is in the words
of the apostle Paul : -. “He put away sin by
the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. ix, 26). Jesus himself had said, “I lay
down my life for my sheep.” Paul also
says to Timothy, in the second epistle, first chapter, tenth verse, “Jesus
Christ hath abolished death, and hath
brought life and immortality to light through the gospel “; a fact which is
stated by Christ himself in this form, “God sent His Son, that the world through him might be saved” (John iii,
17). Furthermore, Peter says, “There is none other name under heaven given
whereby we must be saved.” (Acts iv, 12). Salvation is thus directly connected
with the first appearing of Christ, and with what he accomplished then: not on
the principle of moral stimulus supplied, but in virtue of the essential result
secured by the course he. fulfilled.
Pg
159
Leaving
both Trinitarianism and Unitarianism, we may find the truth in the Scriptures
for ourselves. The simple appellation of “Son,” as applied to Christ, is
sufficient to prove that his existence is derived, and not eternal. The phrase,
“Son of God,” implies that the one God, the eternal Father, was antecedent to
the Son, and that the Son had his origin in or “out of” the Father to whom he
must therefore be subordinate in a sense inconsistent with Trinitarian representation.
“This day have I begotten thee” is the language of Scripture, clearly pointing
to a commencement of days. This view is confirmed by the statement of Christ :
- “As the Father bath life in himself, so hath
he given to the Son to have life in himself” (John v, 26).
Christ,
therefore, though now possessed of inherent life, had been invested with it; it
is not in this case underived. It is only the Great Uncreate, the Father, that
can say, “I am, and there is none else beside me.” Yet, though Christ’s is not
an underived existence, it is more directly divine than the human. A man is an
embodiment of his father’s mortal life-energy. Jesus was not born of the will
of the flesh, but of God. He was begotten of Mary through the power of the
spirit. This was the origin of his title, “the Son of God.” See the angel’s
words to Mary:- “Therefore also that
holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke i,
35).
But,
though Son of God, he was flesh and blood. “Forasmuch then as the children are
partakers of flesh and blood, he also
himself likewise took part of THE SAME: . . . He took not on him the nature of
angels; but he took on him the seed of
Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his
brethren” (Heb. ii, 14, 16, 17). He was made
sin for us, who knew no sin (II Cor. v, 21). As he was in character
sinless, this could only apply to his bodily constitution, which, through Mary,
was the sin-nature of Adam. As Paul says elsewhere (Rom. viii, 3), “God sent
his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.”
“He was sent forth made of a woman” (Gal.
iv, 4), “of the seed of David according
to the flesh” (Rom. i, 3). Jesus was “a
man approved of God by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him
(after his thirty years’ preparation) in the midst of Israel” (Acts ii, 22).
This is Peter’s description of him. Paul speaks of him as “the man Christ
Jesus” (I Tim. ii, 5). He was tried
and disciplined as Adam was, but succeeded where Adam failed. “Though he were a
son, yet learned he obedience by the
things which he suffered” (Heb. v, 8). This precludes the idea of his being
“very God.” He was the Son of God, the manifestation
Pg
160
of
God by spirit-power, but not God himself. “The
life was manifested,” says John, “and we have seen it, and bear witness,
and show unto you that eternal life, which
was with the Father and was manifested unto us” (I John i, 2).
Again,
in his gospel narrative (chapter i, 14), he says: -“The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and
truth,” from which it is evident that Christ was a divine manifestation an
embodiment of Deity in flesh-Emmanuel, God with us. “God giveth not the spirit
by measure unto him,” says the same apostle (chapter iii, 34). The spirit
descended upon him in bodily shape at his baptism in the Jordan, and took
possession of him. This was the anointing which constituted him Christ (or the anointed), and which gave
him the superhuman powers of which he showed himself possessed. This is clear
from the words of Peter, in his address to the Gentiles in the house of
Cornelius
-(Acts
x, 38)-” God anointed Jesus of Nazareth
with the Holy Spirit and with power who went about doing good, and healing
all that were oppressed.”
This
statement alone is sufficient to disprove the popular view of Christ’s
essential Godhead. If he were “very God” in his character as Son, why was it
necessary he should be “anointed” with spirit and power? He did no miracles
before his anointing. He had no power of himself. This is his own declaration:
“1 can of mine own self do nothing” (John
v, 30). “The Father that dwelleth in me, he
doeth the works” (John xiv, 10). On Calvary, left to the utter helplessness of
his own humanity, he felt the anguish of the hour and cried out, “My God, my
God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt.
xxvii, 46). Before his anointing, he was simply the “body prepared” for the
divine manifestation that was to take place through him. The preparation of
this body commenced with the Spirit’s action on Mary, and Concluded when Jesus,
being thirty years of age, stood approved in the perfection of a sinless and
mature character. After the ~P1flt’s descent upon him, he was the full
manifestation of God in the flesh The Father, by the Spirit, tabernacled in
Christ among men. “God was in Christ,” says Paul, “reconciling the world unto
himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.”
When
raised from the dead and glorified, he was exalted to “all power in heaven and
earth “; his human nature was swallowed up in the divine; the flesh changed to
spirit. Hence, as he flow exists, “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the
God-head bodily” (Col. ii, 9). He is now the corporealisation of life-spirit as
it exists in the Deity. But this change from what he was “in
Pg
161
the
days of his flesh” has not obliterated a single line of his human
recollections. This is evident from Paul’s words in reference to his priestly
function: “We have not an high priest which cannot
be touched with the feeling of our infirmities” (Heb. iv, 15). This can only be on the principle
that Jesus retains a memory of the infirmity with which he himself was
encompassed in the day of his flesh career upon earth.
When
Jesus said, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” he did not contradict
the statement that “no man bath seen God at any time,” but simply expressed the
truth contained in the following words of Paul : - Christ is “the image of the invisible God” (Col.
i, 15); “the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person”
(Heb. i, 3). Those who looked upon the anointed Jesus, beheld a representation
of the Deity accessible to human vision.
Jesus
declares things of himself which are held to sanction the idea that he existed
as a person before his birth of Mary; such as that “he came down from heaven to
give life to the world” (John vi, 33); that “he proceeded forth and came from
the Father” (John viii, 42: xvi, 28); that he had “power to lay down his life
and power to take it again” (John x, 18); that he” had glory with the Father
before the world was,” and was “loved of Him before the foundation of the
world” (John xvii, 5-24), etc.
It
is evident, however, that we must understand these expressions in the light of
the undoubted facts of Christ’s life
and mission. These literal facts are that he was begotten of the Holy Spirit,
and born a baby at Bethlehem (Luke i, 35: ii, 5-7); grew up to be a man, increasing in wisdom with years,
stature, and experience (Luke ii, 52); remained
the private and undistinguished son of Joseph the carpenter, until the power of
the Spirit was shed upon him at his baptism (Luke iii, 2 1-23); AFTER WHICH, he
did the works and spoke the words
recorded; that he was put to death through
weakness (II Cor. xiii, 4); was deserted of the power of the Father when
suspended on the cross; and that he was afterwards raised from the dead by the Father (Acts ii, 24, 32; iii, 15; iv, 10; v, 30; x, 40; xiii, 30, 37,
and so on).
With
these facts in view, we are enabled to attach the proper sense to statements
which, in a naked and detached form, would appear to teach a personal
pre-existence. For instance, when Jesus said to the Pharisees that he came down
from heaven, he could not mean that the person standing before them had bodily
descended from the clouds, as his words, literally understood,
Pg
162
would
have taught, and as the Pharisees appeared to have understood; he meant to say
that his origin was from heaven. The “Holy Spirit” that came upon Mary-the
“Power of the Highest” that overshadowed her, came down from heaven;
consequently, the resultant man could, without extravagance, say he came down
from heaven. The sense was literal as applied to the Power of the Highest that produced “the man Christ Jesus “; both at the stage of his begettal and
the stage of his anointing on the banks of the Jordan, when the Spirit
descended in bodily form and abode upon him; but not literal as applied to the
man Christ Jesus.
When
he said he proceeded forth and came from God, it was in the sense of these
facts. He could not mean that as a person he had emanated from the very
presence of the Almighty, but that the Father had sent him in the way disclosed
in the record of his birth and baptism. John is described as “a man sent from
God,” without meaning to suggest that John existed before he was born and sent.
When
Jesus said he had power to take up his life after it should be laid down, he
expressed the confidence that God would raise him. It was not power in the
dynamic sense; but authority (s~ovoia); he immediately adds, “This commandment HAVE I RECEIVED OF MY
FATHER “; that is, the taking up of
his life would result from the Father’s power and authority, exercised in
accordance with the pledge given by the Father. Literally, Jesus did not take
up his life; the Father raised him (see the references to Acts, three
paragraphs back); but because it was the Father’s purpose, and because the
Father spoke through Jesus (John xiv, 10), Jesus could appropriately say that
he had power to raise up himself. An example of this style of language, in
which what a person has a relation to in the divine purpose, is considered as
under his control and referable to his power, occurs in Jer, i, 10:- “See, I
have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms,
to root out, and to pull
down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.”
Literally,
the prophet did none of these things, but was overpowered and slain, as nearly
all the servants of God were; yet the things he predicted came to pass, and
this is taken as a sufficient basis for the highly-wrought language above
quoted, which imputes the result of Jeremiah’s predictions to Jeremiah’s
individual operations.
Christ’s
statement that he had glory with the Father before the
Pg
163
pworld
was, must in the same way be understood in harmony with the elementary facts of
the testimony. The glorification of Jesus was a purpose with the Father from
the beginning: and, in this sense, he had glory with the Father before the
world was. This may appear a strained explanation; but a regard to the
scriptural habit of speech will justify it, in view of the testified facts of
the case.
The
Lord said to Jeremiah (chapter i, 5):
“Before I formed thee in the belly I KNEW THEE; and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I SANCTIFIED THEE:
and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” Now Jeremiah did not exist
before his conception. Yet these words would seem to teach it, if understood as
those who believe in the pre-existence of Christ, understood the statements
about him. As a purpose Jeremiah existed; his person was as clearly present to
the divine mind as if he had stood before Him in actual fact. This is the
explanation of words, which, rigidly construed, would imply Jeremiah’s
pre-existence.
Look
again at the words spoken of Cyrus, the Persian ruler, more than a hundred
years before he was born (Isaiah xlv, 4): -“For Jacob my servant’s sake, and
Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name; I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.” The same
remark applies here: Cyrus was present to the divine contemplation as really as
if he existed. Hence a style of language which would seem to assume his
existence before he was born.
-On
the same principle, the purpose to raise a dead man is expressed by ignoring
his death, and assuming his continued existence. Thus Jesus deduces the
resurrection from the fact that God styled Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, at a time when these meh were dead. The Sadducees saw the force of
the argument, and were silenced (Matt. xxii, 3 1-34). The principle of the
argument is expressed in the words of Paul (Rom. iv, 17)- “God who quickeneth
the dead, and calleth those things which
be not (but are to be) AS THOUGH THEY WERE.”
The
words spoken of Jesus are of this order. When he said in prayer to the Father,
“Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world,” he did not teach that he
existed from “the foundation of the world,” but that the Father regarded him
with love from the beginning, and that, therefore, to the Father’s mind, he was
present. In the words of Peter, “He was fore-ordained
before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times.”
(I Peter i, 20).
Pg
164
The
same style of language is adopted with reference to Christ’s people: “He bath
chosen US in him before the foundation of
the world.” Literally, this would prove the existence of believers before
the world began, for properly, a thing must exist to be the object of choice;
actually, it only proves divine foresight. The glory which Jesus had before the world was, was the glory
which God purposed for him from the beginning. Literally, he had not the glory
referred to before the world was. What was the nature of that glory-the glory
Jesus received in answer to this prayer? HE-the bodily Jesus-the body prepared
-that
which was evolved from the substance of Mary and made the subject of the
anointing-was made incorruptible in substance, and the spirit shed upon that
substance so abundantly, that it made him more luminous than the sun (Acts
xxvi, 13), and gave him power to bestow the spirit, and control providence in
heaven and earth. Was Jesus possessed of this
glory before he was born? Was he a body anointed with the spirit before he
was the body prepared? Was he a real resurrected Jesus before Jesus of Nazareth
was born in Bethlehem? Yet this was the glory he had with the Father before the
world was. It was a glory he had in the Father’s purpose, but in no other
sense.
In
the same way are we to understand the words, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John
viii, 58). This was Christ’s answer
to the incredulity excited by his statement, “Abraham rejoiced to see my day,
and he saw it, and was glad.” The Jews thought he meant to insinuate that he
was contemporary with Abraham, whereas he only meant to express the fact stated
by Paul in the following words : - “These all (including Abraham-see verse 8)
died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them AFAR OFF” (Heb. xi, 13). It was this seeing of
the promise of Christ “afar off” that made Abraham glad. It was the day
presented in the promises that he saw, but, as they almost always did, the Jews
mistook Jesus, and, as he was prone to do, he deepened their bewilderment by
using another form of speech, which still more obscured his meaning, on the
principle indicated in Matt. xiii, 11-15: a form of speech which in one phrase
expressed two aspects of the truth concerning himself, viz., that he was
purposed before Abraham existed, and that the Father, of whom he was then the
manifestation, existed before all.
Jesus
said, “I and my Father are one” (John x, 30). He could not mean, in view of all
the testimony, what Trinitarjans understand him to mean, that he and the Father
were identically the same person (“ the same in substance, equal in power and
Pg
165
glory
“), but that they were one in spirit-connection and design of operations. This
is apparent from his prayer for his disciples, “That they may be one, EVEN as we are one.” The unity is not as to
person, but as to nature and state of mind. This is the unity that exists
between the Father and the Son, and the unity that will be ultimately
established between the Father and His whole family, of whom Christ is the
elder brother. When this unity is established, Christ will take a more
subordinate position than he now occupies, in relation to the race of Adam.
Paul says, “When all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things
under him, that God may be all in all “ (I Cor. xv, 28).
THE
CRUCIFIXION
This
was Christ’s great act of obedience; but why was such an act of obedience
necessary? Nothing has more staggered thoughtful minds than this question; and
yet nothing is simpler when the Scriptural elements of the case are all placed
together. It is a theological habit to represent the death of Christ as an act
on his part to appease the wrath of the Father towards sinners. The Scriptures,
on the contrary, always speak of it as an expression of God’s love towards fallen humanity. We read :
-“God SO LOVED the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John iii, 16).
Again,
John, in his First Epistle iv, 9 and 14, says: -In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God
sent
His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him, - . . and
we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.”
Paul
expresses the same sentiment in Romans v, 8 : -
- “God
commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died
for us.”
And
again in H Corinthians v, 19:- “God was
in Christ, reconciling the world unto
Himself, not imputing
their
trespasses unto them.”
But
the question presses: How was God’s love manifested in
Pg
166
the death of Christ? Could not divine love have
been manifested without so tragic an event? Evidently not; for on the very eve
of crucifixion, Christ prayed to the Father in these agonising terms-” i~ it be possible, let this cup pass
from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.” The cup did not pass;
therefore, it was not possible. He drank it deep, pouring out his soul unto
death. Why was the death of Christ indispensable? What did it accomplish? A
consideration of the testimony will guide us to an answer which the discarding
of the doctrine of natural immortality prepares us to understand. First let us
consider the following New Testament allusions to the object of the crucifixion
: -“Christ died for our sins according
to the Scriptures” (I Cor. xv, 3).
“He
was wounded for our transgressions; he
was bruised for our iniquities; and
with his stripes we are healed “(Isa. liii, 5).
“He
put away sin by the sacrifice of
himself” ~Heb. ix, 26).
“Christ
our passover is sacrificed for us” (I
Cor. v, 7).
“God
spared not His own Son, but delivered him up for us all” (Rom. viii, 32).
“While
we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom.
v, 8).
“We
have redemption through his blood, even
the forgiveness of sins “ (Col. i, 14).
“Having
made peace through the blood of his
cross, to reconcile all things” (verse 20).
“You
He /iath reconciled in the body of
his flesh through death” (verse 22).
“His
own self bare our sins in his own
body on the tree” (I Pet. ii,
24).
“The
Son of Man came to give his life a ransom
for many” (Mark x, 45).
“The
man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a
ransom for all” (I Tim. ii, 5, 6).
“Our
Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity “ (Titus ii, 13, 14).
“Our
Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for
our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world” (Gal. i,
3, 4).
“This
is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. xxvi, 28).
Pg
167
These
statements affirm a connection between the death of Christ and the restoration
of sinful man to divine favour and life. There may not, at first, appear to be
a logical connection between the two things; but a consideration of all the
facts of the case will reveal the deepest philosophy in the whole
arrangement.-using the term philosophy in its true sense, in the conviction
that absolute wisdom characterises everything with which the mind of Deity has
to do-the principles involved in the death of Christ are simple and easily
understood. It is the going astray of Christendom from these first principles
that has thrown obscurity over the sufferings of the Man of Sorrows. It is of
the first importance to get rid of this obscurity. It is not the mere fact of
Christ’s transfixion on the cross by the Romans, that constitutes the saving
and enlightening truth of the matter; it is the
principles involved in the tragedy that constitute the truth to be known.
These
principles have been divinely revealed. The first is, that “the wages of sin is
death” (Rom. vi, 23). Paul says, “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin” (Rom. v, 12). What this
means, we have seen, Adam disobeyed a command given to him, and, in consequence of disobedience, WAS
CONI)EMNED TO RETURN TO THE GROUND FROM WHENCE HE CAME.
Hence,
“sin,” which has become an obscure and unintelligible term, is simply
disobedience. It is, in fact, so styled by Paul in the very chapter in which he
describes Adam’s act as “sin.” He says, “By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (Rorn. v, 19). If it is used
in any secondary sense (such as when Paul speaks of “sin that dwelleth in me “)
that secondary sense is covered by, or included in, the major sense of
disobedience. Sin being disobedience or transgression (agreeable with John’s
definition, “Sin is the transgression of the law “-I John iii, 4), we are
enabled to understand the relation of death to it.
This
death is not a “state of the soul,” or “peril of eternal damnation in the
flames of hell “; both of which are
unknown to Scripture, either in word or idea, being pagan corruptions of the
truth. The death resulting from Adam’s transgression is a dissolution of being in the grave. Hence Paul puts resurrection by
Christ in antithesis to death by Adam. “For since by man came death, by man came
also the resurrection of the dead.” This
being the nature of death, we are enabled to understand the law which makes it
the result of sin. Sin being the transgression or disobedience of the divine
law, the perpetrator of it is out of
Pg
168
joint
with the law of well-being, whether as regards himself, others, or God. He
cannot have joy of himself, he cannot yield happiness to others, and he cannot
yield pleasure to his Creator. Misery is the result of such a state; and it is
one of the beneficent ordinances of God that perpetual existence shall be
impossible under such circumstances-that death (extinction of being) shall
follow in the train of moral pestilence, and wipe its evil results from the
face of creation. He will not allow the evil to become permanent. So far from
decreeing or countenancing an eternal hell, where sinners shall writhe and
devils triumph to all eternity, His law, with jealous and inexorable power,
follows close on the heels of sin, and suppresses the very germ of rebellion
and misery.
This
is the first principle to be apprehended before the crucifixion can be
understood. Adam, the father of the race, disobeying in face of the declared
penalty of death, brought upon himself the threatened sentence, and his
posterity are involved in the same condemnation, for the simple reason that
they are but propagations of his own being in all its qualities and relations,
and also because they are themselves, every one of them, sinners by actual
transgression, and, therefore, on their own account, subject to death.
Now
here is the problem to be solved, and which has been solved in the death and
resurrection of the Lord Jesus: how is condemned human nature to be emancipated
from the law of sin and death, in harmony with the righteousness that has
brought that law into force? if humanity were left to itself, it would
inevitably perish; because it is not only incapable of a perfect righteousness,
but it cannot set aside the condemnation in which it already exists. God’s plan
in Christ has given us a scheme by which human salvation is achieved without
the violation of any of His laws, which are necessary to the maintenance of His
supremacy in the universe. Christ meets all the necessities of the case. The
first necessity was that the law, both Edenic and Mosaic, should be upheld. The
law required the death of the transgressjng nature, viz., human nature. He had
this nature, and he died:-.
“Forasmuch
then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same . . . He took not on
him the
of
angels, but he took on him the seed of
Abraham” (Heb. ii-14,16).
“God
sent His own Son in the likeness of
sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. viii, 3).
Pg
169
But
it was also necessary that such a sufferer should be sinless, because sin would
have prevented resurrection to life immortal. This necessity for sinlessness in
“the Lamb of God” was constantly prefigured under the law by the spotlessness
of the beasts offered in sacrifice. Christ as the great antitype fulfilled this
condition: “He was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.” He could
triumphantly ask his persecutors, “Which of you convinceth me of sin?” (John
viii, 46). If Christ had been a son of Adam merely, he would have been a sinner,
and, therefore, unfit for sacrificial purposes. On the other hand, if he had
been clothed with angelic or immaculate nature, he would have been equally
disqualified, inasmuch as it was necessary that the sinning nature should
suffer in him. The combination of condemned human nature with personal
sinlessness was effected through divine power begetting a son from Mary’s
substance. A “Lamb of God,” was thus produced, guileless from his paternity,
and yet inheriting the human sin-nature of his mother.
It
is not possible that “The blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins”
(Heb. x, 4), for the reason that appears in view of all these facts. The law
would admit of no substitute, but exacted the very nature obnoxious to its
penalty. Christ, then, “being found in fashion as a man,” and yet being
sinless, was a perfect sacrifice; because being the representative of human
nature he could meet all the claims of God’s law upon that nature, and yet
triumph over its operation by a resurrection to immortal life. The Lamb being
provided, the sacrifice followed. The “Messiah was cut off.” “He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised
for our iniquities: . . . the Lord bath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
God
dealt with him representatively. There is a great difference between a representative and a substitute. A representative is not
disconnected from those represented. On the contrary, those represented go
through with him all that he goes through. But in the case of a substitute, it
is otherwise. He does his part instead of
those for whom he jç the substitute, and these are dissociated from the
transgression.
Christ
suffering as the representative of his people, is one with them, and they are
one with him. In what he went through they went through. Hence, Paul says
believers were crucified with Christ, and baptised into his death. This death
he declares to have been “the declaration of the righteousness of God,” which
God required as the basis of the work of reconciliation and forgiveness (Rom.
iii, 24-26).
Pg
170
Christ
having died, God raised him from the dead to a glorious existence, even to
equality with Himself. This was the essential point of the scheme, as appears
from 1st Corinthians xv, 17, 20: “if
Christ be not raised YOUR FAITH IS VAIN, ye are yet in your sins. But now is Christ risen from the dead “;
and being raised, he constitutes the “one name given under heaven whereby men
may be saved” (Acts iv, 12). If Christ had been a personal transgressor, the
law of sin would have kept him in the grave, and the scheme of salvation would
have miscarried at its vital point. The way of salvation could not have been
opened through him; a dead Saviour would have been no ark of refuge-no
life-giver to the mortal sons of men.
But
Christ, after suffering the natural penalty of disobedience in human nature,
having been raised from the dead to live for evermore, he is “the Saviour of
all such as come to him.” He has life for bestowal by his own right. “This is
the record, that God bath given to us eternal life; and this life IS IN HIS SON. He that hath the Son hath life, and he
that bath not the Son of God hath not life” (I John v, 11, 12). Life is
deposited in him for our acceptance, on condition of allying ourselves to him,
yea, on condition of our entry into him, and becoming part of him; for Paul
says of those who are in Christ, “We are members of his body, of his flesh, and
of his bones,” and the aggregate of such are designated “the Bride, the Lamb’s wife,”-” His body, the church.”
Divine
wisdom, which is foolishness with men, has provided a means whereby we get the
benefit of the result achieved in Christ. Baptism in water is the ceremony by
which believing men and women are united to Christ, and constituted heirs of
the life everlasting which he possesses in his own right. This will be
demonstrated more particularly in a later lecture. Meanwhile, we quote Paul’s
words: “As many of you as have been baptised
into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. iii, 27). Entering into Christ, we
are made one with him, and become
heirs to the privileges of the position which he has established in himself,
after the analogy of the woman who, at her betrothal, obtains a prospective
title to that which belongs to the man to whom she is betrothod. in the first Adam, we inherit death
without the possibility of retrieving our misfortune, so long as we remain
connected with him. in the last Adam (who,
however, it must always be borne in mind, ascended to the last Adam position
from the first Adam state), we obtain a title to eternal life. Hence the words
of the apostle Paul: “As in
Pg
171
Adam
all die; even so in Christ shall all be made alive,” that is, the “all” of whom
he is speaking, viz., believers of the truth, as may be seen by the context (I
Cor. xv, 22, 23), and only those who are found worthy at the judgment-seat. He
is speaking here of being made alive immortally, not of mere resuscitation of
mortal life to judgment, of which many will be the subjects who have never been
Christians, but who are among the responsible unjust by reason of their
privileges.
By
nature we are in Adam. By the gospel and baptism we pass “into Christ.” This is
God’s appointment; and we cannot be saved except by compliance with His
appointments.
Natural
virtue will avail nothing, because, in
itself, it is related only to the present, and establishes no right in
respect of future existence. Those who are trusting to it, are building their
house upon a foundation of sand. There is only one name given under heaven
whereby men can be saved; and if we refuse to put on that name, and thus reject
Christ, “who is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and
redemption” (1 Corinthians i, 30), there remains nothing for us but the utter
worthlessness of our own mortality, which without redemption will perish for
ever under the just condemnation of Him who hath already passed the decree in
prospect: “Whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.”
o
reader, “refuse not Him that speaketh.” Turn not thine ear from the invitation
which calls thee to drink of the fountain of the water of life freely. Gladly
accept it; humbly comply with its requirements; and thou shalt, in due time, be
delivered from the bondage of mortal flesh which lies heavy upon thee, and be
promoted to the glorious liberty of the children of God!
LECTURE 7
THE DEVIL NOT A PERSONAL
SUPERNATURAL
BEING, BUT THE
SCRIPTURAL
PERSONIFICATION OF SIN
IN
ITS MANIFESTATIONS AMONG MEN
IN
the religion of Christendom, the devil figures almost more Prominently than
God. If we have found Christendom astray as to the nature of man, it will not
be wonderful if we find it astray on the subject of the devil, with which,
scripturally, man has so much to do.
The
theology of Christendom places the devil in juxtaposition with God. As the one
is presented for worship as the source and embodiment of all good, so the other
is held up for detestation and dread, as the instigator and promoter of all
evil. Practically, the one is regarded in the light of the good God, and the
other as the bad god. It is the polytheism of paganism in its smallest form:
and the philosophy of the ancients embodied in names and forms supplied by the
Bible.
Good
and evil are regarded as separate essences, and each is attributed to the
control of a separate being. Instead of having a god for war, a god for love, a
god for thunder, a god for fire, a god for water, and so on, down the whole
list of nature’s phenomena, modern theology confines the ruling powers of the
universe to two agencies, with whom respectively it leaves the contest of good
and evil-God and the devil-a contest in which they measure strength in what
would appear to be a somewhat equal encounter.
We
have looked at Bible teaching concerning God. It is appropriate now to consider
what it teaches about the devil, for there is a Bible doctrine of the devil, as
there is a Bible doctrine of God. And it certainly is not less important to
know the truth about the one than it is to know the truth about the other. The
doctrine of the devil has as intimate a bearing upon
Pg
173
the
truth of Christ as the doctrine of God. This may be a surprising proposition at
first; but on due investigation it will become apparent from two separate
points of view.
First,
the orthodox point of view. From this, the devil is seen in large proportions.
He occupies the first position in the scheme of religion. He is the principal
figure in the picture. He is the great enemy from which our immortal souls are
supposed to stand in need of being delivered. He enters largely into Methodistic
outpourings, hortatory or devotional. He is the great nightmare, the great
object of terror, the great fowler, with net-snare, exerting his utmost cunning
and device-which are something superhuman-to entrap souls. Cruden describes him
as “a most wicked angel, the implacable enemy and tempter
of
the human race . . . deadly in his malice, surprisingly subtle possessing
strength superior to ours, having a mighty number of principalities and powers
under his command . . . He roves, full of rage, like a roaring lion, seeking to
tempt, to betray, to destroy us, and to involve us in guilt and wickedness . .
. In a word, he is an enemy to God and man, and uses his utmost endeavours to
rob God of His glory, and men of their souls.”
Common
belief assigns something like omniscience to the evil being thus described; he
is regarded as universally at work, alike active in England and America, and
all other parts of the globe at the same time, and exerting his seductive arts
in millions of hearts at once. He is also believed to be, in some
sense,
omnipotent, achieving his behests by a power superior to nature, and certainly
more successfully than God in the mutual strife for human souls; since hell,
according to tradition, receives a far larger proportion of the earth’s inhabitants
than find their way to the celestial city.
If
this be the truth about the devil, it is of the first importance to know it;
for how can we mentally adapt ourselves to our
spiritual exigencies if we ignore the very first relation we sustain, in
our exposure to assault and capture at the hands of an unseen, but potent and
untiring, malignant foe? A denial of this truth- if it be a truth-is a mistake
of the first magnitude, and cannot fail to imperil the soul thus deluded,
unless indeed-which no one believing the Bible can maintain-it is a matter of
in-difference whether a man know the truth of the matter or not. We must
presume every orthodox believer will estimate the doctrine at its inherent
value, and maintain that it is of vital consequence for a man to believe in the
peril from which Christ came to save him.
Pg
174
From
the second point of view, the doctrine appears in the same hght of essential
importance, though the picture seen is different in hue and outline. Assuming
for the moment that there is no such being as the devil of orthodox belief, but
that the devil is something occupying an entirely different relation to the
universe and ourselves from that assigned to the infernal monster of
Christendom, it is equally important that we understand this, as it is that we
accept the popular doctrine of the devil, if that is the truth. How this is
will presently appear. No one acquainted with the teaching of the New Testament
will dispute, that it is necessary to understand and believe the truth concerning Christ. James,
speaking of himself, and those who were Christ’s, says, “Of his own will begat
he us with the word of truth” (James
i, 18). Paul, describing the spiritual cleansing to which obedient believers of
the truth are subject, styles it “the washing of water by the word” (Eph. v, 26). Christ also says to his disciples: “Ye
are clean through the word i have spoken
unto you” (John xv, 3), and to the Jews who were disposed to be his
disciples: “Ye are clean through the
word! have spoken unto you free” (John viii, 32). Now, this truth is styled
“the word of the truth of the gospel” (Col. i, 5), “by which also ye are saved” (I Cor. xv, 2).
Descending
from these general intimations to particulars, we find that the word of the
truth of the gospel, designed to cleanse and save men, consists of “the kingdom
of God and those things that concern our
Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts xxviii, 31), elsewhere styled, “the things
concerning the kingdom of God and the
name of Jesus Christ” (Acts viii, 12). From this it follows, that for a
man, to believe the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. i,
16), he must believe the truth concerning
Jesus Christ. In view of this, let the reader ponder the following
testimonies : -“For this purpose the Son
of God was manifested, that he might
DESTROY
THE WORKS OF THE DEVIL” (I John iii,
8).
Forasrnuch
then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, (Jesus) also himself
likewise took part of the same; that
through death he might DESTROY HiM THAT HAD THE POWER OF DEATH, THAT IS,
THE DEVIL” (Heb. ii, 14).
Is
it possible to believe the truth concerning Christ, and be ignorant of the
nature of the devil that he was expressly manifested to destroy with his works?
It is unnecessary to answer the question. It is necessary to put it for the
purpose of shewing that the doctrine of the devil (in whatever form the truth
of the
Pg
175
matter
may be found to exist) is so far from being an unimportant matter, that it is
one of the first principles of the doctrine of Christ, ignorance of which
argues a fatal want of knowledge in relation to the first of divine principles.
The doctrine of the devil is not an “advanced” subject, but bears upon the most
elementary aspects of divine truth. The idea that it is otherwise is due to the
obscurity arising from tradition and an imperfect translation of the
Scriptures. The sense of the thing, alone, would indicate the importance of the
subject; for how can a man be in a state of enlightenment in relation to divine
things, who is ignorant of a matter so vastly affecting the relation of man to
God, on whichever side the truth may lie?
Now,
we make bold at once to assert that the popular doctrine of a personal devil
has no foundation whatever in truth, but is the hideous conception of the heathen
mind, inherited by the moderns from the mythologies of the ancients, and
incorporated with Christianity by those “men of corrupt minds,” who, Paul
predicted, would pervert the truth, “giving heed to seducing spirits and
doctrines of devils” (I Tim. iv, 1). In taking this position, we are not
unaware that apparent countenance is given to the doctrine in the Scriptures.
Nay, it is because of this circumstance that it becomes worth while to attack
the monster conceit, in order that conscientious minds, over-shadowed with the
nightmare of theology, may see that, as in other instances, the apparent
sanction accorded by the Scriptures to a false doctrine is no sanction at all,
but arises from a misconstruction under educational bias, of certain allusions
to other agencies altogether.
In
the first place, there are certain general principles which exclude the
possibility of the devil’s existence. “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. vi, 23). “Sin entered into the world, and DEATH by sin” (Rom. v, 12). This is an eternal
principle; death and sin are inseparable. “God ONLY hath immortality” (1 Tim.
vi, 16); and He bestows it on the principle of obedience. Disobedience, which
is sin, in every case, He visits with death. Therefore, the angels which kept
not their first estate, were cast down to hell (the grave), and reserved under
chains of darkness (the bonds of death)-(Jude 6; II Peter ii, 2, 4), therefore
Adam was sentenced to return to the ground (Gen. iii, 19); therefore Moses was
prohibited from entering the promised land, and condemned to die (Deut. xxxii,
48, 52); and, therefore, Uzzah was slain for harmlessly (humanly speaking)
saving the ark from a fall (II Sam. vi, 6, 7); therefore “the man of God that
came
Pg
176
out
of Judah” was torn by a lion for turning back to eat bread with another
prophet, in disobedience to a divine command, under the sincere impression that
in so doing he was obeying the commands of the Almighty (I Kings xiii, 1, 25).
An immortal rebel is an
impossibility. With God is the fountain of life (Psalm xxxvi, 9). No one can steal a
march upon Him, so as to retain life and power in rebellion. “In His hand is
the life of every living thing “ (Job xii, 10), and He Cuts away the life that
is lifted against Him; He consigns all disobedience and sin to death. Will it
be suggested that God has, made an exception in the case of the devil? The
Bible devil is a sinner (I John iii, 8): therefore the devil cannot be
immortal, God is no respecter of persons, whether of men or angels. God is not
double in His modes of action. He is one. He is the same for ever and in all
places. He does not act one way on the earth, and on another principle in the
sun or other parts of His dominion; His ways are wise, uniform, and unvarying.
Therefore the operation of His law, which links death with sin, would destroy
the devil if he were a person; “for the devil sinneth from the beginning,” and
must, therefore, have been mortal from the beginning.
In
some cases, the popular view so far yields to this argument on the subject, as
to admit that the devil cannot be immortal, and must, in course of time, be
destined to die; but saves itself by suggesting that, though mortal, he may
have an existence contemporaneous with that of the human race, and that his
career will only end with the triumph of the Son of God on earth, But this is,
if possible, more absurd and untenable than the ordinary view, The theory of an
immortal, supernatural devil, who was once an angel, has an air of plausibility
and consistency about it, when not scanned too closely; but the idea of a
mortal devil-who never was anything but a sinner himself-entrusted with a
general jurisdiction over other sinners (for it is said he has the power of
death and disease), for the purpose, not of dispensing the divine law, but of
antagonising the Deity in His dealings with the human race- doing all he can to
afflict and damn those whom Deity is represented as striving to save, is
something exceedingly difficult to conceive, If this is the Bible devil, why
was it necessary that Jesus should die to compass his destruction? He took part
of flesh and blood, that “THROUGH DEATH he might destroy him that hath the
power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb.
ii, 14). Why through death? If the devil is a being separate from mankind,
Pg 177
what
had the immolation of flesh and blood on Calvary to do with the process of his
destruction? If he were the strong, personal, active power of evil contended
for, it wanted strength, and not weakness, to put him down. It wanted “the
nature of angels,” and not “the seed of Abraham,” to enter into a successful
encounter with “the personal power of darkness.” But Jesus, to destroy him, was
manifested in the flesh, and submitted to death. Victory crowned his efforts,
and the devil was destroyed; in what sense, we shall see.
The
words “devil” and “Satan” occur repeatedly in the Scriptures, and are used in a
personal sense; but there is no affirmation of the doctrine popularly attached
to the words. This is remarkable; for if the doctrine be true, it would be
reasonable to expect that it would be formally enunciated like other points of
truth. The doctrine of God’s existence; of His creative power; of His relation
to His universe, is not only implied in the appellations He appropriates to
Himself, but expressly propounded. “I am God, and there is none else” (Isaiah
xlvi, 9). “To whom will ye liken Me, or shall 1 be equal? saith the Holy One,
Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things” (Isaiah
xl, 25, 26). “God dwells in heaven.”
“Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising; Thou understandest my thought
afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with
all my ways. There is not a word on my tongue, but lo, 0 Lord, Thou knowest it
altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid Thine hand upon me.
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me: it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
Whither shall I go from Thy spirit, or whither shall I flee from Thy presence?”
(Psalm cxxxix, 2-7).
These
and many other like declarations affirm the reality of God’s glorious
existence, His attributes, and power; but there is no such information in the
case of the devil. The popularly received theory of his origin and relation to
God and man is definite enough; and there are some things in the Scriptures at
which we shall look, which are supposed to bear out the theory; but this is
principally due to Milton, whose Paradise
Lost has done more to give shape and body to the tradition of a devil than
all other influences put together. His poetry has woven together a number of
Scriptural things which have really no connection one with another, but which
work admirably into a consistent whole when the parts are not too closely
scrutinised.
The
narrative of the temptation in the Garden of Eden is
Pg
178
one
of those parts. In Milton, and in the general popular conception of the
subject, the supernatural devil took the shape of a serpent, and became the
tempter of Eve. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible narrative to warrant
this view. The narrative exhibits the natural serpent, “more subtle than any BEAST OF THE FIELD which the Lord God had made” (Gen. iii, 1), as the tempter. The
creature was endowed with the gift of speech (no doubt, specially with a view
to the part it had to perform in putting our first parents to the test).
Possessing this power, it reasoned upon the prohibition which God had put upon
“the tree in the midst of the garden,” and coming to the conclusion, from all
he saw and heard, that death would not be the result of eating, he said, “Ye
shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof your
eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Gen.
iii,
5),
To
say that a supernatural personal devil put this into the serpent’s head is to
go beyond the record. It is to put something into it that is not there. The
narrative accredits the serpent as a natural agent with the part it took in the
transaction, and the sentence afterwards passed upon the serpent, rests upon
the same basis: “Because THOU hast done
this, THOU art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field.
Upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust
shalt thou eat all the days of thy life” (Gen, lii, 14). If the serpent had
been a passive and irresponsible tool in the hands of infernal Power, it is
difficult to see the appropriateness or justice of a decree which heaps all the
blame and visits all the consequences upon it, instead of upon the Being
supposed to have instigated its crimes. To suggest that the serpent was Satan
in reptile form is again to go beyond the record, and enter a region where one
guess or one assertion is as good as another. The idea is forbidden by the
sentence which condemns the serpent to eat dust all the days of its life. Paul evidently recognised nothing beyond
the serpent in the transaction. “I fear,” says he, “lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his
subtilty,” etc. (II Cor. xi, 3).
Some
people make a great difficulty about the serpent speaking; but surely there is as
much difficulty about a serpent speaking under satanic inspiration as in one
speaking by faculty divinely conferred for a purpose. If a “dumb ass, speaking
with man’s voice, forbad the madness” of a Balaam-(II Pet. U, l6)-why not a
serpent be enabled to utter its thoughts
Pg
179
when
it was necessary to try the faithfulness of Adam and Eve? How otherwise could
they be put to trial? It would never occur to their childlike and inexperienced
minds to disobey. The suggestion had to come from without, and could only
emanate from some of the living forms by which they were surrounded. If it be
asked why temptation was necessary at all, it has to be answered that the
obligation to obey is never so palpable to the consciousness, as when a
temptation to the contrary is presented. Obedience that cannot stand the shock
of temptation is weak and ready to die. Trial strengthens and makes manifest.
Hence, the probation through which the race is passing.
It
is commonly believed that the devil was once a powerful arch-angel, and that he
was driven out of heaven on account of his pride; after which, he applied his
angelic energies to oppose God in all His schemes and movements, and do as much
evil as he could in the universe, being assisted in this by a host of angelic
sympathisers, who were driven down to hell along with him. This view is
supposed to have a certain degree of countenance in the Bible. Let us look at
all the places where it is supposed this countenance is given. The case of the
fallen angels is largely relied upon:- “If God spared not the angels that
sinned, but cast them down to hell,
and
delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment “ (II Pet.
ii, 4).
“And
the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He
hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the
great day” (Jude 6).
This
is all the information we have on the subject. It is scanty and obscure, but,
such as it is, it points in a very different direction and to a very different
occurrence from that indicated in popular tradition. It does not .tell of
angels being expelled from heaven to engage in marauding expeditions against
human interests and divine authority, wherever their caprice might lead them;
but of disobedient angels, not necessarily in heaven, being degraded from their
position, and confined in the grave against a time of judgment. It speaks of
them as in custody, “in chains of darkness “-a metaphor highly expressive of
the bondage of death-in which they are held and from which they will emerge, to
be judged, at a time when the saints shall sit in judgment (I Cor. vi, 3). The
time and locality of their fall are matters of speculation. The probability is
that the globe was the scene of the tragedy in pre-Adamic times, since both
Peter and Jude
Pg
180
categorise
it with the Flood and the perdition of Sodom. The dark, chaotic, aqueous
condition of things that prevailed at the time when the spirit of God
illuminated the scene, preliminary to the six days’ work of reorganisation, may
be presumed to have been due to the catastrophe which hurled the illustrious
transgressors into destruction. This idea is countenanced by the words
addressed to Adam: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish (fill again) the earth,” which was only appropriate on
the supposition that the earth was occupied before Adam’s time. This was the
command delivered to Noah after the Flood, when the earth had been cleared of
its population by judgment. The sin of the angels, so far as indicated in the statements
before us, consisted in leaving the earth without authority, and probably
against command.
Be
that as it may, it will be seen that the Scripture allusions to the fallen
angels afford no countenance whatever to the idea that there was “a rebellion
in heaven” under the leadership of “Satan,” resulting in the expulsion of the
rebels, and the establishment in the universe of a great antagonism to God,
having its centre and headquarters in the hell of popular creed. Superficial
believers in the Miltonic antecedents of “the Prince of Darkness,” quote Rev,
xii, 7, in proof of them : -“And there was war in heaven. Michael and his
angels fought against
the
Dragon, and the Dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not, neither was
their place found any more in heaven; and the great Dragon was cast out, that
old serpent called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was
cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him,”
Surely
those who quote this to prove a rebellion in heaven before Adam, must stagger a
little, when it is pointed out to them that it describes something that was to
happen after the days of John. The
things seen by John in “Revelation” were representative of events future to his time. This is evident from Rev. iv, 1: “Come
up hither, and I will shew thee things
which must be hereafter.” Hence, how absurd to quote any of his
descriptions as applicable to an event alleged
to have occurred before the creation of the world!
Secondly,
what John saw were not real things, but signs or symbols of real things. This
is evident from the opening statement of the Apocalypse: “He (Jesus) sent and signified it by his angel unto his
servant John” (Rev. i, 1). The seven churches of Asia were represented by seven candlesticks, and Christ by a seven-horned lamb; the totality of the
redeemed by four beasts
Pg
181
full of eyes; an imperial city by a wo,nan, etc. This being so, it is
inadmissible to read the above-quoted account of “war in heaven” literally,
which must be done before the popular view can be maintained. The very nature
of the scene described precludes the possibility of a literal construction.
Only read the chapter and realise it.
A
woman clothed with the sun and the moon
under her feet, is opposed by a dragon with seven heads and ten horns,
who, with his tail, sweeps the third part of the stars from their places in the
sky! The woman gives birth to a child, which the dragon is waiting to
devour. The child is snatched up to heaven, whither it is apparently followed
by the dragon, for we find the dragon engaged in a war upon Michael and his
angels in heaven, The war ends in the triumph of Michael. The dragon is
expelled, falls to the earth, gives chase to the woman, and, unable to catch
her, ejects from his venomous jaws a flood of water intended to drown her, but
the earth opens, the water sinks through the rent, and the woman is saved.
The
fact is, it is a magnificent hieroglyph, with a deep political significance,
which subsequent history has verified with the utmost exactness. This is not
the place to go into the matter. We recommend the reader to peruse Dr. Thomas’s
Exposition of the Apocalypse (Eureka, in
three vols.), for a logical, eloquently-written, intellect-satisfying, and
heart-building explanation of this and all the mysteries of “Revelation.” It
suffices, at present, to show that Rev. xxi affords no countenance to the idea
which it is the object of this lecture to destroy. The class of people who
refer to it in support of a personal devil, also quote Isaiah xiv, 12-15, and
Ezek. xxviii, 11-15; but these Scriptures have even less to do with the subject
than Rev. xii. In both cases, if the reader will read the whole chapter; he
will find the personage addressed is an earthly potentate-in one case the King
of Babylon, and in the other, the Prince of Tyre.
It
is worthy of remark that in the divine dealings with the Jewish nation, as
exhibited in Biblical history or the writings of the prophets, there is an
absence of everything giving countenance to the idea of a personal devil. In
all God’s expostulations with His people, the appeal is to themselves, There is
no recognition of diabolical agency or occult influence? How shall we account
for this? If Satanic influence, of the type recognised by popular tradition,
were a fact, it would surely be recognised in proceedings intended to remedy
its evil working. Would it be righteous to charge the responsibility of
devilish suggestion
Pg
182
upon
poor beleaguered human nature? Devil-influence must I detract from human
accountability in the ratio of its potency. No account of the existence of such
an influence is taken in God’s extensive communings with His chosen nation.
This is one of the strongest evidences that it is a fiction.
If
there is no such devil, then, as the arch-fiend of orthodox repute, busy
hunting souls and scheming, with irrepressible and untiring activity, to thwart
God’s beneficent designs, what are we to understand by “the devil” so often
mentioned in the Bible, and. spoken of in the “third personal pronoun, singular,
masculine gender”? This is the question now demanding an answer, and the demand
will be met by facts which will show the impossibility of the existence of the
devil of popular superstition.
We
first look at the original words, devil
and Satan, for these (with very slight modification) are the original
words, though
now
so long current as English words. Devil is
Greek; Satan is Hebrew, and Greek
only by adoption. Devil, in the
singular number, only occurs in the New Testament; Satan is found in both Old and New. It is no use referring to an
English dictionary to ascertain the exact meaning of the terms as employed in
the original tongue. The English language was unknown at the time the words
were written. An English dictionary only gives the meaning of current words as currently understood. No doubt the
dictionary would favour the popular view of the matter, by defining the devil
to be “a fallen angel, the enemy of God and -man,” but this is of no more value
than any utterance on the subject one might hear in society. The whole question
is whether the received (and, therefore, the dictionary) doctrine of the devil
is true. This we can only settle by going to the original sources of
information.
SATAN
“Satan”
is a Hebrew word, and transferred to the
English Bible untranslated from the original tongue. Cruden (himself a
believer in the popular devil) defines it as follows : - “Satan, Sathan,
Sathanas: this is a mere Hebrew word, and
signifies AN ADVERSARY, AN ENEMY, AN ACCUSER.” If Satan is “a mere Hebrew
word, signifying adversary,” etc., obviously it does not in itself import the evil being which it represents to the common
run of English ears This conclusion is borne out by its uses in the Hebrew
Bible. The first place where it occurs is Num. xxii, 22:-
pg
183
“And God’s anger was kindled because he
(Balaam) went; and the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary (SATAN) against him.”
It
next occurs in the same chapter, verse 32 : -“And the angel of the Lord said
unto him, Wherefore hast thou
smitten
thine ass these three times? Behold, I went out to withstand (marg., to be AN ADVERSARY-a Satan to) thee.”
In
this case, Satan was a holy angel. Understanding “Satan” to mean adversary in
its simple and general sense, we can see how this could be; but, understanding
it as the evil being of popular belief, it would be a different matter. The
following are other cases in which the word is translated “adversary,” in the
common version of the Scriptures : -Let him not go down with us to battle, lest
in the battle he be an
adversary (SATAN) to us” (I Sam. xxix 4).
“And
David said, What have I to do with you, ye Sons of Zemiab, that ye should this
day be adversaries (SATANS) unto me?”
(II Sam. xix,
“But
now the Lord my God bath given rue rest on every side, so that there is neither
adversary (SATAN) nor evil occurrent”
(I Kings v, 4).
“And
the Lord stirred up an adversary (SATAN)
unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king’s seed in Edom” (I Kings
xi, 14).
And
God stirred him up another adversary (SATAN),
Rezon, the son of E!iadah, which fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah.”
“And
he was an adversary (SATAN) to Israel
all the days of Solomon” (I Kings xi, 23, 25).
In
these cases, the translators have translated
the word, and by this means have fenced off the notion of diabolical
interference in the matters recorded, which would certainly have sprung up if
the word had been “Satan” instead of adversary. In one or two other cases,
however, they have not translated the word, but simply transferred it in its
Hebrew form, unaltered, to the English version, thus mystifying the idea of the
original, and giving countenance to the popular Satanic theory.
~A
notable instance of this is found in the narrative of Job’s trials. “Satan”
here plays a conspicuous part, and of course the common English reader thinks
of the creature variously denominated the Devil, Lucifer, Old Harry, the Old
Gentleman, the Prince of Darkness, Old Nick, Old Scratch, Sooty, Old Horny, the
Gentleman in Black, etc. He sees the monster with
pg
184
horns,
hoofs, and tail, bloodshot eyes, and fiery sceptre, every time he encounters
the word “Satan” in the narrative; and a vivid imagination will supply the
clanking of chains, the hissing of fire and smoke, and the general accessories
of Satanic dignity, according to popular conceptions. This is purely owing to a
mistaken use of the word, borrowed from bygone days of intense darkness. If the
reader will substitute “the adversary” for “Satan,” which is done marginally in
recent editions of the Bible, he will read strictly according to the original,
and escape popular devilism.
But
who was the adversary, it may be asked, who proved such a terror to Job,
against whom he exerted such power? All the answer that can ~ made is, that there
is no information as to who he was in particular. His title would show that he
was an enemy of Job, and probably of the sons of God in general-a wicked,
overbearing lord, whose envy and malice were only equal to the dominion he
seems to have exercised. It is impossible to be more specific than this, in
saying who he was. We can say who he was not.
He was not the horned and sulphurous monster of popular superstition, for
he did not come from “hell” to attend the assembly of the sons of God, but from
“going to and fro in the earth.” He
was not the “devil” of popular theology, who is so coy of spiritual influence
that he flies when the Bible is presented, or the godly fall on their knees;
for he came boldly into the blaze of the divine presence, among a crowd of
worshippers. He was not the arch-fiend, who is represented to be on the alert
to catch immortal souls, and drag them into his fiery hold; for he had his eye
on Job’s estate and effects, and ultimately got his envious malice to take
effect on Job’s body. The probability is he was a powerful magnate of the
time-a professed fellow of the sons of God-but an envious and despiteful
malignant, who looked on Job with evil eye, and sought to effect his ruin.
But,
you say, what about the calamities of tempest and disease that befell Job? Was
it in the power of a mortal man to control these? The answer is these were
God’s doings, and not the adversary’s. “Thou
movedst ME against him, to destroy him without cause” (chapter ii, 3). This
is the language in which God describes Satan’s transaction in the matter. It
was God who inflicted the calamities at the adversary’s instigation. This is
Job’s view of the case: “Have pity upon me, 0 ye my friends,” says he, “THE
HAND OF GOD hath touched me” (chapter
xix, 21). And the narrator, in concluding the book, says: “Then came there unto
him all his brethren. . . and they bemoaned him, and corn-
Pg
185
forted
him over all the evil THAT THE LORD
HAD BROUGHT UPON HIM” (chapter xlii, 11). But even supposing the adversary had
actually wielded the power that affected Job, that would no more prove him a
supernatural agent, than do the miracles achieved by Moses prove him to have
been no man. God can delegate miraculous power even to mortal man.
The
three other cases in which Satan is untranslated
are the following : -“And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David
to number
Israel”
(I Chron. xxi, 1).
“Set
thou a wicked man over him, and let Satan stand at his right hand” (Psa. cix,
6).
“And
he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and
Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan,
The Lord rebuke thee, 0 Satan, even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem,” etc.
(Zech. iii, 1, 2).
With
regard to the first, the adversary seems to have been God; for we read in II
Sam. xxiv, 1, “The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and HE moved David against them to say, Go,
number Israel and Judah.” The angel of God was a Satan to Balaam, as we have
seen, and, in this case, God proved a Satan to Israel. Moved, doubtless, by the
general perversity of the people, He impelled David to a course which resulted
in calamity to the nation.
In
the second case, it is evident that Satan (margin,
an adversary) is synonymous with “wicked man” in the first half of the
verse. The second part of the verse is the first part repeated in another form,
as is so frequently the case in Hebrew writing, e.g., “He washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes.” “Thou wilt not leave my
soul in hell; neither wilt Thou suffer
Thine Holy One to see corruption.” On the same principle, a wicked man
standing over the subject of David’s imprecations, was Satan standing at his
right hand; of course, not the orthodox Satan.
As
to the case of Joshua, the high priest, the transaction in which “Satan”
appeared against him was so highly symbolical (as anyone may see by reading the
first four chapters of Zechariah), that we cannot suppose Satan, the adversary,
stood for an individual, but rather as the representative of the class of
antagonists against whom Joshua had to contend. The nature of these may be
learnt from the following: -
Pg
186
Then
stood up Joshua, the son of Jozadak, and his brethren the priests and
Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and his brethren, and budded the altar of the
God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings thereon, as it is written in the law of
Moses the Man of God. . . . Now when THE ADVERSARIES of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity
builded the temple unto the Lord God of Israel, then they came to Zerubbabel,
and to the chief of the fathers, and said unto them, Let us build with you,
etc. But Zerubbabel and Joshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of
Israel said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our
God, but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel, as king
Cyrus the King of Persia hath commanded us. Then
the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled
them in building, and hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their
purpose all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even unto the reign of Darius
king of Persia” (Ezra iii, 2, 3: iv, 1-5).
The
individual adversary seen by Zechariah, side by side with Joshua, represented
this class-opposition to the work in which Joshua was engaged. Those who insist
upon the popular Satan having to do with the matter, have to prove the
existence of such a being first, before the passage from Zechariah can help
them; for “Satan” only means adversary, and in itself lends no more countenance
to their theory than the word “liar” or “enemy.”
The
Hebrew word “Satan” was adopted into the Greek language; whence we meet with it
in the New Testament, which, as the generality of readers well know, was
written in Greek. It is here where the word is most jealously cherished as the
synonym of the popular “angel of the pit.” People think, if they cannot prove
the existence of the devil from the Old Testament, they certainly can from the
New, most abundantly. A critical consideration of the matter, however, will
show that in this, they are entirely mistaken. Satan, in the New Testament, no
more means the arch-fiend of popular superstition, than Satan in the Old. This
will be quickly manifest to the unprejudiced mind.
In
the first place, if Satan is the popular devil, in what a curious light the
following statement appears, addressed by Jesus, in the first century, to the
church at Pergamos : -“I know thy works and where thou dwellest, even WHERE SATAN’S
SEAT
IS: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those
days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, WHERE
SATAN DWELLETH” (Rev. ii~ 13).
According
to this, in the days of John, the apostle, Satan’s headquarters were Pergamos,
in Asia Minor. The fact is, the enemies
of the truth were notably numerous, energetic, and powerful in that city,
and indulged in relentless and successful
Pg 187
persecution
of those professing the’ name of Christ. This earned for the place. the fearful
distinction of being styled by Jesus “Satan’s (the adversary’s) seat,” and “the
dwelling place of Satan” (the adversary). This is intelligible: but if the
popular devil is in reality Satan, we are invited to contemplate the idea that
the devil had forsaken hell in those days, and pitched his tent for a while in
the salubrious city of Pergamos, whence to dcspatch his busy emissaries all
over the globe!
Jesus,
on a certain occasion, styled Peter “Satan “:- “But he turned, and said unto
PETER, Get thee behind me, SATAN:
thou
art an offence unto me: for thou
savourest not tile things that be of God, but those that be of men” (Matt.
xvi, 23; Mark viii, 33; Luke iv,
Understanding
“Satan” to mean adversary, we can comprehend this incident. Peter protested
against the sacrifice of Christ. He thereby took the attitude of an enemy, for
had Jesus not died, the purpose of his manifestation would have been
frustrated:
the
Scriptures falsified, God dishonoured, and salvation prevented. In opposing the
death of Christ, Peter was, therefore Satan, in the Bible sense. This sense Christ actually defines:
Thou
(Peter) savourest (or favourest, or hast sympathy with) not the things that be of God but THOSE THAT BE OF MEN.” To be on
the side of men against God is to be Satan. Peter was, for the moment, in this
position. He made himself part of the great adversary-the carnal mind-as
collectively exemplified in the world that lieth in wickedness (I John v,
19)-the friendship of which is enmity with God (James iv, 4). Jesus, therefore,
commands him from his presence. But how about the popular devil? Was Peter
Satan in the orthodox sense? He was, if the orthodox construction of the word
is correct; for Jesus says he was. But Peter was a man who became Christ’s
leading apostle. Therefore, the orthodox construction is the mistaken and
ridiculous construction, from which we shake ourselves free, in recognition of
the fact that Peter for the moment was a Bible Satan, from which he afterwards
changed by “conversion” (Luke xxii, 32).
Paul
says, “Hymenus and Alexander, whom I have delivered unto SATAN, that they may learn not to blaspheme” (I
Tim.i, 20). This also shows that the New Testament Satan is not the popular
Satan: for no one ever hears of the popular Satan being employed by Christian
teachers to correct the blasphemous propensities of reprobates. It is
presumable that Satan’s influence would have an entirely contrary effect; and
accordingly clerical endeavours are generally directed with a view to rid
Pg
188
sinners
of his presence. At Methodist prayer and revival meetings-in which orthodox
religion is carried to its full and consistent issue-the cry is, “Put the devil
out “; and this prayer is uttered with especial vehemence over any hardened
sinner who may be got hold of.
The
process of “delivering over to Satan,” according to apostolic practice may be
gathered from I Cor. v, 3-5 : -“For I verily, as absent in body, but present in
spirit, have judged
already,
as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed; in the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye
are gathered together, and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus
Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh,
that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”
The
meaning of this is, simply, the expulsion of the offender from the community of
the believers. This is evident from the verse immediately preceding those we
have quoted: “Ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath
done this deed MIGHT BE TAKEN AWAY FROM AMONG YOU “; and also the concluding
sentence, “PUT AWAY FROM AMONG YOURSELVES THAT WICKED PERSON” (verse 13). This
was the apostolic recommendation in all cases of recalcitrancy.
“A
man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition
reject “ (Tit. iii, 10).
“Withdraw yourselves from
every brother that walketh disorderly.
If
any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and hove oo company with him” (H Thess. iii,
6, 14).
“Mark
them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have
learned, and avoid them” (Rom. xvi,
17).
“I
would they were even cut off which
trouble you” (Gal. v, 12).
To
repudiate the fellowship of anyone, was to hand him over to the adversary, or
Satan, because it was putting him back into the world, which is the great enemy
or adversary of God. The object of this was remedial : - “Have no company with
him, that he may be ashamed. Yet
count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (H Thess. iii, 14,
15). In this way, Paul, by cutting off Hymenus and Alexander, hoped to bring
them to their senses, and arrest their contumaciousness. They were in the
ecclesia, and speaking against Paul and others, and against things that they
did not understand; and by the bold measure of excommunication, he hoped to
teach them a lesson they could not learn in fellowship. It was likely to make a
man think, to thus “hand him over to Satan” (the adversary). The
pg189
object
of it, in the recommendation to the Corinthians, was “for the destruction of
the flesh “-that is, the extirpation of the carnal mind in their midst: for he
says immediately after, “A little leaven leaventh the whole lump. Purge out
therefore the old leven, that ye may be a
new lump, as ye are unleavened.
Put away from among
yourselves that wicked person”
(I
Cor. v, 6-7, 13). By this policy they might hope to preserve in purity the
faith and practice of the spirit, resulting in the salvation of the ecclesia as
a whole. All this is intelligible. But if the New Testament Satan be the
popular Satan, then the whole matter is involved in inextricable fog. The
infernal devil is made to play a part in the arrangements of the apostles for
sending men to heaven-a part, be it observed, which he is never called upon to
perform now.
“Wherefore
we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again, but SATAN hindered us” (I
Thess. ii, 18). Who obstructed Paul’s travels? The enemies of the truth. On
several occasions they watched the gates of the city where he was, to intercept
and kill him, and he only eluded them by adroit expedients. “Satan,” or the
adversary, was the general name for the whole of them; but when he comes to
particulars, Paul mentions names: “Alexander
the coppersmith did me much evil The Lord reward him according to his
works. Of whom be thou ware also, for he hath greatly withstood our words” (II
Tim. iv, 14). “As Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist
the truth, men of corrupt minds,
reprobate concerning the faith” (II Tim. iii, 8). “Their word will eat as
doth a canker, of whom is Hymena~us and
Philetus” (II Tim. ii, 17). The orthodox devil took no part in the
opposition which Paul encountered from these men. Who ever heard of Bunyan’s
“Apollyon” stopping him in the way, and defying him with arrows and terrors of
the pit? Yet, if the New Testament Satan be the popular Satan, this ought to
have been among his experiences.
“And
after the sop, Satan entered into him” (Judas)- (John xiii, 27). Judas’s
adverse or Satanic intentions with regard to Jesus, developed themselves
immediately after Jesus handed him a morsel of bread, dipped, after oriental
custom, in the bowl on the table. Why? Because the handing of the sop to him
marked him as the man who was to be traitor. Jesus had said, “One of you shall
betray me.” The intimation excited a painful and eager curiosity among the
disciples, who began to question to whom it was that Jesus referred. In answer
to John’s whispered
pg
190
enquiry
who it was, Jesus said “He it is to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped
it. And when he had dipped the sop, he
gave it to Judas iscariot. And after the sop, Satan entered into him. . . .
He then, having received the sop, went
immediately Out.” It was not surprising that Judas, thus openly identified,
should no longer parley with his own evil designs. His teacherous inclinations
took fatal decision. This was, in New Testament phrase, “Satan entering into
him,” that is the adversary rising within him. If the Satan in the case was the
popular Satan, the hard question would present itself, Why was Judas punished
for the devil’s sin? “It had been good for that man,” said Jesus, “if he had not been born,” showing that the sin
of Christ’s betrayal was charged upon the man Judas.
There
is another case where the sinful action of the human heart is described as the
inspiration of “Satan” (Acts v, 3). Ananias and Sapphira went into the presence
of the apostles with a lie on their lips; Peter said, “Ananias, why hath SATAN filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part
of the price of the land?” The meaning of Satan filling the heart, crops out in
the next sentence but one: “Why hast THOU conceived
this thing in thine heart?” (verse 4); also in Peter’s address to Sapphira,
who came in three hours after Ananias. Peter said unto her, “How is it that YE
HAVE AGREED TOGETHER to tempt the spirit of the Lord?” (verse 9). The action of
Satan in this case was the voluntary agreement of husband and wife. But
supposing we had not been thus informed that the lie of Ananias was due to a
compact with his wife, from selfish motives, to misrepresent the extent of
their property, we should have had no difficulty in understanding that Satan
filling the heart was the spirit of the flesh, which is the great Satan or
adversary, moving him to the particular line of action which evoked Peter’s
rebuke. James defines the process of sin as follows: “Every man is tempted when
he is drawn away of his own lust, and
enticed. Then, when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth death” (James i, 14,
15). Hence, the action of lust in the mind is the action of the New Testament
Satan, or adversary. All sin proceeds from the desires of the flesh. This is
declared in various forms of speech in the Scriptures, and agrees with the
experience of every man. The following are illustrations : -“Our OF THE HEART proceed evil thoughts, murders,
adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness (this was the sin of Ananias),
blasphemies,” etc. (Malt. xv, 19).
Pg
191
“The CARNAL MIND is enmity against God. IT is not subject to the law of God, neither
indeed can be” (Rom. viii, 7).
“Now
the WORKS OF THE FLESH are manifest, which
are these:
adultery,
fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance,
emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness,
revellings, and such like ‘ (Gal. v, 19-21).
“For
ALL that is in the world, the LUST of the FLESH, and the LUST of the EYES, and
the PRIDE OF LIFE, is of the world” (I John ii, 16).
The
great Satan, or adversary, then, which every man has to fear, and which is ever
inclining him to a course opposed to wisdom and godliness, is the tendency of
the mere animal instincts to act on their own account. This tendency is the
spirit or inclination of the flesh, which must be vigilantly repressed for a
man to keep out of the way of evil. The truth alone, which is the utterance and
power of the Spirit, will enable him to do this. If he surrender to the flesh,
he walks in the way of death. “If ye live after the flesh ye shall die; but if
ye, through the spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live” (Rom.
viii, 13).
The
object of the gospel being sent to the Gentiles by Paul, was to “turn them from DARKNESS to light, and from the power of SATAN unto God.” Ignorance, or darkness, is the great power of the
adversary lurking within us; for where a man is ignorant of God’s will, the
flesh has a controlling power with him. The Gentiles are alienated from God, “through the IGNORANCE that is in them” (Eph. iv, 18).
Enlightenment, through the hearing of the Word, creates a new man within, who,
in process of time, kills the old man “which is corrupt according to the
deceitful lusts” (Eph. iv, 22), or, at least, keeps him under, lest the new man
become a castaway (1 Cor. ix, 27). Introduce the active, plotting, intelligent
fiend of orthodoxy, and the whole picture is changed and involved in
bewildering confusion. But he cannot be introduced. Our experience forbids.
Look
at the fact; men are prone to evil in
proportion to the relative strength of the animal nature. Some men are
naturally amiable, intellectual, benevolent, and correct; they cannot be
anything else in the circumstances and with the organisation which they have.
Others, again, are naturally coarse, rough, brutish, thick-headed, low, and
selfish, through the power of ignorance and an inferior organisation, which
prevent them ever ascending to nobility of nature. Jesus recognises this fact
in the parable of the sower. The seed fell into different kinds of soil. One is styled “good ground.” In this, the
seed grew well, and brought forth much fruit. In his explanation of the
parable, Jesus
Pg
192
defines
the good ground to be “honest and good heart” (Luke viii, 15). This is in exact accord with experience. Only a certain class
of mind is influenced by the word of truth. There are people on whom the
preaching of the Word is wasted effort. Jesus terms such “swine,” and says,
“Cast not your pearls before them; give not that which is holy unto dogs.” A
much larger result attends the proclamation of the truth among the English, for
instance, than among the Caribs of South America, or the Zulus of Africa. The
soil is better, both as to quality and culture. Now, in view of this fact that
good and evil, in the moral sense, are determined by organisation and
education, what place is there for the Satan of orthodox belief, whose
influence for evil is reputed to be of a spiritual order, and whose power is
believed to be exerted on all, without distinction of education, condition, or
race?
These
general explanations will cover all the other instances in. which the word
“Satan” is used in the New Testament. All will be found capable of solution by
reading “Satan” as the adversary, and having regard to the circumstances under
which the word is used. Sometimes “Satan” will be found a person, sometimes the
authorities, sometimes the flesh; in fact, whatever acts the part of an
adversary is. scripturally, “Satan.” “Satan” is never the superhuman power of popular
belief.
THE
DEVIL
We
must now pass on to consider the word “devil.” This is the word which is more
particularly associated, in the popular mind, with the tradition of a
supernatural evil being. The orthodox believer, giving way to the Bible doctrine
of Satanism herein set forth, is prone to cling to the word “devil” with the
idea that here, at any rate, his darling theory is safe; that, under the broad
shelter of this world-renowned term of theology, the personality of this
arch-rebel of the universe is secure from the arrows of criticism. We might
summarily dispose of this illusion, by pointing to the fact that “devil,” in
many instances is used interchangeably and along with “Satan,” and that
therefore, the two stand or fall together. But as this, though logical, might
not be quite conclusive to the class of minds which these lectures are intended
to reach, we shall investigate this part of the subject separately, and on its
own merits.
First,
then, with regard to the word “devil,” Cruden remarks:
“This
word comes from the Greek diabolos, which
signifies a
pg
193
calumniator or accuser.” Parkhurst says, “The
original word diabolos comes from djabebola, the perfect tense, middle
voice of diaballo, which is
compounded of dia, through; and ballo, to cast; therefore meaning to dart or strike through; whence, in a figurative sense, it signifies to strike or stab with an accusation or evil
report.” Hence, Parkhurst defines diabolos
as a substàntive, to mean “an accuser, a slanderer,” which he illustrates
by referring to I Tim. iii, 11; II Tim. iii, 3; Titus ii, 3: in all of which,
as the reader will perceive by perusing the passages, it is applied to human
beings.
From
this it will be perceived that the word “devil,” properly understood, is a
general term, and not a proper name. It is a word that is, and may be, applied
in any case where slander, accusation, or falsehood is exemplified. As Jesus
applied “Satan” to Peter, so he applied “devil” to Judas: “Have not I chosen
you twelve, and one of you is A DEVIL?”
(John vi, 70). Judas proved a liar, a betrayer, a false accuser, and,
therefore, a devil. Paul, in I Tim. iii, 11, tells the wives of deacons not to
be devils. His exhortation, it is true, does not appear in this form in the
English version. The words, as translated, are “Even so must their wives be
grave, not slanderers (diabolous).” This
is a plural inflection of the word translated devil, and ought to be rendered
uniformly with its occurrence elsewhere. Either this ought to be “devils,” or devil elsewhere ought to be false accuser. The same remark applies
to II Tim. iii, 2, 3: “For men shall be . . . without natural affection,
truce-breakers, false accusers (diabo(oi)”;
and to Titus ii, 3: “The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as
becometh holiness, not false accusers (diabolous).”
Jesus
applied the term to the persecuting authorities of the Roman State. He said in
his letter, through John, to the church at Smyrna, “The devil shall cast some of you into prison” (Rev. ii, 10). The
pagan authorities were the accusers and hunters of the early Christians, bent
upon “stabbing through” and killing to the ground, the whole sect. In the same
book, the power of the world, politically organised on the sin-basis
(introduced under the symbol of a dragon, having seven heads and ten horns), is
styled “that old serpent, which is the
devil, and Satan.” In these instances, the popular construction of the word
“devil” is entirely excluded, and its meaning and use as a general term are
illustrated
There
is, however, a wider use of it in the New Testament, which, while superficially
countenancing the orthodox view, is
Pg
194
more
directly destructive of that view than even the limited cases cited. It is that
which personifies the great principle which lies at the bottom of the rupture
at present existing between God and man, as pre-eminently the accuser and
striker through with a dart-the calumniator of God and the destroyer of
mankind. First, let the fact of this personification be demonstrated. The
evidence of it makes a powerful beginning in Heb. ii, 14, where we read as
follows : -“Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he
(Jesus) also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might DESTROY him
that had the power of death, THAT IS, THE DEVIL.”
On
the supposition that the devil here referred to is the orthodox devil, or a
personal devil of any kind, there are four absurdities on the face of this
passage.
In
the first place, to take on the weakness of flesh and blood was a strange way
of preparing to fight a powerful devil, who, it would be imagined, would be
more successfully encountered in the panoply of angelic strength, which Paul
expressly says Jesus did not array himself in; for he says, “He took not on him
the nature of angels” (Heb. ii, 16).
In
the second place it was stranger still that the process of destroying the devil
should be submission to death himself! One would have thought that to vanquish
and destroy the devil, life inextinguishable, and strength indomitable, would
have been the qualification. Undoubtedly they would have been so, if the Bible
devil had been the orthodox devil-a personal monster.
In
the third place, the devil ought now to be dead, or whatever else is imported
by the word “ destroyed,” for Christ died nineteen centuries ago, for the
purpose of destroying him by that
process-How comes it then, that the devil is clerically represented to be
alive and busier than ever in the work of hunting immortal souls with gin and
snare, and exporting them to his own grim domain?
In
the fourth place, what an extraordinary proposition that the popular devil has
the “power of death!” It can only be received on the supposition that the devil
acts as God’s policeman: hut this will not square with the Miltonic and popular
view, that God and the devil are sworn enemies, the latter delighting to thwart
the former to the utmost extent of his power. Who made Adam mortal? Who
punishes the infraction of divine law? It is He who says, “I kill, and I make alive” (Deut. xxxii, 39). God, and not the
devil, reigns. God dispenses retribution, and enforces His
Pg
195
own
law; not a hostile archangel, presumed to be at eternal enmity with Him.
John
says, “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil” (I John iii, 8). Will
Jesus effect the purpose of his manifestation? If so (and who will deny it?)
will he not accomplish the overturn of all that is done by the Bible devil?
Will he not destroy all his works? If so, it follows, if the Bible devil is a
personal devil, with a blazing hell choke full of damned souls, that Christ
will put out his hell, liberate his wretched captives, and abolish himself. If
the Bible devil is the orthodox devil, and human beings are immortal souls,
universalism is undoubtedly Scriptural; for Christ has come to destroy the
devil and all his works: but there is no devil of. the supernatural order, and
there are no immortal souls. The devil Christ has come to destroy is sin. If
anyone doubts this, let him reconsider Paul’s words quoted above. What did
Christ accomplish in his death? Let the following testimonies answer:- “He put
away SIN by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb.
ix, 26).
“Christ
died for our sins according to the
Scriptures” (I Cor. xv, 3).
“He
was wounded for our transgressions; he
was bruised for our iniquities “
(Isa. liii, 5).
“His
own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree” (I Pet. ii,
24).
“He
was manifested to take away OUR SINS” (I John iii, 5).
Christ,
through death, destroyed, or took out of the way, “the sin of the world “. In
this, he destroyed the Bible devil. He certainly did not destroy the popular
devil in his death, for that devil is supposed to be still at large, but in his
own person, as a representative man, he extinguished the power of sin by
surrendering to its full consequences, and then escaping by resurrection,
through the power of his own holiness, to live for evermore. This is described
as “God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,
condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom.
viii, 3). Sin in the flesh, then, is the devil destroyed by Jesus in his death.
This is the devil having the power of
death, for it is sin, and nothing else but sin that causes death to men.
Does anyone doubt this? Let him read the following testimonies : -By one man
sin entered into the world, and death BY
sin” (Rom. V:12)
“By
man CAME DEATH” (1 COR XV:21)
PG
196
“SIN
hath reigned unto death” (Rom. v,
21).
SIN
... bringeth forth death ‘‘ (James i,
15).
“The
sting of death is SINS’ (I Cor. xv, 56).
Having
regard to the fact that death was divinely decreed in the garden of Eden, in consequence of Adam’s transgression, it
is easy to understand the language which recognises and personifies
transgression, or sin, as the power or cause of death. The foregoing statements
express the literal truth metonymically. Actually, death, as the consequence of
sin, is produced, caused or inflicted by
God, but since sin or transgression is the fact or principle that moves God to inflict it, sin is
appropriately put forward as the first
cause in the matter. This is intelligible to the smallest intellect: but
what has a personal devil to do with it? He is excluded. There is no place for
him.
And
if he be forced into the arrangement, the result is to change the moral
situation, alter the scheme of salvation, and produce confusion: for if the
power of death lies with a personal power of evil, separate from and
independent of man, and not in man’s own sinfulness, then the operations of Christ
are transferred from the arena of moral conflict to that of physical strife,
and the whole scheme of divine interposition through him is degraded to a level
with the Pagan mythologies, in which gods, good and bad, are represented to be
in murderous physical-force hostility for the accomplishment of their several
ends. God is thus brought down from His position of supremacy, and placed on a
footing with the forces of His own creation,
But,
the objector may say, True, sin is the cause of death; but who prompts the sin?
Is it not here that the devil of popular belief has his work? Nothing can be
more directly met by a Bible answer:- “Every man is tempted when he is drawn
away of HIS OWN LUST, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth fort/i s-in, and sin, when
it is finished, bringeth forth death” (James i, 14, 15). This agrees with a
man’s own experience of himself; sin originates in the untrained natural inclinations. These, in the aggregate. Paul terms
“another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind.” Every man is
conscious of the existence of this law, whose impulse, uncontrolled, would
drive him beyond the restraints of wisdom. The world obeyeth this law, and
“lieth in wickedness.” It has no experience of the other law, which is
implanted by the truth.
Pg
197
“ALL that is in the world” John defines to be “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the
eyes, and the pride of life “ (I John ii, 16).
When
a man becomes enlightened in the truth, and is thus made aware of God’s will in
reference to the state of his mind and the nature of his actions, a new law is
introduced. This is styled “the Spirit,” because the ideas upon which it is
based have been evolved by the Spirit, through inspired men. “The words that I
speak unto you,” says Jesus, “they are
spirit, and they are life” (John vi, 63). Hence the warfare established in
a man’s nature by the introduction of the truth is a warfare of the two
principles-the desires of the flesh and the commands of the Spirit. This is
described by Paul in the following words : - “ The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh:
and these are contrary the one to the other” (Gal. v, 17). “Walk in the
Spirit,” says he, “and ye shall not fulfil the
lust of the flesh” (verse 16). He says in another place, “Let not SIN
therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof” (Rom. vi, 12).
These principles are brought to a focus in the following extract from his
letter to the Roman ecciesia : -“For they that are after the flesh do mind the
things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the
Spirit. For to be carnally-minded is death, but to be spiritually-minded is
life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not
subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the
flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so
be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of
Christ, he is none of his . . . Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the
flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die:
but If ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Rom.
viii, 5-9, 12-14).
In
view of these declarations of Scripture, the suggestion that the personal
devil’s work is to suggest sin, has no place. It is idle, false, and
mischievous. It puts a man off his guard to think he is all right if the devil
let him alone. There is no devil but his Own inclinations, which tend to
illegitimate activity. These are the origin of sin, and sin is the cause of
death. Both together are the devil. “He that committeth sin is of the devil” (I John iii, 8).
But
why, it is asked, should such a plain matter be obscured by personification? No
other answer can be given than that it is one of the Bible’s peculiarities to
deal in imagery where the principles involved are too subtle for ready literal
expression. The world, which is merely an aggregation of persons, is per-
pg
198
sonified:
“If ye were of the world, the world would love HIS own” (John xv, 19).
RICHES ARE PERSONIFIED:
“No
man can serve two MASTERS ... Ye cannot serve God and Mammon “ (Matt. vi, 24).
SIN
IS PERSONIFIED:
Whosoever
committeth sin is the servant of SIN
“ (John viii, 34).
SIN
hath reigned unto death “ (Rom. v,
21).
Know
ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, HIS SERVANTS ye are
to whom ye obey, whether of SIN unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
. . . Being then made free from sin,
ye became 1/ic servants of RIGHTEOUSNESS”
(Rom. vi, 16, IS).
THE
SPIRIT IS PERSONIFIED:
“When
He, the Spirit of truth, is come, HE will guide you into all truth: for HE
shall not speak of himself” (John xvi, 13).
WISD0M
IS PERSONIFIED:
“Happy
is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding lie
is more precious than rubies, and all the things that thou canst desire are
not to be compared unto her. Length
of days is in her right hand, and in her left hand riches and honour “ (Prov.
iii, 13, 15, 16).
°
Wisdom hath builded HER house; she hath hewn out HER seven pillars” (Prov. ix,
1).
THE
NATION OF ISRAEL IS PERSONIFIED:
“Again
I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, 0
Virgin of Israel; thou shalt again be adorned with thy tablets” (Jer. xxxi,
4).
pg 199
“I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus: Thou hast chastised me.
and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke;
turn
Thou me, and I shall be turned; for Thou art the Lord my God” (Jer. xxxi, 18).
THE
PEOPLE OF CHRIST ARE PERSONIFIED:
Till
we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God,
unto A PERFECT MAN” (Eph. iv, 13).
“There
is ONE BODY” (Eph. iv, 4).
“Ye
are THE BODY OF CHRIST” (I Cor. xii, 27).
Christ
is the head of the church, and he is the saviour of the body” (Eph. v, 23).
He
is the head of THE BODY, the church, . . . I fill up that which is behind of
the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for HIS BODY’S SAKE, which is the church”
(Col. i, 18, 24).
“I
have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ “ (II Cor. xi,
2).
“The
marriage of the Lamb is come, and HIS WIFE hath made herself ready “(Rev. xix,
7).
THE
NATURAL DISPOSITION TO EVIL WHICH A MAN FORSAKES ON BECOMING CHRIST’S, AND ALSO
THE NEW STATE OF MIND DEVELOPED IN THE TRUTH, ARE PERSONIFIED:
“Ye
have put off THE OLD MAN with his deeds” (Col. iii, 9).
“Put
off concerning the former conversation the OLD MAN, which is corrupt according
to the deceitful lusts . . . put on the NEW MAN, which after God is created in
righteousness and true holiness” (Eph. iv, 22, 24).
Our
OLD MAN is crucified with him” (Rom. VI, 6).
THE
SPIRIT OF DISOBEDIENCE WHICH DWELLS IN THE WORLD IS PERSONIFIED:
“Wherein
in time past ye walked according to the course of this
world,
according to the Prince of the power of
the air, THE SPIRIT THAT NOW WORKETH IN THE CHILDREN OF DISOBEDIENCE, among
whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the
desires of the flesh and of the mind” (Eph. ii, 2, 3).
pg 200
“Now is the judgment of this world. Now shall
THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth,
will draw all men unto me. This he said,
signifying what deal/I lie should die “ (John xii, 31-33).
Now
these proofs and examples of personification furnish an answer to the question
why sin in the abstract should be personified. They show, first, that
principles and things are personified
in the Bible; and, second, that this is done with great advantage. A
metaphorical dress to abstractions gives a palpability to them in discourse,
which they would lack if stated in precise and literal language. There is a
warmth in such a style of speech, which is wanting in expressions that conform
to the strict proprieties of grammar and fact. This warmth and expressiveness
arc characteristic of the Bible in every part of it, and belong to the Oriental
languages generally. Of course it is open to abuse, like every other good, hut
its effectiveness is beyond question. The subject in hand is an illustration.
Sin is the great slanderer of God in virtually denying His supremacy, wisdom,
and goodness, and the great ground of accusation against man even unto death.
How appropriate, then, to style it THE ACCUSER, THE SLANDERER, THE LIAR. This
is done in the word devil; but through the word not being translated, but
merely Anglicised, the English reader, reared with English theological
prejudices, is prevented from seeing it.
There
is an historical aspect to the question, which greatly tends to place the
flatter in an intelligible light. We refer to the incidents connected with the
introduction of sin into the world, In the contemplation of which, we shall see
a peculiar fitness in the personification of sin in the word devil. Adam’s sin was not spontaneous It
was suggested by his wife: but neither on her part was the disobedience
self-suggested. She acted at the instigation of a third party. Who was that?
The answer is, in the words of the record, “ THE SERPENT Was more subtle than any BEAST OF THE FIELD Which the Lord God had made.” The natural serpent, more observant
than other animals, and gifted for the time with the power of expressing its
thoughts, reasoned upon the prohibition which God had put upon “the tree in the
midst of the garden;” and concluding from all he saw and heard that death would
not be the result of eating, he said, “Ye shall not surely die: for God doth
know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye
shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Gen. iii, 4, 5).
Thus
the serpent was a slanderer, a calumniator of God, in
Pg
201
affirming
that what God had said was not true. Thus he became a devil, and not only a
devil, but the devil, inasmuch as he
originated the slander, under the belief of which our first parents disobeyed
the divine command, and introduced sin and death to the world. He was,
therefore, the natural symbol of all that resulted from his lie. “That old serpent, which is the Devil,
and Satan,” is the symbolic description of the world in its political totality
at the time when Christ turns it into “the kingdom of our Lord and of His
Christ” (Rev. xx, 2: xi, 15). The
serpent being the originator of the lie which led to disobedience, the fruits
of that disobedience might well be said to be “his works.”
The
individual serpent itself has long since passed away in the course of nature,
but the fruits remain, and the principle lives. The idea instilled by it into
the minds of our first parents has germinated to the production of generations
of human serpents. Mankind has proved but an embodiment of the serpent idea; so
that they are all calumniators of God in disbelieving His promises, and
disobeying His commandments. Hence, Jesus could say to the Pharisees, “Ye
serpents. . . how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” (Matt. xxiii, 33); and
again, “Ye are of your father the devil (slanderer, serpent), and the lusts of
your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning (he brought death
upon mankind by inciting Adam and Eve to disobedience), and abode not in the
truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of
his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it” (John viii, 44). All who are
in the first Adam, are “the children of the devil,” because they are the
progeny of a serpent-devil contaminated paternity. Their mortality is evidence
of this, whatever be their moral qualities, because mortality is the fruit of
the serpent-devil conceit operating in Adam to disobedience. But those who,
upon a belief of the promises of God, are introduced into “the second Adam”
(who in his death destroyed the bonds of the devil in taking away sin), are
emancipated from the family of the devil, and become sons of God.
Progeny
is according to paternity; like produces like; “Children of the devil” must be
devil; and hence it is that the world of human nature as a whole is regarded as
the devil, because it is the embodiment of the devil principle. That principle
originated in a personal agent; and for that reason, the principle retains the
personality of the originator in common discourse, for the sake of convenience;
and thus by a very natural process, the
Pg
202
abstract
principle which lies at the bottom of human misery and mortality is
personified. Hence, Jesus destroying the devil and his works, is Jesus taking
away the sin of the world, which will ultimate in the complete abolition of
human nature on the Adam or serpent basis, and the swallowing up of death in
victory. It will be the suppression of the prevailing order of things, and the
establishment of a new one, in which righteousness and peace will reign
triumphant, and the knowledge of God will cover the earth as the waters cover
the sea.
The
temptation of Jesus is usually cited in opposition to these conclusions; it is
supposed that this incontestably proves the personality and power of the Bible
devil. The great feature of the narrative relied upon, is the application of
the word
devil”
to the tempter; but this proves nothing. If Judas could be a devil and yet be a
man (John vi, 70), why may the tempter of Jesus not have been a man? His being
called “devil” proves nothing. But what about taking him to the pinnacle of the
temple? it is asked: does it not require something more than human power to
carry a man through the air to the top of a steeple? If this was what happened,
it would, doubtless, be a little difficult to explain; but this is not so. The
pinnacle of the temple, as we are informed by Josephus, was an elevated court
or promenade, which, on one side, overlooked the depths to the valley of
Jehoshaphat to a depth of 200 feet, and offered the facility for
self-destruction which the tempter asked Jesus to wantonly brave, on the
strength of a promise made in reference to inevitable suffering. To this court,
the tempter, doubtless, walked with Jesus, and made the vain proposal suggested
by the circumstances. The objector will then point to Christ’s conveyance to “a
high mountain,” from which the devil “showed him all the kingdoms of the world
in a moment of time.” It is obvious that this must be taken in a limited sense;
for the fact of ascending a mountain, to
see what was to be witnessed, shews that the field of vision was in
proportion to the altitude. The tract of country seen would be Judea and
neighbouring provinces. The offer of power would therefore relate to these. If
it be contended that Christ was absolutely and miraculously shown “all the
kingdoms of the world,” what shall be alleged as the reason for the tempter
ascending an elevation to shew him
then? This would have been no assistance to see “ALL” the countries on earth.
If there was anything supernatural in it, there was no necessity for going up a
hill at all.
Pg
203
But
who was the devil who thus busied
himself to subvert Jesus from the path of obedience? The answer is, it is
impossible to say positively who he was. As in the case of Job’s Satan, we can
only be positive as to who he was not. Various
probabilities are suggested by the circumstances of the temptation according to
the phase in which they are contemplated. Some think the devil in the case was
Christ’s own inclinations; but this is untenable in view of the statement that
“When the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season
(Luke
iv, 13). It is also untenable in view of the harmony that existed between the
mind of Christ and the will of the Father (John viii, 29). It has been suggested,
from the fact that the tempter had power to allot the provinces of the Roman
world, that he was a leading functionary of state, or the Roman emperor
himself. Others have contended that, not the Roman emperor, but the angel
controlling his position, could say concerning “all the kingdoms of the world
and the glory of them,” these “are delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will
I give them.” A fourth suggestion has been that the temptation took place in
vision or trance.
Be
these suggestions true or false, the temptation affords no real countenance to
the popular theory which it is brought forward to prove. In fact, there is no real countenance to that theory in any
part of the Bible. The countenance is only apparent; it is all an appearance,
the chief power of which lies in the fact that there is a personal-devil theory
of pagan origin extant, and taught from the days of infancy. Bible words and
pagan theories are put together and made to fit; and superficially considered,
the result is striking and impressive, and highly demonstrative of a personal
devil. It is, however, a mere juggle and a deception of the most mischievous
kind.
DEMONS
It
would be unwise to conclude the subject without a few words on “devils,” in
which the reader may see some lurking evidence of personal supernatural
diabolism. As to the Old Testament, the word is only found four times, viz., in
Lev, xvii, 7; Deut. xxxii, 17; II Chron. xi, 15; and Psalm cvi, 37. These passages only require to be read for
the reader to see, that so far as the Old Testament is concerned, the word
“devils,” in Bible use, is applied very differently from that which popular
views of the subject would indicate. For instance :
Pg
204
“They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; TO GODS whom
they knew not, to NEW GODS that came newly up, whom your fathers feared
not” (Deut. xxxii, 17).
Here
the “devils” sacrificed to by Israel, were the idols of the heathen. This is
still more apparent from Pslam cvi, 35-38:-
“They were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works; and they served
their idols, which were a snare unto
them yea, they sacrificed their sons and
their daughters unto devils, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of
their sons and of their daughters, whom
they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaann.”
It
is needless to say that the idols of Canaan were “lifeless blocks of wood and
stone,” and that, therefore, their designation as “devils” shows that the Old
Testament use of the word gives no countenance to the idea that “devils” are
personal beings, of a malignant order, aiding and abetting, and serving the
great devil in his works of mischief and damnation.
But
it is to the New Testament that the orthodox believer will point, as the great
stronghold for this belief. Thither we shall go, and with a result, we shall
find, as unavailing for the popular creed, as that which has attended all the
foregoing endeavours. In tile first place, Paul’s use of the word in the same
way as it is used in the Old Testament, suggests that Paul ignored the Pagan view
of the matter. He says:-” The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they
sacrifice to c/evils, and not to God,
and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils; ye cannot be partakers of the
Lord’s table, and of the table of devils”
(1 Cor. x, 20, 21). Now, that “devils” here applies to the idols of Pagan
worship is manifest; first, from the fact that the sacrifices of the Gentiles
were offered at the shrines of the idol-gods of their own superstition; and
second, from the following words of Paul in
the same chapter: -“ What say I then? that the idol is anything? or that
which is offered in sacrifice TO IDOLS is anything?” (verse 19). This is
conclusive. Paul applies the word “devils “ to idols, of which he says : -“ We
know that an idol is NOTHING in the world “ (1 Cor. viii, 4). Thus the word
“devils” as used by Paul, lends no countenance to the popular view.
The
reader must understand the “devils” in the original Greek, is a different word
from that translated “devil.” The distinction between the two must be
recognised, in order to appreciate the explanation applicable to “devils,” as
distinct
Pg
205
from
“devil.” While “devil” is, in the original diabolos,
“devils” is the plural of daimon, which
has a very different meaning from diabolos.
Daimon was the name given by the Greeks to beings imagined by them to exist
in the air, and to act a mediatorial part between God and man, for good or
evil. These imaginary beings would be expressed in English by demon, evil
genius, or tutelar deity, all of which belong to Pagan mythology, and have no
place in the system of the truth. We quote the following observations on the
subject from Parkhurst’s Greek Lexicon in exemplification of the origin of the
idea : -“DAIM0NI0N, from daimon-a deity,
a god, or more accurately, some
power
or supposed intelligence, in that grand object of heathen idolatry, the
material heavens or air. Thus the word is generally applied by the LXX., who
use it, isa. lxv, 11, for the destructive troop or powers of the heavens in
thunder, lightning, storm, etc., in Deut. xxxii, 17; Psa. cvi, 37, for the
pourers forth or genial powers of nature; and, as by the midday demon, Psa.
xci, 6, we may be certain they intended not a devil, but a pernicious blast of
air-Comp. Isa. xxviii, 2-in the Hebrew; so from this and the forecited
passages, we can be at no loss to know what they meant, when in this
translation of Psa. xcvi, 5, they
say, All the gods of the Gentiles are daimonia-i.e.,
not devils, but some powers or imaginary intelligence of material nature. .
. . Most expressive are the words of Plato in Sympos, ‘Every demon is a middle
being between God and mortal men.’ If you ask what he means by ‘middle being,’
he will tell you, ‘God is not approached immediately by man, but all the
commerce and intercourse between gods and men is performed by the mediation of
demons.’ Would you see the particulars? Demons are reporters and carriers from
men to the gods, and again from the gods to. men, of the supplications and
prayers of the one, and of the injunctions and rewards of devotion from the
other. Besides those original material mediators, or the intelligence, residing
in them, whom Apuleius calls a higher kind of demons, who were always free from
the incumbrances of the body, and out of which higher order Plato supposes that
guardians were appointed unto men-besides these, the heathen acknowledged
another sort, namely, ‘the souls of men deified or canonised after death.’ So
Hesiod, one of the most ancient heathen writers, describing that happy race of
men who lived in the first and golden age of the world, saith that ‘ after this
generation were dead, they were, by the will of great Jupiter, promoted to be
demons, keepers of mortal men, observers of their good and evil works, clothed
in air, always walking about the earth, givers of riches; and this,’ saith he,
‘is the royal honour that they enjoy.’ Plato concurs with Hesiod and asserts
that he and many other poets speak excellently, who affirm that when good men
die, they attain great honour and dignity, and become demons. The same Plato,
in another place, maintains that ‘All those who die valiantly in war, are of
Hesiod’s golden generation, and are made demons, and that we ought for ever after
to serve and adore their sepulchres as the sepulchres of demons.’ ‘The same
also,’ says he, ‘we decree whenever any of those who were excellently good in
life, die, either of old age or in any other manner.’. . . According to
Plutarch torn i, p. 958, E edit Xylander, it was a very ancient opinion that
there were
pg 206
certain
wicked and malignant demons who envy good men, and endeavour to disturb and
hinder them in the pursuit of virtue, lest remaining firm (unfallen) in
goodness, and uncorrupt, they should, after death, obtain a better lot than
they themselves enjoy.”
In
view of the heathen origin of this “doctrine of demons,” it is a natural source
of wonder that it should appear so largely interwoven with the gospel
narratives, and receives apparent sanction both from Christ and his disciples.
This can only be accounted for on one principle, the Grecian theory that
madness, epileptic disorders, and obstructions of the senses (as distinct from
ordinary diseases), were attributable to demoniacal possession, had existed
many centuries before the time of Christ, and had circulated far and wide with
the Greek language, which, in these days, had become nearly universal. The
theory necessarily stamped itself upon the common language of the time, and
supplied a nomenclature for certain classes of disorders which, without
reference to the particular theory in which it originated, would become current
and conventional, and used by all classes as a matter of course, without
involving an acceptance of the Pagan belief. On the face of it, the
nomenclature would carry that belief; but in reality it would only be used from
the force of universal custom, without any reference to the superstition which
originated it. We have an illustration of this in our word “lunatic,” which
originated in the idea that madness was the result of the moon’s influence, but
which nobody now uses to express that idea. The same principle is exemplified
in the phrases “ bewitched,” “fairy-like,” “ hobgoblin,” “dragon,” “the king’s
evil,” “St. Vitus’s dance,” etc., all of which are freely used denominatively,
without subjecting the person using them to the charge of believing the
fictions originally represented by them.
Christ’s
conformity to popular language did not commit him to popular delusions. In one
case, he apparently recognises the god of the Philistines: “Ye say that I cast
out demons through Beelzebub: if I by
Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?” (Luke xi,
18, 19). Now, Beelzebub signifies the god of flies, a god worshipped by the
Philistines of Ekron (II Kings i, 6), and Christ, in using the name, takes no
pains to dwell upon the fact that Beelzebub was a heathen fiction, but seems
rather to assume, for the sake of argument, that Beelzebub was a reality; it
was a mere accommodation to the language of his opponents. Yet this might, with
as much reason, be taken as a proof of his belief in Beelzebub, as his
Pg
207
accommodation
to popular speech on the subject of demons is taken to sanction the common idea
of “devils.”
The
casting out of demons spoken of in the New Testament was nothing more nor less
than the curing of epileptic fits and brain disorders, as distinct from bodily
diseases. Of this, any one may be satisfied by an attentive reading of the
narrative and a close consideration of the symptoms, as recorded : -Lord, have
mercy on my son, for he is lunatic, and
sore vexed, for
ofttimes
he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water. And I brought him to thy
disciples, and they could not cure him.
. . . And Jesus rebuked the devil (demon)
and he departed out of him (Matt. xvii, 15-18).
From
this the identity of lunacy with supposed diabolical possession is apparent.
The expulsion of the malarious influence which deranged the child’s faculties
was the casting out of the demon.
“Then
was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb; and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spoke and saw” (Matt.
xii, 22).
“And
one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my
son, which hath a dumb spirit” (Mark
ix, 17).
There
is no case of demoniacal possession mentioned in the New Testament, which has
not its parallel in hundreds of instances in the medical experience of the
present time. The symptoms are precisely identical-tearing, foaming at the
mouth, crying out, abnormal strength, etc. True, there are no exclamations
about the Messiah, because there is no popular excitement on the subject for
them to reflect in an aberrated form, as there was in the days of Jesus, when
the whole Jewish community was pervaded by an intense expectation of the
Messiah, and agitated by the wonderful works of Christ.
The
transference of “the devils” to the swine, is only an instance in which Christ
vindicated the law (which prohibited the culture of the pig), by acting on the
suggestion of a madman in transferring an aberrating influence from the latter
to the swine, and causing their destruction. The statement that the devils made
request, or the devils cried out this or that, must be interpreted in the light
of a self-evident fact, that it was the person possessed who spoke, and not the
abstract derangement. The insane utterances were attributable to the
insanifying influence, and, therefore, it is an allowable liberty of speech to
say that the influence-called in the popular phrase of these times, demon or
demons-spoke them; but, in judging of the theory
Pg
208
of
possession, we must carefully separate between critical statements of truth and
rough popular forms of speech, which merely embody an aspect, and not the
essence of truth.
It
is needless to say more on the subject: enough has been advanced to show the
unfounded mischievous nature of popular views, and to furnish a key for the
solution of all Scripture texts which appear to favour those views. This
accomplishment, if successfully achieved, will suffice for the present effort.
The doctrine of a personal devil, or devils, is a spiritual miasma; it is
itself an evil spirit, of which a man must become dispossessed before he can
become mentally clothed, and in his right mind. It obscures the shining
features of all divine truth from the gaze of all who are subject to it. It is
companion to the immortality of the soul, to which, with other fables of
heathen invention, men have universally turned according to Paul’s prediction
(II Tim. iv, 3, 4); and, in accepting which they have necessarily rejected the
truth proclaimed by all the servants of God, from Enoch to Paul.
Pg
209
LECTURE 8
THE KINGDOM OF GOD NOT YET IN
EXISTENCE,
BUT TO BE ESTABUSHED
VISIBLY
ON THE EARTH AT A FUTURE DAY
ON
NO subject will Christendom be found to have gone more astray than on the
subject of the Kingdom of God-a subject which, without exaggeration, may be
said to constitute the very backbone of the divine purpose with the earth and
its inhabitants. What is the Kingdom of God? It is one of the most important
questions that can be asked, from a Scriptural point of view: for this reason: whatever the Kingdom of God is.
IT
WAS THE GREAT SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE GOSPEL PREACHED BY JESUS AND HIS APOSTLES.
This we prove by the following citation of testimonies : -“And Jesus went about
all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and
preaching the gospel of the kingdom” (Matt. iv, 23).
“And
Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom” (Matt.
ix, 35).
“Now
after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God” (Mark
i, 14).
“He
(Jesus) said unto them, I must preach the
kingdom of God to other cities also; for therefore am I sent” (Luke iv,
43).
“And
it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of
the kingdom of God” (Luke viii, 1).
“Then
he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over
all devils, and to cure diseases. And he
sent them to preach the kingdom of God” (Luke ix, 1, 2).
“And
he took them, and went aside privately into a desert place belonging to the
city called Bethsaida. And the people, when they knew it, followed him; and he
received them and spake unto them of the
kingdo,n of God” (Luke ix, 10, 11).
The
ministers and clergy of the present day believe that they
PG
210
preach
the gospel in setting before the people the death of Christ. The death of
Christ, in its sacrificial import, doubtless becomes an element in the
apostolic testimony of the gospel; but in considering whether this was the
whole gospel of first century preaching, we must remember that Christ and his
disciples preached the gospel three years
before the crucifixion. Not only so, but we have evidence that the
apostles, while so engaged
-while
they “went through the towns, preaching the gospel” (Luke ix, 6)-were not aware that Christ had to suffer.
Christ told his disciples that he should “suffer many things, and be
rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be
raised the third day” (Luke ix, 22); but it is said, “They understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they
perceived it not” (Luke ix, 45). The fact that, while in this state of
ignorance concerning the sufferings of Christ, they “preached the gospel,” is
proof of the most positive character that the gospel, as preached by them, must
have been something very different from the gospel of modern times, which
consists exclusively of the death of
Christ on the cross. The difference is manifest in the foregoing testimonies,
which tell us they preached “THE KINGDOM OF GOD.”
The
following passages prove that the Kingdom of God was also preached by the
apostles after Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension, and that it,
therefore, continues a valid and essential element of the gospel to this day:
“But
when they (the Samaritans) believed Philip PREACHING THE THINGS CONCERNING THE
KINGDOM OF GOD, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised, both men and
women” (Acts viii, 12).
“He
went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading THE THINGS
CONCERNING THE KINGDOM OF Gon” (Acts xix, 8).
“He expounded and testified THE KINGDOM OF GOD,
persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the
prophets” (Acts xxviii, 23).
“And
received all that came in unto him, preaching
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus
Christ” (Acts xxviii, 30, 31).
“Among
whom I (Paul) have gone PREACHING THE
KINGDOM OF GOD”
(Acts
xx, 25).
Now,
Paul was exceedingly zealous that the
same gospel which he himself preached, should continue to be preached to
the end of the world. “If an angel from heaven,” said he, “preach any other gospel than that which we have
preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal. i, 8). Hence the gospel, of which
pg
211
he
said it was the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth (Rom. i,
16), embraces the doctrine of the Kingdom of God, whatever that may be; for he
himself continually preached it to both Jews and Gentiles.
We
repeat that, in these circumstances, the question we have propounded is the
most important to which attention can be invited.
What,
then, is the Kingdom of God? Different answers will be given by different
classes of people. Some conceive it to consist of the supremacy of God in the
hearts of men-a sort of spiritual dominion existing co-extensively with secular
life. Others recognise it in the ecclesiastical organisations of the day,
styling them, as a whole, Christendom, or the kingdom of Christ, while a third
party behold it in universal nature, continuing from generation to generation.
The
holders of the first idea find a sanction for their belief in the words of Christ: “The kingdom of God is
within you” (Luke xvii, 21). They overlook the fact that these words were
addressed to the Pharisees, of whom Jesus said, “Ye outwardly appear righteous
unto men, but WITHIN ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity” (Matt.
xxiii, 28). This is not the state of mind that exists where the kingdom of God
is supposed to dwell; and the fact that the statement in question was addressed
to men of this character, shows that it had not the significance generally
claimed for it. If the reader will examine any marginal Bible, he will find
that “among” is given as the true rendering of the word translated “within “; which
alters the significance of the verse. What Christ meant to intimate was his own
presence among them as “the Royalty of the heavens,” in answer to the mocking
enquiry of the Pharisees.
Romans
xiv, 17, is also quoted: “The kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but
righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost “; but this only affirms
one truth, without destroying another. It is true the kingdom of God when
established, will be characterised by the qualities enumerated by Paul; but it
does not therefore follow that the kingdom of God will not be a real and
glorious manifestation of God’s power on earth through the personal
intervention of His Son from heaven.
The
second idea, that the Kingdom of God is to be found in the religious systems of
the day, as “the visible church,” is without even the semblance of Scriptural
foundation. Its existence is traceable to the times succeeding the overthrow of
Paganism, in the beginning of the fourth century. when Con
Pg
212
stantine
delivered Christianity from its persecutors, and exalted it for the first time
to the throne of prosperity rind power. In the joy of the great change, the
bishops said the Kingdom of God had come in the establishment of the Church.
But we must go to the New Testament-not to ecclesiastical historians
-for
a Scriptural idea of the Church. The Church, we find to be composed of the heirs of the Kingdom, in probation
for coming exaltation. They are not the Kingdom itself. We refer, for proof, to
the argument to follow in the present and succeeding lectures.
The
third view, which regards the universe as “the kingdom of God,” has more of
truth in it than the first or second, and yet we shall find as much of error.
Nature is certainly the dominion of the Deity in a very exalted sense; but it
is not that which in the Scriptures is spoken of as “the kingdom of God.” We
are bold to make the assertion, because of abundant Scriptural testimony
forthcoming.
In
endeavouring to ascertain the meaning of this phrase, “The Kingdom of God,” we
cannot do better than look at it in its origin. It is a Bible phrase, and
originates there. We find it used in contrast to “the kingdom of men,” which
occurs three times in Daniel iv,-see verses 17, 25, 32. The “kingdom of men” consists of the aggregate of human
governments. It is an appropriate designation for them all. They are all the
embodiment of one principle-namely, the rule of man by himself. Whether it be
the despot or free Parliament, the same is exemplified-self-government. This
has been the alpha and omega of all political faith, since man was first sent
forth an exile from Eden to take care of himself. Its form has varied in
different ages and countries, according to the views and inclinations of men,
but men have agreed with marvelous unanimity as to the mainspring of the
system. There has been no difference between the bitterest factions as to the
source of the power they respectively claimed to exercise, namely, the will of
man-whether royalist or republican, despotic or constitutional.
The
will of man is the cornerstone of every political edifice that exists-the
foundation of the vast system of nations that covers the face of the earth. No
one ever questions the legitimacy of human authority as politically embodied.
The fact is, the world knows of no other authority. If it believe in God, a
false theology has excluded Him from any influence in the minds of men in
things practical. They confine His jurisdiction to “spiritual things,” to which
an artificial significance has come to
Pg
213
be
attached; and even in these they only yield him a constrained and occasional
deference. In reality, they acknowledged Him not. They own no higher authority
than themselves. They assert the right to be their own masters, to dispose of
this world’s wealth as they think fit, and to make such laws as they please.
This
spirit is embodied in all the kingdoms of the world. It is the germ from which
they are developed; so that in a particular and emphatic sense, human
government, as multifariously manifested on the face of the globe, is THE
KINGDOM OF MEN. It is the presumption of man politically incorporated, the
organised enforcement of human dictate, irrespective of the authority of God.
It is permitted of God as, in the circumstances, a necessary evil; and He
overrules it with a view to His future purposes. “The Most High ruleth in the
kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will” (Dan. iv, 32).
This
conception of the present situation of things prepares us for the apprehension
of
THE
KINGDOM OF GOD
Jesus
taught his disciples to pray “Thy kingdom come.” It is not yet come. If it
were, the kingdom of men would not be in existence, for “the kingdoms of this
world “are to cease when the kingdom of God comes. They are to become His; and
the prophets show us that when this comes to pass the government of the world
will no longer be in the hands of unauthorised, ambitious, erring kings and
rulers. When the kingdom of God comes, it will displace and overthrow every
power in the world, and visibly establish God’s power on the earth, by the hand
of Christ and his saints-all of which will be made manifest to the reader in
what is to follow.
For
a general view of the subject, we cannot do better than turn to the second
chapter of Daniel. To advise the general reader to do this is to provoke a
smile, perhaps, as if referring him to Daniel were like referring him to Jack
the Giant Killer. Few people realise as they ought, that Daniel is a prophet
whose authority rests on no less a sanction than that of the Lord Jesus
himself. Christ said to his disciples, “When ye shall see the abomination of
desolation, spoken of by Daniel the
prophet, standing where it ought not (LET HIM THAT READETH UNDERSTAND),”
etc. (Mark xiii, 14). Not only does Christ specifically endorse the divinity of
Daniel in this way, but he recognises it in the general appeals to the
Scripture as the word of God, which, he said, “cannot be broken” (John x, 35).
Daniel was
Pg
214
a
part of this Scripture, and therefore partakes of every confirmation given to
the whole. In view of this, let us address ourselves, without the least
reservation, to the reading of the chapter referred to.
It
is a revelation of the most important kind. It is, in fact, the history of the
world condensed in the form of a prophecy into a single chapter. To understand
its bearing, we must transport ourselves into the past by upwards of a score of
centuries, and take our stand, in imagination, with Nebuchadnezzar, the
representative of the first great Babylonian dynasty. Taking him as he appears
in the chapter, we find the monarch in reverie. He is thinking of his past
achievements; of his brilliant career, and the fame and the dominion which he
has established. While reviewing the past, his mind turns to the future. “Thy
thoughts,” says Daniel, “came into thy mind, upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter.”
Should
the great empire, which he had founded, be a haven for nations throughout all
generations? or should some one rise after his death, and cause disruption and
ruin? What would be the fate of the usurper? Should his power continue? or
should it share a similar fate to his own? Should the world be a constant
battle-field? Should history be an eternal record of strife and bloodshed?
Should mankind for ever be cursed with the rivalries of potentates, and the
devastations caused by military ambition? In this frame of mind, the monarch
falls asleep; and while his slumbers are upon him, a dream is impressed upon
the tablets of his brain by the Great Artificer, who hath the hearts of all men
in His hands. The dream is for the purpose of answering the questions which had
started in his mind, and of enlightening future generations as to the purpose
of the Almighty.
The
king awakes; the dream imparted was instantly withdrawn. It is gone. The king
only knows that he has had a dream of unusual impressiveness, but cannot recall
its faintest outline. He is distressed. The dream has left behind it the
impression that it was no ordinary dream, but by no effort can he bring it
back. In his distress he has recourse to the magicians of his court, who,
according to the traditions of their order, ought to he able to tell him the
dream and the meaning. But the demand is beyond their resources. They confess
their inability to supply information which was beyond everyone’s reach. The
king is irritated: regards their inability as evidence of imposture, and issues
a decree for their death.
Pg
215
This
decree involved Daniel, who was a royal captive at Nebuchadnezzar’s court, and
who had been assigned an honorary position among the king’s wise men, because
of his capacity and culture. Daniel, hearing of it and the cause, asks respite,
in the hope of obtaining a knowledge of the king’s secret from God. That night,
he and certain fellow captives made it the subject of special request and
prayer, and that night Daniel was communicated a knowledge of the king’s dream
and the meaning. Daniel is called in, and the king’s difficulty is at an end.
Now, let us take notice of Daniel’s first statement to the king:
“There
is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and
maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in THE LATTER I)AYS”
(chap. ii, 28). This is to be noted. It shows that the vision goes up to and
finds its culmination in the “latter
days,’ ‘-a phrase employed in Scripture to describe the closing period of
human affairs. This gives it a special interest to us, as affecting our own and
future times.
Daniel
described the dream. The royal dreamer beheld a towering image of great size
and imposing appearance. As the beholder looked, a second independent object
appeared. A stone hewn by mysterious agency from an adjoining mountain came
whizzing through the air; struck the great image on the feet with such
violence, that the image was overturned, and fell in fragments. The stone
growing larger, rolled among these fragments, and ground them to powder, which
the wind carried away. Then the stone went on enlarging until it became a great
mountain, filling the whole earth.
Thus
the vision consisted of two objects-separate and independent-and one appearing
before the other. It is well to realise this. The image is first seen towering
in its metallic splendour, then the stone is revealed, not as a passive
co-existent, but as a directly antagonistic body. There is no affinity between the
two things; the stone does not move softly up to the image, and gradually
incorporate itself with its substance. It dashes at it with violence, and at
once brings it to the earth in ruins:
and
wizen the wind has cleared away the
atomic residuum, the stone grows into a great mountain, to the filling of the
whole earth. In doing so, it does not appropriate any of the substance of the
demolished image, as that has all been driven away; but grows by its own
inherent force.
Now,
the things signified are explained by Daniel, and bear the same mutual
relations as the symbols : -
Pg
216
“Thou, 0 King, art a king of kings: for the
God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. . .
Thou (or thy dynasty) art this head of gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom, inferior to thee, and
another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. And
the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron, forasmuch as iron breaketh in
pieces and subdueth all things, and as iron that breaketh all these shall it
break in pieces and bruise. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of
potter’s clay and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; . . . it shall be
partly strong and partly broken.
And
in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which
shall never be destroyed, and the kingdom shall not be left to other people,
but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand
for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain
without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the
silver, and the gold.”Dan-ii, 37-45.
Before
considering these statements, it will be of advantage to take into account the
7th chapter of Daniel, where the same things are revealed in another form. If
the reader will take the trouble of reading the chapter through, he will be
rewarded by a clearer comprehension of the scope of the argument. It narrates a
vision seen by Daniel himself, and interpreted to him by the angels. In the
vision, beasts are substituted for Nebuchadnezzar’s metals, and the stone finds
its counterpart in the “judgment that shall sit, and consume and destroy the
fourth beast unto the end.”
In
the two, we have a double representation of the same thing. Their great
prophetic teaching is, that there were to arise in the earth four successive
phases or forms of universal government, and that the whole should be
superseded at last by an everlasting kingdom, to be established by God. The
visions are of the broad and comprehensive type. They deal not with local
manifestations. They take the civilised world as a whole, and present us with a
general view of the great successive political changes of the world’s history,
without touching upon the infinitude of detail which constitutes the material
of historical writing. They were given to gratify the profitable curiosity that
seeks to know the ultimate of history, and the destiny of the human race. The
revelation was made in almost the earliest historic age, viz., during the reign
of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon. That is now twenty-five centuries ago;
and it is our privilege to be able to trace its verification in the course of
history, and thereby be prepared to look with confidence for its glorious
consummation.
The
empire established by Nebuchadnezzar was in existence at the time of the
visions; we recognise it in the golden head of
Pg
217
the
image, and in the eagle-winged lion of Daniel’s dream, both of which are
appropriate symbols of the Babylonian power- the one representing the splendour
and magnificence of the empire, the other its supremacy among the nations.
“After
thee,” said Daniel, “shall arise another. kingdom inferior to thee,” and,
therefore, represented by the inferior metal-silver. This prediction was
fulfilled. An insurrection took place under Darius the Mede, in the days of
Nebuchadnezzar’s grandson, which resulted in the complete overthrow of his
dynasty, and in the establishment of the Medo-Persian empire. Darius died in two
years, without a lineal successor, and the vacant throne was peacefully filled
by Cyrus the Persian, the rightful heir. The Persian phase continued 204 years
and nine months, so that the Persian phase of the silver empire was of a very
much longer duration that the Median phase of the same empire. This is
signified by the bear in the second vision raising
itself up on one side; and in Daniel viii, by a ram with two unequal horns, of which it is said
(verse 3), “one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last “-that is, the Persian phase of the second
empire, which was the longer, was last in order. The reader is referred to the
chapter itself for further detail. The bear, which in Daniel’s vision is chosen
to represent the Medo-Persian empire, is said to have had “three ribs in the
mouth of it, between the teeth of it.” The political peculiarity symbolized by
these ribs is thus identified, it is:- “It pleased Darius to set over the
kingdom an hundred and twenty
princes,
which should be over the whole kingdom, and over these THREE PRESIDENTS, that
the princes might give accounts unto them, and the king should have no
damage”(Dan. vi, 1, 2).
Darius
Codomanus, the last occupant of the Medo-Persian throne, was defeated by
Alexander, the Macedonian, otherwise “the Great,” who entirely overthrew the
power of the Persian empire. Then came the rule of the brazen-coated Greeks:
Alexander
became the sole emperor of the world, establishing “the third kingdom of
brass.” His dominion did not long remain intact. It had been written in
explanation of another vision seen by Daniel (chap. viii, 21-22): -“The rough
goat is the king of Grecia, and the great horn that is
between
his eyes is the first king. Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for
it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of
the nation, but not in his power.”
Pg
218
The
same thing had been predicted in the following words (Daniel xi, 3, 4):- “A
mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion . -
and
when he shall stand up his kingdom shall
be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven, and not to
his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled.”
The
fulfilment of these predictions was very remarkable. On the death of Alexander,
his empire was divided among his four generals,
and became established in four
independent divisions, “not in his power,” as the angel had foretold; for
his power was not perpetuated by descendants, but shared among strangers.
The
fourth kingdom is predicted-” strong as iron, breaking in pieces, and
bruising.” In one case, it is represented by the iron legs, feet, and toes of
the image, and in the other by a fourth beast with ten horns, which Daniel
describes “dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly, with great iron
teeth, devouring and breaking in pieces, and stamping the residue with its
(brazen-clawed) feet.” Here again, history supplies an entire verification of
the prophecy. The Roman empire rose into powerful existence, and vanquishing
the power of Greece became mistress of the world, extending her dominion beyond
the limits of any former empire, and establishing one of the strongest
despotisms the world has ever seen. Her political qualities corresponded in
every respect with the strong figures employed. She was “strong as iron,” and
“great, and dreadful, and strong exceedingly.” The sagacity of her rulers, the
vigour of her imperial administration, the military skill of her generals, the
discipline of her army, the strength of her laws, and the unlimited extent of
her resources, combined to make Rome the strongest piece of political machinery
the world has ever seen. Her strength, however, though great and prolonged, was
not everlasting. The language of the vision required that days of weakness
should come. “Partly strong and partly
broken;” this is the prediction, and so the days of universal Roman power
passed away.
Then
came the “partly broken” state.
Strong first, as signified by the iron
legs of the image, and the corporate strength of the fourth beast of
Daniel’s vision, she entered in her later stages the phase represented by the
clay-sand-iron mixed ten-toed feet of the image, and the antagonistic horns on
the head of the fourth beast. Broken at last by the repeated blows of the
barbaric invasions from the north, we behold her now in a state of weakness and
division. The European nations as we see
Pg
219
them
today are the latter-day divided phase of Roman power. The old imperial
strength has gone. Rome no longer rules the world. She no longer sways the
destinies of mankind with the most formidable of despotisms. She is broken,
divided, weakened, a rickety, disjointed, system of nations, which hardly holds
together for very weakness: a mixture of iron and clay of brittle cohesion,
destined ere long to be smashed to atoms by the invincible stone from heaven.
Rome
has never been superseded. She has been changed by many vicissitudes. She still
lingers in weakness. The present political arrangements on the continent of
Europe are but a prolongation of her existence in another form, corresponding
to the requirements of the vision. They exhibit to us the last stage of the
fourth kingdom, and tell us that we approach the time when a change will come
over the world-when the fifth kingdom shall be manifested in destructive antagonism
to all human power.
This
suggests the consummation. The exactness with which this prophetic revelation
has been verified in history supplies a clue and inspires entire confidence
with respect to the unfultilled part of the vision. History has brought us to
the feet of the image, and the last of the four beasts; that is, to the close
of the fourth great dominion, which it was predicted should arise in the earth.
But what lies beyond? Let any one sit down and peruse the second and seventh
chapters of Daniel attentively, and see if he do not, as a matter of
self-evident testimony, come to the conclusion that the next step in the march
of events is the visible interposition of divine power in human affairs.
Consider
the stone: it is hewn from its bed by miraculous agency; it appears on the
scene after the image has attained
complete development; it descends upon the feet of the image with violence, and
reduces the human-like structure to atoms, which are taken away by the wind;
and THEN the stone expands into earth-occupying dimensions. Now, what is the
interpretation of all this? We could almost work the problem unaided, so
unmistakable is the evident significance of the symbolism. But let the plain
language of divine explanation decide (Dan. ii, 44) : -“In the days of these
kings shall the God of heaven SET UP
A KINGDOM,
which
shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall
stand for ever.”
Can
there be any difference of opinion as to the meaning of this language? It is
addressed to us as an interpre
Pg
220
tation;
therefore, it is not enigmatical. It is a plain and literal statement,
declaring the purpose of God to set aside the existing arrangement of things on
earth, and this not in an unseen, quiet, gradual manner, such as the expected
spread of a spiritual millennium; but with the visibility, violent
destructiveness, and suddenness of the stone’s descent upon the image. The four
kingdoms have destroyed each other; but inasmuch as they were of the same
(human) stock, they are not represented in the vision of the image as separate
conflicting objects, but as part and parcel of the same body politic. Yet they
violently and completely superseded each other, though no violence is signified
in the symbol.
The
only violence represented is in connection with the crisis that has not yet
arrived. it is employed by the stone toward
the image, as representing the entire system of human government. This would
lead us to anticipate violence of an unprecedented kind, when the event
signified comes to pass; and the reader will see that the wording of the
interpretation is strictly corroborative of this legitimate inference. “The God
of heaven shall break in pieces and consume
all these kingdoms.” Herein is predicted the entire disruption of all
systems of human government, the complete and violent suppression of “the
powers that be.” This is not a “notion” or a “crotchet” founded upon an
ambiguous symbol, but a simple reiteration of the unmistakable language of
inspired interpretation. The same purpose is distinctly intimated in other
parts of Scripture. For instance, in Psalm ii, Christ is addressed in the
following language (verses 8,9):- “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen
for thine inheritance,and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron,
and thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”
Again,
Psalm cx, 5, 6, where it is also the
subject of inspired song : -“The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of His wrath . . . He shall wound the heads over many
countries.”
Again,
Isaiah, portraying this same divine interference, says (chapter xxiv, 21-23):-
“It shall come to pass in that day that the
Lord shall punish the host
of the high ones that are on
high, and the kings of the earth upon the
earth. They shall be gathered
together as prisoners are gathered in the
pit,
and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they
pg
221
be
visited (marginal reading ‘found
wanting ‘). THEN the moon
shall
be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of Hosts shall reign in Mount
Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously.”
Again,
Hannah, on the occasion of Samuel’s birth, uses the following words in her song
(I Sam. ii, 10):- “The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces; out of
Heaven shall He thunder upon
them. The
Lord shall judge the ends of the earth, and He shall give strength unto His
king, and exalt the horn of His anointed (or Christ).”
Again
(Haggai ii, 21-22):- “I will shake the heavens and the earth, and I will overthrow the
throne of kingdoms, and I
will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen.”
There
are many other statements of a similar import throughout the Scriptures: but
these are sufficient to show that the teaching in the book of Daniel is not
isolated or exceptional, but coincident with the general tone of prophetic
testimony. That testimony destroys the popular idea of a millennium to be
brought about by evangelical enterprise. It precludes the theory of gradual
enlightenment and amelioration by human agency. It shows that all expectations
of a day of perfection, consequent upon the ultimate triumph of Christianity in
the world, are visionary as a dream, destined to receive effectual dissipation
in the awful judgments by which the powers of the world will be overthrown.
Returning
to Daniel, we find that there is not only a work of demolition, but a work of
upbuilding and restitution. This is the most glorious feature of the divine
purpose; “the God of heaven shall SET
UP a kingdom which shall never be
destroyed, and the kingdom shall not be left to other people. . . and it
shall stand for ever.” Now, let us consider, for a moment, what the setting up
of a kingdom means, and we shall understand this statement better. A kingdom is
not an abstraction. It is not any single thing: it is an aggregation of certain
elements which go to make it up. A king in himself is not a kingdom; neither is
a country, or people, or laws, separately; it requires them all combined to
constitute a kingdom. This must commend itself to every man’s judgment. A..
kingdom consists of, first, a king; second, an aristocracy: third, a people:
fourth, a territory; and fifth, laws. Now, to set up a kingdom is obviously to
arrange and combine these elements. To appoint a king is not to set up a
kingdom:
David
was anointed years before he ascended the throne: but
Pg
222
the
kingdom of David was not established until David actually became king over the
realm. To portion out a territory is not to set up a kingdom; a land without a
king or inhabitants is no kingdom. To set up a kingdom is to put together with
various parts that make one. Now, in the testimony before us, we have it
declared that it is the purpose of the Almighty to do this very thing-to
organise a kingdom of His own in place of those which now occupy the earth,
after they shall have been swept out of the way. Hence, we are led to expect,
as the inevitable result of testimony believed, that when the fourth kingdom,
now existing. shall have been abolished of God, a new order of things shall
visibly arise in the earth, in which there shall be a God-appointed king, a
God-constituted aristocracy, a God-selected people, a God-chosen land, and
God-given laws-altogether constituting a kingdom of God on the earth.
Accordingly, we find that each of these elements is separately provided for in
the course of prophecy. On the subject of the king. we need not go out of
Daniel, chapter vii, 13, 14:- “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like THE SON OF MAN
came
with the clouds of heaven . . . and there was given him dominion, and glory,
and a kingdom, that all people, nations,
and languages should serve HIM. His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.”
Here
we have an explanation of chapter ii, 44. But the main point to be noted is
that Daniel supplies us with the first element of the kingdom, viz., the king,
styled in chapter ix, 25, “Messiah the Prince.” This is Jesus Christ, spoken of
in Revelation xix, 16, as the “King of kings, and Lord of lords.” This is a
subject capable of much enlargement; but as a whole lecture will be devoted to
it, we at present desist.
Daniel
also supplies us with the aristocracy of the coming kingdom. We find them in
the following verse from chapter
Vii
: -“The kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole
heaven, shall be given to the people of THE
SA1I’US of the Most high” (verse 27).
These
are referred to by Peter (I Peter ii, 9), as “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a
peculiar people “; and, in Revelation v, 10, they are prospectively represented
as singing, “Thou hast made us unto our God kings
and priests, and we shall REIGN ON THE EARTH.” In these, we recognise the
brethren of Christ who are faithful to the end, and counted
Pg
223
worthy
to inherit the kingdom of God. Writing to such, Paul says, “God hath called you
unto His kingdom” (I Thess. ii, 12); and, again, “Do ye not know that the
saints shall judge the world?” (I Cor. vi, 2). Thus the aristocracy of the
future age are neither more nor less than the poor men and women of this and
all past ages who do the will of God, and hope for His salvation. They are “
taken out from among the Gentiles as a people for His name.” They are “called
to His kingdom and glory,” and “their citizenship is,” therefore, “in heaven.”
They have here “no continuing city: they seek one to come.” They are not known
or recognised by the world. They walk in obscurity; they are among the humble
of the earth; they are without name, standing, or wealth, but they are,
nevertheless, the greatest among the Sons of men. They are destined to be the
rulers in a perfect age that shall be without end, the possessors of all the
wealth that great men are now piling up with such diligence. They are monarchs
of more illustrious degree than any of “the rulers of the darkness of this aion (age).” The time hastens when the
Almighty will “put down the mighty from their seats, and exalt them of low
degree.” What a privilege to be among the latter, even if it does involve
present obscurity and defame!
Next,
the subjects of the kingdom; they also are plainly identified with the Jews to
whom Moses said (Deut. vii, 6):- “The Lord thy God bath chosen thee to be A SPECIAL PEOPLE UNTO HIMSELF, above all people that are upon the face of
the earth.”
The
Jews are now in a scattered and afflicted condition; but they are to be
gathered from their dispersion, and reinstated in their land as a great nation,
there to constitute the subject-people of the Messiah when he returns. This is
a subject by itself, and will be treated in a separate lecture. Meanwhile, it
is necessary to make this passing mention of the subject, in order to complete
the picture of the kingdom of God. It is necessary to add, in order to prevent
misconception, that the subject-inhabitants of the earth in the future age are
not restricted to the Jews. They also comprise “all people, nations, and
languages.” Yet there is a distinction to be marked. “The kingdom of God “ is
distinct from the “all people, nations, and languages,” which it rules; just as
the kingdom of Great Britain is distinct from Canada, New Zealand, and her
other colonies. The Jews will be to the kingdom of God what Englishmen are to
England, and other nations will form so many dependencies subject to, but not
constituting, the kingdom of God, so that while all are the
Pg
224
subjects
of the kingdom, yet the Jews are so in a proper and exclusive sense. Hence we
read, Zech. viii, 23 : -“In those days it shall come to pass that ten men shall
take hold out
of
all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is
a Jew, saying, We will go with you, for we have heard that GOD IS WITH YOU,”
And
again, Micah iv, 8 : -“And thou, 0 tower of the flock, the stronghold of the
daughter of
Zion,
unto thee shall it come, even the FIRST DOMINION; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.”
But
all this will be made more apparent in another lecture. The fourth element of
the kingdom-THE LAND-1S also frequently mentioned in the Scriptures, and often
in such a way as directly to identify it with God’s future purpose. It is
repeatedly spoken of as “my land.”
For illustration of this, the reader is referred to Ezekiel xxxviii, 16: xxxvi,
5; Jeremiah xvi, 18: ii, 7; Isaiah
xiv, 25, etc. Moses says of it (Deut.
xi, 12), “It is a land which the Lord thy
God careth for; the eyes of the Lord thy God are always upon it, from the
beginning of the year even unto the end of the year.” This was Palestine, “that
lieth between the river of Egypt and the great river Euphrates “-the land
promised as a personal everlasting possession to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
(Gen. xiii, 14: xxvi, 3: xxviii, 13). The Jews occupied it under divine
covenant for many centuries, but were ultimately expelled from it in shame,
because they defiled it. At present the land is desolate and desecrated by every
species of Gentile abomination: but we are told of a time (Deut. xxxii, 43)
when God “will be merciful unto 1-us land and to His people.” Of that time it
is written (Zech. ii, 12):- “The Lord shall inherit Judah, His portion in THE HOLY LAND, and shall choose
Jerusalem again.”
Again
(Ezekiel xxxvi, 33, 35) : -“Thus saith the Lord God; In the day that I should
have cleansed you from all your iniquities, I will also cause you to dwell in
the cities; and the wastes shall be
builded, and the desolate land shall be tilled, whereas it lay desolate in
the sight of all that passed by. And they shall say, THIS LAND THAT WAS
DESOLATE IS BECOME LIKE THE GARDEN OF EDEN; and the waste and desolate and
ruined cities are become fenced, and are inhabited,”
As to the laws, it is written in Isaiah ii, 3.
4:-
“And
many people shall go and say, Come ye, and le; us go up to
pg
225
the
mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we
will walk in His paths; for OUT OF ZION SHALL GO FORTH THE LAW, AND THE WORD OF
THE LORD FROM JERUSALEM, And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke
many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their
spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more.”
Here
then is a summary of the Scripture testimony, in which the five constituent
elements of the kingdom of God are made clearly manifest. It is needless to say
that this kingdom is not yet in existence: such a proposition is self-evident.
Its existence does not commence till human government is entirely abolished.
Not until the great image-now standing upon its ten-toed feet in Europe-is
broken to pieces, and “driven away like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors,”
shall the stone expand to the filling of the whole earth. That stone has not
yet descended; Jesus Christ has not yet returned from the far country whither
he has gone, to receive for himself a kingdom (Luke xix, 12-27). He is waiting
for the appointed time. When that arrives, he will be made manifest as “the
stone which the builders rejected, become the head of the corner; on whomsoever
it shall fall it will grind him to powder.” He will go forth “to make war
against the kings of the earth and their armies” (Rev. xix, 11, 20); having
overcome them, “the kingdoms of this
world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ “(Rev. xi,
15).
Then
will commence a glorious reign, outdistancing, by infinitude, the most perfect
government that has ever been conceived by man. One king at the head shall
possess wisdom equal to all the exigencies of universal dominion-his mercy
untainted by selfishness and unblemished by weakness, and his power omnipotent
for the enforcement of his will. AN IMMORTAL KING, no apprehension of death
will haunt his court or mar the joyous confidence of the rejoicing peoples who
will thank God for his righteous sway. His government will be firm, direct, and
absolute-no vacillation-no circumlocution-no doubtfulness and indecision, “The
spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him; the spirit of wisdom and understanding;
the spirit of counsel and might; the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the
Lord; and shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord. And he
shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing
of his ears; but with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with
equity for the meek of the earth. And he shall smite the earth with the rod of
his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked” (Isaiah
xi, 2-4).
Pg 226
Absolute
authority, backed by omnipotence, will rule mankind with simplicity and vigour.
Righteous law, emanating from its legitimate Source, will be enforced with
resistless authority. Innocence will be protected, poverty banished, rapacity
restrained. arrogance brought down, and the rights of all secured in
everything. The King’s government will be administered by the King’s
associates, his immortal, incorruptible, perfected brethren, who having
undergone previous moral preparation in circumstances of great trial, will have
been fashioned like unto the glorious body of their Lord and Master. The power
will be permanently in their hands, not by popular suffrage, but by royal commission
of the true type. The power of the people will be a myth in those days. All
assertion of political birthright will be suppressed. An iron administration,
with superhuman powers at their command, will vigorously put down rebellion in
every form, and maintain the only government that will have blessed the world
with peace and righteousness in the name of divine right. Then shall the glory
of the Lord cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. Then shall be
fulfilled the words of the angels: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth
peace, goodwill toward men,”
THE
BEARING OF THESE THINGS ON THE
GOSPEL
OF OUR SALVATION
Now,
we made it evident to start with, that this glorious purpose was announced in
the gospel preached by Jesus and his apostles; it was proclaimed for belief.
“Go,” said Jesus, “into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptised
shall be saved.” Thus belief was made the first condition of salvation, that
is, belief in the things set forth in the proclamation to which the commission
had reference. These things comprised the doctrine of the kingdom. Hence, no
man believes the gospel who is ignorant of the prophetic disclosures concerning
the kingdom of God. Be it observed, Paul preached the kingdom of God out of the prophets.
PROOF
: -“He expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them
concerning
Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and OUT OF THE PROPHETS” (Acts xxviii,
23).
“I
continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which -~J1E
PROPHETS AND Moses did say should come” (Acts
xxvi, 22).
So
worship I (Paul) the God of my fathers, believing all things which are wntten
in the law AND IN THE PROPHETS” (Acts xxiv, 14).
Pg
227
“Paul, as
his manner was, went in Unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out 0/ THE
SCRIPTURES” (Acts xvii, 2). (There were no other Scriptures at the time than
the Old Testament.)
Previous
to the death of Christ, the crucifixion formed no part of the Gospel.
Subsequently, however, it came to be preached as a supplement to the things
concerning the kingdom of God. This appears from the distinction observed in
the phrases by which the preaching of the apostles is designated at these two
different periods. In the gospel narratives, the proclamation is described as
simply relating to “the kingdom of God “; whereas, in the Acts of the Apostles,
the phrase runs, “the things concerning the kingdom of God, AND the name of
Jesus Christ.” Now, the things concerning the name of Christ comprehend the
doctrinal teaching as to how the sons of Adam may put on that “one name which
is given under heaven, whereby men may be saved.” This involved the teaching
concerning Christ’s sacrifice; for had he not died for our sins, and “risen
again for our justification,” it would have been impossible for us to have “put
on his name,” since his name would not otherwise have been provided. This
element of” the mystery of godliness,” then, was super-added to the things
concerning the kingdom of God, in order to make them of practical value. The
glad tidings of the kingdom would have been no gospel to us unless a way had
been opened up for our personal participation in the glory to be revealed.
This
way was opened in the death and resurrection of Christ; and the announcement of
this fact, with explanation as to the manner in which we might enter this
“way,” naturally became a constituent part of the glad tidings. One part was
incomplete without the other. The only difference between the gospel preached
by Christ before his death, and that proclaimed after his ascension, was that
the latter comprehended the teaching concerning the name of Christ, in addition
to the subject matter of the other. There was no alteration; there was simply
addition. The kingdom was presented for belief and hope; the sacrifice, for
faith with a view to the hope. Both went together. They were never disjointed.
United, they constituted the one gospel preached to the world by the apostles
of Christ, as the means of human salvation, Disjoined, each is inefficacious to
enlighten any man unto salvation.
Now,
it is a remarkable fact that, in this century of boasted Christian knowledge,
we hear nothing at all, in pulpit preaching, about the first and main element of
the gospel-the kingdom of
Pg 228
God.
If it is spoken about at all, it is with a significance totally different from
that which it possesses in the Scriptures. As used by the commonalty of
religious people, it means different things in different mouths, but never
refers to that glorious manifestation of divine power on earth, which is
destined shortly to upset the whole system of human misgovernment, and
establish a glorious kingdom in the earth, in which God will be honoured and
man happy. Furthermore, with whatever meaning the phrase may be used, the
kingdom of God is never spoken of to the people or preached about as in any way
forming a part of the good message from heaven, which men must believe unto
salvation.
Thus
there has been a great departure from the original example. As the Jews of
ancient times would only receive the doctrine of the kingdom, and that in a
carnal and corrupted form, so the Gentiles of modern times, full of boast and
confidence, will only hear of a suffering Messiah, whom they contemplate with
perverted gaze. Thus we have two extremes- equally far from the truth. The
Bible lies between them: and before any of them can be in a safe position they
must meet in the blending of “the things concerning the kingdom of God, AND the
name of Jesus Christ.” At present there is a great and vital lack in popular
preaching. The people are led to hope for translation to heaven at death as the
great object of a religious life, and as the great burden of the promises of
God, when, indeed, such a hope is utterly delusive, having no place at all in
the Scriptures; while, on the other hand, the glorious gospel of the blessed
God is hid from their eyes.
If
we look into the practical teaching of the New Testament, we shall find that it
is thoroughly interlaced with the doctrine of the kingdom of God. We begin with
the exhortation of the great Master himself- “Seek ye first THE KINGDOM OF GOD and his righteousness” (Matt. vi, 33).
Here are plain words. We hear nothing like them in the religious teaching of
this age; no such counsel ever falls from the lips of clergy or ministers. With
all their zeal for the dissemination of the truth of Christ in the world, they
actually neglect the inculcation of its first principle as expressed in the
words before us. They never tell men to ‘seek first the kingdom of God “; they
don’t even tell them that such a thing is coming. The fact is, they are
ignorant on the subject themselves; for surely, otherwise, they would speak of
it. They exhort their hearers to seek “mansions in the skies,” to “prepare for
death,” to “fit themselves for heaven,” and
Pg
229
save
their immortal souls from the torments of hell; thus proclaiming fictitious
doctrine, while in all their preachings they make no mention of the great
central prospective truth relating to the kingdom of God. They thus disprove
themselves to be the ministers of truth and light.
Christ
not only warned men to “seek first the kingdom of God,” but he taught his
disciples to pray for its coming, saying, “THY KINGDOM COME; thy will be done in earth as it is done in
heaven.” No prayer like this ascends from the pulpits of our churches and
chapels. It is true that in the churches the “Lord’s Prayer” is repeated as a
form of devotional exercise; but when the occupants of the pulpit are left to
frame their own petitions, they breathe no requests that the kingdom of God may
come. True, they pray for “the extension of
the Redeemer’s kingdom “; but by this they mean “the propagation of the visible church,” which is a very different
thing from the establishment of the Almighty’s (not now existing) divine
kingdom on earth, for the glorification of His own great name, and the blessing
of humanity. Such a prayer is, in fact, a tacit declaration of unbelief in the
coming kingdom of God’s revealed purpose, because it assumes that kingdom to be
already in existence; and, ignoring His future plans, asserts a system to be
the kingdom of God, which is only the ecclesiastical embodiment of error and
opposition to His truth.
Christ
has said, “Whosoever shall not receive
the Kingdom of God as a little child, shall in no wise enter therein.” (Luke
xviii, 17). This is a solemn statement, deserving, nay, demanding, most
attentive consideration. It is a certain decree of exclusion against all who do
not humbly and joyfully believe in the glad tidings concerning the kingdom of
God. It is fatal to the sceptic, whatever be his excellence of character. It
shuts out the man who is so engrossed in the business and pleasures of this
life, as to be indifferent about the future, blindly trusting that all will be
right if he pays twenty shillings in the pound. It debars the pseudo-liberal
man of the world, who, in the supreme wisdom of a scientific cramming, talks
contemptuously about “theology.”
But
it is equally fatal to another class, who think they have nothing to fear. What
do professing orthodox Christians say to it? How does the Churchman, the
Independent, the Baptist, the Methodist, stand related to this principle? What
say they to the kingdom of God? Do they receive it as a little child? Let them
be told about the purpose of God to send Jesus
Pg
230
Christ
to earth again (Acts iii, 20), to raise again the tabernacle of David that is
fallen down, and to build it as in the days of old (Amos ix, 11); to pull down
the mighty from their seats, and exalt them of low degree (Luke i, 52); to
humble all kings of the earth, and compel the homage of their peoples (Isa.
xxiv, 21; Psalm lxxii, 8-11; Dan, vii, 14; Psalm ii, 9); to establish Him in
the city of Jerusalem, as universal king on earth (Isaiah xxiv, 23; Jeremiah
iii, 17; Micah iv, 2-7); to give power to His accepted people, as royal
co-rulers with Him of the nations of the earth (Rev. ii, 26, 27; v, 9, 10;
Psalm cxlix, 5, 9; Dan. vii, 27).-Let them be told of the mission of Jesus
Christ to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel
(Isaiah xlix, 6); to gather again the children of Israel from all nations among
whom they are scattered, and to bring them to the land of their fathers, now waste
and desolate (Ezek. xxxvii, 21, 22); and there to constitute them a glorious
nation, served and honoured by all, even as they are now oppressed and despised
(Zeph. iii, 19, 20; Isa. lxi, 5, 7;
lx, 10, 14).
Let
them be told of all these things, which are plainly written in the word of
truth, and what will they say? What do they
say? Do they receive them as a little child? Do they not rather reject them
with scorn, and throw all the ridicule which their mouths can frame upon those
who direct their attention to these things? Let them beware lest they come into
condemnation, and realise the words addressed by Jesus to the Pharisees:
“Ye
shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God; and you then yourselves thrust out shall come from
the east and the west, and from the north and the south, and shall sit down in
the kingdom of God.” Wiser far will it be to receive the kingdom of God with
the meekness and gratitude of a little child, that at the end of the days, they
may hear the words of welcome addressed to them, “Come, ye blessed of my
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared
for you from the foundation of the world.”
‘We
read in Acts i, 3, that Jesus was seen of his disciples forty days after his
passion, speaking unto them THE
THINGS PERTAINING TO THE KINGDOM OF GOD. Here is an example for our religious
teachers. The Great Master considered the things of the kingdom of so much
importance, that he devoted his last days on earth to their exposition. How
much then does it behove those who profess to be his ministers to instruct the
people therein.
In
Matthew vii, 21, we find the following words: “Not every
Pg
231
one
that saith, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that
doeth the will of my father which is in heaven.” (Note-The Kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are the same
thing; because God who sets it up is the God of heaven, and the kingdom when
established will be a kingdom that will have come from heaven to earth.) Wordy
profession will not avail anything in securing an entrance into the kingdom of
God. A mere assent to Christian doctrine-an intellectual recognition of gospel
truth-will not qualify a man for that high honour. Belief must be accompanied by a hearty performance of the will of
God, as made known in the preceptive department of the truth; and this is what
few men are equal to. The moral courage that is not frightened at singularity
is a scarce thing, especially in matters of principle. Men will rather wink at
tricks in trade, and conform to dishonourable practices without end, than
boldly avow conscientious conviction, and be considered “soft,” Fashion,
reputation, and other influences at work in society, briefly summarised by the
apostle John, as “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of
life,” are too powerful with the common run of mortals, to allow of many
entering the kingdom of God. “The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of
God” (I Cor. vi, 9). “Strait is the gate and narrow is the way, and few there be
that find it.” Again, in Mark x, 24, we read, “How hard is it for them that
trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God.”
James
presents the other side of the picture in chapter ii, 5:
“Hearken,
my beloved brethren, hath not God chosen the
poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He hath
promised to them that love him”? Riches come not alone to a man. They surround
him with circumstances which are unfavourable to spiritual perception. For this
reason, a rich man has very little chance of ever becoming an heir of the
kingdom of God; not from the simple circumstance of his happening to have
riches, but because he becomes subject through them, to many influences of an
unfavourable character. It is different with the poor. They may take comfort.
To them pre-eminently the gospel is preached; and to them it cannot fail to
present many more attractions than to the rich man, because in this life they
have little to comfort them. Their days are spent in labour. They manage with
difficulty to “provide things honest in the sight of all men,” and are
strangers to the elegances and luxuries by which the rich sweeten their lives.
They are held in small reputation, have few friends and few pleasures. To them
the
pg
232
gospel
is glad tidings indeed: it promises them deliverance from all the imperfections
and drawbacks of the present life, and possession of riches and honour in the
kingdom of God-far greater and more enduring, and certainly not less real than
those which are now inherited by the great men of the earth; and in the
affectionate belief of this promise, and the moral elevation and spiritual
improvement which the contemplation thereof induces, he is blessed with the
peace of God that passeth all understanding-a peace that the world knoweth not
of-a peace that the world cannot give and cannot take away.
From
what has been advanced it will be manifest that the gospel of Jesus Christ, as
made known in the New Testament, is not preached in our churches and chapels.
To account for such a state of things, it would be necessary to say more than
the limits of this lecture will allow; but there is a certain prediction of
Paul’s which may throw some light on the subject. It will be found in II Tim.
iv, 3, 4:- “The time will come when they
will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap
to themselves teachers, (they) having itching ears; AND THEY SHALL TURN AWAY
THEIR EARS FROM THE TRUTH, AND SHALL BE TURNED UNTO FABLES.”
This
prediction requires no comment. We observe its fulfilment in the present state
of Christendom, and the warning voice to every earnest mind is, in the words of
Peter, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” Like the Christians of
old, “Gladly receive the word and be
baptised.” Steadfastly continue in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship,
in the breaking of bread and in prayers; and when the time appointed arrives,
“an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (II
Peter i, 11).
LECTURE 9
Pg 233
THE PROMISES MADE
TO THE FATHERS
ABRAHAM,
ISAAC AND JACOB), YET TO
BE
FULFILLED IN THE SETTING UP OF THE
KINGDOM
OF GOD UPON EARTH
No
ATTENTIVE reader of the New Testament can be ignorant of the prominence given
in the apostolic writings to “THE PROMISES MADE UNTO THE FATHER.” He may not
understand what is meant by the phrase, but he can scarcely avoid acquaintance
with the phrase itself, as a thing of importance, because it is used in such a
way as to show that whatever it refers to, it expresses something that has a
fundamental relation to the scheme of truth apostolically delivered.
Those
who are not New Testament readers, or Old Testament readers either, will know
nothing about it. For their benefit and the general elucidation of the subject,
we call attention to the state of the matter, by quoting Paul’s statement that
“Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm THE PROMISES MADE UNTO THE
FATHERS” (Rom.xv, 8). This at once brings the subject to a point, declaring a
connection between the mission of Christ and that which is styled “THE PROMISES
“; and thereby imposing upon us the necessity of recognising the importance of
the stem and branch of truth so expressed, instead of turning away from the
subject with indifference, as is the custom with the majority of religious
people, not excepting those professing to be New Testament Christians. If Christ came to “confirm the promises
made unto the fathers,” it is obviously of the first importance that we know
something about these promises, and we need have no difficulty in getting the
knowledge desired. Paul incidentally declares that whatever they are, the
promises belong to the Jews : -
“My
kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom
pg
234
pertaineth the adoption, and the glory,
and the covenants, and the giving of the
law, and the service of God, AND THE PROMISES” (Rom. ix, 3-4).
Speaking
more definitely on the subject, he says : -“Now
to Abraham and his seed were THE PROMISES made. He saith
not,
And to seeds, as of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ . . .
And if ye be Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the
promise” (Gal. iii, 16, 29).
From
this, it is evident that if we would know something about “the promises” which
Paul had in his mind, we must refer to the history of Abraham, from which he
derived his information. With this history most people are familiar; but as a
rule, they are ignorant of anything in connection with it which answers to
Paul’s words in Gal. iii, 16, 29. They know that Abraham emigrated from
Chaldea, by divine command, became a settler in Canaan, and that God promised
to greatly multiply his posterity, and make them a great nation in the country
where he was then a stranger; they believe that it was promised to him that
Christ, the Saviour of the world, should come in his line, and that in this
way, through the preaching of the gospel, all nations should ultimately be
blessed through him; but they have no idea of any promises which form the
groundwork of the Christian faith, or the subject-matter of the gospel. They
admit there were promises, but, practically, they consider them past and done
with. They consider them as applicable only to the now insignificant events of
Jewish history.
They
certainly have no idea of any “promises made unto the fathers,” in which they
can hope to have any personal interest, or from which, indeed, Abraham himself
can have any future benefit. They have no idea of themselves or any one else
“inheriting the promises” made 3,000 years ago to the fathers. The promises, in
their estimation, are an affair of the past, a part of the first dispensation
which, having waxed old, has vanished away. The thing to be looked for from
their point of view, is the thing that, in their opinion, has happened to the
fathers themselves and to all righteous men ever since-an event before which
all parties are on a dead level, promises or no promises; and that is, going to
heaven when death comes, if righteous. They sing and teach their children to
sing-Where is now the prophet Daniel? Safe
in THE PROMISED LAND.
In
their estimation. the promised land is heaven; thither they sing of all the
faithful having gone-the “souls” having according to their creed, “departed to
glory,” when death laid
Pg
235
their
bodies low. They consider that the promises made to them have been amply
realised. It is evident there is a great mistake in this. Paul says:- “These
all died in faith, NOT HAVING RECEIVED THE PROMISES, but having SEEN THEM AFAR
OFF, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they
were strangers and pilgrims on the earth” (Heb. xi, 13).
This
affirms that the fathers died without receiving what had been promised; in
direct opposition to orthodoxy, which says they died and thus received the promises, being one and all “safe in the promised
land.” Paul repeats the statement at the end of the chapter. He says : -“These
all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise, God having provided some better thing for
us, that they without us SHOULD NOT
BE MADE PERFECT” (Heb. xi, 39, 40).
What
were the promises made to the fathers, the substance of which they did not
receive, and which Paul here declares they will not receive until the totality
of the chosen ones “from every nation, kindred, people, and tongue” is
completed? In answer to this, we affirm that they relate to matters forming the
very essence and foundation of the salvation offered through Christ. We do so
on the strength of the following testimonies, to begin with : -“And now I
(Paul) stand (before Agrippa’s judgment-seat) and am
judged
for the hope of THE PROMISE MADE OF
GOD UNTO OUR FATHERS “(Acts XXVI, 6).
“He
bath shewed strength with His arm; He hath scattered the proud in the
imagination of their hearts. He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and
exalted them of low degree. He bath filled the hungry with good things, and the
rich He hath sent empty away. He hath holpen his servant Israel in remembrance
of His mercy, as HE SPAKE to our fathers,
TO ABRAHAM, and to his seed for ever” (Luke i, 51-55).
“Blessed
be the Lord God of Israel; for He hath visited and redeemed His people, and
hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David
(that is, Jesus -see context); as He spake by the mouth of His holy prophets,
which have been since the world began; that
we
should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all that hate us; to perform the mercy PROMISED TO OUR
FATHERS, and to remember His holy
covenant, THE OATH WHICH HE SWARE TO OUR FATHER ABRAHAM” (Luke i, 68-73).
“THOU
WILT PERFORM THE TRI.TFH TO JACOB, AND THE MERCY TO ABRAHAM, WHICH THOU HAST
SWORN UNTO OUR FATHERS FROM THE DAYS OF OLD” (Mic. vii, 20).
Pg
236
These
passages show that the promises made to the fathers were unfulfilled at so
recent a date as the first century-that is, nearly
two thousand years after they were made-and further, that they have
reference to the things to be accomplished, through Christ, instead of having,
as the generality of religious people suppose, been fulfilled in Jewish
history.
But,
for the better discussion of the question, and to come closer to the subject,
let us look at the promises themselves. In seeking for them, we act under the
guidance of Paul, who says, “To Abraham and
his seed were the promises made.” This is an infallible clue: we go to the
history of Abraham, and find the following promises recorded : -“Now the Lord
had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and
from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee. And I will make of
thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou
shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that
curseth thee; AND IN THEE SHALL ALL FAMILIES OF THE EARTH BE BLESSED” (Gen.
xii, 1-3).
“And
the Lord said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now
thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art, northward, and southward,
and eastward, and westward: For all the
land which thou Seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed (Christ) for
ever. And, walk through the land in
the length of it and in the breadth of it; FOR I WILL GIVE IT UNTO THEE” (Gen.
xiii, 14-17). (See also xii, 7: xv, 8-18: xvii, 8).
“By
myself have I sworn, saith the Lord; for because thou hast done this thing, and
hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: that in blessing I will bless thee,
and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the
sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy
seed shall possess the gate of his enemies. And IN THY SEED SHALL ALL THE
NATIONS OF THE EARTH BE BLESSED, because thou hast obeyed My voice” (Gen. xxii,
16-18).
Paul
styles Isaac and Jacob “the heirs with him (Abraham) of the same promise” (Heb.
xi, 9). It will therefore lay the foundation more securely to quote the
promises made to them, which it will be seen are, as Paul’s words give us to
understand, identical with those made to Abraham : -“And the Lord appeared unto
him (Isaac) and said . . . Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and
will bless thee; for unto thee and unto
thy seed I WILL GIVE ALL THESE COUNTRIES, and I will perform the oath which
I sware unto Abraham thy father” (Gen. xxvi, 2, 3).
“And
God Almighty bless thee (Jacob) ... and give thee the blessing
of
Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed
with thee; that thou mayest inherit the
land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham”
(Gen.
xxviii, 3, 4).
Pg
237
“I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and
the God of Isaac:
THE
LAND WHEREON THOU LIEST, TO THEE WILL I GIVE IT, AND TO THY SEED . . . and in
thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Gen.
xxviii, 13, 14).
Now,
in analysing these “promises made to the fathers,” it will be found that they
consist of several distinct items, which it will be well to enumerate for the
sake of clearness, and the consideration of each of which separately will
enable us to see the truth of the proposition that stands as the subject of the
lecture, viz., that these promises will only be fulfilled when Christ, having
returned from heaven, and raised his people from the dead, reigns in Palestine
as universal ruler, to whom all nations will bow in blessed allegiance.
1 st.-That Abraham’s posterity should become a
great and mighty nation.-This has not been fulfilled in the sense of the
promise. It is true that Abraham’s descendants, according to the flesh, have
multiplied and filled a large place in history; but this is not the only event
contemplated in the promise, as is evident from Rom. ix, 6-8. The natural Jews
from the day that they murmured against Moses and Aaron, in the wilderness,
till now, when they reject the prophet like unto Moses, have ever been a stiff-necked,
disobedient generation, walking after the ways of the heathen, and persecuting
and slaying the servants of God sent to bring them to the right way. This is
not the “great nation multiplied above the stars of heaven,” that was promised
to Abraham; it were no blessing to surround a man with such a race of
flesh-born rebels. Paul says, “They are
nóf all israel which are of Israel, neither, because they are the seed of
Abraham, are they all children; but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called:
that is, they which are the children of
the flesh, these are not the children of God, BUT THE CHILDREN OF THE
PROMISE ARE COUNTED FOR THE SEED” (Rom. ix, 6-8).
Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob pleased God by their faith and obedience: those of their
descendants who were not of this disposition, were not of Israel, although they
inherited their flesh and blood, and, therefore, were not “counted for the
seed.” They were not reckoned as constituents of the great nation promised to
Abraham. The great majority of the Jews have been of this class, and are,
therefore, rejected. Whence, then, comes the promised race of children? The
principal part of them will
Pg
238
be
furnished by the Jewish nation after the flesh; for in all their history, there
has been a remnant, that were truly Abrahamic, not only in blood, but in faith
and obedience: these are “the children of the promise,” and will be raised at
the coming of Christ. The other part will come from the Gentiles, who, after
ages of darkness, were visited in the apostolic era, with an invitation to
become adopted into the stock of Abraham. This fact is made known in the
following words : -“God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name” (Acts
xv, 14). “By revelation He made known unto me (Paul) the mystery.. . which in
other ages was not made known unto the sons of men . . . that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and
partakers of His promise in Christ by the gospel” (Eph. iii, 3, 5, 6).
“And
he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of
the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all them that believe, though
they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them
also; and the father of circumcision to
them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also WALK IN THE STEPS
OF THAT FAITH OF OUR FATHER ABRAHAM, WHICH HE HAD BEING YET UNCIRCUMCISED”
(Rom. iv, 11, 12).
Hence
those who embrace the faith of Abraham, and become circumcised by putting on
Christ in baptism, thus partaking imputatively of the literal circumcision of
which Christ was subject under the law, become the children of Abraham, and
heirs of the promises made to him. This is Paul’s testimony:-” For as many of
you as have been BAPTISED INTO CHRIST have put on Christ . . . And if ye be
Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and
HEIRS ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE” (Gal. iii, 27, 29). Of those in that position,
Paul says : -~-“ Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise” (Gal.
iv, 28).
This
is the class contemplated in the promise made to Abraham; but the point of time
at which they are contemplated is not the present time, when they are a weak
and scattered family, and the great bulk of them in the dust. It is the time
referred to in John xi, 52, when
Christ will “gather together IN ONE
the children of God that are scattered abroad “; and in II Thess. ii, 1, “the
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our
gathering together unto him.” Speaking of this time, Jesus says: -“Many shall come from the east and west, and
shall sit down with ABRAHAM, and ISAAC, and JACOB, in the kingdom of
heaven”
(Matt. viii,:11)
Pg
239
When
this takes place, Abraham will behold the fulfilment of the promise that he
should become a great and mighty nation, above the stars of heaven in
multitude; his children of the royal order, raised from the dead of all ages,
will be “a great multitude which no man can number” (Rev. vii, 9); and his
descendants according to the flesh, disciplined and renovated as a nation, by
trial in the wilderness a second time, will be the mightiest people on the
globe, all righteous, and inheriting the land (Isa. lx, 21), and having “praise
and fame in every land where they have been put to shame” (Zeph. iii, 19). This
will be when the Kingdom of God is established in the manner set forth in the
last lecture.
2nd.-That Abraham and his
seed should receive possession of the land indicated in the promise, viz., “THE LAND from the river of Egypt unto the great river
Euphrates,” styled in the promise to Abraham, “the land wherein thou art a
stranger” (Gen. xvii, 8). That this part of the promise is unfulfilled,
requires but a feeble effort to see. First, Moses records that Abraham had to
buy a field of the original possessors of the country, wherein to bury his
dead, and said to them, “I am a stranger
and a sojourner with you” (Gen. xxiii, 4). Secondly, Paul says, “He sojourned in the land of promise, AS
IN A STRANGE COUNTRY” (Heb. xi, 9). Thirdly, Stephen says, ‘”God gave him none inheritance in it, NO, NOT SO MUCH AS TO SET
HIS FOOT ON: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession”
(Acts vii, 5). If Abraham was a
stranger and a sojourner in the land of promise, as in a strange country, and
received none inheritance in it, not so much as a foot-breadth, surely, so far
as he is concerned, the promise is unfulfilled. If so, it remains to be
fulfilled at a future time. “Not so,” says the orthodox objector: “the promise
has been fulfilled in Abraham’s descendants; the Jews possessed the country for
many centuries, and this was the fulfillment of the promise.” The answer to
this is found in Gal. iii, 16-18: -
“Now
to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as
of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which
is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of
God in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the
promise of none effect. For if
pg
240
the inheritance be of the
law, it is
no more of promise; BUT GOD
GAVE
IT TO ABRAHAM BY PROMISE.”
“The
promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his
seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith
is made void, and the PROMISE MADE OF NONE EFFECT” (Rom. iv, 13, 14).
Now,
let the reader observe that the Jews occupied the land under the law of Moses, which stipulated in the most stringent
terms that -their occupation should depend upon their conformity to its
requirements (Deut. xxviii, 15-68). Their
inheritance of the country was altogether “of the law “; it provided that if
they kept the law, they should dwell in the land in prosperity; and that if
they broke it, they should be dispersed among the nations in suffering. History
records how continually they failed in the matter, and how repeatedly they were
subject to foreign yoke and captivity in consequence, and how at last, when
hopeless rebellion had established itself in the whole house of Israel,
culminating in the rejection of “the prophet like unto Moses,” the Romans came
and “took away their place and nation,” scattering them in the wide dispersion
of the present day.
It
is impossible in the face of these facts to maintain that the Jewish occupation
of Palestine was a fulfilment of the promise made to Abraham: for Paul says, in
the words quoted, that the promise was not to Abraham or his seed through the law, but through the
righteousness of faith. God gave it to Abraham by promise, free and
unconditional. Therefore, says Paul, if they which are of the law be heirs, the promise is made of none effect (Rom.
iv, 14). It follows that the promise that Abraham and Christ should possess the
land of Palestine is wholly unfulfilled, but will have its fulfilment when
Abraham rises from the dead to enter the kingdom of God, then and there to be
established. A consideration of what Paul says in Heb. xi, will shew this :
-“By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place WHICH HE SHOULD
AFFER RECEIVE FOR AN INHERITANCE, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither
he went. By faith he sojourned in THE LAND OF PROMISE, as in a strange country,
dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise. FOR HE LOOKED FOR A CITY
WHICH HATH FOUNDATIONS, WHOSE BUILDER AND MAKER IS GOD These all died in faith, not having
received the promises, but having seen
them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed
that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such
things declare plainly
Pg
241
that
they seek a country. And truly if they had been mindful of that country from
whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that
is, an heavenly” (verses 8-16).
Let
the reader carefully peruse and re-peruse this quotation from Hebrews, and
having done so, let him realise its purport. Abraham, says Paul, was called to
go into a country which he should afterwards
receive for an inheritance. What country was this? Let the reader consult
Gen xii, 4, 5, and he will have an
answer: “So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken to him, and Lot went with
him. . . and into the Land of Canaan they
came.” To make the matter certain beyond dispute, we will quote the words
of Stephen: -“Get thee (Abraham) out of thy country and from thy kindred, and
come into the land which I shall shew thee. Then came he out of the land of the
Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charran, and from thence, when his father was dead, he
removed him into THIS LAND, WHEREIN YE NOW DWELL” (Acts vii, 3, 4).
The
land which Abraham was “after to receive for an inheritance,” was the land
inhabited by the Jews in the days of the apostles, modern Syria. He lived in it
as a stranger, with Isaac and Jacob, to whom the promise of possession was
afterwards renewed. This sojourn was the result of faith. But for this, on
finding, as years rolled on that he was not put in possession of the land, but
left to wander without inheritance, he would have returned in disgust to his
native country, and spent his days among his kindred. Paul says he and his sons
“had opportunity to have returned “; but they did not avail themselves of the
opportunity, but steadfastly remained in the country to which they had been
commanded to emigrate. Paul says the reason of this was, that they were
“persuaded of the promises and embraced them.” Notwithstanding that appearances
were against them, they believed that God would in time fulfil His words, and
give them the promised possession, and believing this, they were able to
crucify the natural desire to go back to a country where they would have had
both inheritance and friends, but in going back to which, they would have
forfeited the promises. They saw that the thing promised was more worthy than
“the country from whence they came out.” They looked for a city (polity) which
had foundations, and desired a heavenly country. The country from which they
came out was without foundation; based upon flesh, which is of earth, earthy,
it was ephemeral and passing away: as John says: “The world passeth away, and the lust thereof, but he
Pg
242
that
doeth the will of God, abideth for ever” (I
John ii. 17). Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob saw in the promises the guarantee
of
a heavenly order of things in which, God being the founder, there would be the
stability of “foundations” that could never be removed; therefore, they
consented to live as strangers in a foreign land, waiting in faith for the
things promised. They saw that the promises were “afar off “; they, therefore,
in faith, accepted exile, confessing themselves for the time strangers and
pilgrims on the earth. Paul says, “They
died without receiving the promises.” What is it, then, but that they must
rise to receive them? When? At the time described in Rev. xi, 18, as “the time
of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets “-[Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob were prophets- Psalm cv. 15]-the time, the reader will
perceive by the context, when “the kin
gdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ” (verse
15). It is the epoch mentioned by Paul in the following words: “Jesus Christ
shall judge the quick and the dead at his
appearing and his kingdom” (II Tim. iv, 1). When Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
come forth from their graves to judgment and reward, they will “receive the
land for an inheritance,” according to the promise. On doing this, they will
inherit the kingdom of God, for the kingdom of God is to be established there.
Hence, says Jesus to the Pharisees : -“Ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and
Jacob, and all the prophets,
in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust
out. And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north,
and from the south, and shall sit down in
the kingdom of God” (Luke xiii, 28, 29).
If
any one doubt that this will be in the very land promised to the fathers, and
in which they wandered as strangers, let him read the following testimonies
from the prophets : -“The Lord shall inherit Judah his portion in the Holy Land, and shall choose Jerusalem again”
(Zech. ii, 12).
“But
upon Mount Zion shall be deliverance,
and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions
. . . And the captivity of this host of the children of Israel shall possess
that of the Canaanites, even unto Zarephath; and the captivity of Jerusalem,
which is in Sepharad, shall possess the cities of the south. And saviours shall
come up on Mount Zion to judge the Mount of Esau; AND THE KINGDOM SHALL BE THE
LORD’S” (Obadiah 17, 20, 21).
"In
that day, saith the Lord I will assemble her that halteth, and I will
Pg
243
gather
her that is driven out, and her that I have afflicted. And I will make her that
halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation; and the LORD
SHALL REIGN OVER THEM IN MOUNT ZION FROM HENCEFORTH, EVEN FOR EVER. And thou, 0
tower of the flock, the stronghold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first
dominion: the kingdom shall come to the daughter of JERUSALEM” (Mic. iv,
6-8).
“Then
will I remember My covenant with Jacob, and also My covenant with Isaac, and
also My covenant with Abraham will I remember; AND I WILL REMEMBER THE LAND”
(Lev. xxvi, 42).
“Then
will the Lord be jealous for His LAND,
and pity His people” (Joel ii, 18).
“Fear not, 0 LAND; be glad and rejoice;
for the Lord will do great things” (Joel ii, 21).
“A
LAND which the Lord thy God careth for; the eyes of the Lord thy God are always upon it, from the beginning of
the year even unto the end of the year” (Deut. xi, 12).
“And
the desolate land shall be tilled, whereas
it lay desolate in the sight of all that passed by; and they shall say, This land that was desolate is become LIKE
THE GARDEN OF EDEN, and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are become
fenced, and are inhabited. Then the heathen that are left round about you shall
know that I the Lord build the ruined
places, and plant that that was desolate; I THE LORD HAVE SPOKEN IT, AND I
WILL DO IT” (Ezek. xxxvi, 34-36).
“For
the Lord shall comfort ZION; He will comfort all her waste places; and He will make her wilderness LIKE EDEN, and her desert LIKE THE GARDEN OF THE
LORD; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, and the voice of
melody” (Isa. Ii, 3).
“Thou shalt no more be
termed Forsaken: neither shall THY LAND any
more be termed Desolate, but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land
Beulah; for the Lord delighteth in thee, and
thy land shall be married” (Isa. lxii, 4).
“Whereas
thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through thee, I will
make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of
many generations “ (Isa. Ix, 15).
When
the state of things depicted in these testimonies passes out of the domain of
prophecy into that of accomplished fact, the “city having foundations” and the
“heavenly country,” which were the objects of faith with Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob, and the subject of promise to them, will be realised. The Scriptural
meaning of these phrases will then be exemplified. Orthodox interpreters of
Paul make them apply to “heaven above the skies”: they overlook the fact, that
the promises related to the land in which the fathers sojourned; and forget the
Pg
244
absurdity
of calling heaven a “heavenly country.” Palestine will be a heavenly country
when Christ, having re-established the kingdom of David, rules in it as monarch
of the whole earth: and his kingdom will be “a city having foundations,” for it
will stand upon a rock which no rude assault of rebellion whether of democrats
or kings, will be able to shake.
It
will be observed that Abraham’s “seed” is joined with Abraham himself in the
promises. Paul says that this seed is Christ (Gal. iii, 16), and all who are
Christ’s (verse 29). In view of this, we are bound to give an application to
the promises which may be a little startling to those who have hitherto read
the Bible with an orthodox bias, but which is the only application that a
rational reading and a child-like belief in the promises can admit, and that
is, that Christ and the saints are destined, in conjunction with Abraham, who,
in fact, will be one of them, to possess and occupy “the land of Israel.” From
this conclusion, the orthodox mind will doubtless recoil with horror. This is
owing to the perverted condition of the orthodox mind, and not to the nature of
the conclusion itself. What is there in the conclusion to justify horror? Is it
not a beautiful and a fitting conclusion? If it is the purpose of God to rule
mankind by Christ and his people, it is meet that they should have a centre of
operations and headquarters somewhere on the earth. And where could a more
appropriate spot be found than the land promised to Abraham?
Palestine
is situate at the conjunction of the three great continents of the eastern
hemisphere, and can be approached from any quarter on the great oceans. It is
the natural centre of universal government; both for commerce and law-giving,
it stands in the finest situation there is on earth. In addition to this, it is
the locality that has witnessed all God’s operations in the past, down to the
very crucifixion of His Son, and the sending forth of the gospel; and what more
fitting than that it should be the place fixed upon for the resumption of His
great and mighty acts? The scene of Christ’s humiliation; what more befitting
than that it should witness his exaltation as monarch of all the earth? But
these considerations pale before the strength of the promise. Nothing is needed
after the testimony -“The law shall go forth of ZION, and the word of the Lord
from JERUSALEM” (Mic. iv, 2).
The
redeemed of the Lord shall return, and come with singing UNTO ZION; and
everlasting joy shall be upon their head; they shall
Pg
245
obtain
gladness and joy, and sorrow and mourning shall flee away” (Isa. li, 11).
“Rejoice
ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her; rejoice for joy
with her, all ye that mourn for her, that ye may suck and be satisfied with the
breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the
abundance of her glory. . . . As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I
comfort you; and ye shall be comforted IN JERUSALEM” (Isa. lxvi, 10, 13).
“Thine
eyes shall see JERUSALEM a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be
taken down; not one of the stakes thereof shall ever be removed, neither shall
any of the cords thereof be broken. . . .For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is
our king; He will save us” (Isa. xxxiii, 20, 22). “He will destroy in this mountain the face of the
covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations. He
will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from
off all faces. . . . In that day shall this song be sung in the land of Judah” (Isa. xxv, 7, 8: xxvi, 1).
“The
Redeemer shall come to ZION, and unto them that turn from transgression in
Jacob” (Isa. lix, 20).
“At
that time they shall call JERUSALEM the throne of the Lord” (Jer. iii, 17).
“Moreover,
when ye shall divide by lot the land for inheritance, ye shall offer an oblation unto the Lord, AN HOLY
PORTION OF THE LAND; the length shall be the length of five and twenty thousand
reeds, and the breadth shall be ten thousand. (English measurement, 43 miles by
17). This shall be holy in all the borders thereof round about . . . the
sanctuary of the Lord shall be in the midst thereof” (Ezek. xlv, 1: xlviii,
10).
“And
they (the nations at the end of the thousand years) went up on the breadth of
the earth, and compassed THE CAMP OF THE SAINTS about, and the BELOVED CITY;
and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them” (Rev. xx, 9).
These
quotations from the Scriptures illustrate the fulfilment of the promise to
Abraham as regards his seed-” Christ and the saints.” They show the sense in
which the promise is to be understood, and that is the obvious sense, the plain
sense, viz., that when the kingdom of God is established, and Abraham inherits
the land, his seed, constituting the divine encampment, will be in the land
with him, and in a-particular part of
it, to be allotted for that purpose. This allotment, which will include the
territory of Judah and Jerusalem, will, as we shall see in another lecture,
contain an area of about 1,784 square miles, which will be ample enough for the
pavilions of the king to be spread on a scale becoming the grandeur and majesty
of the kingdom. Abraham’s seed-the bride, the Lamb’s wife-the totality of those
who, being “called, and chosen, and faithful,” are “the first fruits
Pg
246
unto
God and unto the Lamb,” and found worthy of reigning with Christ, will be a
numerous progeny; but not too numerous for the country allotted. “Many are
called; but few are chosen.” “Strait
is the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life and few there be that find it.”
True,
John describes this few as “a great multitude which no man could number”: but
this must be taken as expressing the aspect which a large assembly of people
would present to the eye, and not as the statement of an arithmetical fact. The
expression could never be true in the absolute sense, for numbers can be
computed indefinitely; but in the sense of a crowd being so large and dense as
that a man could not reckon them, it is quite appropriate. How many people does
the reader think could be accommodated with standing room in the section of
country to be set apart, according to Ezekiel, for “an holy oblation “? Nearly
half the population of the globe: that is to say, about five-hundred millions.
The calculation is very simple; it is easy to ascertain how many people could
stand in a square mile; multiply that number by the number of square
miles-1,784- and you have the result stated. We make these apparently
unnecessary remarks on account of the objection raised to the Bible teaching
concerning the inheritance of the Holy Land by Jesus and the saints, on the
score of the impossibility of such a little place holding them all.
The
objection arises from two mistakes; first, the place is not so little; and,
second, the number who will be with Christ is not so great as popular tradition
presumes. At the end of the thousand years, there will be a great harvest to be
reaped, as the result of the thousand years’ dispensation of light and
knowledge; but at the beginning, the number to be associated with Christ as the
seed of Abraham, to co.operate with him in the blessing of the nations, will be
on the limited scale of “first fruits “; they are styled “the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb” (Rev.
xiv, 4).
3rd.-Thai’ Christ, the seed
of Abraham, is to conquer the world-This is the third feature of the promise made to
Abraham. it is expressed in the words “Thy seed shall possess the gate of his
enemies.” To apprehend the significance of this statement, it is necessary to
remember that in Oriental countries, in ancient times, the gate of a city was
the seat of authority. It
pg
247
was
the place where consultations were held, decrees issued and registered, and
where the rulers showed themselves to receive the obeisance of the people. For
an enemy to possess this place, then, was to give evidence of having conquered
and deposed the original holders of power.
Now
it must be evident that the promise that Christ should possess the gate of his
enemies has not been fulfilled. In no sense can an orthodox interpreter make it
out that Christ has displaced his enemies from the seat of honour, glory, and
power. Ungodly men rule the world. Christ’s own country-the land promised to
Abraham-is enslaved by the Moslem power, which administers authority and
perpetrates its religious abominations in the very city which was called by
God’s name, and which Jesus is to make the throne of Jehovah in the future age.
Instead of Christ possessing the gate of his enemies, the enemy may be said to
tread down Christ in the gate. The horns of the Gentiles have lifted themselves
up over the land of Judah to scatter it (Zech. i, 21), and all pertaining to
Abraham and his seed is now in waste and desolation. But when the kingdom of
God comes, this will be changed. God shall speak to the nations in anger, and
have them in derision; Christ shall break them in pieces like a potter’s vessel
(Psa. ii, 9; Rev. ii, 27); He shall come forth as a man of war-as the Lion of
the tribe of Judah-to fight the confederated power of his enemies (Rev. xix,
19; Zech. xiv, 3; Ezek. xxxviii, 2 1-23). He shall punish the kings of the
earth upon the earth (Isa. xxiv, 21). He shall put down the mighty from their
seats, and send the rich empty away (Luke i, 52. 53). He shall then possess the gate of his enemies. All kings shall
bow down before him, and all nations shall serve him (Psalm lxxii, 11). All
people, nations, and languages shall serve and obey him; his dominion is an
everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall
not be destroyed (Dan. vii, 14). Then will the proclamation be sounded in loud
p~ans of joy throughout the whole earth : -“THE KINGDOMS OF THIS WORLD ARE
BECOME THE KINGDOMS OF OUR LORD, AND OF HIS CHRIST; AND HE SHALL REIGN FOR EVER
AND EVER” (Rev.xi, 15).
4th.-That all nations shall
be blessed in Abraham and his seed-This is the gospel in a sentence; so Paul gives us to
pg
248
understand
in Gal. iii, 8. The attentive reader will be able to discern in it the
substance of what Jesus and the apostles preached. They preached “the things
concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts viii, 12;
xxviii, 29-3 1). The announcement made to Abraham is neither more nor less than
these “things” compressed into a sentence, for it announces in a general form
what the others disclose in particulars. It tells of universal blessing in
connection with Abraham and Christ; while these make plain the process by which
the blessing is carried into effect: first, in relation to individuals, and
then in relation to nations. It must be evident that it is not yet realised.
The nations are not in a state of blessing. Not only groaning under misrule,
they are in a state of poverty, ignorance, and misery, which is the opposite of
blessedness. The world lieth in wickedness. Abraham and his seed are unknown,
except as objects of derision. Even in “happy England” unbelief and vice are
the order of the day. There is an external appearance of godliness: much church
and chapel building, Sunday school teaching, sermon hearing, prayer saying, collection
making, bazaar holding, etc.; but what is there inside but rottenness and dead
men’s bones? The people who do these things are either selfish, superstitious,
or ignorant. There is little fear of God or regard for His word. There is much
fear of man and love of the world. People are befooled and degraded: their
brains are bemuddIed with Paganism in regard to Christianity, and their hearts
eaten out by the exigencies of social caste and filthy lucre.
All
nations are not yet blessed in Abraham and his seed: but they will be; for we
read : -Behold a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in
judgment . . . and the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of
them that hear shall hearken. The heart also of the rash shall understand
knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly”
(Isa. xxxii, 1, 3, 4).
“In
that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book; and the eyes of the blind
shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness. The meek also shall increase
their joy in the Lord, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of
Israel. For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed,
and all that watch for iniquity are cut off”
(Isa. xxix, 18-20).
“Say
to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not; behold, your God will
come with vengeance; even God with a recompence; he will come and save you.
Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be
unstopped. Then shall the lame
pg 249
man
leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing” (Isa. xxxv, 4-6).
“From
the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same My name shall be
great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offered unto My
name, and a pure offering; for My name shall be great among the heathen, saith
the Lord of Hosts” (Mal. i, 11).
“The
battle-bow shall be cut off, and he shall speak peace unto the heathen, and his
dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of
the earth” (Zech. ix, 10).
“Many
people and strong nations shall come to seek the Lord of Hosts in Jerusalem,
and to pray before the Lord” (Zech. viii, 22).
“Many
nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and shall be My people” (Zech.
ii, 11).
“The
earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the
waters cover the sea” (Hab. ii, 14).
“They
shall fear Thee as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations.
He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass, as showers that water the
earth. In His days shall the righteous flourish, and abundance of peace so long
as the moon endureth . . . He shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor
also, and him that hath no helper. He shall spare the poor and needy, and shall
save the souls of the needy. He shall redeem their soul from deceit and
violence; and precious shall their blood be in His sight. . . . His name shall
endure for ever. His name shall be continued as long as the sun, and men shall be blessed in Him~ all nations
shall call Him blessed” (Psa. lxxii, 5-7: 12-14, 17).
These
testimonies illustrate the blessing guaranteed for “all families of the earth”
in the promises made to Abraham: they show what the blessedness consists of in
its full development. It is no. imaginary blessedness; but the bestowal of just
those substantial boons which the whole world is yearning after, but knows not
how to compass. These, however, will not be realised till the kingdom of God
comes. They cannot be attained before that time; for it requires a righteous
and resistless despot to eject all other rulers from place and power, before
they become practicable. It requires power, wisdom, righteousness, and humanity
to concentre in a universal king, before the nations can be made righteous,
prosperous, and happy. In a word, it requires Christ, the seed of Abraham, to
take the world’s affairs into his own hands, before there can ever be “glory to
God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men.” This blessing of
Abraham is realised individually, at the present time, in proportion as people
lay hold of the promises by faith, and become heirs of future exaltation,
through present submission to Christ; but the state of things covenanted to
Abraham in the promises,
Pg
250
will
never be realised until Abraham himself inherits the land, and his seed
possesses the gate of his enemies.
In
view of the evident conclusion that the promises to Abraham give an
unconditional guarantee of “good things to come,” it may be asked, why the law
of Moses, and the bitter national experience of the Jews, have been allowed to
intervene between them and their fulfilment? Paul anticipates and answers this
question in Gal. iii, 19: “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because
of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made.” If
we wish to know the purpose it served, we find the information five verses
down: “The law was our schoolmaster unto
Christ” (verse 24). On account of the almost undisturbed reign of ignorance and
sin in the times when the promises Were delivered, it was necessary to
institute a schoolmaster administration of the divine mind, which should
inculcate those first lessons concerning God, without which nothing good could
be accomplished, since their existence in the human mind is the very basis of
that communion between God and man which honors Him and saves them. It was
necessary to engrain those first principles on the mind of the chosen nation,
by way of paving the way for the development of the state of things promised to
the fathers.
This
was done by the establishment of the law of Moses in the midst of Israel-a
system which, in itself, was a mere allegory of divine truth, as was meet in
the training of children (Gal. iv, 1, 2), but which, by its exactions,
seventies, and scrupulosities, engraved in deep and lasting characters the
estimate of the Deity’s relation to mankind, which even now prevails in a mild
degree wherever Mosaic tradition has reached. The power, supremacy, and
holiness of the Deity were made palpable by it, even to those who were
disobedient; and, in the course of centuries, that conception of God was formed
which existed in the days of Jesus, as the foundation on which to push forward
the operations by which the seed of Abraham (faithful believers) should be
provided by the promulgation of the word of faith.
Without
the law, there is no doubt that the knowledge of God would have perished from
the earth, and mankind would have been wholly enslaved by foolish and
unenlightened speculation, and abandoned to the wickedness which prevailed
before the flood; the little light of the promises would soon have been
extinguished, and the world would have been sunk in the darkness of incurable
barbarism-ripe for as complete a destruction as that which overtook it in the
days of Noah. This great catas
Pg 251
trophe
was prevented by the establishment of a system which, while (superficially
considered) it offered an obstruction to the glorious consummation promised to
Abraham, was potently influential in developing the moral situation among
mankind which was necessary to the bestowment of the promised blessing.
The
promises form the groundwork of what is termed “the Christian dispensation.” It
was necessary that God should create a title to the blessings of His love, for
men to lay hold of; because, as sinners, they were without hope, and could not
establish a title for themselves. It was necessary He should make the first
advance; and He did so, by bestowing an unconditional promise upon Abraham, whom
He selected for his faithfulness. These, by the belief of them, gave Abraham a
right to the things promised, and vested in him and his seed the sole title.
Hence the necessity for becoming Abraham’s seed by connection with Christ
before a Gentile can have any hope of a future life and inheritance.
Something
in addition to the promise was, however, necessary to secure to Abraham the
blessings covenanted: this is styled the “confirmation” of the promises. The
precise meaning of this will be apparent on a review of the facts of the case
as affecting Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It was promised to them that they
should possess the land of Palestine for ever. For this promise to be carried
out, it is necessary that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob be raised from the dead,
and made to live for ever. Hence it may be taken that the promises carry this
feature with them; that, in fact, they bear upon the face of them an
undertaking on the part of God, that, at the time appointed for the realisation
of the promise, He would bring them from the dust of death, and give them
eternal life; how else can they inherit the land for ever?
That
this was God’s intention toward them was made evident by Christ’s argument with
the Sadducees on the resurrection. He says: “But as touching the resurrection
of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 1 am the God of Abraham, and the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the
living” (Matt. xxii, 31, 32). Christ argued that the circumstance of God
calling Himself the God of the fathers who had gone to the dust, was proof of
His intention to raise them; and the argument overpowered the Sadducees, who
were “put to silence.” Thus, the inference that the promises to Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob involved the promise of resurrection and immortality, is established
beyond question by Christ. This being so, we have to realise the
Pg
252
fact
that under the circumstances existing at the time of the promise, it is
impossible the things promised could be bestowed. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
were constitutionally under sentence of death. They were “in Adam “-sinners by
descent and individual act, and, therefore, precluded from that resurrection to
immortality, implied in the promise. Yet the inheritance was guaranteed by “two
immutable things “-the promise and the oath-and as “it was impossible for God
to lie,” its bestowment was a matter of necessity. How was the impossibility of
making sinners immortal to be reconciled with the necessity that God’s promises
should be fulfilled?
We
find the answer in the work accomplished by Christ at his first advent. “He confirmed the promises made unto the
fathers.” How? By making their fulfilment possible. And how did he do this? By
“shedding his blood (which he styled “the blood of the new-or
Abrahamic-covenant “) for the sins of
many.” He took away sin by the sacrifice of himself, thereby unsealing the
gates of death, and bringing life and immortality to light- opening the way for
the fulfilment of all that had been promised beforehand to the fathers. Thus
the impossibility vanished, and the necessity was placed on the triumphant
basis of Christ’s accomplished work. This was the great event shadowed in the
sacrifices of the law, which were not in themselves of any value, except as a
means of connection between God and His nation, typifying a higher and a more
enduring connection to be established over the body of the slain “Lamb of God
which taketh away the sin of the world.”
It
will be seen that the things declared in the prophets and preached in the
aggregate by the apostles as “the things concerning the kingdom of God and the
name of Jesus Christ,” are but the elaboration of “the promises made of God
unto the fathers,” in which they have their legal origin and efficacy. It is
important to recognise this fact, so that the position of the saints as
“children of Abraham” and “the seed of Abraham” may be clearly apprehended, and
that we may see the harmony and completeness of God’s plan, as commenced in the
days of Abraham, typified in the law, and gradually unfolded through the
prophets, and consummated in the proclamation of Jesus and the apostles.
In
view of all these things, well may we exclaim with Paul (Rom. xi, 33-36) : -“
0, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How
unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out. For who hath
known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His counsellor? Or
Pg 253
who
hath first given to Him and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him,
and through Him, and to Him, are all things; to whom be glory for ever. Amen.”
pg
254
LECTURE 10
THE KINGDOM OF GOD THE FINAL
INSTRUMENTALITY
IN THE GREAT
SCHEME
OF HUMAN REDEMPTION
IN
ALL God’s doings, there is purpose. Everything is planned; everything adapted
with the utmost exactness of wisdom to the accomplishment of a pre-determined
end. All His plans are characterised by illimitable comprehensiveness of
bearing, like His own mind, which takes into account the infinitude of minute circumstance
and remote contingency that surround us, “knowing all things from the end to
the beginning.” He is wise-He makes no mistakes; and He is economical-He wastes
no effort, He accomplishes as much as possible with as little as possible. The
result always transcends the means: the good always over-tops and outnumbers
the evil.
When,
therefore, we are called upon to contemplate any declared purpose of God, we
are presented with a subject of study which is sure to have in it a depth and
fertility delightful to the mind to explore. This is true of God’s natural
wonders in creation, where we see all these principles abundantly exemplified;
how much more is it true of His schemes in relation to the intelligent
creatures whom He has formed in His own image?
Now
the testimony advanced in previous lectures clearly demonstrates the purpose of
God to interfere in human affairs, to destroy every form of human government at
present existing on earth, and to establish a visible kingdom of His own. It
shows that when the time arrives, He will take the power out of the hands of
the erring mortals who now possess it, and transfer it to Jesus Christ and his
“called, chosen, and faithful” ones, who will administer the affairs of the
world in wisdom and righteousness. This being the purpose, it now remains for
us to enquire what is the object of the purpose, and what its consummation. To
some, the idea of a literal governing of mankind upon earth
Pg
255
will
seem out of joint with the scheme which proposes the restoration of the human
family to friendship with their Creator, and their exaltation to angelic
existence. The question will be asked, Is the Almighty’s purpose with mankind
to rise no higher than perfection in the government of mortal generations? Is
this the glorious salvation which dwelt from everlasting in the bosom of the
Eternal, which the prophets sung, and which the Son of God confirmed in tears
and blood? The answers to these questions, derivable from the Scriptures, will
allay the incredulity indicated by them, if the questioner be conscientious and
devout.
The
kingdom of God is itself but an instrumentality-another step in the march of
God’s beneficent scheme-another stage in the accomplishment of His purpose to
“gather together in one all things in Christ” (Eph. i, 10). It only lasts for a
thousand years (Rev. xx, 6). What is to be accomplished during this period?
Paul says, “He (Jesus) must reign, till
he hath put ALL ENEMIES under his
feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (I Cor. xv, 25-26).
Hence the millennial mission of Christ is to subdue “all enemies,” which he
will accomplish within the period of a thousand years. The “enemies” spoken of
are not necessarily personal enemies, for death is mentioned as the last of
them, which we know to be an event, and not a personal adversary. Hence, we may
understand Paul’s statement to mean that “he must reign till he hath subdued
every evil.” This being so, we have a starting point supplied to us in our
endeavour to understand the mission of the kingdom of God. It is to subdue “all
enemies,” or every evil.
Now
the “all enemies” are of various kinds. The first class that will be subjected
to the subduing power of the kingdom are the governments of the earth. “It
shall break in pieces and consume all these
kingdoms” (Dan. ii, 44). This is the first operation
-to
break up the existing arrangement of things political-to take the government of
mankind out of the hands of mortals, and place it in the hands of the King whom
God has prepared as the all-wise, and all-just, and all-humane “governor among
the nations.” Now it must be admitted that this will be a great thing
accomplished, a great enemy subdued; for some of the greatest evils that affect
the present state of man originate in bad government. This is true in a more
extensive sense than is commonly apprehended, though the connection is
beginning to be suspected, and in some countries loudly proclaimed. The crudest
illustration of the subject is visible in what are called “savage” countries.
There, for want of government, there is no civilisation
pg 256
Violence
rules the day, and prevents the development of excellence of any kind; caprice
and passion reign; might is right; brute force, under the guidance of selfish
instinct, is in the ascendant and mankind, instead of dwelling together in
social unity and concord, herd in warring factions, and disgrace the name of
man by their ways. Human life and the possession of property are the
uncertainties of the hour. “The dark places of the earth are full of the habitations
of cruelty” (Psa. lxxiv, 20).
Are
semi-barbarous nations much better? In some respects they are worse. Ignorance
and class interests provide and enforce laws which outrage justice, and
multiply the evils of oppression. The uncertain barbarities of African life
are, in some respects, to be preferred to the consolidated tyrannies of Asiatic
rule; for, in the former case, encroachment may be resented with success -man
against man-tribe against tribe; but there is no chance for the individual
against organised oppression.
In
Europe, things are a little more decent; but not much the better for their
decency. There is “order” of a certain sort, but not the order of well being
for the populations. It is the “order” of iron-handed repression-the military enforcement
of despotism in all that relates to private life; and the consequent dwarfing
of intellect, stunting of moral life, and withering of the enterprise of the
population.
And
do we find no bad government in our own favoured country? Some would answer,
No. Enlightenment will give a different answer. Is there no class usurpation?
No monopoly of the soil? No surfeiting of a pampered few at the expense of
starving and groaning millions? No brutalising of the mass by perpetual toil
and pinching? Ay, there are more evils than the neck accustomed to the halter
is sensible of. There is more ill-being and misery and crime in this country
than decent, well-to-do people, absorbed in their own little concerns, can
realise. In great part, as many are beginning to see, the evil comes from a
system which keeps the wealth of the country in a few hands, and deprives the
majority of the opportunity of realising the true objects and enjoyments of
life. The law also is administered with a circumlocution and expense which
defeat the true objects of justice. These are evils that cannot be remedied in
the present age. They are the inevitable results of government by human
fallibility and impotence. They will disappear only when the adequate means
provided by the kingdom of God are applied.
Surveying
the world of human government as a whole then, we see the greatness of the
first enemy which the kingdom of
Pg 257
God
will subdue. The subjugation of the powers that be will be its first
achievement, resulting in the “kingdoms of this world” becoming, “the kingdoms
of our Lord and of His Christ” (Rev. xi. 15). For one government will take the
place of many: God in Christ will reign, instead of mortal man. “The Lord shall
be King over all the earth; in that day shall there be one Lord, and His name
one” (Zech. xiv, 9). The result of this will be the cure of all the evils
enumerated. Savage countries, Asiatic countries, European countries, will all
come under the sway of His “rod of iron,” which will “break in pieces the
oppressor.” All inimical institutions and practices will fall before the vigour
which destroys kingdoms; individual misdemeanours will be restrained, and
individual ways regulated, by the indomitable power that breaks dynasties. A
universal absolutism, wielded with wisdom and humanity, will rule in general
and detail-nothing too vast for its scope, nothing too small for its notice:
and thus will the world know the blessedness of true government for the first
time:- “He shall judge the poor of the people, He shall save the children
of
the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor. They shall fear Thee as
long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations. He shall come down
like rain upon the mown grass; as showers that water the earth. In His days
shall the righteous flourish; and abundance of peace so long as the moon
endureth. He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto
the ends of the earth. They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before Him;
and His enemies shall lick the dust. The kings of Tarshish and of the isles
shall bring presents; the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts. Yea, all
kings shall fall down before Hint; all nations shall serve Him. For he shall
deliver the needy when he cneth; the poor also, and him that hath no helper. He
shall spare the poor and needy, and shall save the souls of the needy. He shall
redeem their soul from deceit and violence, and precious shall their blood be
in His sight. His name shall endure for ever; His name shall be continued as
long as the sun; and men shall be blessed in Him; all nations shall call Him
blessed” (Psa. lxxii, 4-14, 17).
But
another enemy may survive when those of a political character are destroyed.
The caste, ignorance, and depravity of the people would continue to be a great
curse under the best political arrangements. Men are now trying to cure this by
various agencies: educational works, Blue Ribbon movements, Mechanics’
Institutions, Temperance Societies, Missionary Societies, “Salvation” Armies,
Home Missions, etc., are among the instrumentalities by which reformers hope to
improve the world, and bnng about the “millennium.” The idea is vain. The
regeneration of the world is beyond human accomplishment. A partial
Pg
258
benefit
no doubt results from the educational and reformatory activities of the present
century. Knowledge is extended; but that does not necessarily mean improvement.
Morality and religion are not progressing with education. It is now admitted by
the thoughtful among public reformers, who once thought more sanguinely, that
the world, if getting more clever, is not growing better; and facts justify the
belief. Robust and manly principle grows more stunted as knowledge increases.
Flippancy is the order of the day; scepticism is leavening society with
alarming progress; and instead of an approaching millennium, we are, to all
human appearance, drifting upon an age when the exigencies of self-interest and
commercial competition will have eaten out the moral sense, and blunted all
generous feeling in the people; when morals will be practised merely for the
purpose of keeping on the right side of the law, and religion professed with a
view to Customers
But
another and a different prospect appears when we turn to the Scriptures; when
we contemplate the coming of the kingdom of God:--
“The
earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the
waters cover the sea” (Hab. ii, 14).
When
the earth is filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, it follows
that the ignorance and barbarism of the present time will have vanished. But
how is this result to be practically attained? The machinery of the kingdom of
God is the answer. When the governments of the earth have been overthrown, and
divine authority established with firm hand in every part of the globe, it will
be an easy matter to enlighten and emancipate the “people, nations, and
languages” that will render allegiance to the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. This
is done by a process which will afford pleasure and honour to the rulers of the
age, while conferring benefit on the subject people. The centre of activity is
Jerusalem, as in the case of the gospel in the first century. “At that time,”
says Jeremiah, chapter iii, 17, “they
shall call Jerusalem THE THRONE OF THE LORD, and all the nations shall be
gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil
heart.” Here is a turning from evil on the part of the nations as the
result of their subjection to Jerusalem, when occupied as the throne of the
Lord. What is the connection between the two things? How does the one result
from the other? The answer is, because from Jerusalem emanates a teaching and a
law which,
Pg
259
divinely
administered, works an intellectual, moral, and social reformation. This is
evident from the following testimony : -“And many people shall go and say, Come
ye, and let us go up to the
mountain
of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His WAYS, and
we will walk in His PATHS: for OUT
OF ZION SHALL GO FORTH THE LAW, AND THE WORD OF THE LORD FROM JERUSALEM.
And
He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall
beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation
shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more”
(Isa. ii, 3, 4).
Jerusalem,
once more the Centre from which divine illumination will irradiate, will be so
ibis second time, on a larger and grander scale, and with more glorious results
: -“And in this mountain shall the Lord of hosts make unto all people
a feast of fat things, a
feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees
well refined. AND
HE WILL DESTROY IN
THIS
MOUNFAIN THE FACE OF THE COVERING CAST OVER ALL PEOPLE, AND THE VAIL THAT IS
SPREAD OVER ALL NATIONS. He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God
will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall He
take away from off all the earth: for the Lord hath spoken it. And it shall be
said in that day, Lo, this is our God: we have waited for Him, and He will save
us; this is the Lord, we have waited for Him, we will be glad and rejoice in
His salvation” (Isa. xxv, 6-9).
The
feast is to be provided in Mount Zion; this is the reason why the nations
gather there to partake of it. Their gathering, however, will not be
simultaneous. “God is not the author of confusion,” says Paul: the aggregation
of the world’s populations in such a comparatively small neighbourhood would
certainly involve confusion. The prophetic testimony shows that there will be a
pilgrimage from all parts of the earth from one year’s end to the other in
which all nations will take their turn. It will be periodical, and take place
in every case once a year, as is evident, from Zech. xiv, 16, 17:- “And it
shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the
nations
which came against Jerusalem shall even go up FROM YEAR TO YEAR to worship the King, the Lord of Hosts, and
to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that who will not come
up of all the families of the earth
unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of Hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.”
This
annual pilgrimage will be fraught with many blessings. To individuals it will
be annual relief from the routine of common life (which routine, at the same
time, will be vastly less laborious, both as to the duration and manner of
occupation,
Pg
259
divinely
administered, works an intellectual, moral, and social reformation. This is
evident from the following testimony : -“And many people shall go and say, Come
ye, and let us go up to the
mountain
of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His WAYS, and
we will walk in His PATHS: for OUT
OF ZION SHALL GO FORTH THE LAW, AND THE WORD OF THE LORD FROM JERUSALEM.
And
He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall
beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any
more” (Isa. ii, 3, 4).
Jerusalem,
once more the Centre from which divine illumination will irradiate, will be so
ibis second time, on a larger and grander scale, and with more glorious results
: -“And in this mountain shall the Lord of hosts make unto all people
a feast of fat things, a
feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees
well refined. AND
HE WILL DESTROY IN
THIS
MOUNTAIN THE FACE OF THE COVERING CAST OVER ALL PEOPLE, AND THE VAIL THAT IS
SPREAD OVER ALL NATIONS. He will swallow up death in vIctory; and the Lord God
will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall He
take away from off all the earth: for the Lord hath spoken it. And it shall be
said in that day, Lo, this is our God: we have waited for Him, and He will save
us; this is the Lord, we have waited for Him, we will be glad and rejoice in
His salvation” (Isa. xxv, 6-9).
The
feast is to be provided in Mount Zion; this is the reason why the nations
gather there to partake of it. Their gathering, however, will not be
simultaneous. “God is not the author of confusion,” says Paul: the aggregation
of the world’s populations in such a comparatively small neighbourhood would
certainly involve confusion. The prophetic testimony shows that there will be a
pilgrimage from all parts of the earth from one year’s end to the other in
which all nations will take their turn. It will be periodical, and take place
in every case once a year, as is evident, from Zech. xiv, 16, 17:- “And it
shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the
nations
which came against Jerusalem shall even go up FROM YEAR TO YEAR to worship the King, the Lord of Hosts, and
to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that who will not come
up of all the families of the earth
unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of Hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.”
This
annual pilgrimage will be fraught with many blessings. To individuals it will
be annual relief from the routine of common life (which routine, at the same
time, will be vastly less laborious, both as to the duration and manner of
occupation,
Pg
260
than
the present modes of life), and an annual refreshing physically by travel, and
spiritually by contemplation of the objects of the journey, and by the actual
instruction received at “the city of the great king.” Nationally, it will be a
yearly riveting of the bonds of happy and contented allegiance that will bind
all people to the throne of David, occupied by his illustrious son-Jesus of
Nazareth, the Son of God, and King of the Jews. This glorious epoch in the
world’s history finds the following fore-shadowing from Psalm cii, 13-22:-
“Thou shalt arise, and have mercy upon Zion; for the time to favour
her,
yea, the set time is come. For thy servants take pleasure in her stones, and
favour the dust thereof. So the heathen shall fear the name of the Lord, and
all the kings of the earth thy glory. When
the Lord shall build up Zion, i~m shall
appear IN HIS GLORY. He will regard the prayer of the destitute, and not
despise their prayer. This shall be written for the generation to come: and the
people which shall be created shall praise the Lord. For He hath looked down
from the height of His sanctuary:
from
heaven did the Lord behold the earth: to hear the groaning of the prisoner: to
loose those that are appointed to death; to
declare the name of the Lord in Zion, and His praise in Jerusalem, when the
people are gathered together, and the kingdoms, to serve the Lord.”
Thus
will the earth become filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover
the sea, and thus will be realised the petition, “Thy will be done in earth as
it is in heaven.” Then for the first time will be fulfilled the prophetic song
of the angels, chanted at the birth of him who is to be its accomplisher,
“GLORY TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST, AND ON EARTH PEACE, GOODWILL TOWARD MEN.”
“And
the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” Death will continue during
the thousand years’ preliminary phase of the kingdom-not among the rulers,
Jesus and the saints, who are immortal, but among the subject nations who
continue as they are now, the death-stricken descendants of the first Adam.
“The child SHALL DIE an hundred years old” (isa. lxv, 20). Death may happen at
a hundred years, but, even then, a man will be considered a child. As for an
“old man,” the term will never be applied to any one that has not run his
centuries, as of old. By reason of the certainty of life, and the stability of
the new order of things in the hands of Christ and his brethren, the houses
they (Israel) shall build, they shall inhabit; the vineyards they shall plant,
they shall eat the fruit of (isa. lxv, 20, 22).1t will not happen as it
frequently has happened in past times, that the work of their hands has been
enjoyed by others, even as Moses foretold to them, saying, “Thou shalt build an
house, and thou shalt
pg
261
not
dwell therein; thou shalt plant a vineyard, and shalt not gather the grapes
thereof” (Deut. xxviii, 30). As the days of a tree (which flourishes for
centuries) shall be the days of Jehovah’s people; they shall wear out the works
of their hands.
But
more blessed still shall be their rulers and the rulers of the nations; for
they shall not die any more (Luke xx, 36), and they shall inherit the land for
ever. But, ultimately, death will be abolished in all the earth. Its
subjugation, however, comes last in order: all other enemies are got out of the
way first; and then the greatest and most formidable is removed for ever. On
what principle? Seeing that all the saved pertaining to this and past
dispensations will be admitted to eternal life at the coming of the Lord Jesus
Christ, and associated with him in the government of the world, on what
principle are the mortal subjects of Messiah’s reign to be dealt with, so as to
admit of their participation in the glorious gift of immortality? We are
admitted to the answer in Rev. xx. We shall quote entire that part of the
chapter which relates to the point in hand, verses 7-15:- “And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be
loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in
the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to
battle, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the
breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the
beloved city; and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And
the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone,
where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night
for ever and ever. And I saw a great white throne, and Him that sat on it, from
whose face the earth and the heaven fled away, and there was found no place for
them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were
opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead
were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to
their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell
delivered up the dead which were in them; and they were judged every man
according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.
This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of
life was cast into the lake of fire.”
Here
we have a predicted insurrection at the close of the millennium, which is
allowed to gather strength, and come to a head, and which is then to be
summarily suppressed by an outburst of divine judgment at “the beloved city
“-Jerusalem. This ,is followed by a general judgment. Now who are arraigned at
this judgment? It cannot be the saints who have been associated with Christ in
government during the previous thousand’ years, who at the beginning of his
reign have been welcomed as
Pg
262
“good and faithful servants” into his joy.
These have been judged already. They appeared before his judgment-seat at his
coming, and gave an account, and were dealt with accordingly.
Who,
then, are thus to be judged at the close of the thousand years? Obviously those
who have lived during the thousand years. The subjects of Messiah’s kingdom
will be placed under a different system from that which we are connected with,
and no doubt it will be of such a nature as to call for the exercise of faith,
notwithstanding the visible manifestation of divine power among them, for,
“without faith it is impossible to please God.” However that may be, the result
of their judgment is that many of them are found “written in the book of life,”
and receive eternal life.
But
what becomes of the remainder’? The answer is, “Whosoever was not found written
in the book of life was cast into the
lake of fire.” This lake of fire is one of the symbols employed in the
Apocalypse. The Apocalypse is full of symbol. It is “the revelation of Jesus
Christ , . SIGNIFIED by his angel “-a revelation indicated by sign, as the
sequel shows. The prophetic facts intended to be communicated are portrayed in
symbol, and an occasional hint of interpretation is dropped to enable “his
servants” to decipher the hieroglyphs employed. The hint dropped in this case
is this (chapter xx, 14): “This is THE SECOND DEATH “; or, to make the matter
more certain (Rev. xxi, 8). “All liars shall have their part in the lake which
burneth with fire and brimstone, WHICH IS THE SECOND DEATH.” Here, the lake of
fire is introduced to us as a symbol signifying the second death.
What
is the second death? “Second” implies
a first. We cannot conceive of a second without the antecedent figure-one.
Where, then, shall we look for the first death? Obviously to that “accident of
life” which overtakes all the living; “It is appointed unto men ONCE to die.” A
wicked man dies in the natural course of events; but, if amenable to judgment,
he is raised again-restored to life for punishment. And what follows judgment?
Condemnation-few stripes or many stripes. And what after the stripes? Death a
second time; but a death different to the first, inasmuch as it is directly
inflicted by divine displeasure, and consigns its victims to an oblivion from
which there is no reclaim by resurrection. It is a death that wipes away every
vestige of their being from God’s creation. “The day that cometh,” says Malachi
(chapter iv, 1), “shall burn them up,
that it shall leave them neither root nor
branch.” And David’s declaration is, that “The enemies of the Lord shall be
as the fat
Pg
263
of
lambs. They shall consume; into smoke shall
they consume away” (Psa. xxxvii, 20).
How
appropriate a symbol of such a fate is a lake of fire. The only conception we
can have of such a thing is supplied by the pools of incandescent iron to be
seen at blast furnaces. Throw an animal into one of these pools, and what is
the result? Instant annihilation. Not a vestige of the creature’s substance
survives the action of the destructive element. Complete, and immediate, and
irretrievable destruction, then, is the idea suggested by a lake of fire; and
how appropriate is such a symbol to signify the second death, which will destroy,
with double destruction, even “soul and body “ (Matt. x, 28).
When
every one not found written in the book of life is cast into the lake of fire,
what remains but the fulfilment of Paul’s statement, that “death shall be
destroyed’?” All that are sinful, and, therefore, deathful, are destroyed, and
death is, therefore, literally destroyed with them, because there will then be
none left upon whom it can prey. And, death being destroyed, what is the
picture? A population of deathless beings, reclaimed by God’s intervention from
the sin and death which now curse our planet. With these considerations in
view, the following testimonies will be fully appreciated : -The face of the
Lord is against them that do evil, to cut
off the remembrance of them from the earth “ (Psa. xxxiv, 16).
Let
the wicked be ashamed and let them be
silent iii the grave” (Psa. xxxi, 17).
“For evil doers shall be cut
off; but
those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth; for yet a little
while, and the wicked shall not be; yea, thou shalt diligently consider his
place, and it shall not be; but t he meek
shall inherit the earth, and shall delight themselves in the abundance of
peace” (Psa. xxxvii, 9-11).
“\Vait on the Lord, and keep His
way, and He shall exalt thee to inherit the land; when the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see it” (Psa. xxxvii, 34).
“Let the sinners be consumed
out of the earth, and let the wicked BE NO MORE” (Psa. civ, 35).
“The
upright shall dwell in the land, and the perfect shall remain in it: but the wicked shall be cut off from the
earth, and the transgressors shall be rooted out of it” (Prov. ii, 21, 22).
“As
the whirlwind passeth, so is the wicked
no more: but the righteous is an everlasting foundation. . . . The
righteous shall never be removed, but the
wicked shall not inhabit the earth” (Prov. x, 25, 30).
“Blessed
are the meek for they shall inherit the
eath” Matt V.5
pg
26 4
The
idea has been suggested that although the subject-inhabitants of the kingdom
will not be immortal, the obedient among them may “live on” to the end of the
thousand years, and then be immortalised. This idea assumes that the judgment
scene of Rev. xx, 11-15, is at the beginning and not at the end of the thousand
years. Even if this were granted, it would not remove the general objections to
the idea of no death during the thousand years.
The
work of immortalising mankind is spoken of as a harvest in its final form. This
being so, analogy would require us to find the nature of the harvest in the
first fruits-Christ and his brethren. They are the “sample of the bulk.” Are
the first fruits produced on the principle of “living on” till the time of
change?
He
(Christ) was the first of the ripe fruit of the life-harvest which God proposes
to raise for His own glory in the earth (I Cor. xv 23: see the shadow in Lev.
xxiii, 10-20, in the presentation of the first sheaf of fruit, which coincided
in point of time with Christ’s ascension). Now the rest of the harvest must
follow in the same process of raising. Christ attained to life by faith and
obdience (Phil. ii, 9; Heb. v, 7). His brethren of the present dispensation
attain it in the same way through him. They do not “live on to the end” of the
times of the Gentiles. They die as other men. The principle observed in the
process of their development requires this. This principle is faith, which is
confidence in the promise of God. If, the moment a man believed in the gospel,
his mortal life were made sure till the coming of Christ and the change to the
incorruptible, the principle of faith, by which a man honours God, “against
hope, believing in hope,” would be destroyed: for all the world would “see”
that there was advantage in the way of the gospel, and they would flock to the
gospel, not because God had promised, but because they perceived an actual
present advantage in believing. It is, therefore, an absolute necessity for the
exercise of faith that there should .be no present apparent difference between
those who serve God and those who serve Him not, but that this difference
should only be perceived in the day of recompense (Mal. iii, 18).
Now,
what is true of the “called” in the time of the Gentiles is true of the called
of the millennial age. It is necessary that they should not “live on to the
end” of their particular dispensation, for faith is just as necessary for them
as us, and if they did not die like other men, there would be no scope for
faith
Pg
265
and
they would be an exception to Abraham and all who have gone before. They would
not be of the same harvest. It would be a different crop altogether, raised
upon a different principle. Though men will live longer than they do now, death
will continue indiscriminately, as the law of faith requires, till the grand
final triumph, when the great enemy will be destroyed for ever, and every
inhabitant of ransomed earth be able to say, “0 death, where is thy sting? 0
grave, where is thy victory?”
There
is this difference between the introduction of death and the introduction of
resurrection unto life: death passed upon all men at once, whereas in resurrection, there is a gradual order of
development, marked by three stages. Paul states this order in the following
terms: “But every man in his own ORDER: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they
that are Christ’s at his coming:
then
the end (‘cometh’ is not in the
original), when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father;
when he shall have put down all authority and power. For he must reign till he
hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is
death” (I Cor. xv, 23-26).
Here
we have a “first,” an “afterwards,” and a “then,” as the “order” of
resurrection. The introduction of the word “cometh” interrupts the “order.”
There is resurrection at “the end,” for the end is introduced expressly in
connection with the order of the resurrection, and not only so, but Paul makes
the reign of Christ result in the putting down of all enemies, including “
death,” which he makes the “ last.”
That
this destruction of death involves resurrection, is illustrated in the case of
“those that are Christ’s at his coming.” Death in their case is “swallowed up
(or destroyed) in victory,” in their being raised from the dead no more to see
corruption. The nature of the case demands that there should be resurrection at
the close of the thousand years; for when Christ comes, those only are
immortalised who are his own. And if the rest are not immortalised, they must
die as Abraham and all the saints have died, for it is the nature of mortality
to die. And dying in faith, how are they to receive the promise if they rise
not? And when should they rise but at “the end” of the millennial dispensation,
where Paul places it? The figure that likens the 144,000 to “first fruits,”
requires that they should be followed by a harvest in the resurrection of all
who come to moral ripeness in the age, but physically fall asleep, as all the
fathers have done.
The
fitness of things requires this. “To whom much is given, of them is much
required.” The first-century believers enjoyed
Pg
266
the
privilege of the Spirit gifts and the company of personal acquaintances of the
Lord; and they were required to prove their faithfulness in confiscation and
prison, and at the executioner’s block. We of the latter days have no open
vision or witness of the Spirit in its wonder-working power. We have but the
written and historical evidence of God’s operations in the past. Having
received “less” than our brethren of old, we are not called upon, like them, to
go to prison and to death, but have times of liberty and peace wherein to
manifest our love. In the age to come, privileges such as have never fallen to
the lot of murtal man will be enjoyed by the peoples, nations, and languages,
who will rejoice in the rule of Christ and the saints. Instead, therefore, of
their position calling for exemption from death, it rather requires that their
faith and obedience should be developed and tested by its prevalence until the
time for its destruction as the “last enemy” arrives, in the resurrection and
glorification of all who in that blessed age secure the approbation of God.
The
performance of sacrifice in that age (Zech. xiv, 21; Mal. iii, 4; Isa, lx, 7;
Ezek. xliv, 29, 30), involves the conclusion that death is in operation among
the offerers. The existence of priesthood (for the saints are priests as well
as kings) carries with it the same conclusion; for priesthood arises out of the
existence of sin, and sin brings death. If there were no death, it would argue
the absence of sin-a fact which would exclude sin-offerings from the office of
priesthood. But death continues until it is destroyed at “the end.”
There
is express recognition of the existence of death in Ezekiel’s description of
the temple service of the future age. Thus, of one order of priests it is said,
“They shall come at no DEAD PERSON to defile themselves” (Ezek. xliv, 25).
Again, in the selection of wives, they are prohibited from marrying “a widow or her that is put away,” but may
take “a widow THAT HAD A PRIEST BEFORE “(22), from which it follows that death
is a common occurrence at the time.
It
cannot be suggested that the dead in these cases die for contumacy: for the
people shall be all righteous (isa. lx, 21). Death prevails in common, whence
springs the necessity for resurrection at the end-that is the end of the
thousand years; for how otherwise are the highly responsible dead of those
times to be dealt with according to their deeds? “Old men that have not filled
their days” belong to that time (isa. lxv, 20) with staff in their hands for
very age (Zech. viii, 4), which argues death at the completion of their natural
term without any idea of judicial
pg
266
infliction.
Children DIE an hundred years old (Isa. lxv, 20). The time of judgment for
those then in probation for eternal life is “when the thousand years are
expired.” The dead, small and great, come forth multitudinously-we may say
universally, as times of universal knowledge will have required. The sea gives
up the dead: death and hades give up the dead which are in them, and they are
judged every man according to their works (Rev. xx, 12-13). Every one not found
written in the book of life is given over to the second death (15). We can understand, on this
principle, how it is that the casting of the rejected into the lake of fire is
the casting of death and hell (hades-the grave)
there; for with the rejected will for ever perish from the earth all trace of
death and the grave.
This
post-millennial resurrection is mentioned in connection with the resurrection
of the first fruits-those who “live and reign with Christ a thousand years,”
and who are, therefore, raised at the beginning of that period. John seeing
them enthroned after their resurrection, says, “But the rest of the dead lived
not again until the thousand years were finished” (Rev. xx, 5).
Some
think the idea of a post-millennial resurrection of the righteous is excluded
by the next statement: “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first
resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests
of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.” They
understand this to mean that all are cursed who rise at the end of the thousand
years. A close consideration of the verse, however, will show that the
statement bears exclusively on those who
rise and are approved when Christ comes, and not at all on those who rise
at the third and last stage.
Some
read this “first resurrection “ as “resurrection of the first fruits.” No
doubt, those who rise then are “the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb,” but
this is not a translation of John’s words. John wrote” the first
resurrection,” Whichever way this is
treated, it implies another resurrection besides itself. Understood as first in
rank, it points to another lower in rank. “Resurrection of the first fruits”
would refer by implication to resurrection of harvest. First in order would
necessitate another or others in order. So that no sublimation or modification
of the phrase can dispense with the conclusion that John contemplated another
resurrection besides the one represented before his eyes in the enthroned
multitude of accepted saints.
Pg
268
A
true construction would combine all these ideas, and point to the resurrection
that takes place at the coming of Christ as the one that will exceed in
blessedness all other resurrections. It will introduce those who have part in
it to the highest honour in store for mortals-the honour of leading mankind
from their present miseries to the blessedness promised in Abraham. As Christ
will always be the head of his people in the endless ages, so, doubtless, the
saints that govern the millennial age will always occupy a position of glory
and dignity over the ransomed multitude that will by their means enter into
eternal life at the close of the thousand years.
Rev.
xxi, first four verses, introduces to view the post-millennial blessedness on
earth, when death is abolished. “No more sea” points to this, whether taken
symbolically or literally. There will be both literal ocean and “many waters”
of nations during the thousand years. After the thousand years, there is no
more sea of nations, for there is then but one nation, and that the
immortalised multitudinous Israel of God.
But
even supposing these verses were held to be descriptive of what takes place at
the beginning of the thousand years, they could not be used to sanction the
idea that there is to be no resurrection at the close of the thousand years.
The proclamation, “There shall be no more death!” could in that case only be
understood as an intimation that the abolition of death would be the ultimate
effect of the New-Jerusalem government of men. The cases already cited of death
during the millennium, and above all, the wholesale infliction of death on
myriads at its close-(see Rev. xx, 8-9)-would preclude the absolute
significance which the argument in question would seek to attach to it. It
would in that case be on a par with the proclamation of the angels at the birth
of Christ: “On earth peace, and goodwill toward men,” which, taken by itself,
would seem to intimate that peace was to begin immediately Christ was born;
but, as experience has taught us, it only meant that peace would come on earth
at last through the Deliverer then cradled at Bethlehem. But the wording of the
glorious verses in question clearly relates to a time when “the former things”
of sin and sorrow shall have passed for ever from the face of the earth.
We
have to note another feature of the change that takes place at the end,
indicated by Paul in the following words : -“Then cometh the end, when he (Christ) shall have delivered up the
kingdom to God, even the
Father, when
he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power; for he must
reign, till he hath put all
pg
269
enemies
under his feet. The last enemy that shall
be destroyed is death and when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the
Son also himself be subject
unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all” (I Cor. xv, 24-28).
From
this we learn that Christ at the end of the thousand years is to abdicate the
position of absolute sovereignty, which he occupies in the earth during that
period. It would seem as if, ~°“ the accomplishment of his mission in the
complete redemption of the world, that God Himself is manifested (without a medium)
as the only eternal Governor. The idea will be apprehended in the light of
Paul’s statement that “the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ IS GOD.” During the
thousand years, it is Christ’s headship that is the institution of the day:
after
that, it is the headship of the Father in some specially manifested form. The
headship of the Father is the fact now, but it is in the background. The state
of things upon the earth does not admit of its manifestation or even its
recognition. During the thousand years, the headship of the Father is a visible
fact in the headship of Christ. But at the end of the thousand years, the
headship of the Father is manifest direct.
It,
therefore, seems that the change to take place then is more a change in the aspect
of things as they appear to man, than as they exist in themselves. Though no
longer the supreme ruler of the earth, Christ will continue in his position of
peculiar preeminence as “Captain” of the “ many sons” whom he will have been
instrumental in “bringing to glory.” God will be “all in all.” He will be
manifested as the power, and supporter, and constitutor of all, the Alpha and
Omega, the beginning and ending, the only self-Almighty one. He will no longer
work by interposition. He will no longer deal with man mediatively: He will establish direct communication with His
perfected children; and the world-freed from sin and death-will become a happy,
loyal, glory-giving province in that already universal dominion which extends
to the utmost bounds of space, reflecting the wisdom and the goodness of the
Highest. The divine scheme of redemption will then have been consummated: and
earth’s glorified inhabitants in holy gratitude-exalted employment-and an
eternity of unbroken felicity lying before them, will realise the perfection
and glory and gladness of life as it is in God.
It
will thus be seen that the kingdom of the thousand years is but a transitional
period between the purely animal and purely spiritual ages. It will blend the
elements of both. It will exhibit the perfection of the eternal ages in the
Lord Jesus and the saints
Pg
270
who
will be immortal and incorruptible, and the imperfection of the human age in
the mortal population who will constitute the subjects of their rule. Both will
co-exist for a thousand years, and will constitute a state of things as
superior to the present dispensation as it will be inferior to the glory ages
beyond. The Kingdom of God will lead us by a bridge of a thousand years from
the age of sin and death defection to the age of restoration to the bosom of
the Deity, in righteousness and life eternal.
Pg
271
LECTURE 11
CHRIST THE FUTURE
KING OF THE WORLD
THE
OBJECT of this lecture is to prove that the time is coming when the Son of God,
now in the heavens, shall return to the earth in visible person, to dispossess
all human governments of their power, secular and ecclesiastical, and establish
himself in their stead as the universal ruler of mankind. The essential
constituent of the Messiahship of Jesus Christ, and the most prominent element
of his character, as portrayed in all the Scriptures is his KINGSHIP.
Therefore, any faith which ignores this phase of his character, is vitally
defective, to which let everyone see for himself as a matter of the highest
individual concern.
There
is a great deal more said in the Scriptures about the kingship of Christ than
anything else. In the Old Testament,
particularly,
we find very little mention of the shame and the suffering to which he was to
be subjected on account of sin. His sacrificial character is kept pretty much
in the background. That which stands out in brilliant prominence is the glory
which is to cover the earth when he shall reign in righteousness. This is true
also of the New Testament, though it tells us more of “the man of sorrows and
acquainted with grief” than the other.
Every
professed believer in Christ is prepared to admit that he is a king. It must be
obvious, however, that this admission is only valid in so far as it recognises the true idea of that office. If a man
say that Jesus is the Christ, or anointed one, while having an entirely
erroneous idea of what the statement means, his words are an empty sound. When
words do not mean the thing they properly stand for, they have no value. That
this is the case with the popular recognition of the kingship of Christ will
cei4 tainly appear. The popular recognition of the kingship of Christ both
expresses a view which is untrue, and ignores the view exhibited in the
Scriptures. By the kingship of Christ, it means
Pg
272
the
present exercise by him of a spiritual authority in heaven; therefore, it is no
recognition of Christ’s Messiaship at all, in the true sense, as we shall
presently see.
It
is admitted that the Jewish expectation of the Messiah was that he should appear
upon the earth in person, and visibly exercise the power of a king over all
nations: and it is also admitted that the disciples themselves shared the same
view. The real controversy is as to whether this view is right. Our religious
teachers take upon themselves to say that so far from being right, it was a
mistaken view of a gross and carnal nature. They severely condemn the idea of a
visible kingdom on earth as opposed to the very spirit of Christianity, calling
it Judaical, grovelling, “earthly, sensual, and devilish “; and as the teachers
teach, so the people believe: so the untruthfulness of the Jewish national hope
and the expectation of the disciples, has passed into an unquestioned article
of popular creed; and people look surprised and incredulous when they are
gravely defended.
Now
let the merits of the case be candidly considered. Were the expectations of the
disciples erroneous and carnal? If they were, how is it that they were not so
pronounced by Christ? and how is it that none of the apostles made confession
of the error in the epistles which some of them wrote subsequently to the time
when they are supposed to have their errors removed? Those who affirm the
misguidedness of the Jews and disciples in the belief in question, go against the
evidence. There is not only no Scriptural countenance for the popular
condemnation, but all Scriptural testimony is directly in favour of the
doctrine which it is so common to condemn.
Jesus
said to those who heard him, “I am not come to destroy the law or the prophets,
but to fulfil” (Matt. v, 17). Now
with this statement in view, we shall look at a few of the statements of the
prophets concerning him. We read in Micah v,
“But
thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah,
yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to be RULER IN ISRAEL.”
Who
came out of Bethlehem? Jesus of Nazareth. Here then is a prophetic warrant for
regarding him as the future “ruler in Israel”:- “Behold, the days come, saith
the Lord, that I will raise unto David a
righteous
Branch, and A KING SHALL REIGN AND PROSPER, AND SHALL EXECUTE JUDGMENT AND
JUSTICE IN THE EARTH: in his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell
safely” (Jer. xxiii, 5, 6).
Pg
273
What
could be more calculated to inspire the Jewish national hope? and what more
likely to create the expectations which the disciples are condemned as “carnal”
for entertaining? Who is the Righteous Branch of David? None other than Jesus:
for he claims the designation. He says : -“ I am the root and the offspring (or
BRANCH: ‘offspring’ being the antithesis to ‘root’) of David, and the bright
and morning star” (Rev. xxii, 16). If Christ be the Righteous Branch raised up
unto David, and be come to fulfil the law and the prophets, he must “reign and prosper, and execute judgment and
justice IN THE EARTH”: for so the prophet hath declared the Righteous
Branch shall do. The idea is not confined to one or two statements, but appears
in the face of many testimonies, at a few of which we shall look. In Jeremiah
xxxiii, 14, 15, we read:- “Behold,
the days come, saith the Lord, that I will perform that good
thing
which I have promised unto the house of Israel, and to the house of Judah. In
those days and at that time, I will cause the Branch of righteousness to grow
up unto David, and he shall execute
judgment and righteousness in the land.”
“Unto
us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and
the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of
Peace. Of the increase of his government
and peace there shall be no end, UPON
THE
THRONE OF DAVID, AND UPON HIS KINGDOM, to order it, and to establish it with
judgment and with justice from henceforth, even for ever. The zeal of the Lord
of Hosts will perform this” (Isa. ix, 6, 7).
“Behold
the man whose name is the BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place. . .
and shall sit and rule upon his throne;
and he shall be a priest upon his throne” (Zech. vi, 12, 13).
“He shall judge among the
nations, and
shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against
nation; neither shall they learn war any more” (Isa. ii, 4).
“And the Lord shall be king
over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name One” (Zech. xiv, 9).
“Behold, a king shall reign
in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment” (Isa. xxxii, 1).
“The
Lord of Hosts shall reign in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his
ancients gloriously” (Isa. xxiv, 23).
“The
earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. And in that day there shall be a root Qf
Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people: to it shall the Gentiles
seek, and his rest shall be glorious” (Isa. xi, 9, 10).
“Cry
out and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion; for great is the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee” (Isa. xii, 6).
“I
will make them (the Jews) one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one King shall be King to them all” (Ezek.
xxxvii,
“The
Lord hath sworn in truth unto David; He will not turn from it; of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy
throne” (Psa. cxxxii, 11).
Pg
274
“The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my
right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion. Rule thou in
the midst of thine enemies” (Psa. cx,
“I
shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of
the earth for thy possession” (Psa. ii, 8).
“He shall have dominion also
from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. Yea, all kings shall
fall down before him; all nations shall
serve him” (Psa. lxxii, 8, 11). (See also Dan. vii, 14).
These
are a few out of many testimonies of a common import, and the question for us
to consider is whether they do not amply justify the expectations which the
Jews are admitted to have built on them. Nay, could they have consistently
professed a belief in such testimonies, and not have entertained such
expectations? It is not possible to conceive of language more designedly
adapted to express the one idea of Christ’s visible manifestation as a king on
earth; and if the Jews were wrong in looking for such a manifestation, it was
no fault of theirs. It was not because they were carnally minded; but because
the language of the holy men of old, who spoke as they were moved by the Holy
Spirit, was so framed as to preclude every other but the one idea which they
derived from
it.
It
may be suggested that the New Testament interpretation throws another light
upon the statements of the Old Testament, and deprives them of the warranty
which they seem to afford to the Jewish doctrine of the Messiah’s kingship. It
is customary to assume that this is the case; but the result of an examination
will prove that a more unfounded assumption could not be entertained, and that
the New Testament unmistakably corrobarates the teaching of the prophets on the
subject. We are met on the very threshold by the message delivered by the angel
Gabriel to Mary, in announcing the birth of Christ : -“And, behold, thou shalt
conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and
shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of
the Highest; and the Lord God shall GIVE
UNTO HIM THE THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID; and
he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of HIS KINGDOM there shall be no end” (Luke i, 31, 33).
Here
is a distinct New Testament intimation that it is the purpose of God to give to
Jesus “the throne of his father David.” If we would apprehend the import of
this statement, we must know what is the throne of David. Of David we know
something. He was the most renowned of Israel’s God-anointed
Pg
275
kings,
holding sway over the twelve tribes of Israel in the Holy Land, and ruling many
tributary nations. He was a mighty warrior, a distinguished prophet, and a poet
of the highest type. He was the progenitor of Christ, through Mary, who was
descended from the royal house: and was a fitting type of his illustrious son,
whom he acknowledged as “My Lord” (Matt. xxii, 44). But what of his throne?
Peter said, in his address to the Jews, on the day of Pentecost : -“Therefore
being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with
an
oath to him, that of the fruit of his (David’s)
loins, according to the flesh, he would
raise up Christ TO SIT ON HIS THRONE” (Acts ii, 30).
There
is, therefore, a connection between Christ’s mission and David’s throne. Had
David a throne? He had. In what did it consist? Not in the material structure
which he occupied as a seat in dispensing justice; that has long ago crumbled
into dust. The throne of a kingdom is not the literal seat occupied by royalty
on state occasions. When we speak of the throne of England, we mean the office
of position of monarch in this country. So with the throne of David; it is said
of Solomon, on the occasion of his accession in the room of David (1st Kings
ii, 12), “Then sat Solomon upon the
throne of David his father.” Yet we read in 1st Kings x, 18, that “he made
a great throne ~of~ ivory, and overlaid it with the best gold,” so that while
sitting on the throne of David his father in the political sense, Solomon
really occupied a different royal seat. “The throne of David” points to something that pertained to Saul’s
successor. There is no getting away from this; and any explanation of the
promise that ignores this as its fundamental element, must be rejected as
unworthy.
Of
this character is the view that Christ is now
on David’s throne. Christ is in heaven, and cannot now be sitting on that
throne; for nothing that David ever possessed is in heaven. David himself is
not there; for Peter said in his address on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii, 34),
“David IS NOT ASCENDED INTO THE HEAVENS.” When the time arrives, the throne of
David will be set up again in the earth; and Jesus will share it with his
faithful ones, as intimated in Rev. iii, 21. “In that day will I raise up the
tabernacle of David that is fallen” (Amos ix, 11). That time he spake of when
on earth. He said (Matt. xxv, 31), “When
the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him,
THEN shall he sit upon the throne of his
Pg
276
glory.”
Hence, before Jesus sits upon David’s throne, he will return to earth, appear
in Palestine, and assume the position which David occupied when he swayed the
sceptre of Israel; that is, he will become king of the Jews.
Look
at Ezekiel xxi, 25-27. The prophet was sent to Zedekiah, an unworthy prince,
who was the last to occupy David’s throne. He was sent to tell him of coming
retribution, and in the course of his prophecy, he uttered the following words
: -“And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when
iniquity
shall have an end; thus saith the Lord God, Remove the diadem and take off the
crown; this shall not be the same; exalt him that is low, and abase him that is
high; I will overturn, overturn, overturn it and it shall be no more UNTIL HE COME WHOSE RIGHT IT IS: and 1 will give it him.”
Here
was a diadem to be removed, a crown to be taken off, and a national polity to
be completely abolished, as indicated in the triple repetition of the verb
“overturn,” and as expressed by the phrase, “it shall be no more.” The
prediction related to things Jewish, even to the things which constitute the
throne of David; and its fulfilment is notorious to every reader of Jewish
history. About a year after its delivery, Zedekiah was uncrowned by
Nebuchadnezzar. The nobles were put to death; the nation was partly massacred,
and partly carried away captive, and the land given over to desolation. Seventy
years after, a partial restoration took place under Ezra and Nehemiah. but not
of the throne of David. The Jews existed as a vassal people thenceforward; and
after varied political fortunes, were overtaken by a storm which swept away
every vestige of their national existence.
The
Romans, under Vespasian, invaded the country, and subdued its fortified places;
and Vespasian having transferred the command to Titus, the latter laid siege to
Jerusalem, which at that time was crowded with people from all parts of the
country. The details of that awful siege are familiar to every one. The city
was tediously beleaguered for months; famine arose among the inhabitants; civil
dissensions divided their counsels, and led to mutual slaughter, and, finally,
the place was sacked and given to the flames, and upwards of 1 ,000,000 of Jews
perished. The remainder were sold as slaves, and scattered throughout the Roman
empire as fugitives; and scattered they remain to this day. So awfully has the
prophecy been fulfilled, that for the last twenty centuries, the throne of
Pg
277
David
has been a mere idle phrase-a tradition of the past; his kingdom has been
overthrown, his land in desolation, and his people wandering as homeless
exiles, unpitied and unpitying.
But
is this condition of David’s throne to be perpetual? Are the Gentiles for ever
to exalt their proud horns over the fallen kingdom of the Lord? (See I Chron.
xxix, 23; II Chron, ix, 8:
xiii,
8; which affirm the kingdom of Israel to have been the kingdom of God). Nay,
saith the prophecy: desolation shall only continue UNTIL-until what? “Until HE COME whose right it is.” Who is this? None other than Jesus Christ, to
whom the throne pertains of right, both by lineal descent, and special divine
bequest. Observe, then, what is distinctly proved, that the things overturned are the things to be given to Christ at his
coming. Now, what things were those? The diadem, crown, throne, and Kingdom
of David. Hence, when HE COMES whose right they are, he will enter into their
possession in as real a sense as they were held by Zedekiah. He will become
King of the Jews, and Lord of the whole earth. We thus perceive a striking
significance in the words of the angel : -“The Lord God shall give unto Jesus
THE THRONE OF HIS FATHER
David; and he shall reign
over THE
HOUSE OF JACOB for ever; and of HIS
KINGDOM there shall be no end.”
Going
a step farther in our New Testament enquiry, we come to the birth of Christ,
and we note the following incident : -“Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of
Judea in the days of
Herod
the king, behold there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born KING OF THE
JEWS” (Matt. ii, 1).
The
enquiry of the wise men was intelligible in view of all that the prophets had
foretold of him who was to be ruler in
Israel; but if Christ is only the
spiritual Saviour of mankind, in a universal general sense, their words have no
meaning. In what sense could Christ be “king of the Jews,” if he only stood in
broad spiritual relationship to the human race as a whole? It may be suggested
that he is king of spiritual Jews, who are not Jews outwardly, but in the
heart. The reply to this is, that Christ is not king of his own people. Of them
he says, “1 call you not servants, but
friends.” They are his brethren, “joint heirs with Christ” (Rom. viii, 17), destined to reign with him a thousand years (Rev. xx, 6).
They are not his subjects, but aggregately his bride, “the Lamb’s wife
“-signifying the closest communion and identity of relational interest. Christ,
therefore, cannot be king of the Jews in any spiritual sense. He is king of
Pg
278
those
Jews of whom David was king; for he is heir to his throne. That this was the
nature of his claim, as understood by his contemporaries, is obvious from what
followed the enquiry of the wise men : -“When Herod the king had heard these
things he was troubled, and
all
Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes
of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And
they said unto him, in Bethlehem of Judea; for thus it is written by the
prophet-and thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the
princes of Juda; for out of thee shall come a Governor that shall rule my
people Israel . . . And (Herod) sent
forth and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts
thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had
diligently enquired of the wise men” (Matt. ii, 2, 3, 6, 16).
Now,
whence all this commotion? If Christ was merely to be a spiritual ruler in the
popular sense-exercising power from heaven in the hearts of men, without at all
interfering with the temporal concerns of kings on earth, it is not conceivable
that Herod should have been so jealous of him; because Christ’s spiritual
dominion would not in any way have conflicted with Herod’s jurisdiction as a
king.
Assuming,
however, that the enquiry of the wise men imported the verity of Christ’s
character as a king, appointed of God to sit on David’s throne, Herod’s
procedure appears in a natural light. He was at that time ruler in Israel. He
was, in fact, “King of the Jews,” in the name of the Roman Caesar. For him,
therefore, to hear of the birth of a rival to that position. was to be touched
in the tenderest part, and to have all his jealousy aroused. He would see
plainly that if he allowed this infant king to live, the people’s allegiance
might become diverted, and his own throne would be endangered. He therefore
conceived the inhuman project ot slaughtering the entire babyhood of Bethlehem,
in the hope of destroying the object of his jealousy-a proof that he recognised
in Christ, a prospective claimant of the literal kingship of Israel.
If
we trace the career and note the sayings of Christ, as further recorded, we
shall find constant indications of the correctness of the view entertained by
the apostles concerning his kingship. For instance, in the course of his sermon
on the mount, he said : -“ Swear not by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.” Now it
would be difficult to attach a likely significance to these words on the
popular supposition. If Christ is never to return to earth again, except for
the purpose of plunging it in the “judgment fires” and blotting every vestige
Pg
279
of
its existence from creation, what possible connection can exist between him and
the city which witnessed his humiliation, since in that case it must perish in
the universal destruction? In the passage before us Jesus affirms a connection
with it, and accounts that connection so sacred that he prohibits us from using
the name of the city on oath. He is “the great King,”- the “greater than
Solomon.” Jerusalem is the city. It existed at the time that Christ uttered the
words under consideration; only in the time of Christ, it was a great,
prosperous and magnificent centre of royalty and learning, whereas now it is an
insignificant abomination-infested, and comparatively ruinous and neglected
town in the heart of a petty Turkish province. Divine regard, however, is no
less now than ever it was. The testimony is, “I have graven thee upon the palms
of my hands:
thy
walls are continually before me” (isa. xlix, 16). For a period it has been in
desolation. This was predicted by the Lord Jesus. He said:- They (the Jews)
shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led
away
captive into all nations; and Jerusalem
shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, UNTIL the times of the Gentiles be
fulfilled” (Luke xxi, 24).
He
also said : -“0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killest the prophets, and stonest
them which are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children
together; even as a hen gathereth her brood under her wings, and ye would not.
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate, for I say unto you, ye shall not see me henceforth UNTIL THE
TIME COME, when ye shall say, Blessed is
he that cometh in the name of the Lord “ (Matt.
xxiii,
37-39: Luke xiii, 34, 35).
Here
was a treading down and a desolating foretold. That this referred to Jerusalem
in Palestine is universally granted. Let it be noted then, that the place
involved in the prediction of ruin, is the same which is related to the “UNTIL”
by which that prediction is limited. If Jerusalem has been trodden down of the
Gentiles, and left “desolate,” she will as certainly, by the same prediction,
recover from her fall when the period indicated by the word “until” arrives. In
one case “until” arrives with the expiration of “the times of the Gentiles “;
in the other, when the time comes that the Jewish nation will recognise the
crucified Jesus as the name-bearer of God. The declaration is, that at that time, down-treading and
desolation shall cease. Now both events are certain. The termination of the
times of the Gentiles, or the age of Gentile domination is decreed (Dan. vii,
25-27: ix, 24-27; Rom. xi, 25), and
we are
Pg
280
informed,
in the following testimony, that the day is coming when Christ will yet be received
by his penitent nation the Jews : -“I will pour upon the house of David, and
upon the inhabitants of
Jerusalem,
the spirit of grace and of supplications; and
they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him as
one mourneth for an only son, and shall be in bitterness for him as one that is
in bitterness for his first-born” (Zech. xii, 10).
When
these have been accomplished, what then for Jerusalem? Let the following
testimonies give the answer: -“The Lord shall inherit Judah, his portion in the
Holy Land, and
shall choose Jerusalem
again” (Zech.
ii, 12).
“The
Lord shall comfort Zion: He will comfort all her waste places; and He will make
her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord; joy and
gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving and the voice of melody” (Isa.
li, 3).
“Awake!
awake! stand up, 0 Jerusalem, which hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup
of His fury. Thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling, and wrung
them out. . . . Therefore hear now this, thou afflicted and drunken, but not
with wine: Thus saith thy Lord, the
Lord,
and thy God that pleadeth the cause of His people. Behold I have taken out of
thine hand the cup of trembling, even the dregs of the cup of my fury. Thou shalt no more drink it again” (Isa.
Ii, 17, 21, 22).
Awake!
awake! put on thy strength, 0 Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, 0 Jerusalem,
the holy city; for henceforth there shall
no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean . . . Break forth
into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem; for the Lord hath
comforted His people, He hath redeemed
Jerusalem” (Isa. lii, 1, 9).
“The Lord of Hosts shall
reign in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before
His ancients gloriously” (Isa. xxiv, 23).
“At
that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord, and all the nations
shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem. Neither shall
they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart” (Jer. iii, 17).
“For the law shall go forth
of Zion, and
the word of the Lord from Jerusalem; and
he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they
shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks:
nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any
more” (Mic. iv, 2, 3).
Here,
then, we learn that the city of Jerusalem has an important place in the purpose
of God. It is destined to be the seat of that divine government which is to
bless the world in the future age. It will, in fact, be the capital of the
coming
Pg
281
universal
kingdom, constituting the centre of power, of law, of enlightenment, for the
gladsome nations who will repair thither for instruction in that glorious age;
for it is written: -“And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go
up to the
mountain
of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths; for out of
Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isa.
ii, 3).
This
going-up of nations will be periodical, as we learn from Zech. xiv, 16:- “And
it shall come to pass that every one that is left of all the nations
which
came against Jerusalem, shall even go up from
year to year to worship the King, the Lord of Hosts, and to keep the feast
of tabernacles.”
If
any nation become refractory, and refuse to pay this annual homage to the king
of all the earth, they will be summarily dealt with. No need for armies and
lazy process of military subjugation; a word from the King will stay the
supplies of heaven, and compel submission. It is written-verse 17 : -“And it
shall be that whoso shall not come up of all the families of
the
earth unto Jerusalem, to worship the King, the Lord of Hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.”
Now
the Lord Jesus was aware of this glorious destiny in store for the city of
Jerusalem, and well knew the intimate relationship he should sustain to it when
the time should come when his countrymen would say to him, “Blessed is he that
cometh in the name of the Lord;” and, with this on his mind, he could say with
an appropriateness which can only be appreciated by those who understand the
purposes of God-” Swear not by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.”
She is the city of the great King, though now but a despised ruin; and those
who laugh at the promises of her future glory, are guilty of a heinous crime
against God, for which they may be called upon to answer. The great King would
not allow His friends to swear by her name; much less will he forbear the jibe
of the scornful. He cometh to His city anon to rule the world in righteousness,
and woe to the despiser; but blessed are all they who are looking for
redemption in Jerusalem (Luke ii, 38). To them the words of the prophet are
addressed : -“Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her.
Rejoice
for joy with her, all ye that mourn for
her; that ye may suck and be satisfied with the breasts of her
consolations: that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her
glory” (Isa. lxvi,
Pg
282
Thus
we are enabled to extract from the words of Christ in his “sermon on the
mount,” evidence of a powerful kind of the reality of his kingship in relation
to the earth. Nathanael, the “Israelite indeed, in whom there was no guile,”
adds to that evidence in the recognition of Christ to which he gave utterance
on meeting him (John i 49)-” Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.” That the
conviction expressed in these words was generally impressed on the minds of the
people by the teaching of Christ, is evident from the fact that “they wanted to
take him by force, to make him a king” (John vi, 15). Their language, on the
occasion of his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, is evidence to the same point’
-“
Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord! Blessed be tile kingdom of our Father David that cometh in the name of
the Lord” (Mark xi, 10).
Christ
gave them reason for that conviction in the parable of the vineyard, contained
in Luke xx., beginning at the 9th verse. The vineyard, says Jesus, was planted
by a certain nobleman, and let out to husbandmen; and at the time of the fruit,
the nobleman sent his servants to the husbandmen to get of the fruits of the
vineyard: but they maltreated and killed them one after another (verses 13-15). “Then said the Lord of the
vineyard, what shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be that they will
reverence him when they see him; but when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned
among themselves, saying:
This is THE HEIR; come, let us kill
him, that the inheritance may be ours. So they cast him out of the vineyard,
and killed him.” This parable related to the nation of Israel, and the rulers
thereof. This is evident from the 19th verse, and also from a statement in
Isaiah v, 7 : -.-.-‘ The vineyard of the
Lord of hosts is the House of Israel.”
This
being so, let us note the tendency of its teaching. In the rejected servants we
recognise the prophets who shared the fate indicated in the words of Christ :
-“ 0 Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee.” The “Son” was the Lord Jesus Christ,
as is evident from the words of Paul in Heb. i, 2, which might be almost
accepted as a commentary upon the parable under consideration : -“ God, who at
sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days
spoken unto us by His Son.”
If
Christ, then, be the “son” of the parable, of necessity he is also the “heir “. Of what? This is the important
point,
Pg
283
Answer:
-Of the inheritance held by the
husbandmen; for said they, “This is the heir come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.” Now,
if that inheritance be the land and nation of the Jews, of which the Pharisees
were the rulers or “husbandmen,” and Christ be the heir of these things, there
is no escape from the conclusion sought to be established throughout this
lecture. He is the rightful claimant to David’s throne. “He came unto HIS OWN, and
his own received him not” (John i, 11). Why did they not receive him? What
motive prompted the chief priests and rulers to destroy Jesus? It was not
merely their hatred of righteousness. If Christ had’ simply been a teacher of
religion, according to modern notions, doubtless they would have been among his
admirers; but then he was “THE HEIR.” He was the divinely sent of God to occupy
David’s throne, and put down all opposing authority and power; and his
assertion of this character brought him into instant collision with them,
because they had the inheritance in their possession. Therefore, said they, in
their insensate short-sighted jealousy-” Come, let us kill him, that the
inheritance may be ours.”
So
they plotted his destruction, and succeeded in their nefarious plans. They
brought him before Pilate, who finding no fault in him, was willing to release
him (Luke xxiii, 13-16). This inflamed their animosity, and developed the true
nature of its origin. They cried out saying-” If thou let this man go, thou art
not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh
himself A KING speaketh against Caesar” (John xix, 12). This had the
desired effect: Pilate gave judgment: and Christ was crucified, and according
to the Roman custom, the nature of the charge against him was specified in
writing over the cross: “Jesus of
Nazareth THE KING OF THE JEWS” (John xix, 19).
Here
again the kingship of Christ came out in circumstantial prominence. He was
crucified because he “made himself a
king.” This is the declaration of the superscription. That superscription
was not sufficiently definite for the chief priests. We read (John xix, 20,
21), “This title then read many of the Jews. .
Then
said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews;
but that HE SAID, I am King of the Jews.” Here is an important testimony from
the chief priests as to Christ’s own assertion of his royalty. In fact the
closing scenes of our Lord’s life on earth, altogether constitute the most
decisive proof that prospective Jewish royalty was the essential feature of his
character as the Messiah,-a feature which is entirely omitted in popular
preaching. The teaching
Pg
284
of
the Apostles after our Lord’s ascension was the same on this important point.
We read that the Jews of Thessalonica accused them to the rulers of the city
after this fashion : -“These that have turned the world upside down, are come
hither also,
whom
Jason hath received; and these all do contrary to the decrees ol Caesar, saying
THAT THERE IS ANOTHER KING-ONE, JESUS” (Acts xvii, 6, 7).
Paul
made the same proclamation to the Athenians, in his address on Mars Hill,
recorded in Acts xvii, 30, 31:- “And the time of this ignorance God winked at,
but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent, because He hat/i appointed a day in
which He will judge (which, in its political
application, means rule) the
world in righteousness BY THAT MAN WHOM HE HATH
ORDAINED, whereof He hath given assurance unto all men in that He hath raised
him from the dead.”
In
fact, the great burden of the New Testament teaching concerning Jesus is, that
he is “the Christ,” that is, the
Anointed One foretold by the prophets as the future king of the world. If you
deny to him this kingship, you deny that he is the Christ- for the anointing
refers, not only to his character as “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin
of the world,” but to his future development as God’s vicegerent on earth. His
“Christing” is prospective, culminating in “the glory that shall be revealed,”
which shall “cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.” Whosoever,
therefore, is ignorant of this, and denies the future manifested Christship of
Jesus, cannot Scripturally or acceptably confess that he is the Christ,
inasmuch as that confession is empty sound when it does not import the things
signified.
That
Christ is the future king of the world is one of the most gladsome truths -of
revelation. What hope else is there for this sin-afflicted world? It has
groaned under ages of mis-rule. The riches of the earth are hoarded away in the
halls of a surfeited few, and the great mass of humanity are left to welter out
a degraded existence of poverty, ignorance, and misery. God’s goodness has been
fraudulently squandered. The provision, sufficient for competence to all who
breathe this mundane atmosphere, has been rapaciously plundered by the
unprincipled and the strong, and stored away in accursed garners from famishing
millions. This is as true in the present latter-day civilisation as it was in
the ruthless days of yore; only the system-venerable by its antiquity-is more
respectable, has the protection of the law, and is recognised as the
indispensable institution of a well-governed country.
Pg
285
And
among the people themselves, what barrenness and hideousness we behold! How
intellectually empty! How morally destitute! How ignoble and selfish! How small
and grovelling! Some say the world is getting better. It is a mistake.
Intellectual acuteness is on the increase; but real character is dwarfing with
the increase of years. Mankind is deteriorating with the spread of
civilisation. Flimsiness and frivolity are the order of the day. Thorough-going
good sense and earnestness of moral purpose are confined to a despised
minority. The word of God is of light esteem, and faith hath almost vanished
from the earth.
Where
shall we find comfort for the future? The world is incurable by human agency.
Its only hope lies in the truth expressed in the title of this lecture. A great
Deliverer is waiting the appointed time of blessing; Christ at God’s right hand
is the future king of the world; he who endured the shame of a malefactor’s
cross is coming to wear the honour of a universal crown; and though dark be the
clouds that usher in his august advent, and fierce the convulsions that will
attend the earth’s deliverance, great will be the glory of the day he will
bring, and everlasting the repose that will settle on the everlasting hills.
LECTURE 12
THE COVENANT MADE
WITH DAVID TO BE
REALISED
IN THE RE-ESTABUSHMENT OF
THE
KINGDOM OF ISRAEL UNDER CHRIST
WE
HAVE seen that “the promises made unto the fathers,” in remote Old Testament
times, form the groundwork of the scheme which God is developing through
Christ.
Of
these, orthodox religion takes no cognisance. Who ever hears of them in modern
sermons, or religious tuition of any kind?
We
now propose to consider another matter, having an equally essential reference
to the scheme, and of which there is a similar entire absence in all systems of
modern religion.
We
refer to the covenant made with David, which may be considered in the light of
a clause in the greater covenant established with the fathers, settling an
important matter of detail which is covered by, but not expressed in, the older
general promises on which the whole scheme of God’s purposed goodness towards
mankind rests.
The
fact that God made a covenant with David, having reference to Christ, is placed
beyond all doubt by the statement of Peter on the day of Pentecost :
-“Therefore ... being a prophet, and knowing that GOD HAD SWORN
WITH
AN OATH TO HIM, that of the fruit of his
loins according to the flesh, HE WOUI~D RAISE UP CHRIST to sit on His throne” (Acts ii, 30).
Preliminary
to a consideration of the subject, we invite attention to the following further
alusions to the oath referred to by Peter : -“I have made a covenant with my
chosen; I have sworn unto David
my
servant. Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all
generations” (Psa. lxxxix, 3, 4).
PG
287
“The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David; He will not turn from it; Of the fruit
of thy body will I set upon thy throne” (Psa. cxxxii, Il).
“My covenant will I not
break, nor
alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness,
that 1 will not lie unto David. His
seed shall endure for ever, and HIS THRONE AS THE SUN BEFORE ME” (Psa. lxxxix,
34-36).
:‘
Of this man’s (David’s) seed hath God ACCORDING TO His PROMISE, raised unto
Israel a Saviour, Jesus” (Acts xiii, 23).
“And
hath raised up an horn of salvation for US IN THE HOUSE OF His SERVANT DAVID, as He spake by the mouth of His holy
prophets, which have been since the world began” (Luke i, 69, 70).
These
quotations of Scripture establish the fact-first, that God entered into some
pledge or undertaking with David, king of Israel, to uphold His kingdom in an
unlimited future; and, second, that the pledge, covenant, or oath had reference
to Jesus. David’s “last words” (II Sam. xxiii, 1-7), confirm this conclusion
-“
HE HATH MADE WITH ME AN EVERLASTING COVENANT, ordered in all things, and sure; for this is all my salvation and all my
desire.” The identity of this covenant with that referred to in the
Scriptures quoted above, is evident from the immediate context : -“The Spirit
of the Lord spake by me, and His word was in my
tongue.
The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me; HE THAT RULETH OVER MEN
must be just, ruling in the fear of God. And
he shall be as the light of the morning when the sun riseth, even a morning
without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear
shining, after rain. Although my house be not so with God, yet-”
Then
follows the declaration first quoted.
David
was an old man when he penned these words by
the Spirit, and it is evident that, to
the mind of the Spirit, the covenant was not realised in the state of
things prevailing at the time. Solomon, a young man of promise, was about to
ascend the throne, but although David himself recognised in this a preliminary
fulfilment of the covenant, it is evident that this was not the event
contemplated. The Spirit in David points forward to a period when it would be
fulfilled in the rule of one who should rise upon the world, like a morning
without clouds; and when “all David’s salvation and all his desire” would be
accomplished in connection with that great event. This did not come to pass in
David’s day. We have the testimony of the words immediately succeeding those
quoted. David’s house was not at that time in the position guaranteed by the
promise: “Al-
pg
288
though
my house BE NOT SO WITH GOD, yet He
hath made with me an everlasting covenant.”
Solomon’s
reign was, doubtless, the meridian of Israel’s glory; but it was not a morning
without cloud-it was not the realisation of the covenant. Solomon sinned and
led Israel astray, and ultimately dealt injustice to the nation. David’s
salvation was not in any sense secured in Solomon’s achievements. Contrariwise,
his crown was tarnished and his kingdom rent, through the perversion of a son
who departed from God, multiplied wives, and turned aside to the worship of
heathen gods. His very name was brought into abhorrence with the bulk of the
nation, through the oppressions of one who falsified the expectations created
by the commencement of his royal career as the wisest of men.
It
was not to such a feature that “the last (spirit) words of David” had reference
as the consummation of “the everlasting covenant” in all David’s salvation and
all his desire. There was visible to the mind of the spirit, in the dim
distance, far beyond the days of Solomon, the form of one whose name should endure for ever-who should descend like the
gentle rain upon the new-mown grass, diffusing life and fragrance, in whom men
should be blest all the world over (Psalm lxxii, 17), who, while the destroyer
of the wicked, the conqueror of kings, the avenger of injustice, should be a
refuge for the poor, a shadow from the heat, a covert from the tempest, and
rivers of water in a dry place (Isaiah xxxii, 2).
Let
us now look at the covenant itself. We cannot do better than quote entire that passage
in the history of David in which it occurs:- “And it came to pass, when the
king sat in his house, and the Lord
had
given him rest round about from all his enemies, that the king said unto Nathan
the prophet, See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth
within curtains.
“And
Nathan said unto the king, Go, do all that is in thine heart; for the Lord is
with thee.
“And
it came to pass that night, that the word of the Lord came unto Nathan, saying,
Go, and tell my servant David, thus saith the Lord, Shalt thou build me a house
for me to dwell in? Whereas I have not dwelt in any house since the time that I
brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have
walked in a tent and in a tabernacle. In all the places wherein I have walked
with all the children of Israel, spake I a word with any of the tribes of
Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, Why build ye not me
a house of cedar?
“Now,
therefore, so shalt thou say unto my servant David, thus saith the Lord of
Hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be a ruler
over my people, over Israel: and I was with thee
pg
289
whithersoever
thou wentest, and have cut off all thy enemies out of thy
sight,
and have made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are
in the earth. Moreover, I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will
plant them that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more;
neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as before time;
and as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and
have caused thee to rest from all thine
enemies.
“Also
the Lord telleth thee that he will make thee a house. And when thy days be
fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after
thee which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
He shall build a house for my name, and 1~ will establish the throne of his
kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he
shall
be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and
with the stripes of the children of men. But my mercy shall not depart away
from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house
and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee; thy throne shall be
established for ever” (II Sam. vu, 1-16).
Now,
before proceeding to look narrowly at the significance of these words, it will
be well to meet a preliminary objection which is sometimes urged with
considerable force, viz., that as they were fulfilled in the reign of Solomon,
they cannot be legitimately understood of Christ. That the things affirmed had
a parallel in the events of Solomon’s reign cannot be denied. Both David and
Solomon apply them in this way (see I Kings v, 5:
viii,
20; xi, 38; I Chron, xxii, 7: xxviii 3). Solomon was David’s son; God, in a
sense, was his Father, for He took him under His special care, and endowed him
with a degree of wisdom that made him famous above kings. He sat on the throne
of David “before” (that is, in the presence of) David, being elevated to the
crown before David’s decease, by David’s own instructions, and continued after
David was gathered to his fathers. He built the temple of God at Jerusalem,
according to plans drawn out by David under the influence of inspiration (I
Chron. xxviii, 12, 19). He was a man of peace. He committed iniquity and was
chastened in the divine displeasure by means of adversaries raised up toward
the close of his reign; but God’s mercy did not depart away from him as it did
from Saul, for he was allowed to reign till death removed him.
To
this extent, the covenant with David was verified in the days of Solomon; but
to say that this parallel was the substance of the things promised, is to go in
the teeth of Scripture testimony, both Old and New. David and Solomon’s
application of the covenant, as recorded in the Scriptures referred to, does
not interfere with this testimony. David and Solomon may be pre
Pg
290
sumed
not to have known its full scope. The prophets generally did not understand the
full effect of their words (I Peter i, 10-12). Paul applies the terms of the
covenant to Christ in Heb. i. 5: “I
will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son.” Peter, as we have
already seen, expressly says that the covenant had reference to him (Acts ii,
30). Jesus applies David’s language to himself: “The Lord said unto my Lord,
Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool” (Psa. cx,
1), and furthermore, he says of himself, “I am the root and the offspring of David” (Rev. xxii, 16),
and that he has the key of David for
the purpose of opening that no man may shut (Rev. iii, 7). In the days of his
flesh, he was known and described as “the son of David “; the whole nation of
the Jews looked for a son of David to be the Messiah; all the prophets speak of
him as a descendant of David, variously styling him “a rod out of the stem of Jesse (father of David)”
(Isa. xi, 1); “a righteous Branch raised unto David” (Jer. xxiii, 5); “a child born and a son given to sit
upon the throne of David and his kingdom” (Isa. ix, 6), and so on.
It
is, therefore, a vain thing for anyone to attempt to avert the application of
the “everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure,” to Jesus, David’s
son and Lord, the “greater than Solomon,” on the mere strength of a view taken
by David and Solomon, which does not exclude this application, but which merely
declares that the covenant made with reference to Jesus was incipiently fulfilled
in Solomon.
It
may be a ‘question for consideration how it is that a prediction can have two
fulfilments, so far separated by time and the nature of the event. The fact is
evidence of the comprehensiveness of the divine word, but no disproof of the
fact that the prediction in its ultimate and complete bearing has reference to
Jesus. This is proved in too many ways to leave room for a moment’s doubt.
Assuming
this to be settled, let us see, first, how much of the covenant has been
fulfilled in the career of Christ, as so far developed; and, second, what
Christ will have to do at his future manifestation, in order to fulfil that
part of the covenant which was, unquestionably, not realised at his first
appearing.
The
facts bearing on the first point may very briefly be summarised: David’s days
having been fulfilled, and he being “asleep with his fathers,” Jesus was born
in Bethlehem, the city of David, of Mary, a virgin, descended in the line of
David, and espoused to a man named Joseph, who was of the house and lineage of
Pg
291
David.
The event was announced by an angel to shepherds in the neighbourhood, watching
their flocks by night, in the following language:- “Fear not; for, behold I
bring you good tidings of great joy, which
shall
be to all people. For unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord” (Luke
ii, 10, 11).
Zacharias,
the father of John, notices the event in the following language:- “Blessed be
the Lord God of Israel, for He hath visited and redeemed
His
people; and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David, as He spake by the mouth of His
holy prophets, which have been since the world began” (Luke 1, 68-70).
Jesus,
as we have seen in a previous lecture, was born without human paternity; his
conception was due to the power of the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary.
“Therefore,” said the angel, “he shall be called the Son of God.” Thus, in a
sense far transcending the case of
Solomon, were the terms of the covenant realised- “I will be to him a Father,
and he shall be to me a Son.” In fact, the divine sonship of Jesus is the
crowning feature of his position as the Messiah. No man can Scripturally
believe that he is the Christ, while denying that he is the Son of God. A Scriptural
confession of his name involves the recognition of the two facts expressed in
the words of Nathaniel- “Thou art the Son
of God; thou ART THE KING OF ISRAEL”
(John
i, 49). John says, “Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth
that Jesus is the Son of God?” (I
John v, 5). The divine testimony to
Jesus, uttered at his baptism, and again at his transfiguration, was couched in
these words-” This Is my beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased: hear ye him” (Matt. xvii, 5). Hence, the most striking feature in the covenant made with
David shines out in Jesus, who was both Son of God and Son of David and in view
of it, it is easy to understand the language of David in the 110th Psalm, in
reference to which Jesus confounded the Pharisees so that they could not answer
again. He said : -“What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him,
The
son
of David. He saith unto them, How, then, doth David in spirit call him Lord,
saying, the Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make
thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his Son?”
(Matt. xxii, 42-45).
This
was a question which the Pharisees could not answer
Pg
292
from
their point of view, because, on the supposition that the Messiah was merely to
be a natural son of David, on no principle admissible in Jewish practice could
David have addressed him as Lord, for that would have been to accord to him a
position and a deference which could never be recognised as proper to be
yielded to a son by a father. But in view of the truth, the question admits of
an easy solution: Christ is the son of David by the flesh of Mary; but he is
also David’s Lord, because of a higher parental origin than David; “God hath
committed all judgment unto the Son; that all men should honour the Son, even
as they honour the Father” (John v, 22, 23).
The
next feature in the history of Christ corresponds to the next feature in the
covenant made with David. He did not commit iniquity; but he was “chastened
with the rod of men,” and with the stripes of the children of men. The original
Hebrew of this part of the covenant, according to Dr. Adam Clarke, is more
correctly translated as follows: - “Even in his suffering for iniquity, I will
chasten him with the rod of men and with the stripes of the children of men.”
This is intelligible as applied to the death of Christ:- “Surely he hath borne
our griefs and carried our sorrows, yet we did
esteem
him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our
transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our
peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
The
Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. liii, 4, 6).
But
the mercy of God did not desert him as it did Saul, who was rejected, and as we
might presume it did in the case of Solomon, whose last days, so far as we have
any record, were spent in disobedience. Christ was forsaken on the cross; but
it was only for a moment; God’s favour returned with the morning which saw his
deliverance from the grave of Joseph of Arimathea, and was to him an eternal
river of joy. His relation to Deity in the whole transaction cannot be better
expressed than in the words of the 16th Psalm, which Peter, on the day of
Pentecost, applied to him : -“I have set the Lord always before me; because he
is at my right
hand,
I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad and my glory rejoiceth; my
flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither
wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path
of life; in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy ri
ght
hand there are pleasures for evermore” (Psa. xvi, 8-1 1).
In
Psalm lxxxix the covenant with David is
repeated in sub-
Pg
293
stance,
and here the following language is used, which could not be applied to Solomon
: -“Also I will make him my firstborn, higher
than the kings of the earth;
my
mercy will I keep for him for evermore . . . his seed also will I make to
endure for ever; and his throne as the
days of heaven” (verses 27-29).
In
no sense was Solomon Jehovah’s firstborn; while of Jesus, the following
statements are made:- He is the Head of the body, the Church, who is the
beginning, THE
FIRSTBORN
from the dead, that in all things he might have the pre. eminence “ (Col. i,
18).
“For
whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of
His Son, that he might be THE FIRSTBORN among many brethren “ (Rom. viii, 29).
“Christ
the FIRSTFRUITS” (I Cor. xv, 23).
In
this respect, he fulfils a condition of the covenant made with David, which is
in no sense satisfied in Solomon. And he is indeed “higher than the kings of
the earth,” for Paul says : -“God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a
name which IS above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should
bow” (Phil. ii, 9-10).
But
when we pass on to consider other things said in the covenant of the son
promised to David, we find that Jesus has not yet fulfilled them. The first
item may be stated in the words of Peter, “That he should sit upon the throne
of David.” In no sense can Jesus be said to have done this. The throne of David
IS in ruins. Its condition is described in the following language: -“Thou hast
cast off and abhorred; Thou hast been wroth with thine anointed. Thou hast made
void the covenant of thy servant; Thou
hast profaned his crown by casting it to the ground. Thou hast broken down
all his hedges; Thou hast brought his strongholds to ruin. All that pass by the
way spoil him; he is a reproach to his neighbours. Thou hast set up the right
hand of his adversaries; Thou hast made all his enemies to rejoice. Thou hast
also turned the edge of his sword, and hast not made him to stand in the
battle. Thou hast made his glory to cease, and cast his throne down to the
ground” (Psa. lxxxix, 38-44).
This
state of things was predicted by Ezekiel in the following terms:- And thou
profane, wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when
iniquity
shall have an end, thus saith the Lord God, Remove
the diadem and take off the crown; this shall not be the same. Exalt him
that is low and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it
and it
pg
294
shall be no more UNTIL HE COMES WHOSE RIGHT
IT IS, AND I WILL GIVE IT HIM” (Ezek. xxi, 25,
27).
This
prediction was uttered in the reign of Zedekiah, the last Israelitish king in
the line of David, 593 s.c.; and ever since that time the kingdom has been
overturned. It was overthrown by Nebuchadnezzer in the lifetime of Zedekiah,
and was afterwards trampled down by Greece and Rome. Since the destruction of
Jerusalem by Titus, it has had no existence. The land is in the possession of
the enemy, and the- people are scattered as fugitives throughout the earth.
In
view of this, what conclusion is to be drawn from the covenant made with David,
which expressly guarantees the perpetual continuance of David’s throne and
kingdom, under that son of his who was to be the firstborn of Jehovah? There is
only one conclusion admissible in the premises, and that is, that at some
future time, Jesus must return and re-establish the kingdom of David, and
preside therein for God, as David did: and to this agree the words of the
prophets, as it is written: “After this I
WILL RETURN, AND WILL BUILD AGAIN THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID, WHICH is FALLEN
DOWN; and I will build again the ruins thereof; and I will set it up” (Acts xv,
16). The testimony confirmatory of this conclusion is very express. There are
the well-known words of Isaiah:- “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is
given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be
called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the
Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no
end; UPON THE THRONE OF DAVID, AN[) UPON HIS KINGDOM, to order it and to establish it with judgment, and with justice, from
henceforth even for ever” (Isa. ix, 6-7).
Then
there are the words of the other prophets, of which the following are only a
meagre sample : -“In those days, and at that time, will I cause the branch of
righteousness to grow up unto David, and
he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land,” etc. (hr. xxxiii,
15).
“Behold
the days come, saith the Lord, that I will sow the house of Israel, and the
house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast. And it shall come to pass, that like as I
have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and
to destroy, and to afflict~ so will I watch over them, TO BUILD AND TO
PLANT, saith the Lord” (Jer. xxxi, 27, 28).
“For
thus sayeth the lord ; like as I have brought all this great evil
pg
295
upon
this people, so will I bring upon them ALL
THE GOOD THAT I HAVE PROMISED THEM” (Jer. xxxii, 42).
“Behold
the days come, saith the Lord, that I will perform that good thing which 1 have promised unto the house of Israel and to
the house of Judah “ (Jer. xxxiii, 14).
“In
that day, saith the Lord, will I assemble her that halteth, and I will gather
her that is driven out, and her that I have afflicted; and I will make her that
halted, a remnant, and her that was cast
off, A STRONG NATION; and the Lord
shall reign over them in Mount Zion from henceforth even for ever” (Mic.
iv, 6, 7).
“Thus
saith the Lord God, Behold I will take the children of Israel from among the
heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side and bring
them into their own land. And 1 will make
them ONE NATION in the land upon tile
mountains of Israel; and ONE KING shall
be King to them all; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall
they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all” (Ezek. xxxvii, 21, 22).
“And
they shall build the old wastes, they
shall raise up the former desolations, and
they shall repair the waste cities, the
desolations of many generations” (Isa. lxi, 4).
These
predictions will not be realised in the absence of Jesus Christ from the earth.
This appears upon the face of the testimonies themselves, but is proved in a
way that excludes the possibility of mistake, by Peter’s declaration, recorded
in Acts iii. 20-21:--“He shall send Jesus
Christ, which before was preached unto you;
whom
the heaven must receive UNTIL the times
of restitution of all things, WHICH GOD HATH SPOKEN BY THE MOUTH OF ALL HIS
HOLY PROPHETS SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN.”
From
this it follows that the work of restoration so abundantly described by the
prophets does not occur till Jesus returns and reappears on earth. This will
account for Paul’s connecting Christ’s appearing and kingdom as coincident
events, in the words “Jesus Christ shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing AND his kingdom” (II Tim. iv, 1). When he
appears, his kingdom will come; for it is his return to the earth that causes
his kingdom to be established. Hence we can understand the statement that “when
the Son of man shall come in his glory, THEN shall he sit upon the throne of his glory” (Matt. xxv, 31). This
statement Jesus repeats in another form, which only makes Its identification
with the re-establishment of the kingdom of Israel more certain. He said to his
disciples : -
“Verily
I say unto you, that ye which have followed me. In the re-
pg
296
generation
(which is equivalent to the restitution spoken of by Peter)
WHEN
the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of
his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, JUDGING THE TWELVE TRIBES
OF ISRAEL” (Matt. xix, 28).
When
this comes to pass, there will be fulfilment of the words addressed to Mary: “And he shall reign over the house of Jacob
for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke i, 33). And when
these words are verified, the covenant made with David will find a fulfillment
over which no obscurity can be cast.
The
covenant guarantees the Messianic establishment of David’s kingdom in David’s presence. The words are, “Thine
house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee.” As we have
seen, this was partially fulfilled in David witnessing Solomon’s ascension to
the throne before his own death; but it is easy to see how much more completely
and substantially it will be fulfilled in the kingdom of David in the hands of
Jesus. The kingdom of Israel, as ruled by Christ, will be the kingdom of God.
The promise to all the faithful is that they shall inherit the kingdom of God
(Luke xxii, 29, 30; Matt. xix, 28; James ii, 5; Luke xiii, 28, 29: xii, 32, 36; II Peter i, 11). Hence David,
who was a man after God’s own heart, will be among those of whom Jesus says, in
one of the foregoing list of references, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and
all the prophets-of whom David was one-will be seen in the kingdom of God.
This
cannot mean heaven; for Peter expressly says, “David is not ascended into the
heavens” (Acts ii, 34). It is the kingdom to be set up in the territory of the
Promised Land, when the little stone descends from heaven to break in pieces
all other kingdoms. David, looking forward to this time, said in prayer,
immediately after hearing the words of the covenant, “Thou hast spoken also of
Thy servant’s house for a great while to
come.
- Therefore now let it please Thee to
bless the house of Thy servant, that it
may continue for ever before Thee” (II Sam. vii, 19, 29). This prayer is
answered in the words of Jeremiah (chapter xxxiii, 17, 25, 26); “For thus saith the Lord: DAVID shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel...
If
my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the
ordinances of heaven and earth, then will I cast away the seed of Jacobi and DAVID MY SERVANT, SO that I will not take
any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I
will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.”
The
time for this is now not far off, and David himself will be
Pg
297
in
the land, rejoicing in the greatness of his Son, who wifi be a triumphant
witness of the truthfulness of Jehovah’s word. Every nation will come to an
end, except the nation of Israel (Jer. xxx, 11), and every royal family will
disappear and be forgotten, except the family of David, which will be in
everlasting remembrance, because an everlasting and glorious institution, by
the ransomed inhabitants of the globe. Thus will be fulfilled the promise that
the house of David shall continue for ever.
We
have next to observe a feature of the covenant which few modern readers of the
Bible have been able, in any sense, to apply to Jesus. We refer to the first
clause of the thirteenth verse; “He shall
build an house for my name.” Understanding this to mean the erection of a
place in the earth for the worship of Jehovah, it may be considered incredible
that such a performance should form any part of Christ’s work. At first sight,
such a thing may seem preposterous and degrading to the dignity of Christ, but,
looking closely into the subject, we discover a different complexion in it. We
shall see that not only is the building of a temple, to which nations may
periodically repair for worship, one of the incidents of the age to come, but
that the performance of this work is connected with the noblest mission of the
kingdom of God.
We will
first call the reader’s attention to the evidence which proves that what is
affirmed in the covenant made with David will be realised in the kingdom of
Christ. It begins with a statement in Zech. vi, 12, to the following effect:
-“Behold the man whose name is the Branch, and he shall grow up out
of
his place, and he shall build the temple
of the Lord . . . and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon
his throne. And he shall be a priest upon his throne.”
The
applicability of this to Jesus might be doubted from the context were it not
that the statement cannot be understood of any other than he who bears the
title occurring in it. The Messiah is uniformly described as THE BRANCH. and he
alone is to be ‘a priest upon his throne,” combining in himself, like
Meichizedek, the double function of rule in temporal matters and intercession
in things pertaining to God. Were this the only consideration, however, to
justify the application of the prophecy to Jesus, it would fall short of
proving the point. We therefore proceed to weightier considerations.
It
is said of the time when Jesus shall reign on the throne of his father David,
that “many people and strong nations shall
Pg
298
come
to seek the Lord of Hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the Lord” (Zech.
vili, 22). This is expressed by Jeremiah as a gathering of the nations to the
name of the Lord to Jerusalem; in consequence of which they walk no more in the
imagination of their evil heart (Jer. iii, 17); and by Isaiah, as the going of
many people, saying, “Let us go up to the mountain of the Lord. TO THE HOUSE OF
THE GOD OF JACOB; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His
paths,” etc. (Isa. ii, 3). Zechariah describes this in the following language :
-“And it shall come to pass that every one that is left of all the nations
which
came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year, to worship the King, the Lord of Hosts, and to keep the feast of
tabernacles” (Zech. xiv, 16).
That
these things are true of Christ’s reign on earth and nothing else, must be
evident from the fact that they are associated with a time when the nations
shall cease from war, and when men shall no longer follow the bent of their
evil inclinations. Such a state of things has never been realised in the
history of the world. If, then, nations are to go periodically to Jerusalem for
the purpose of worship, it stands to reason that there will be a place in which
this act can have suitable effect. It is not to be imagined that a motley
assemblage of people could conveniently, comfortably, or profitably bring their
devotion to bear without those customary means of approach, which, in all past
times God has furnished to those whom He has invited to do homage to Him. Why
should nations come to Jerusalem, if there were no temple there? If their
worship was simply to Consist of the sentiment of devotion, this could as well
be cultivated in the countries they inhabit as at the holy city.
The
necessity of the case requires that there should exist a machinery of worship
adequate to the grandeur of the dispensation, in which Jerusalem is the
religious metropolis of the whole world. It is evident from attention to the
limited testimony quoted, that this will exist. Mark, for instance, the
expression, “Let us go up to the house of
the Lord.” Again, “the pots in the
Lord’s house shall be like the bowls before the altar” (Zech. xiv, 20).
“The glory of THIS LATTER HOUSE shall be greater than of the former, saith the
Lord of Hosts; and IN THIS PLACE will /
give peace” (Hag. ii, 9). “Then shall
Jerusalem be holy And a fountain
shall come forth of THE HOUSE OF THE LORD, and shall water the valley of
Shittim” (Joel iii, 17, 18).
We
quote these indirect evidences not so much to prove the
Pg
299
point
in question as to introduce the great and crowning evidence before which all
others pale into insignificance. We now refer to the vision of Ezekiel,
contained in the last nine chapters of the book bearing his name. This portion
of the Scripture has baffled all Bible commentators, for the simple reason that
popular theology can make no use of it. To what purpose is the establishment of
a temple ritual at Jerusalem, if death sends men for final weal or woe, to God
or the devil, and if the presumed millennium is simply to be a prevalence of
“evangelical religion”?
The
chapters referred to were written after the destruction of Solomon’s temple by
Nebuchadnezzar, and disclose a state of things which has never since that time
existed under heaven. The temple was rebuilt at the return of the Jews from
Babylon. But Ezekiel’s prophecy was not realised in that event, as may be seen
by a comparison of Ezekiel’s prophecy with the facts connected with the second
temple. The rebuilt temple, so far from being greater than the first, was
vastly inferior to it. This cannot be better proved than by quoting the
following passage from Ezra iii, 12, 13:- “But many of the Priests and Levites,
and chief of the fathers, who
were ancient men, that had
seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, WEPT WITH
A LOUD VOICE, and many shouted aloud for joy; so that the people could not
discern the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of the weeping of the
people; for the people shouted with a loud shout, and the noise was heard afar
off.”
Ezekiel’s
temple is to be contemporary with a division of the promised land to the twelve
tribes of Israel (Ezekiel xlviii). The educated reader does not require to be
informed that this has never taken place since the day of the Babylonish
captivity. The restoration from Babylon was but a return of the two tribes of
Judah and Benjamin, and but a small portion of them. The ten tribes
constituting the Kingdom of Israel, were removed by Shalmaneser the king of
Assyria, to countries beyond the river Euphrates, and have never returned. The
conclusion is self-evident; the land has never been divided to the twelve tnbes
of Israel, as it is to be when Ezekiel’s temple is reared.
Another
fact proving the futurity of the prophecy, is, that at the time foreseen by
Ezekiel a portion of the country, measuring at the least forty miles by forty,
is to be set apart for divine purposes as “.a holy oblation” (Ezek. xlv, 1, 4).
In this stand the temple, the holy city, and the habitation of the priests.
Such a thing, as everyone knows, has never happened in the history of
Pg
300
the
Holy Land; from which it follows that the state of things depicted in the
chapter under consideration lies in the future. This conclusion is established
beyond all question by the concluding statement of the prophet; that “the name
of the city from that day shall be, THE
LORD IS THERE.”
In
view of the certainty that Ezekiel’s prophecy is unfulfilled, it becomes
interesting in the highest degree to glance at what Ezekiel describes. He says,
in the visions of God he was brought into the land of Israel, and set upon a
very high mountain, from which he beheld the frame of a city to the south. He
finds himself in the company of a man, “whose appearance was like the
appearance of brass, with a line of flax in his hand, and a measuring reed.”
This man, whom he sees standing in the entrance gate of the temple enclosure,
addresses him as follows:
“Son
of man, behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears, and set thine heart
upon all that I shall shew thee; for to the intent that I might shew them unto
thee, art thou brought hither; declare all that thou seest to the house of
Israel” (Ezek. xl, 4).
Ezekiel
then becomes attentive to his guide’s operations, and beholds him proceed with
a series of measurements which he records with great minuteness, in the first
five chapters. Without following the intricacies of these, let us briefly state
that Ezekiel is shown a temple exceeding anything ever realised in the history
of Israel or any other nation. The temple is a gigantic building, with every
appliance required in the worship of which it is the centre. The outside wall
(measuring about a mile-and-a-quarter each way), is pierced with many gates,
each gate being flanked with chambers for the temple service, and entered by an
upward flight of steps. Mounting the steps, the prophet sees an inner wall,
about 150 feet nearer the temple; the space lying between the inner and the
outer wall being described as “the outer court,” and forming a spacious promenade
or pavement. The inner wall has gates after the pattern of those in the outer
wall. These gates open by eight steps into the inner court, in which stands THE
TEMPLE-an immense circle of lofty arched and latticed building, capable of
holding a million worshippers. This is the centre-piece of the vision. For
height, breadth, and elaborateness, it exceeds anything devised in human
architecture, and is only surpassed in interest by the event which the prophet
witnessed after surveying the external approaches to the building. This event,
which he saw from the eastern gate of the outer wall, he describes in the
following language: -
Pg
301
“Behold the glory of the God
of Israel came from the way of the east, and His voice was like a noise of many waters,
and the earth shined with His glory - . . And the glory of the Lord came into the house by the way of the
gate whose prospect is toward the east” (ch. xhu, 2, 4).
Ezekiel
is then conveyed by the spirit into the inner court, standing in which he
beholds the house filled with the glory of the Lord. He then hears the divine
voice addressing him as follows : -“Son of Man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where
I WILL. DWELL IN THE MIDST OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL FOR EVER, and my holy name
shall the house of Israel no more defile; neither they nor their kings, by
their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places” (verse
7).
Afterwards,
Ezekiel is taken back by the way of the eastern gate, and observes that it is
shut, in reference to which the following explanation is given : -“This gate
shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because
the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered
in by it, therefore it shall be shut; it is for the prince; the prince, he
shall sit in it, to eat bread before the Lord. He shall enter by the way of the
porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same” (ch. xliv, 2-3).
At
a later stage, Ezekiel received the following information in reference to the
same gate:
“The
gate of the inner court that looketh toward the east shall be shut the six
working days; but on the Sabbath it shall be opened and in the day of the new
moon it shall be opened. And the prince shall enter by the way of the porch of
that gate without, and shall stand by the post of the gate. And the priests
shall prepare his burnt offering and his peace offerings; and he shall worship
at the threshold of the gate; then he shall go forth; but the gate shall not be
shut until the evening. Likewise the people of the land shall worship at the door of this gate before the
Lord, in the Sabbaths and in the new moons” (ch. xlvi, 1, 2,3).
The
temple, we are informed, stands in the centre of an area of country measuring
forty-two miles from east to west, and about seventeen miles from north to
south; which is to be occupied by a class described as “the sons of Zadok,” who
were faithful in ancient times. To the south of this, there is a similar tract
of country measured off for the Levites, whose duty it will be to perform the
menial and labotious duties connected with the temple worship. Again, to the
south of this, measuring forty-two miles from east to west, and between nine
and ten
PG
302
miles
from north to south, a strip of country is allotted for the city and land for
fields and gardens.
The
measurements of the city show it to be the most extensive and magnificent that
has ever been built. Lying four-square, it will occupy an area of about eighty
square miles. Each wall, east, west, north, and south, measures about nine
miles the total circumference being, therefore, about thirty-six miles. In each
wall, there are three gates, at equal distances, each gate being named after
one of the tribes of the land. The land lying east and west of the city,
appropriated for the raising of produce, contains about two-hundred-and-seventy
square miles, forming an adequate provision for the wants of the stupendous
city, which will be known from that day by the name-Jehovah-shammah, the Lord is there.
The
temple stands on the site of ancient and modern Jerusalem, crowning the hill of
Zion; of which it is testified in Psalm cxxxii, 13-14:-” The Lord hath chosen
Zion; He hath desired it for His habitation. This is my rest for ever; here
will I dwell, for I have desired it.” The city lies about thirty-two miles to
the south of the temple. The whole territory apportioned is a magnificent
square, measuring about forty-two miles each way, and forming the tabernacle of
Jehovah, as it will be pitched in the age to come.
These
details leave no doubt as to the reality of the temple to be erected in the day
when the fallen tabernacle of David is upreared by the Son of David. The reason
that orthodox interpreters are unable to see this, is, that they are ignorant
of the kingdom of which the temple and its service form a part.
Another
reason is probably to be found in the fact, that the sacrifices superseded by
the death of Christ are in this temple found restored; burnt offerings and sin
offerings, of “bulls and goats,” are required with all the minute ceremonial
observed under the law of Moses. This, to the majority of people, is a great
stumbling block. They reason against the possibility of sacrifices being
restored after the accomplishment of the anti-typical sacrifice of “the Lamb of
God which taketh away the sin of the world.”
A
little reflection, however, will dissipate the force of this difficulty. it is
evident that the reign of Christ on earth is a priestly one. This is stated in
the testimony that “he shall be a priest upon his throne “; and is further evident from the statement in Rev. i, 6: “He hath
made us kings AND priests unto God
and his Father,” a double function which appears from Rev. v,
PG
303
10,
to have reference to the time when Christ shall reign on earth: “Thou hast made
us unto our God kings and priests; and we shall reign on the earth.” If, then, the millennial dispensation is a priestly
one, it is according to the fitness of things, that the people should have
somewhat to offer in token of their obedience; and the priests, something to
present on their behalf.
But
it will be asked, how can the sacrifice of animals be revived, when he who was
slain is present in the earth as a perfected mediator between God and man? and
since Christ’s priesthood is in force even now, without the use of material
sacrifices on the part of those for whom he officiates, viz., his own
household, why need there be material sacrifices in the age to come, when his
priesthood is but transferred from his own household to the world?
The
answer to this must take a general form. As the sacrifices under the law of
Moses pointed forward to the death of Christ, so the sacrifices under the
“prophet like unto Moses,” may point backward to the death of Christ. In the
law of Moses, the sacrifices were prospective and typical of that which was to
come. Under the law of Christ, they may be retrospective and commemorative of
that which has been: after the manner of the Lord’s supper, which, in Christ’s
absence, is a standing memorial of his broken body and shed blood. Whatever
explanation of the fact may be suggested, there can be no doubt of the fact
itself, that sacrifices form part of the institution of the age to come. We
gather this, not only from Ezekiel, but from a variety of Scripture testimony,
of which we cite the following examples : -“For from the rising of the sun even
unto the going down of the same,
my
name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a PURE OFFERING; for my
name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of Hosts” (Mal. i, 11).
The
multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all
they from Sheba shall come, they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall
shew forth the praises of the Lord. All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered
together unto thee; the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee; they shall come up with acceptance on mine
a/tar, and I will glorify THE HOUSE OF MY GLORY” (Isa. Ix, 6, 7).
“And
the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that
day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation;
yea, they shall VOW a vow unto the Lord, and perform it” (Isa. xix 21).
“For
the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a
prince, and without a sacrifice, and
without an image, and withPG 304
out
an ephod, and without teraphim. AFTERWARD shall the children of Israel return
and seek the Lord their God, and David their king,, and shall fear the Lord and
His goodness in the latter days” (Hosea iii, 4,
“Yea,
every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the Lord of Hosts;
and all they that sacrifice shall
come and take of them and seethe therein; and in that day there shall be no
more the Canaanite in the House of the Lord of Hosts” (Zech. xiv, 21).
“God
is the Lord, which has shewed us light. Bind
the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar” (Psa. cxviii,
27).
At
first sight, it may appear incongruous that the glorious administration of
power and righteousness characteristic of the reign of Christ should be mixed
up with a ritual which has been obsolete for centuries, and between which and
the truth there scarcely exists the element of affinity. There is, however, a
view of the matter which reveals wisdom in the arrangement.
-
It is part of eternal truth that without faith and trial, it is impossible to
be accepted with God. This principle is unaffected by time or circumstances; it
will be as true in the future age as now. Men and women, who live as subjects
of the Messiah’s kingdom, will have to obtain a right to eat of the tree of
life by faith and obedience, as much as those who now have to struggle in the
absence of an open vision. But how can their faith be exercised, and how can
their obedience be tested in the presence of the overpowering fact of God’s
visible government of the nations through Jesus and the saints? Does it not
seem as if all scope for faith would be shut out by the sublime and
incontestable facts of the time? And as if obedience would be eclipsed and
superseded by the practical compulsion brought to bear upon men by the
existence and supervision of divine government?
As
it appears to us, the restitution of sacrifice supplies an answer to the
question. Called upon to perform acts in the worship of God, which in
themselves appear needless and unsuitable, the faith and obedience of men will
be put to as power. ful a test as in ancient days, when similar things were
required at the hand of Israel. Their minds will be educated to submit to the
divine will, and to have faith in the divine intentions by a ritualism
unreasonable enough to have no hold upon the mind, except such as arises from a
recognition of divine authority; while, at the same time, their intellects will
be enlightened by the lessons taught by it in allegory. We must remember that
in the age to come, the nations subject to Christ and his people will be
PG
305
composed
of men and women constituted as men and women are now: and, therefore, standing
in need of spiritual education.
The
kingdom of God, in its millennial phase, is an adaptation to this necessity. By
the aid of this fact, we are enabled to see the wisdom of a dispensation which
would be out of keeping in a generation spiritually perfect. Nations will have
to be disciplined in first principles, and exercised continually in a divine
direction. Left without external stimulus or object of occupation, the human
mind becomes listless and retrogressive. The most brilliant moral impressions
will fade in a state of inactivity. Regeneration of this description will be
effectually prevented by a system of universal compulsory religion, which will
require the presence of every man once a year at the centre of divine
government and worship, and which, for every offence against the laws, will
exact the token of penitence afforded in the sacrifice of an animal of his
property. The mind of all the world will be kept in continual motion in a
spiritual channel. By this means, mankind, as a whole, will be turned from the
ways of ignorance and evil, while the powerful hand of governmental repression,
brought to bear upon everything antagonistic to the temporal and spiritual
welfare of the people, will secure a situation admitting of the full and
effective operation of these ameliorating influences,
Thus
we see a beauty and a force in that clause of the covenant made with David,
which assigns to the Messiah the duty of building a house to the Lord of all
the earth. The mechanical part of the process will, of course, be performed by the
alien. The , manual labour required to, elaborate the splendid and spacious
architecture exhibited to Ezekiel, will be furnished by the stranger; but the
work will be executed under the supervision of Christ, as the temple of Solomon
was built to David’s directions : -“The sons of strangers shall build up thy
walls, and their kings shall
minister
unto thee; for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have
I
had mercy on thee . - . The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come
bending unto thee, and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at
the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee the city of the Lord, the Zion
of the Holy One of Israel. Whereas, thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that
no man went through thee, I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many
generations” (Isa. lx, 10, 14, 15).
And
they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations,
and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations.
And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons
PG 306
“Thus
saith the Lord God, Behold I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up
my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy
daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. And kings shall be thy nursing
fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with
their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet: and thou shalt
know that I am the Lord: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me” (Isa.
xlix, 22, 23).
It
will be the peculiar honour of Jesus to bring all nations to worship before
God: and this he will do in virtue of the covenant made with David.
Little
remains to be said in illustration of the remaining provisions of the covenant.
That God will establish the throne of His kingdom for ever, in the hands of
Jesus; and, under Him, give to Israel the sure dwelling-place from which they
shall never be removed, has been made evident in other lectures. These two
conclusions are amongst the most copiously attested doctrines of the Word of
God. In the light of them all prophecy is intelligible; without them, the Old
Testament is what orthodox people practically find it to be-a dark vision, and
a dead letter.
For
this, the Apostasy is responsible. By intermixing pagan dogmas with the
doctrines of revelation, it has succeeded in mystifying the oracles of God to
an extent which is hopeless as regards the majority of people. It has drawn a
thick veil over their faces; it has made the Bible unintelligible, and brought
it into ridicule and contempt with many who, with a better understanding, would
bow before the sublimity and splendour of the scheme it unfolds for the
redemption of this fair planet from the evil that now reigns. This lamentable
result cannot be remedied to any material extent at present. A few here and
there will surrender to the power of judgment and testimony; but the great
majority will continue in bondage to the power of error numerically supported.
Seduced
by the deception practised upon their senses by the circumstances existing in
society, they are deaf to the voice of reason; they look around them, and
behold a crowd walking in the stereotyped ways of popular religion; and,
though, taken man by man, they could estimate their opinions at their proper
value
-which,
in the majority of cases, from the ignorance that prevails, is no value at
all-yet the mere deadweight of numbers gives the collective sentiment a power
which they cannot resist, and they allow themselves to be dragged like manacled
slaves at
PG
307
the
chariot wheels of a system of faith which will not stand for a moment when
tried on its own merits. Every one man in the crowd sees the rest as a crowd,
and overpowered by the sight of the crowd, he bows to the collective opinion,
though it be but a mere traditional bias, and not a conviction on evidence. In
this way, each man in the great orthodox communities, is held in bondage by all
the rest, and the bondage is rivited hard and fast by the influence of the
church, chapel, college, vestry, school, bazaar, tea party, private interest,
and the whole machinery of the system.
Nothing
will break into this intellectual slavery but the iron rod of the Son of David.
When he comes to vest, in his single person, the authority now exercised by all
the kings and parliaments of the world; when he lays hold, with unsparing hand,
upon the vested interests which obstruct the path of general progress; and
shivers to atoms the rotten fabrics of respectable superstition; when he
overturns the institutions which foolish crowds fall down and worship, through
the mere power of antiquity; when he sends forth to all the world the decrees
of a divine and omnipotent absolutism; when he sets up a system of worship to
which he will command conformity on pain of death; and demands the allegiance
of every soul to be personally tendered at Jerusalem, the city of the great
king; when he comes to~ sweep, from the face of the earth, the tangled cobweb
of existing institutions which shelters ignorance, vice, and misery; while
professedly based on right, religion, and morality; and to deal, with even
hand, the swift and powerful awards of unerring justice; when he, in fact,
breaks in pieces the whole constitution of human society, as now put together,
and substitutes for it a new order of things, having the revived kingdom of
David, in the land of Palestine, as its centre and basis of operations-then,
and not till then, will mankind see their folly, and “come from the ends of the
earth, and say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things
wherein there is no profit” (Jer. xvi. 19). There is no hope till then. He will
“judge the people righteously, and govern the nations upon earth” (Psalm
lxvii).
“SIn
that day there shall be one Lord, and his name One.” (Zech. xiv, 9).
LECTURE 13
THE SECOND COMING
OF CHRIST THE ONLY CHRISTIAN HOPE
HOPE
IS the peculiar feature of the Gospel. Other systems boast of ethical
principles which it is expected the judgment will sanction, and the enlightened
will apply to the formation of character; but the gospel excels these in its
power to produce the results aimed at by them, through the power of an element
of which all systems of human wisdom are necessarily destitute.
Theoretical
morality may practically influence superior minds; but it is powerless to raise
the fallen or develop moral fructification in naturally barren minds. Its
appeals are to trained intellect and moral aspiration; and for that reason, it
is impotent with the vast majority of mankind.
The
gospel approaches human nature, not with hard reasonings and lifeless
aphorisms, but with personal love and inspiring promises. Laden with tenderness
and cheer, it subdues the obduracy, and dissipates the lethargy of human
hearts, and bears them upward to moral perfection by the influence of its
affections and hopes. It is exactly adapted to the necessities of human nature,
present and prospective. It only requires to be received with full assurance of
faith; and then, unlike human systems of philosophy, it satisfies the heart
while enlightening the intellect, and tranquillises the spirit, which can
elsewhere find no rest in this world of anxiety and care.
Nevertheless,
it develops these results by an intelligent process. It operates by means of
the ideas which it communicates to the mind. There is nothing unaccountable in
its mode of operation. Its love is a matter of specific assurance, to be
realised by faith, and not a mysterious influence stealing miraculously over
the heart. Its hopes grow out of definite promises, understood and assuredly
believed, and are not shapeless ecstacies of incom
Pg
309
prehensible
origin. Its operations are altogether effected on truly rational principles.
Designed for human nature, it is adapted to its mental constitution, and
powerful on natural methods, to elevate and purify all who submit themselves to
its teachings, and give earnest heed thereto.
Now,
in the present lecture, we purpose to make manifest the truth of the
proposition, that the great hope of the gospel relates to the second (personal)
coming of the Lord Jesus; that that event is the central object upon which
enlightened anticipation lays hold as the climax of desire, the crisis of
reward; and that, therefore, this truth is one of the main influences by which
the heart is purified, and the believer himself prepared and made “meet for the
Master’s use.”
By
the second coming of the Lord Jesus, is meant the event obviously signified by
the language, viz., the return from heaven to earth of our Saviour, who is now
at the right hand of God. It will be admitted that Christ was really on the
earth during his sojourn among men, and that he ascended bodily to heaven after the resurrection. The proposition, then, is,
that at a certain time, he will descend just as really as he ascended, and
appear in person on the earth, as the same Lord Jesus who sojourned in Judea
among the Jews and Romans. We assert this to be the teaching of the word of
God, and are more especially anxious to demonstrate its essentiality as the
true Christian hope.
First,
let us realise that the apostles declare there is only “one hope,” as there is
only “one faith and one baptism.” This is the teaching of Paul, in Ephesians
iv, 4, 5: “There is one body, and one
Spirit, even as ye are called in ONE HOPE of your calling.” That this “one
hope” is an essential constituent of the gospel, is evident from Paul’s words
to the Colossians, chap. i, 5, where,
speaking of “the hope which was laid up
for them in heaven” (Christ being there), he says, “Whereof ye heard before IN THE WORD OF THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL.”
He even goes the length of saying, “We are saved by hope” (Rom. viii, 24), and solemnly assures the Hebrews that
their ultimate salvation was contingent upon their adherence to that hope. His
words are, “Whose house are we, if we
hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of THE HOPE firm unto the end” (Heb. iii, 6). His language to the Colossians is
equally striking on this point : -“He will present you holy and unblamable and
unreprovable in his
sight:
ir ye continue in the faith, grounded and
settled, and be not moved away from THE HOPE OF THE GOSPEL” (Col. i, 22,
23).
Pg
310
These
testimonies ought to impress us with a sense of the gravity of the question
about to be considered. It is no light thing to be doctrinally mistaken as to
what we should hope for. What a misfortune to spend our spiritual energies in
looking for that which God has never promised! Such a mistake implies ignorance
of the real “hope of the gospel “; and this “ignorance,” says Paul, “alienates
from the life of God” (Eph. iv, 18). What God has never promised no one will
ever receive; for how should the idle longings of man divert the purposes of
the immutable Almighty? especially when the gratifying of those longings will
involve the failure of the promises really given. “According to your faith be
it unto you.” This is a divine principle (Matt. ix, 29). If a man squander his
faith upon that which has no foundation in truth, he sows to the wind. The
faith which builds its house upon the foundation-rock of the assured promises
of God, will alone withstand the storm that will sweep away” the refuge of
lies.”
Before
adducing specific testimony as to the coming of the Lord, it will be of
advantage to dwell for a little on the personal ministry of Christ when on
earth. During his sojourn in the land of Judea, which he travelled constantly
for three years, doing wonderful works in attestation of his divine mission, he
proclaimed the things of the kingdom of God, and asserted his Messiahship in
connection therewith, as has been proved in previous lectures. This
proclamation had the effect of drawing around him many disciples, and of
causing them to look upon him as the anointed king of Israel in a literal
sense, and destined to effect “the redemption of Israel” from the Romans and
all other nations, and to establish the kingdom of God in triumph over all the
earth. This view of Christ, created in the minds of his disciples by his own
teachings, is condemned by thousands of well-meaning but mistaken people. We
saw in a former lecture how uncalled for is the condemnation, and how
scriptural (with slight modification) is the view condemned.
We
now desire to point out that the teaching of Christ on the subject had a
further effect upon the minds of the disciples. It created in them an
expectation that they themselves should share
the kingly honours of Christ at the time when his kingly mission should be
manifested. This is also universally admitted to be a fact, although
condemnation is as freely administered here as in the other case. The disciples
are reprobated as “carnally minded,” for having looked for what is generally
disparagcd as “a temporal kingdom.” Now, we shall find that
Pg
311
there
is as much injustice in this imputation against the taste and judgment of the
disciples, as there is in the one which the last lecture was intended to
refute. There was, no doubt, a good deal of unhallowed ambition among them,
which their divine master repeatedly strove to repress; but this ambition did
not show itself in inventing a false doctrine, or carnally perverting a true
one. It rather manifested itself in the form of impropriety of spirit, in relation to that which was true. It
gave them mistaken ideas as to the object of the kingdom of God, and the
principles on which admittance to it was to be granted; but it did not cause
them to misapprehend the nature of that kingdom itself. There is a distinction
here that is very important; the overlooking of which leads to lamentable
conclusions. Their hope of inheriting the kingdom of God in substantial manner,
like their estimate of the kingship, was founded both on prophetic testimony,
and the express teaching of our Lord himself. In the prophets they had observed
such testimony as the following : -“The
saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the
kingdom for ever, even for
ever and ever” (Dan. vii, 18).
The time came that the
saints possessed the kingdom” (verse 22).
“And
the kingdom, and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom UNDER THE WHOLE
HEAVEN shall be given to the people of
the saints of the Most High” (verse 27).
“Let
the saints be joyful in glory, let
them sing aloud upon their beds. Let the high praises of God be in their mouth,
and a two-edged sword in their hand, to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and
punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles
with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written: THIS HONOUR
HAVE ALL HIS SAINTS” (Psa. cxlix, 5-9).
“Instead
of thy fathers (referring to Christ), shall be thy children (viz., the saints,
his people), whom thou mayest make PRINCES
in all the earth”
(Psa.
xlv, 16).
“Behold,
a king shall reign in righteousness, and PRINCES
shall rule in judgment “ (Isa. xxxii,
1).
I
will gather the remnant of my flock (of Israel) out of all countries whither I
have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall be
fruitful and increase; and 1 will set up SHEPHERDS
over them which shall feed them,” etc.
(Jer. xxiii, 3-4).
“And saviours shall come up
on Mount Zion to
judge the mount of Esau: and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s (Oba., verse 21).
And
they had noted the teaching of our Lord himself to be the
Pg
312
same
effect in the following recorded instances: “Blessed is that servant whom his
lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily, I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his
goods” (Matt. xxiv, 46, 47). “And so he that had received five talents came
and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five
talents; behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. His lord said
unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful
over a few things, 1 will make thee ruler
over many things” (Matt. xxv, 20, 21). “And he said unto him (that had
gained the ten pounds), Well, thou good servant, because thou hast been
faithful in a very little, have thou
authority over ten cities” (Luke xix, 17). Again, Jesus said to the chief
priests and elders of the Jews, “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the
fruits thereof” (Matt. xxi, 43).
At
the time Jesus used the last quoted words, the chief priests and rulers were in
possession of the kingdom of Israel, which having been originally established
by God, was called the kingdom of God. Now the generality of people can
understand the meaning of this predicted taking of the kingdom from them. They
know as a matter of history that the Jewish polity was abolished, and that in
fulfilment of Christ’s prediction, its rulers were deposed from their seats of
authority, and in fact, “miserably destroyed” in the awful judgments that
overtook the city of Jerusalem. But when directed to the second part of the
statement, they stumble. “It shall be
given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” Most people
understand the taking, but what about the giving? The thing taken is the thing given; so, the kingdom of Israel,
which was taken from the chief priests and Pharisees, shall be given to “a
nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” This is self-evident. The only
question requiring settlement is as to who are the fruit-producing nation; and
this is easily answered. Jesus said to his disciples, “Fear not, little flock: for it is your Father’s good pleasure to
give YOU the kingdom” (Luke xii, 32). He further said, in answer to Peter’s
question, “Behold, we have forsaken all and followed thee; what shall we have
therefore?”
“I
say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration,
WHEN
the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of
his glory. YE ALSO SHALL
SIT
UPON TWELVE THRONES, JUDGING THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL”
(Matt.
xix, 27, 28).
Pg
313
Again,
when the disciples were assembled at the last supper, he said unto them : -“Ye
are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And 7
appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed
unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my
table in my kingdom, AND SIT ON THRONES, JUDGING THE TWELVE TRIBES OF
ISa.~EL” (Luke xxii, 28-30).
Here
is a complete identification of “the nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”
That nation consists of the disciples of our Saviour, who is himself at their
head as “THE HEIR.” They are styled by Peter (I Epist. ii, 9), “a chosen
generation, a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD, an holy nation, a peculiar people “; agreeing
with the testimony that they will yet inherit the kingdom of God which was
taken from the Pharisees, and which, though now in ruins, is to be restored in
glorious plenitude.
If
the disciples were so egregiously mistaken as they are supposed to be, in their
idea of Christ’s Kingdom, and the position which they should hold in it, it is
remarkable that we never read of any correction by Christ of that mistake.
There were three occasions which would have elicited such correction had it
been required.
The
first was when “the mother of Zebedee’s children” came with her two sons-James
and John-saying, “Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right
hand, and the other on the left, in thy
kingdom” (Matt. xx, 21). Now, according to the popular view, here was the
time to launch forth in condemnation of the earthliness and carnal misdirected
ambition supposed to be indicated in the request; and doubtless the Saviour,
-who was never slow to correct the misconceptions of his disciples, nor even to
rebuke with severity, would have done so if the request had really been of the
nature to call for it; but how different from anything of this kind is his
answer. Not a word of censure! not the softest whisper of implied rebuke!
Rather a direct and signal confirmation of the idea embodied in the fond
mother’s petition. “Ye know not what ye ask,” says he . . . “To sit on my right
hand and on my left, is not mine to give, BUT IT SHALL BE GIVEN to them for whom it is prepared of my
Father.” So that instead of pronouncing her request inadmissible, he
actually declares that the position requested will be given to those for whom it is prepared (verses
22,
23).
The
second occasion occurred after the resurrection. Jesus joined two of his
disciples as they walked to the village of
Pg
314
Emmaus
(Luke xxiv, 13), but held their eyes that they should not know him; and they
conversed with him on the subject of lis own death. In the course of
conversation, one of them, giving expression to the view shared by the
disciples generally, said: “We trusted
that it had been he WHICH SHOULD HAVE REDEEMED ISRAEL” (verse 21). Here
again was the time to explain their misconception, had it been such; but here
again there is an entire, absence of any remark of that nature. He uttered a
rebuke, but it did not refer to what they did believe, but to what did they did
not believe. “0 fools,” exclaimed he,
“and slow of heart to believe ALL that the prophets have spoken! Ought not
Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” (verses 25, 26). He reproached them for
disbelieving in his sufferings, and not for believing in his kingly glory.
The
third time was immediately prior to the ascension. It is stated in Acts i, 6,
that when Jesus and his disciples were come together, the disciples asked him,
saying, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore
again the kingdom to Israel?” They had had their eyes opened to the fact
and necessity of his sufferings; but seeing that these were now accomplished,
and that he had been gloriously resurrected from the dead, they evidently
thought that the time had at last arrived when their cherished hope of national
restoration under the Messiah should be realised; and so they asked him if he
would at that time bring their
desires to pass.
Now
it is a notable circumstance, that this question was put after Christ had
spoken to the disciples of “the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” during forty days (verse 3). This fact
suggests the supposition that the question was based on the teaching they
received during that time. At any rate, how was the question received? With
discouragement and rebuke? Nay:
but,
as in the previous case, with confirmatory answer: “It is not for you to know
the times or the seasons, which the Father
hath
put in His own power” (verse 7). This was equivalent to 4 affirming that “times
and seasons” had been provided for the
event
contemplated in their question-that is, that the event, “the restoring again of
the kingdom to Israel,” would really come to pass in process of time, but that
it was not proper for them to know when. How inappropriate would such an answer
have been, had their supposition as to the fact of such restoration been
mistaken.
But
the fact is, there was no question as to the event itself.
Pg
315
Jesus
had been enlightening them during forty days, in reference to it. Their enquiry
related purely to the time of the event, and his answer was confined to that
same thing. They supposed the event would then transpire. “They thought that
the kingdom of God should immediately appear” (Luke xix, 11). This was the
peculiar error of early times. They did not err in believing that God would
establish His Kingdom on earth, and that Christ should visibly manifest himself
as the “king over all the earth” (Zech. xiv, 9); for these things have been
abundantly testified in the prophets and proclaimed by Jesus himself. Their
mistake lay in supposing that they would be accomplished in their own day.
The
moderns have gone lust to the other extreme. They do not look for the kingdom of God at all. They magnify the
sacrificial into unscriptural proportions, and omit the kingly altogether. They
exclude the kingdom of God, knowing nothing of it, and believe in nothing
concerning it, while the death of Christ over-shadows and ensanguines every
doctrine in their religious system. The disciples only saw the king in Christ, and expected his
manifestation in their own times; the moderns only see, the sacrifice, and consider his mission
accomplished in the saving of supposed immortal souls at death.
The
mistake of the disciples was corrected in due time. The occurrence of Christ’s
crucifixion and subsequent resurrection and ascension, supplied the lack in
their knowledge, enabling them to see that the promised glories of the future
age were not attainable by mortal man without a sacrificial intervention- a
tasting of death for every man, by which “many sons might be brought to glory.”
But this addition to their knowledge did not divert their attention from these
glories. Far otherwise; the death of Christ, apart from its prospective
relationship, had no attractiveness; its interest and importance arose out of
its connection with the glorious result it achieved. So that instead of
shutting out the kingdom from their mind, it only intensified their
appreciation thereof, by showing them its value in the greatness of the
sacrifice necessary to secure it. It gave eagerness to their ardency, leading
them intensely to desire the consummation of “the glory to be revealed.” They
therefore said, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to
Israel?” They evidently had no idea of Christ leaving them again. They had
forgotten the many parables in which he had taught them his approaching departure
into “a far country” from which he should afterwards return, to take account of
his servants.
Pg
316
(Luke xix, 12; Matt. xxv, 14, etc.). Only one
feeling was uppermost in their minds-a desire that the kingdom of God should
immediately appear.
When,
therefore, “he was taken up and a cloud received him out of their sight, they
looked steadfastly toward heaven,” evidently struck with wonderment at the
unexpected and inexplicable occurrence. Christ taken away from them again! They
were utterly unable to understand the new disappointment. Their hope~ had been
raised to the highest pitch by a companionship of forty days, and the grief
which had overwhelmed them during their master’s incarceration in the tomb, had
been effaced by a sweet communion on “the things pertaining to the kingdom of
God “; and now again, their Lord and Master, their best friend, their hope and
salvation, he on whom their whole affection and the most yearning desire were
concentrated, had left them. What were they to do? They were again cast upon
the world; again thrown into perplexity. But this time relief was at hand :
-“Two men stood by them in white apparel, which also said, Ye men of
Galilee,
why stand ye gazing up into heaven? THIS SAME JESUS WHICH
IS
TAKEN UP FROM YOU INTO HEAVEN SHALL SO COME IN LIKE MANNER
AS
YE HAVE SEEN HIM GO INTO HEAVEN” (Acts i, 10, 11).
And
here begins the specific testimony iii support of the proposition of the
lectures. The disciples were comforted in their perplexity by being assured
that Jesus would come again; this was
the balm administered to their troubled spirits; this, the hope by which they
reconciled themselves to the absence of their Lord and Master. From that day
forward, it became the central doctrine around which all their teaching
revolved, the constantly prominent and essentially distinguished feature of the
glad tidings they proclaimed.
Jesus
himself had repeatedly taught them the doctrine of his return, even previous to
his crucifixion. The parable of the nobleman (Luke xix, 11, 12) was intended
for this very purpose, for it is said that he used it “because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately
appear.” Its teaching is very manifest : -“A certain nobleman went into a
far country, to receive for himself a
kingdom
AND TO RETURN. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds,
and said unto them, Occupy till I come .
And
it came to pass that WHEN HE WAS RETURNED, having received the kingdom, then he
commanded those servants to be called unto him.”
Pg
317
By
this the disciples were informed that Jesus should be taken up to heaven to do
a work of preparation, and be invested with power, and should afterwards return
to the earth, and THEN judge his servants; awarding to them the rulership of
ten cities, or the ignominy of a shameful rejection, according to their deserts
(see rest of the parable). It was an amplification of his other statement: “Thou shalt be recompensed AT THE
RESURRECTION OF THE JUST “-a resurrection which does not take place until “the
Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout” (I Thess. iv, 16). The
parable of the ten virgins is to the same purport. The absent bridegroom is put
for the ascended Christ, and the waiting virgins for those who “look for his
appearing.” Besides other parables of a like effect, Jesus had plainly said, “The days will come when the bridegroom
shall be taken from them (the disciples)” (Matt. ix, 15); and had assured’ them without a figure: “If I go and prepare a
place for you, I WILL COME AGAIN AND RECEIVE YOU UNTO MYSELF” ~John xiv, 3).
But
they were not able to understand the simple lesson, for the reason that Christ was with them, and they never
expected him to leave them. They could not see what his “return” could mean, when they knew
nothing of a going away; but when the days came that the bridegroom was taken
from them, “then remembered they his words.” The announcement of the angels
would doubtless revive the many lessons which Jesus himself had taught them as
to his purposed departure and his intended return to establish the kingdom; and
thenceforward did the second coming of the Lord become their cherished hope
-the great event to which
they looked for salvation. It was the thing they preached and wrote about, the thing they hoped
and prayed for, the top-stone of the system of faith which they promulgated.
Of
course, it did not, and could not exclude, but rather involved and necessitated
the doctrine of Christ’s sacrifice for sin, and the necessity for contrition
and personal regeneration; for the second coming of the Lord was only good news
to those who loved him, and who were prepared to meet him, and were fitted to
be with him. Yet it was the great doctrine to which the others were
subordinated. We find Peter teaching it in one of his first addresses after the
ascension of Christ: -“And He shall send
Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto
you,
whom the heaven must receive, UNTILL the times of restitution of all
pg
318
things, which God hath spoken by the
mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began” (Acts iii, 20, 21).
And
the same apostle, in writing to the elders among “the strangers scattered
abroad,” repeated the doctrine in the following connection : -“The elders who
are among you, I exhort, who am also an elder,
and
a witness of the sufferings of Christ; and also a partaker of the glory that
shall be revealed. Feed the flock of God. , . AND WHEN THE CHIEF SHEPHEIW SHALL
APPEAR, ye shall receive a crown of glory
that fadeth not away” (I Pet. v, 1, 2-4).
Thus,
as regards the immediate disciples of our Lord, it is proved beyond all
question, that his second coming was their great hope,-in fact, their only hope, for what other hope could
they have? They loved their master dearly, and knew that his return to them
would be their own deliverance from the imperfections of a sinful body, and the
afflictions of wicked men, and not only so, but the establishment on earth of
“glory to God in the Highest, and on earth peace, good-will toward men.” To
what other event, then, could they look with Christian hope than to the coming of Christ?
To
what other event could they look with any hope at all? No event in their
lifetime had promise for them; and what was there in death except a
lightning-bridge to the resurrection? For them it had none of the fascination
with which modern preaching has invested it. They did not recognise in “sudden
death” “sudden glory.” Death to them, instead of being the “portal of bliss,”
was “the gate of corruption.” It was the bondage of that hereditary mortality
from which Christ had come to deliver them-the bereaving grave-sleep in which
they should deeply slumber till the return of their master to wake them to an
incorruptible resurrection, when they should say, “0 death, where is thy sting?
0 grave, where is thy victory?”
No;
their hope was not death, but the return of the Lord, to which all their
personal hopes and fears, and all their expectations concerning the fulfilment
of God’s promises, inevitably directed them. Now, as it was with the apostles,
so did it become with those who were afterwards converted to the Christian
faith. The gospel preached, conveyed the same hopes which filled the bosoms of
the preachers. Having proffered immortality for its basis, Christ’s sacrifice
as the means presented for faith, and the promised kingdom as “the inheritance”
in which immortality would be enjoyed, it naturally led their minds to the
coming
Pg 319
of
Christ as the great realising event; for all the promises contained in it go
forward to “the revelation of Jesus Christ” as the time of fulfilment. Did Paul
desire to attain to the resurrection from among the dead? (Phil. iii, 11). He
expected to be included among “they that are Christ’s AT HIS COMING” (I Cor.
xv, 23). Did he look forward to “a crown of righteousness” to be received from
“the Lord, the righteous judge”? (II Tim. iv, 8). He did not expect its
bestowment till “HIS APPEARING and his
kingdom” (verse 1), referred to as “that day,” in verse 8.
Now,
were not these the hopes communicated in the Gospel to all who embraced it? Resurrection
to eternal life, and inheritance in the kingdom of God, is the salvation
offered to every son of Adam without distinction of age or station. If a man
receive that promised salvation in the sense of believing it, he “rests in
hope.” Of what? Of its fulifiment. He may labour in the work of
self-preparation with great devotedness-working out his own salvation with fear
and trembling; he may follow righteousness with ardour, nursing moral life with
enthusiasm; he may busy himself in the prosecution of every benevolent work,
and take delight in pressing the gospel upon the attention of his fellow men;
not only may do, but must do, if he
would be an accepted servant when his Lord comes to take account of his
stewardship; but what is the inmost feeling of his nature, if he be a true man?
Hope-nay, constant longing desire-for the salvation he preaches to others. That
is, tired of his own imperfections and faults as a perishable human being, he
yearns for the immortality promised, and grieved with prevailing perversion and
injustice, as politically and socially exemplified around him, he longs to be a
witness of and partaker in, the perfection of the kingdom of God.
Now
as these “things hoped for” cannot be attained till the coming of the Lord to
bring them to pass, is it not plain that that coming will be the uppermost
anticipation in his mind? It matters not that it is unlikely to occur in his
lifetime; because, whether he live or die, it will be the time of his
deliverance, and equally important as a matter of prospective contemplation a
thousand years before the event, as to a Christian contemporaneous with it.
It
is only the popular dogma of immortal-soulism, as involving the belief in a
conscious death-state in which spiritual destinies are sealed, that deranges
the harmony of New Testament teaching on this point. If Christians at their
death are really transported to heaven, to enjoy reward in the presence
Pg
320
of
the Saviour, the doctrine of his return to the earth cannot have any practical
interest for them, because their salvation is altogether independent of it.
They die, and are SAVED, according to
the common teaching; they go to heaven and see Christ; therefore, their
attention is naturally concentrated on death, as the great revealing event, and
diverted from the coming of Christ, which they come to look upon as a sort of
profitless and even questionable doctrine. In fact, ‘the great majority of
religious people go the length of rejecting it altogether, as a carnal conceit,
and interpret all references to it in the New Testament as meaning the
occurrence of death.
What
a mighty perversion! What fatal unbelief! -Yet the natural fruit of the corrupt
tree on which it grows. If popular belief as to the death-state be correct,
then the other is the logical result, and “orthodox” people who go to that
extreme, are only consistent. But take away the doctrine of the immortality of
the soul-the root of all evil in a theological sense- and harmony is restored.
We see the righteous dead asleep in corruption, and perceive the necessity of
the Redeemer’s advent to wake them to incorruptibility and life, and the
essential importance of that event as the object of hope during their lifetime.
We
are endeavouring to show that the second coming of Christ was the hope of
Christians converted by the preaching of the apostles. We shall now follow up
the arguments advanced by quoting a number of passages from the epistles
addressed to them in which the doctrine is set forth with a plainness which
must carry conviction to every ingenious mind : -“For the grace of God that
bringeth salvation hath appeared to all
men,
teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live
soberly, nghteously, and godly in the present world, looking for that blessed hope and THE GLORIOUS APPEARING OF THE
GREAT GOD AND OUR SAVIOUR, JESUS CHRIST” (Titus ii, 11, 12).
“For
our conversation is in heaven, from
whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall
change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body”
(Phil. iii, 20, 21).
“Christ
was once offered to bear the sins of many; and
unto them that look for Him SHALL HE APPEAR THE SECOND TIME, without sin
unto salvation” (Heb. ix, 28).
“When Christ, who is our
life, SHALL
APPEAR, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory” (Col. iii, 4).
“It
doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that WHEN HE SHALL APPEAR, we
shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (I John in, 2).
320
“Ye
tuined to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for His Son FROM HEAVEN, whom He raised from the dead”
(I Thess. i, 9, 10).
“Ye
come behind in no gift, waiting for THE
COMING OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST” (I Cor. i, 7).
“Be
patient, therefore, brethren, unto the
coming of the Lord
stablish
your hearts, for THE COMING OF THE
LORD draweth nigh” (James v, 7, 8).
“That
the trial of your faith being much more precious than of gold that pensheth,
though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise, and honour, and
glory, AT THE APPEARING OF JESUS CHRIST . . . Wherefore, gird up the loins of
your mind; be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is brought unto you
AT THE REVELATION OF JEsus CHRIST” (I Pet. i, 7-13).
“The
Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ” (II Thess. iii, 5).
“And
the Lord make you to increase and abound in love, one toward another, and
toward all men; even as we do toward you; to the end he may stablish your
hearts unblamable in holiness before God, even our Father, AT THE COMING OF OUR
LORD JESUS CHRIST, with all his saints”
(I
Thess. iii, 12, 13).
“Keep
this commandment without spot unrebukable, until
THE APPEARING of our Lord Jesus
Christ” (I Tim. vi, 14).
“And
now, little children, abide in him, that when
he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed be/ore him at his cOMING” (I John ii, 28).
“It
is a righteous thing with God, to recompense tribulation to them that trouble
you; and to you who are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty
angels” (II Thess. i, 6, 7).
“The
Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead, at HIS APPEARINO and
his kingdom. . . . Henceforth, there is laid up for me a crown of
righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me AT THAT DAY;
and not to me only, but unto all them
also that love his APPEARING” (II Tim. iv, 1-8).
It
is superfluous to comment upon these eloquent testimonies. Their scrupulous
explicitness leaves no room for argument. They show that the hope of the early
Christians was different from that of modern professors; that it laid hold of
the coming of the Lord as an object of personal solicitude. Jesus himself had
exhorted them to be watchful : -“ Behold,
I come as a thief; blessed is he that watchet/z” (Rev. xvi, 15). He had also said:- “Take heed to
yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and
druakenness, and cares of this life, and so
321
that
day come upon you unawares. . . . Watch ye, therefore, and pray always, that ye
may be accounted worthy to escape all these things, and to stand before the Son of Man” (Luke xxi, 34-36).
Now,
in the professing Christian world of the present day, we see none of this
anxiety about the second coming of Christ. There is a universal indifference to
it. One is reminded of the statement in the parable, “While the bridegroom
tarried, they all slumbered and slept.” Very
few care about the approach of the bridegroom; very few believe in it. When
spoken to about it, their language is practically that of the scoffers of whom
Peter wrote, “Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell
asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”
Ah, but the day comes when this apathy shall be rudely dispelled. “As a snare
shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth,” said
Jesus (Luke xxi, 35).
How
is it that men are so blinded to the most obvious doctrine of the New
Testament? Because, under the guidance of a false theory, they look upon death
as the eternal settlement of every man for weal and woe, whereas death settles
nothing. It Consigns us to darkness and silence, to await the coming of Chnst.
That is the great settling time “when God shall judge the secrets of men by
Jesus Christ” (Rom, ii, 16). Blessed are all they who are prepared for its
arrival. Happy are they who “look for his appearing “; thrice happy they who
“love it “; for it is only to such that he is to “appear the second time unto
salvation.”
Oh
reader! repent thee of thy worldly follies! Give heed to the good message that
speaks to thee out of thy Bible! Learn the truth from its neglected pages, and
casting thine errors and thy thoughtlessness behind thee, give obedience to the
heavenly requirements• and then wait with hope for the coming of the Son of
Man, that thou mayest be His in the day when he maketh up His jewels.
LECTURE 14
THE HOPE OF
ISRAEL, OR, THE
RESTORATION
OF ThE JEWS, A PART OF
THE
DMNE SCHEME, AND AN ELEMENT
OF
THE GOSPEL
OF
THE DIVINE SCHEME AND AN ELEMENT OF THE GOSPEL.
Fr
WILL seem a strange suggestion to most in these days, that there is any
connection between the gospel hope and an event so local in its character as
the restoration of the Jews to their own land (Palestine). Nevertheless, such a
connection exists, if we are to be guided by the Scriptures, rather than by
learned opinion or venerable tradition.
The
interest taken by “Christians,” as a body, in the Jews, is purely sentimental
in character, and it is very weak and purely retrospective. It arises from the
history of the Jews- from their national relation to the Deity in former times;
from their ancient mediumship as the channel of revelation; and from their
flesh-and-blood connection with the Messiah. It does not stretch into the
future, except in the form of professed solicitude for the spiritual interests
of the nation, in common with those of mankind in general. It recognises no
connection between their future and the salvation to be manifested in the
earth, but is rather in a mood to thank God for a future in which the Jew has
no place as such.
Now,
we shall see, before we get through this lecture, that the truth of God
justifies an interest of a much more practical kind than this. We shall find
that in the purpose of God, the salvation of the world is bound up in the
destiny of the Jews; that apart from their national glorification, such
salvation is a dream, to be realised neither by nations nor individuals,
spiritually nor temporally,-and that the man who is either ignorant or
sceptical of this coming future development, is darkened in his understanding
on one of the essential features of Christian teaching.
We
look at the evidence. Jesus said to his disciples, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of
Israel “ (Matt. xv, 24). That he meant the Jews is evident from another
statement-” Go not into the way of the
Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of
israel.” He further declared to the woman of Samaria, at Jacob’s well,
“SALVATION IS OF THE JEws” (John iv, 22). These passages alone show the
national restrictedness of the salvation proclaimed by Jesus and his apostles.
Jesus was a Jew, born in the house of David as the God-appointed heir of
David’s throne, and the apostles who laboured with him were also Jews. They
proclaimed a message which came from the God of the Jews, and which according
to the original instructions of Christ was only intended for the Jews.
Therefore, Paul could emphatically characterise the gospel as “THE HOPE OF
ISRAEL,” which he did in the words recorded in Acts xxviii, 20, “FoR THE HOPE
OF ISRAEL I am bound with this chain.” He could also make the following
statement with peculiar emphasis, in defending himself before Agrippa : -“And now I stand and am judged for THE
HOPE OF THE PROMISE
made of God unto our
fathers; unto
which promise our twelve tribes, instantly
serving God day and night, HOPE TO COME FOR WHICH HOPE’S SAKE KING AGRIPPA, I
AM ACCUSED OF THE JEWS” (Acts xxvi, 6, 7).
He
could also say with a truthfulness not generally appreciated :- “My kinsmen, according to the flesh, who are
Israelites, to whom
pertain the ADOPTION, and the glory, and the covenants, and the
giving of the law, and the service of God, AND THE PROMISES” (Rom. ix,
3-4).
Thus
it is evident that the salvation proclaimed for acceptance in the gospel is
intensely Jewish in its origin, its application, and its future bearing; and it
is equally evident that this was the light in which it was regarded by the
disciples after the day of Pentecost; for we read in Acts xi, 19, that “They
which were scattered abroad . . . travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and
Antioch, preaching the word to NONE
BUT UNTO THE JEWS ONLY.” The reader will also remember that Peter required a
special revelation to instruct him as to God’s proposed admission of the
Gentiles into the blessings of Israel, and even then he threw the onus of it
upon God. He did not attempt to justify it himself, but apologised to his
brethren for preaching to the Gentiles, saying, “What was I, that I could
withstand God?”
324
(Acts
xi, 17). The fact is, the admission of the Gentiles was one of the “mysteries
of the gospel.” This is evident from the statement of Paul, in Ephesians iii,
4-6 : -“Ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, which
in
other ages~was not made known Unto the sons of men as it is now revealed unto
His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and
partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel.”
But
this opening the way for the admission of the Gentiles did not destroy the
Israelitish character of “THE HOPE.” The effect was just the other way. Instead
of the Gentiles converting the hope into Gentilism by their reception of it,
the hope converted them into Jews, conforming them to its essentially
Israelitish character. Hence, says Paul, to those Ephesians who received it,
“Ye were without Christ, being aliens
from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise. .
. Now therefore ye are NO MORE STRANGERS AND FOREIGNERS, but fellow-citizens
with the saints and of the household of God” (Eph. ii, 12, 19). He further said
to the Romans, “HE IS A JEW which is one
inwardly” (Rom. ii, 29), that is, he who, being a Gentile by birth, has
become a Jew in heart, and taste, and hope, is more of a real Jew than the reprobate natural son of Abraham. Referring to
the admission of the Gentiles, he speaks of it as a cutting out of the olive
tree, which is wild by nature, and a
grafting contrary to nature, into the
good olive tree (Rom. xi, 24). Hence the Gentiles are “wild olive
branches,” without hope-without birthright-without promises-without a future
portion of any kind; and if they would become heirs of the inheritance to come,
they must cast off “the old man” of their Gentilism, and put on “the new man”
of true Jewism, “which is renewed in
knowledge after the image of Him that created him” (Col. iii, 10).
But
to come to a closer consideration of the subject: Paul says he was bound “for
the hope of Israel,” which is equivalent to saying that he preached it, seeing
that it was for his preaching that he was put in bonds. Now, if Paul proclaimed
“the hope of Israel,” it is clear that he did not preach the set of ideas which
now passes current in the popular churches as the gospel; for in what sense can
these ideas be said to be “the hope of Israel “?
What
hope has the gospel of orthodoxy for them?
It promises them no special blessings in connection with its final
develop325
ment.
On the contrary, it takes from them what hope they have. It tells them that
their Messiah is not coming, and that their hopes of national reconstitution
and aggrandisement under him, in their own land, are carnal and delusive. This
alone shows it cannot be the gospel which Paul preached, for the one which he
preached was “the hope of Israel.” Its essential feature was to be recognised
in a Jewish national hope, founded upon
certain promises made of God to the progenitors of the nation. Those
promises on which that hope was founded, constitute glad tidings, or gospel
proclaimed by - Jesus and the apostles for belief, and those who believed it
derived a specific hope from the things so proclaimed. Now, as the one truly
Christian hope arises from a reception of the doctrinal teaching of the gospel,
and since that is the basis of a Jewish
national hope, it must be very evident that there is an intimate connection
between the Christian hope and the hope of Israel. It is the purpose of this
lecture to point out that connection, and, in the doing thereof, to introduce
certain matters relevant thereto, which are essential to be known by all who
desire to attain to a true knowledge of what the Scriptures teach.
The
Jews are a people whose origin and history are pretty well known to intelligent
Scripture readers. Abraham, the member of a Chaldean family, was commanded to
separate himself from his people, and go into a land “which he should after receive for an inheritance” (Heb. xi, 8). He
obeyed, and went out, “not knowing whither he went.” He was afterwards informed
that his descendants would become a great nation, with whom God should have
special dealings, and who should be the special objects of His care. In the
course of time Abraham’s household went down into Egypt, and settled in that
country as a friendly colony. In the course of events, the Pharoahs enslaved
them, and subjected them to a bitter rule for more than two centuries. At the
end of that time, they were delivered through divine interposition by the hand
of Moses; and after various vicissitudes, they settled in the land of promise
under a divine constitution, which provided that so long as the nation was
obedient to its requirements, they would remain in the land in prosperity, but
that so soon as they departed from the statutes of God who had called and
constituted them, adversity would overtake them.
The
subsequent part of their history is summed up in a sentence; they failed to
observe the conditions of this national covenant, and were expelled from the
national territory in dis326
grace,
and scattered among the nations as fugitives, where they remain to this day.
Now,
the intelligence of ordinary professing Christians does not go beyond this general
outline of the history of the Jews. They look upon Jewish national history as
consummated, and the national destiny as irrevocably sealed. They take no
cognisance of any future in store for them, as affecting the world’s interest
in any form. They think that if the Jews turn orthodox Christians, and become
the disciples of the missionaries sent to convert them, well, they may return to their land; but whether
they do or not, it is no matter. “The Anglo-Saxons are the people leading the
van-and destined to become the civilisers and enlighteners of the whole world.
The Jews are nowhere; they are behind the age, and will very likely be absorbed
by the dominant people, who are rapidly filling the world with fruit.” This is
a prevalent sentiment; and to suggest (as is done in the subject of this
lecture) that the salvation of the world is in any way beholden to the
contemptible race of the Jews, is to incur the displeasure of patriotism, and
the patronising pity of the wise of this generation.
However,
an intelligent regard for the Scriptures of truth enables a man to endure these
unpleasant results. He is able to see the futility of human proposings when
they come into collision with God’s declared purpose. The great Disposer has
said, “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways “; and
this principle we see illustrated in the matter in hand. Human “ways” would
have extirpated the Jews from the earth centuries ago; but the Higher ways have
preserved them amid the fall of Gentile dynasties, and the annihilation of
Gentile races; and to this day they remain a distinct and indestructible people
though scattered among the nations of the earth. Human “thoughts” have
alienated the Jews, as a nation, from all further divine relationship; but the
Higher thoughts, while having for the time cast off Israel for their sins, have
decreed the ultimate disappearance of every other nation under heaven, and the
eternal preservation of the despised nation in closest communion with Himself
(Jer. xxx. 11). This will be brought into stronger prominence hereafter.
Meanwhile, the reader’s attention is directed to the following testimonies
regarding the national standing of the Jews before God : -“I the Lord am holy,
and have severed you from other people, that
ye should be MINE” (Lev. xx, 26).
327
“Thou
art a holy people unto the Lord thy God. The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a SPECIAL PEOPLE UNFO HIMSELF, above all
people that are upon the face of the
earth” (Deut. vii, 6).
“Thou
art a holy people unto the Lord thy God; and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a PECULIAR PEOPLE UNTO HIMSELF, above all nations that are upon the earth” (Deut.
xiv, 2).
“The
Lord hath avouched thee this day to be His PECULIAR PEOPLE, as He hath promised
thee; and that thou shouldest keep all His commandments, and to make thee high above all nations which
He hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour: and that thou mayest be a
holy people unto the Lord thy God” (Deut. xxvi, 18, 19).
It
would be difficult to give more emphatic expression to the idea of a special,
deliberate, and unconditional selection by God of the Jews as a people to
Himself. Who may cavil at it? “Hath not the potter power over the clay?” Hath
not the Eternal Creator, in His infinite wisdom, the right to develop His own
plans in His own way? The selection of the Jews is one feature of the plan
which He has conceived in relation to this world. This is incontestably proved
by the testimonies adduced. Nothing can undo that selection. “The gifts and
calling of God are without repentance.” The Jews themselves cannot nullify the decree. They may bring upon
themselves, as they have done, the divine displeasure and the divine affliction
by their sins, but they cannot alter their position before God as His chosen
nation. The very punish~nents which they have endured for many generations are
proof of the divine speciality of their national character. “You only have I
known of all the families of the earth; THEREFORE I will punish you for all your iniquities.” This is the language of
Jehovah toward them in Amos iii~ 2; the very calamities which have befallen
them are proofs of divine supervision and dealing. At present, they are in
dispersion, because of their iniquities, but not for ever cast off, as the
common idea is. Paul says, in Rom. xi, 2, “God hath not cast awa His people which He foreknew.” The testimony of
Jeremiah is still stronger. In chapter xxx, 11, we read:- “Though I make a full
end of all nations whither I have scattered thee,
yet will I not make a full
end of thee; but
I will CORRECT thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.”
The
national sufferings of Israel are but the measured
correclion to which God is subjecting them; they are not evidence that God
has finally rejected them. The language of Jehovah, in Jeremiah xxxiii, 24-26,
would imply that some, in ancient
times,
took a contrary view, and contended, as many who call themselves Christians now
do, that God had for ever disowned His people, and intended their destruction.
The answer is sublimely emphatic : -“Considerest thou not what this people have
spoken, saying, The two
families
which the Lord hath chosen He hath even
cast them off. Thus they have despised my people, that they should be no
more a nation before them. Thus saith the Lord, if my covenant be NOT with
day and
night, and if 1 have NOT appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth, THEN will I cast away the seed of Jacob and David
my servant.”
Again,
in Micah iv, 11, 12, we read : -“Now also many nations are gathered against
thee, that say Let her
be
defiled, and let our eye look upon Zion. But they know not the
thoughts of the Lord,
neither understand they His counsel; for He shall gather them (the nations) as the
sheaves into the floor. Arise, and thresh, 0 daughter of Zion; for I will make
thine horn iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass, and thou shalt beat in pieces many people.”
Again,
in Jeremiah II, 20:- “Thou art my battle-axe and weapons of war; for wit/i thee will 1
break in pieces the nations,
and with thee will I destroy kingdoms.”
These
are the very words of the Almighty. They show us that though the Jews are now
in a very feeble and degraded condition, they are destined to be the breakers
of all kingdoms under heaven. So that even Britain herself, with all her
national sensitiveness and pride, will have to submit to them, or be shivered
by the stone which shall then be made the head of the corner.
At
present, the Jews are suffering as a punishment for their sins. This was
foreshown by all the prophets. The predictions are too well known to require
quoting. The evidence of their truthfulness is before our eyes. We see it in
the wide-spread dispersion of the nation which was once the sovereign people of
the world; we behold it in the ignominy of their social position wherever they
are to be found, and in the reproaches and msults which the mocking Gentiles
heap upon them. Deep and heavy has been their draught of the cup of cursing and
woe, at the hands of the Avenger. They cried, “His blood be on us and on our
children,” and with blood and fire has their terrible invocation returned into
their bosoms. But are there no brighter days for Israel? Are their calamities
329
to
have no end? Is Jehovah’s anger to burn against them for ever? Let us hear the
prophet : -“Thus saith the Lord, like as
I have brought all this great evil upon
this people so will I bring
upon them ALL
THE GOOD THAT I HAVE PROMISED THEM” (icr. xxxii, 42).
Here
is a complete answer to the question. Its affirmation is that good will suceed the evil which is now upon them, which
implies that the present time of national adversity will come to an end. Let it
further be noted, that the good predicted is declared to have been “promised”:
“All the good that 1 have promised them.”
Now the question immediately suggested by the consideration of this
statement is, “what good has been promised them?” In answer to this, we read in
Jeremiah xxxiii, 14, 16:- “Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will
perform THAT
GOOD
THING which I have promised unto the
house of israel and to the house of Judah. In those days, and at that time,
will I cause the Branch of Righteousness to grow up unto David: and he shall
execute judgment and righteousness in the land. in those days shall Judah be saved, wrd Jerusalem shall dwell safely.”
Here
the “good thing promised” is briefly summarised. Its two main features are,-a
king to execute judgment and righteousness in
the land and the salvation of Judah and Jerusalem in his day. This is neither more nor less than a promise of the
Messiah to rescue them from their enemies, and to recover them from the
oppressions to which they have been subject for ages, a promise which is
repeated in the following words, in Ezekiel xxxvii, 22:- “I will make them one
nation in the land upon the mountains of
Israel
and one king shall be king to them all; and
they shall be no more two nations.”
It
is important to note the second element in the good thing promised: “In these days shall Judah be saved, and
Jerusalem shall dwell safely.” It must be evident to the most obtuse
intellect, that these days are yet to come; for, at present there is no Messiah
executing judgment in the promised land, and no dwelling safely of Judah and
Jerusalem, and never has there been such a state of things. Yet the promise is
that this “good thing” shall “come to pass,” with all the certainty of the evil
which has overtaken the nation; and this promise is not confined to this part
of Scripture, nor restricted to this language. We read in Jeremiah xxxi, 28 : -330
L
“It
shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to
break down,- and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict, so will 1 watch over them, to build and to
plant, saith the Lord.”
This
is to be in the days of the Righteous Branch, when “he shall reign and prosper,
and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth” for we find in Jeremiah
iii, 17, 18, as follows : -“At that time, they shall call Jerusalem the throne
of the Lord;
and
all the nations shall be gathered unto it; to the name of the Lord, to
Jerusalem, neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil
heart. IN THOSE DAYS, the house of Judah
shall walk
with the house of Israel;
and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that 1
have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.”
We
further read in Ezekiel xxxvii, 21:- “Thus saith the Lord God, Behold I will take the children of Israel
from among the heathen,
whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, AND BRING THEM INTO THEIR
OWN LAND.”
Again
in Ezekiel xxxvi, 24:- “1 will take you
from among the heathen, and gather you out of all
countries, and will BRING YOU iNro YOUR OWN
LAND.”
There
is no evading this language. It is too definitely worded to be spiritualised or
misunderstood. As if to preclude such a thing, it is put in the following
antithetical manner in Jeremiah xxxi, 10:- “Hear the word of the Lord, 0 ye
nations, and declare it in the isles
afar
off. lie that SCATrERED Israel will GATHER him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.”
In
the sense therefore, in which the Jews were scattered, will they be gathered.
They were driven from their own land, and dispersed among the nations; this was
the scattering. They will be collected from the lands among which they are now
distributed in disgrace, and re-settled in their land as a great nation; this
will be the gathering. Surely this is plain. The Jews are now a taunt and a
proverb, according to the prediction of Moses; but in their restoration, it
will just be the reverse. They will be supremely honoured in proportion as they
are now despised. We read in Zeph. iii, 19, 20:- “Behold, at that time I will
undo all that afflict thee, and I will save
her
that halteth, and gather her that was driven out; and I will get them praise and fame in every land where they have been put
to shame. At that time will I bring you again, even in the timo that I
gather you; for I will
331
make you a name and a praise
among all people of the earth, when 1 turn back your captivity before your
eyes, saith the Lord.”
Again,
Zechariah viii, 23 : -“Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, In those days it shall
come to pass
that
ten men shall take hold, out of all languages of the nations, even shall take
hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying,
We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.”
This
honour is connected with political supremacy. The Jews
-the
meanest, the weakest, the most despised people on the face of the earth, are to
become the most powerful and renowned among the nations, having all people in
subjection. This is evident from the following testimony : -“The Gentiles shall
come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of
thy
nsing: . . . and the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their
kings shall minister unto thee; for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour
have I had mercy on thee. Therefore, thy gates shall be open continually; they
shall not be shut day or night, that men may bring unto thee the forces of the
Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought. For (he nation and kingdom that will not serve thee SHALL PERISH; yea, those nations SHALL BE UTTERLY
WASTED. . . . The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of
thy feet; and they shall call the the city of the Lord, the Zion of the
Holy One of Israel. Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man
went through thee, I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many
generations” (Isa. lx, 3, 10-12, 14-15).
When
this shall come to pass, the enemies of Israel will be confounded. Those who
now deride them, and mock at their national hope, will be overtaken by the
retribution to which they are rendering themselves liable. The approaching
noontide of Jewish prosperity will be their destruction. The preliminary
symptoms of the change will fill them with panic. This is the testimony of the
following Scripture : -“The nations shall see and be confounded at all their might; they
shall
lay their hand upon their mouth; their ears shall be deaf. They shall lick the
dust like a serpent; they shall move out of their holes like worms of the
earth; they shall be afraid of the Lord our God, and shall fear because of
thee” (Mic. vii, 16, 17).
And
the fate they dread will overtake them, as is evident from the words of Isaiah,
chapter xlix, 25-26 : -“I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and
I will save
thy
children: and I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh and they
shall be drunken with their own blood as with sweet
332
wine;
and all flesh shall know that 1, the Lord, am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the
mighty one of Jacob.”
Again,
in Isaiah xli, 11, 12, we read:- “Behold all they that were incensed against
thee shall be ashamed and
confounded. THEY SHALL BE AS NOTHING; and they that strive with thee SHALL
PERISH. Thou shalt seek them and shall
not find them, even them that contended with thee. They that war against
thee shall be as nothmg, and as a thing of nought.”
Here,
then, is certain doom for all who now take part against Israel; but there is a
blessing in store for those who befriend them. “Blessed is he that blesseth
thee, and cursed is he that curseth thee.” This was the decree pronounced by
Balaam under the influence of the spirit, and declared to Abraham centuries
before. It is both individual and national in its application. Nations that
have been least rigorous in their persecutions of the Jews will, in all
probability, fare the best at the coming of Christ. England is first among this
class. She was among the persecutors of the chosen nation in the early part of
her history; but within recent centuries, she has loosened their bonds, and
granted free protection to their persons and property, and latterly she ha~
abolished their disabilities, and promoted them to the rank of citizenship, and
even admitted them to Parliament. Individuals who have looked with interest and
compassion upon the exiled race may expect a blessing when the scoffer’s brazen
voice is heard no more.
We
look upon the Jews in their present condition, and find them destitute of much
that is admirable. They seem the embodiments of sordidness and callousness.
This is a difficulty in the case at which many honest minds stumble. They say,
how is such a character to be reconciled with the coming blessing of Him who is
no respecter of persons, and who gives to every man according to his work?
There would be force in this inquiry if the restoration of the Jews were conditional
upon the moral condition of the nation. That it is not is evident from Ezekiel
xxxvi, 22, 32:- “I do not this for YOUR
SAKES, 0 house of Israel, but for mine
holy
name’s sake, which ye have
profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.”
“NOT
FOR YOUR SAKES do I this, saith the
Lord God, be it known unto you; BE ASHAMED AND CONFOUNDED FOR YOUR OWN WAYS, 0
house of Israel.”
At
the same time, though national restoration as a purpose of God is not
contingent upon national reformation, there will
333
be
a national purgation before that restoration is effected. Though they will be
gathered from the countries irrespectively of moral condition, they will not
necessarily obtain admission into the land. That admission is conditional with
every individual of the nation. This is evident from Ezekiel xx, 34-3 8 : -“I
will bring you out from the people,
and will gather you out of
the
countnes wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with stretched-out
arm, and with fury poured out; and I will bnng you into the wilderness of the
people, and there will I plead with you face to face. Like as I pleaded with
your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you,
saith the Lord God, And I will cause you
to pass under the rod, and 1 will bring you into the bond of the covenant, and
I WILL PURGE OUT FROM AMONG YOU THE REBELS AND THEM THAT TRANSGRESS AGAINST ME.
I will
bring
them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall NOT enter into
the land of Israel.”
In
this we recognise a parallel to what occurred to them after leaving Egypt under
Moses. They were then a rabble of untutored, unbelieving slaves; and a whole
generation, with the exception of two persons-Caleb and Joshua-perished in the
wilderness. They “entered not in because of unbelief,” says Paul (Heb. iv, 6).
So the Jews contemporary with the return of Christ, will be unfit to enter the
land; the event will find them in their present degraded and perverse
condition; and the purging described in the testimony above will be necessary.
That purging will take place in the wilderness, as in the days of Moses, and
may occupy the same period for its accomplishment, from what is stated in Micah
vii, 15: “According to the days of thy
coming out of the land of Egypt will I shew unto him marvellous things.”
Possibly, however, this expression, “according to the days,” may not refer to
length of the time, but to the character of the days. Be that as it may, the
following testimonies will, after the process, be fulfilled:- “Then shall ye
remember your own evil ways, and your doings that
were
not good; and shall lothe yourselves in
your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations” (Ezek. xxxvi,
31).
“Thy people also shall be ALL Rlomtous; they shall
inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands,
that I may be glorified” (Isa. lx, 21).
It
is sometimes objected that Palestine is too small to hold all the Jews. The
objection, however, proceeds on the erronous supposition that previous
generations of Israel, according to the flesh, will be resurrected for
restoration. We have no reason to
suppose
that there will be such a resurrection. The resurrection that occurs at the
manifestation of Christ the restorer, is limited to classes that cannot be
brought within the naUonal category- one too high and one too low, to be
comprised in the restoration of mortal Jews, namely (I), those who rise to
everlasting life, and to reign with Christ over both Jews and Gentiles; and
(2), those who rise to be condemned in shame to punishment and second death
(Dan. xii, 2; Jno. v, 29). The promised restoration is restricted to the
generation contemporaneous with the advent of the Messiah; and perhaps, even
they, as we have seen, will only be gathered to perish in the wilderness like
their forefathers in the days of the first exodus.
There
is no injustice done to previous generations, for we must remember that the
Jews are God’s people, only in a national
sense. They are His nation, whom He has chosen out of all other people on
the face of the earth. He has not selected them with a view to special benefit
individually. In respect of the salvation to be conferred through Christ, they
are on equal footing with the Gentiles; yet nationally, their relationship to
God is very special, as will be made manifest in the future age.
Now
from the testimony advanced, we learn : -1.-That the Jews are God’s chosen
nation.
2.-That
they are the repository of God’s promises.
3.-That
they are dispersed at present as a punishment for their iniquities.
4.-That
they are to be restored from their dispersion, and reinstated as a people in
their own land.
5.-That
all the enemies of Israel are to be destroyed, and
6.-That
the remnant of the nations are to become subject to the restored kingdom of
Israel, and to repair periodically to Jerusalem to do homage to the King of all
the earth, and to learn his ways.
This
is a summary of the things constituting “the hope of Israel,” for which Paul
was bound with chains; and who can fail to perceive that they are also the
bases of the believer’s hope, as set forth in previous lectures? The hope of
the believe’ is the coming of Christ, and the establishment of the kingdom of
God, involving the restoration of Israel. The hope of the Jew is the coming of
Christ, and the establishment of the kingdom of God. Hence their hopes are
identical, though their relation to it is, at first, slightly different. The
apostolic gospel is truly “the hope of Israel.” That gospel was, in reality, a
proclamation of a coming re-establishment of the kingdom of Israel under the
335
“greater
than Solomon,” and an invitation to all to become par-takers of Israel’s glory,
on certain specified conditions. No one, therefore, can Scripturally understand
the kingdom of God, which is the gospel hope, who is ignorant of the prophetic
teaching concerning the restoration of the Jews, for that restorajion is a most
essential element of its establishment. Were it Omitted, no kingdom of God,
such as is revealed, could be set up in the future age.
Yet
a certain class of well-meaning persons oppose the doctrine zealously. Taking
their stand upon certain statements in the New Testament, they maintain, with
great tenacity, that the restoration of the Jews is impossible. Now, we may
accept it as a first principle, that any New Testament deduction which is
diametrically opposed to the plain statements of the prophets, is erroneous,
for the writers of the New Testament said “none other things than those which
the prophets and Moses did say should come” (Acts xxvi, 22), and appealed to
them as their authorities. There can be no contradiction in writings dictated
by one and the same eternal Spirit; and, in fact, there is none. The New
Testament arguments against the restoration of Israel, are all based on
misconceptions of the statements on which they are founded. One of these is
Rom. ix, 6, 7:- “They are not all Israel which are of Israel; neither because
they are
the
seed of Abraham are they all children; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called.
That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children
of God; but the children of promise are counted for the seed.”
•Now,
this statement is in strict agreement with the prophets, without in any way
diminishing the force of their teaching in reference to the speciality of the
Jews as a nation, and their future natural restoration. It is absolutely true that all of Israel are not Israel-that thousands of the seed of
Abraham are not CHILDREN-and that the
divine principle is to count “the children of the promise” for the seed; and
this is exemplified individually and nationally. In the case of the Jews,
requirements such as circumcision, sacrifice, reverence for the name of God,
and numberless other things specified in the law, were laid down as conditions
of citizenship in the nation, and transgression was visited with expulsion. The
penalty attached to almost every statute was, “ That soul shall be CUT OFF from
his people.” Transgressors, therefore, though of Israel, were not Israel, even
under the law. A whole generation of such non-Israelites perished in the
wilderness; but this did not nullify the national election of
336
the
seed of Abraham (through Israel). It only showed that fleshly descent from
Abraham did not of itself constitute accepted Israeliteship-that it required
Abraham’s faith as well as Abra
ham’s
blood. . . -
Individually,
as well, in reference to the heirship of the kingdom, “the children of the
promise are counted for the seed.” No fleshly son of Abraham has a natural
title to the honour, glory, and immortality of the kingdom, covenanted. These
are reserved for a class developed on the principle of believing the promises. In this respect, “the flesh
profiteth nothing “; and even in respect of mortal citizenship, it profiteth
nothing, for, as we have seen, that privilege is not to be granted on mere
fleshly title. “I will bring you into the bond of the covenant, and I will
purge out from among you the rebels.” This is the prophetic declaration.
Thousands of Jews will be gathered from the countries who will never enter the
land. Yet this will not destroy their national relationship. Being Jews, whom
God has specially chosen as a nation, with a view to the development of His
ultimate purpose, they will every one be gathered in the preliminary restoration.
This is the declaration of Moses, who says : -“If any of thine be driven out
unto the outmost parts of heaven, from
thence
will the Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence will He fetch thee” (Deut.
xxx, 4).
Isaiah
gives similar testimony; he says : -“He shall set up an ensign for the nations,
and shall assemble
THt,.
OUTCASTS of Israel, and gather
together the dispersed of Judah from the
four corners of the earth” (chap. xi, 12). “And it shall come to pass in
that day, that the Lord shall beat off from the channel of the river unto the
stream of Egypt; and ye shall be gathered
ONE BY ONE, 0 ye children of Israel” (chap. xxvii, 12).
Thus
there will be an indiscriminate national restoration, without any reference to
moral condition, just as in the case of the tribes when delivered from Egypt by
the hand of Moses; because the nation, as a whole, is God’s by sovereign
election, and cannot alienate themselves from that relation, though they may be
rebellious, and render themselves obnoxious to His destroying judgments. Yet,
having been thus indiscriminately gathered, they are not at once settled in the
land, but, like their forefathers, in the day that they camc out of the land of
Egypt (see testimony already quoted from Ezekiel xx), are subject to an
expurgating process in the wilderness, from which none who are morally unfit
for the privilege of citizenship under the Messiah, shall escape.
337
“I
will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel.”
Thus,
even in the future national restoration of the Jews, the mere children of the
flesh are not counted for the seed, but those of faith who shall be developed
by the probation in the wilderness. It must then be obvious that it is a very
short-sighted construction of Paul’s words, indeed, which WOdld use them to
destroy the doctrine of Jewish national restoration. It is a construction to
which he himself would strenuously object, were he now alive, for he has left
his mind on the subject on record. Speaking of his “kinsmen according to the flesh, who are
Israelites” (Rom. ix, 3), he says : -“Blindness in part is happened to Israel,
UNTIL the fu!ness of the
Gentiles be come in; and so all Israel SHALL BE SAVED; as it is written, There shall come out
of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. . . . As touching
the election, THEY ARE BELOVED FOR THE FATHER’S sAKE; for the gifts and
calling of God are without repentance. .. . If the fall of them be the riches
of the world and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles, how much more THEIR FULNESS? If the
casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, WHAT SHALL THE RECEIVING
OF THEM BE, but life from the dead?” (Rom.
xi, 25, 26, 28, 12, 15).
Here
Paul contemplates an approaching Jewish “fulness,”
“a receiving again,” a national change, “when the fulness of the Gentiles
be come in,” and warns the Gentiles in view of this not to boast against the
Jews in the wisdom of their own conceit (verse 25). This lets us into Paul’s views on the subject of the
restoration of the Jews. The prophets and Moses as we have seen, foretell the
glorious restoration and national restitution of the veritable nation that has
suffered the vengeance of the Almighty for nearly twenty centuries. How then
could Paul, who spake none other things than they (Acts xxvi. 22), inculcate
principles entirely subversive of their teaching? It is only partial knowledge
or positive ignorance that leads men to erect a system of doctrine on the New
Testament that contradicts the plainest testimonies of the “holy men of God,”
who “spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
There
are other objections frequently urged of an equally baseless nature, but the
limited space at disposal prevents the notice of them. Enough has been said to
show that the restoration of Israel is one of the main features of the divine
purpose to be developed in the future-that the kingdom of God cannot be
established without its accomplishment, and that, in fact, it
338
is
an element in the grand event on which the world’s salvation depends.
“Salvation is of the Jews,” nationally and individually. It is important then
to understand this element of the truth of God, that by our enlightenment, we
may be enabled to put off our Gentilism, and become related to a higher
polity-even the commonwealth of Israel-in which, being “Abraham’s seed,”
we
shall be “HEIRS ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE.”
LECTURE 15
COMING TROUBLES
AND THE SECOND
ADVENT
THE
SUBJECT of this lecture is one that has no charm for the generality of mankind.
Men do not like to think of coming judgment. It is not congenial to their
tastes. The expectation of them, still more the enunciation of them, is
regarded as indicative of a low-born and vulgar fanaticism. Refinement is supposed
to be shown by the more popular idea that the world will gradually hush into
millennial tranquillity without disturbance to the present order.
It
is possible to give a perfectly reasonable hypothesis of this state of public
sentiment. But it is not particularly worth the time necessary. It will be a
better plan to show that a belief in coming troubles, as the precursors of
Christ’s approaching manifestation on earth in power and great glory, is the
inevitable consequence of practical faith in the Bible as the revealed will of
God. Any Imputation therefore, arising from such a belief, is against the
Bible, and not against the subject of the belief; for there is a marked
difference between gratuitous fancy, and intelligent conviction arising from
credence accorded to authority.
In
former lectures, we have seen that it is the purpose of God to send Jesus
Christ to the earth again for the purpose of destroying all kingdoms that
exist, and setting up a kingdom of His own that will be universal and never ending.
Our attention is flow directed to the circumstances attendant upon this
prodigious change in the world’s history. Will the change from the kingdom of
men to the kingdom of God be instantaneous, or the slow result of a universal
process? Will Christ steal upon the earth in a time of peace, and quietly
destroy the powers of the earth, with their armies, in a single night, as in
the case of the Assyrians in the days of old? Or, will he be manifested when
wars are rife, and trouble abroad? The testimony is very explicit on this point
: -
At
that time, “there shall be a time of
trouble, SUCH AS NEVER WAS SINCE THERE WAS A NATION EVEN TO THAT SAME TIME”
(Dan. xii, 1).
“Upon
the earth (shall be) distress of nations with perplexity; the sea and the waves
roaring; men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things
which are coming upon the earth” (Luke xxi, 25, 26).
“Thus
saith the Lord of Hosts, Behold, evil
shall go forth from nation to nation, and a great whirlwind shall be raised
up from the coasts of the earth. And the slain of the Lord shall be at that
day, from one end of the earth even Unto the other end of the earth” (Jer. xxv,
32, 33).
These
testimonies answer the question. They show that the change which will introduce
the kingdom of God on earth will be accompanied by troubles on a scale without
parallel in history; that the whole world will be involved in political
difficulties, and suffer from the many evils incident to such a condition. But
we shall find that another element of trouble will characterise the times of
the second advent-that God Himself will operate in visible judgment upon the
nations of the earth- that natural perplexities will be supplemented by
miraculous retributions. The testimonies to this effect are numerous and
emphatic; and as the entire argument hinges upon them, they deserve the most
thoughtful consideration. We read in Jeremiah xxv, 30, 31:- “Therefore prophesy
thou against them all these words, and say unto
them,
The Lord shall roar from on high, and utter his voice from his holy habitation;
he shall mightily roar upon his habitation. He shall give a shout as they that
tread the grapes, against all the
inhabitants of the earth. A noise shall come even to the ends of the earth;
for the Lord hath a CONTROVERSy with the nations; he WILL PLEAD WITH all flesh, he will give them that are wicked
to the sword.”
Here
is a direct pleading with “all flesh,” on the part of the Almighty, and the
extirpation of the wicked from among men. History supplies no record of such an
awful transaction. The time of its accomplishment will appear from the next
testimony:
“Behold
the name of the Lord COMEFH FROM FAR,
burning with his anger, and the burden thereof is heavy; his lips are full of INDIGNATION, and his tongue as a devouring fire; and his breath as an
overflowing stream, shall reach to the midst of the neck, to sift the nations
with the sieve of vanity” (Isa. xxx, 27, 28).
Who
is “the name of the Lord” personified in this quotation from Isaiah? We hear
the answer when we listen to him who said, “I am come in my Father’s name” (John v, 43), and of whom it is written,
“There is NONE OTHER NAME under heaven
341
given
among men, whereby we must be saved “; viz., Jesus the Christ, the anointed
God-with-us-the Word made flesh-a name of God provided for the investiture of
the naked sons of men. The prophecy represents him as “coming FROM FAR.” What
is the meaning of this? We find it explained in Christ’s parable to his
disciples, which is recorded in Luke xix, 12-27-” A certain nobleman went into
a FAIt COUNTRY to receive for himself a kingdom, and to RETURN.” Hence, Jesus
(the nobleman), returning from heaven (the far country), is “The name of the Lord coming from far.”
Now
in what character is he revealed, according to the prophecy? “His lips are full
of indignation, and his tongue as a devouring fire.” Or take Paul’s
representation: “The Lord Jesus shall be
revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire TAKING
VENGEANCE on them that know not God, and
that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ “; which is in agreement
with the statement in Isaiah xi, 4: “He shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth: and with the breath of
his lips shall he slay the wicked.” Finally,
we contemplate the picture symbolically elaborated in Rev. xix, 11-16- “And I
saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse; and he that
sat
upon him was called Faithful and True; and in righteousness he doth.
judge
and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns:
and he had a NAME WRITrEN that no man knew but
he
himself; and he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood; and his NAME is
called the WORD OF GOD. And their armies which were Ifl heaven followed him
upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean; and out of his mouth
goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite
the nations~ and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; and he treadeth the winepress of the
fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture, and on
his thigh a name written, King of Kings and Lord of Lords.”
Having
seen that “the name of the Lord coming from far, burning with his anger,”
answers to the approaching advent of Christ to take vengeance, it will be
profitable to cite other testimonies to show that this doctrine of coming
judgment is the uniform teaching of the Spirit in the word, and not a mere
inference from some isolated expressions. We read in Isaiah lxvi, 15, 16:- “Behold the Lord wIll come with
fire, and with his chariots, like a
whirlwind,
to render }n~ ANGER with fury, and his rebuke with flames of
fire. For by fire and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh; and
THE
SLAIN OF THE LORD SHALL BE MANY.”
again,
Psalm 1, 3-6 : -
“Our
God shall come and shall not keep silence: a
fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about
him. He shall call to the heavens from above and to the earth, that he may
judge his people. Gather my saints together unto me, those that have made a
covenant with me by sacrifice. And the heavens shall declare his righteousness;
for God is judge himself.”
Further,
in Mal. iv, 1, 2 : -“Behold the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud,
yea, all that do wickedly, SHALL BE STUBBLE; and the day that comet/i shall BURN THEM
UP, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it
shall leave them neither root nor branch. But unto you that fear my name
shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with
healing in his wings.”
To
a similar purport, Jer. xxx, 23, 24 : -“Behold the whirlwind of the Lord shall
go forth with fury-a continuing whirlwind; it
shall fall with pain upon the head of the wicked. The fierce anger of the
Lord shall not return until he hath done it, and until he hath performed the
intents of his heart; IN THE LATFER DAYS YE SHALL CONSIDER IT.”
Again,
Psalm xxi, 9 : -“Thou shalt make them (his enemies) as a fiery oven in the time
of
thine
anger; the Lord shall swallow them up in his wrath; and the fire shall devour
them.”
“Upon
the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and a horrible tempest:
this shall be the portion of their cup” (Psa. xi, 6).
“And
I will send a fire on Magog, and among them that dwell carelessly in the Isles:
and they shall know that I am the Lord” (Ezek. xxxix, 6).
“And the slain of the Lord
shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the
earth. They
shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried. They shall be dung upon
the ground” (Jer. xxv, 33).
Surveying
these testimonies as a whole, we find that they reveal two separate stages in
the “coming troubles.” First, there is “distress of nations “-“ evil going
forth from nation to nation”
-and
“men’s hearts failing them for fear,” etc.-which may be designated as the
natural stage; and second, a divine manifestatation in the person of the Son of
Man (who is “the name of the Lord “) accompanied by sweeping judgments of fire
and sword which will destroy large masses of mankind: which may be considered
as the supernatural. The former precedes the latter. Hence, as the first indication
of the approach of the end, we must look for times of trouble and commotion on
the earth.
When
natural troubie has advanced to a certain point, the Lord
343
Jesus
will be revealed, no longer as “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the
world,”-” a Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief,” but as “the Lion of the
tribe of Judah, treading the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty
God,”- taking vengeance on this unbelieving generation. The vengeance in
relation to mankind as a whole will be destruction to the majority, and
discipline to the remnant. Multitudes will perish by war and pestilence;
multitudes more will fall victims to the fire which will descend, after the
manner of the judgments upon Sodom and Gomorrah; and the flames that consumed
the military companies that went to bring Elijah from the top of the mount.
“The slain of the Lord shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto
the other end of the earth.”
The
earth’s population will be greatly thinned; its reprobate elements expurgated,
leaving a residue composed of the meek and submissive, and well-disposed of
mankind, who will constitute the willing subjects of Messiah’s kingdom,
referred to in Isaiah ii, 3; Jeremiah iii, 17; Micah iv, 2; and Zechariah xiv,
16, as the nations which shall go up “to the house of the God of Jacob,” at
Jerusalem, to learn of His ways, and walk in His paths, walking no more after
the imagination of their evil hearts.
But
this result will not be at once developed. The subjugation of the world is a
matter of time. When Christ comes, the powers will league themselves against
him. This is evident from Rev. xix 19: “I saw the beast, and the kings of the
earth, and their armies, gathered together to
make war AGAINST him that sat on the
horse, and against his army.” This is after his descent from heaven (see
verse 11). It may be thought incredible that nations should be so infatuated as
to attempt to oppose the movements of omnipotence. The answer is, that what has
been may be again. The Egyptians did not succumb before the unmistakable
evidence of divine working, but madly pursued Israel after they left Egypt, and
came to perdition in the Red Sea. It is not at all improbable that the powers
on the Continent may look upon Christ as some new Mahomet-some fanatical caliph
bent upon the project of universal conquest. Under this impression they will
combine to put him down; but their misguided efforts will recoil upon their own
heads to their destruction : -“The nations shall rush like the rushing of many
waters, but God
shall
rebuke them: and they shall flee afar off; and shall be chased as the chaff of
the mountains before the wind; and like thistledown before the whirlwind.
Behold at eventide trouble; and before the morning HE IS NOT” (Isa. xvii, 13, 14).
344
“He
that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore
displeasure” (Psa. ii, 4, 5).
“The
Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. He
shall judge among the heathen; he shall fill the places with dead bodies. He
shall wound the heads over many countries” (Psa. cx, 5, 6).
“It
shall come to pass in that day that the Lord shall punish the host of the high
ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. They shall be
gathered together as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in
the prison (viz, the grave: Zech. ix, 11); and confounded, and the sun ashamed,
when the Lord of Hosts shall reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before
his ancients gloriously” (Isa. xxiv, 21-23).
“The
adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall be
thunder upon them (then the sequel). The Lord shall judge the ends of the earth
and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed
(or Christ)” (I Sam. ii, 10).
Also,
let Zeph. iii, 8, and Haggai ii, 6, 22, be consulted, as well as other
Scriptures, which may be found on search. Thus the attempt on the part of the
“constituted” powers to resist the new-risen Eastern monarch, will result in
their utter discomfiture. Their audacity will meet with terrible retribution.
The entire system of human government which they represent will be shivered to
atoms, and the invincible autocracy of the Greater than Solomon will be
asserted and universally established.
This,
however, will not be accomplished in an instant. God could annihilate the power
of the enemy in a moment, and at once clear the ground for the erection of His own
power in the earth; but there would then be no scope for the intended
punishment of this wicked world, and no depth in the moral effect upon “the
remnant.” God could at once have destroyed the Egyptians and liberated the
captive Israelites; but then the lesson which was intended to be wrought for
all time would not have beeen graven sufficiently deep; the Jews would have
carried away but an indistinct idea of the greatness and omnipotence of
Jehovah; and the historical name of God, which is one of the buttresses of our
faith, would have been ill-remembered. The divine workings are always
characterised by comprehensiveness of aim, and it is only ignorance of the
purpose that engenders contempt for the means. In the collision, then, which
will take place at the end, between the powers of this world and Christ, the
man whom God hath appointed to judge the world in righteousness, man
345
will
be allowed to go his utmost length, and to put forth his power in the vain
attempt to vanquish unsuspected omnipotence. This will give time for the moral
operation of the judgments which will be brought to bear in their suppression :
-“WHEN thy judgments are in the earth, the
inhabitants of the world
will learn righteousness” (Isa. xxvi, 9).
“All
nations shall come and worship before thee; FOR THY JUDGMENFS ARE MADE
MANIFEST” (Rev. xv, 4).
Many
laborious campaigns will probably take place before complete subjugation is
effected. The governments of the earth will struggle with desperation to
preserve the human regime from
threatened annihilation. They will fight to the last, and will hope till
expiring hope goes out in the complete triumph of the Lamb, “who shall overcome
them.” During the interval which will thus be occupied, a righteous and
submissive people will be developed by means of the judgment manifested who
will be glad to hail the inauguration of the new government, which will be
universally established upon the ruins of “the kingdoms of this world.”
What
will be the position of Christ’s own people at this crisis, those who now and
in all ages “look for his appearing,” being “like unto men that wait for their
Lord”? It is clear that they are not left among the nations during this
dreadful time of trouble; they are with “the Lamb,” as is evident from Rev.
xvii, 14: “These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome
them; for He is the Lord of lords and King of kings, and they that are WITH him are
called, and chosen, and faithful.” Who are “they that are with him”? The answer
appears in the next testimony: “The Lord my God shall come, and all THE SAINTS with thee” (Zech. xiv, 5).
The
saints co-operate with Christ in executing the judgments written. This honour
is in reserve for them all. It will be their privilege “to execute vengeance
upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with
chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the
judgment written: this honour have ALL HIS SAINTS” (Psalm cxlix, 7-9). This
“honour” will be sustained at the time contemplated in the words of Daniel,
chap. vii, 22: “JUDGMENT was given to the
saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.” Paul reminds the Corinthians of
this approaching elevation of the saints to the judgment-seat: “Do ye not know
that the saints shall judge the world? and
if the
346
world
shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye
not that we shall judge angels? How much more things that pertain to this
life”? (I Cor. vi, 2, 3). It is also seen by John in vision, as recorded in
Rev. xx, 4: “I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them.”
Thus
it is obvious that in the closing judgment-scenes of this dispensation, the
saints will be associated with the Lord Jesus in destroying the political,
ecclesiastical, and social systems which aggregately constitute “this present
evil world.” This is a work of devastation for which the mere religious
sentimentalists of the age would be unfit. It will involve much destruction of
life, after the wholesale example of the flood, and develop a time of trouble,
such as never has been witnessed since there was a nation on earth-” a day of
darkness and gloominess-a day of clouds and thick darkness-the great and
dreadful day of the Lord.” Widespread will be the desolations produced; bloody
and scathing the judgments ministered at the hands of Jesus and the saints. “
The lofty looks of man shall be humbled; and the haughtiness of men shall be
bowed down; and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day; for the day of the
Lord of Hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every
one that is lifted up, and he shall be brought low... . They shall go into the
holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the Lord, and
for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth”
(Isa. ~ 11, 12, 19).
It
must be obvious, then, that before this judgment period commences, the saints
will be removed from the spheres which they occupy in the world; otherwise they
would not be with Christ, and would be involved in the general troubles, which
is contrary to the words in which they are addressed in Isaiah xxvi, 20, 21:-
“Come, my people, enter thou into thy
chambers, and shut thy doors
about thee: hide thyself, as it were,
for a little moment, until the
indignation be overpast; for, behold, the Lord cometh out of his place to
punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth, also, shall
disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain.”
The
mode of this “entering into the chamber, and shutting the door” to hide, is
made apparent in the New Testament; first, by reference to Matt. xxv, 10, where
we read “They that were ready went in with him to the marriage, and the door was shut”: and second, by
reference to Rev. xix, 7, 8, where we find that this marriage is the reunion
between Christ and his people at his
347
coming.
This is further manifest from the teaching of Paul in I Thess. iv, 16-17:- “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; AND SO SHALL WE EVER BE WITH
THE LORD.”
This
is referred to in II Thess. ii, 1, as “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him.” The
first event that takes place, then, after the return of the Lord from heaven,
is the “gathering together” of all His saints to him, including the dead of
past ages, who shall have been raised for the purpose. This gathering together
is to judgment. Paul says: “We (brethren) must all appear before the
judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his
body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (II Cor. v,
10); and the parables which Christ spake on earth, illustrative of his then
approaching departure to heaven, and his subsequent return, have this
characteristic: “And it came to pass that when
he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants TO BE CALLED UNTO HIM, to whom he
had given the money.” (Luke xix, 15).
From
all this, it appears, that on his return, his dead servants will be raised, and
his living servants gathered with them from every part of the earth where they
may be scattered, to be arraigned before him, that he may “take account of
them” (Matt. xviii, 23). He will approve of some, and reject others: the latter
will be sentenced to share in the judgments which will descend upon the
apocalyptic “beast and his armies,” or sin, as politically and ecclesiastically
incorporate in the powers that will “make war with the Lamb” and his army; the
former will be admitted to the marriage ceremony, in which they will be
confessed?.:’ before the Father and all the holy angels” (Matt. x, 32; Rev. Hi,
5), and will thenceforward “follow
the Lamb whithersoever he goeth” (Rev. xiv, 4), and co-operate with him in the
infliction upon the nations of that “judgment written” which was treated of in
the earlier part of the lecture.
All
this takes place before divine judgments commence, but not before that
“distress of nations with perplexity,” which is the preliminary symptom of the
approaching “time of trouble, such as never was.” That state of political
embarrassment will. probably, prevail for a considerable time before the saints
are
348
called
away to the reckoning, and men will only consider it a repetition of commotions
that have many times recurred in the course of history. They will only look to
its proximate cause. They will never suspect that a divine hand is guiding the
development of events, or that “the judge is nigh, even at the door.” They will
never dream that the world is on the verge of the most awful crisis that has
ever occurred in its history-that, divine indignation, long restrained, is
about to visit the world in destroying judgments that will break up the entire
system of human society, as politically, ecclesiastically, and socially
organised.
But
like the little hand-cloud presaging the coming storm, the saints will be
removed at a particular juncture of affairs without previous intimation. In all
probability, the event will be so inconspicuous as to attract little attention.
All that the world in general will know of it will be that a few obscure
individuals, holding “fanatical” doctrines, have mysteriously disappeared; few
will ever seriously suppose that there is anything supernatural in the
occw~rence. Theories of the phenomenon will be ready to hand, and the incident
will be forgotten-at least by the majority. Some who happened to know that this
expected removal was part of the doctrine of these fanatical people, may be
unable to quell a certain feeling of uneasiness which will trouble their
breasts; but the world at large will be unaffected, and will move on to the
destruction that awaits it at the revelation of Jesus with all his saints.
For
the sake of clearness, it will be well to summarise the events already spoken
of, in their chronological order : -1st.-” Upon the earth distress of nations,
with perplexity,”
arising
from the complication of international politics, described as “evil going forth
from nation to nation,” and producing a failing of heart among men (Luke xxi,
26; Jeremiah xxv, 32).
2nd.-The
coming of Christ as a thief (Rev. xvi, 15),
after the development of certain events to be spoken of hereafter.
3rd.-Resurrection
of” the dead in Christ.”
4th.-The
gathering of the saints to Christ from all parts of the earth, including the
living and those who have been dead.
Sth.-The
judgment of His servants, comprising the rejection of the unworthy; and
acceptance of the “good and faithful “; the sending away of the former into the
territory of the nations on whom judgment will descend, and the uniting of the
latter as
349
“the
bride made ready,” in glorious marriage, to the long absent but then arrived
bridegroom.
6th.-War
between the “powers that be,” and the Lamb, who shall overcome them.
7th.-Heavy
judgments inflicted on the nations by Jesus and the saints, producing great
slaughter over all the earth, and resulting in the complete abolition of the
existing order of things, and in the teaching of righteousness to men.
8th.-Setting
up of the kingdom of God, which will last for a thousand years, and then
undergo a change in its constitution, adapting it to the necessities of the
eternal ages beyond.
This
is a general outline of the events which will occur at “the end,” in connection
with the establishment of the kingdom of God. It is deficient, however, in one
important respect; it does not embrace those events which constitute the occasion of the Messiah’s thief-like
advent, and takes no note of the political signs which are revealed in
Scripture as the premonitory indications of the near approach of the end.
These, with the question of how near the world probably lies to the great
crisis, will be dealt with in the next lecture.
LECTURE 16
TIMES AND SIGNS:
OR THE EVIDENCE THAT THE END IS NEAR
(The reader is referred to
the Foreword to this edition regarding
the time periods mentioned
in this lecture)
THERE
ARE many signs abroad indicative of the near approach of that interference of
God in the affairs of men, which will result in changing the kingdoms of this
world into “the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ” (Rev. xi, 15). To discern them, history and
prophecy must be known and understood to some considerable extent. These are
the two great lights which reveal the bearing of current events. Without them,
a man will neither recognise nor be interested in “the signs of the times.”
Our
first inquiry must be in reference to “times and seasons.” This is the key to
the whole subject, for if we have no clue to our whereabouts in the Gentile
era, and no knowledge of the length to which that era will run, it is obvious
we have no reason for believing ourselves in the neighbourhood of the end, and
nothing to justify us in seeking to find in contemporaneous events the signs
that attend and usher in that end. On one point there can be no difference of
opinion, and that is, that whether understood or not, there are in the
Scriptures distinct specifications of time in relation to the events of the
future. The best proof of this is to be found in the following quotations: -“Thou
shalt arise and have mercy upon Zion, for the time to favour
her,
yea THE SET TIME is come” (Psa. cii, 13).
“The
vision is yet for an APPOINTED time, but at
the end it shall speak and not lie” (Hab. ii, 3).
He
(the little horn) shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear
out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws, and they
shall be given into his hand until a time
and times, and the dividing of time” (Dan. vii, 25).
“How
long shall be the vision9 And he said
unto me, Unto two thousand and three
hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed”
(Dan.
viii, 13, 14).
“From
the time that the daily sacrifice shalT be taken away, and the abomination that
maketh desolate set up, there shall be a
thousand two hundred and ninety days” (Dan. xii, 11).
“The
holy city shall they tread under foot forty
and two months” (Rev. xi, 2).
“To
the woman were giver two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the
wilderness, into her place where she is nourished, for a time and times and half a time, from the face of the serpent”
(Rev. xii, 14).
These
passages prove two things: first, that “a set time” exists in the mind of the
Deity for the consummation of His purpose-a conclusion which must commend
itself to every mind realising the fact that God knows all things from the end
to the beginning; and, second, that He has given a revelation of “times and
seasons.” This revelation may at first sight be obscure, but the fact of its
having been given cannot be denied in view of the before-cited quotations. This
being so, there arises the presumption that they are capable of being
understood, since, as a .matter of revelation, they could be given for no other
purpose.
We
have, however, to notice the qualifications with which this conclusion is
divinely associated. We refer to the words addressed to Daniel: “None of the
wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand” (Dan. xii, 10). This
would imply not only that uprightness is necessary, but also that the matter is
not communicated in such a form as to be apprehended on the surface of it, but
requires the qualification of “wisdom” to elucidate the hidden meaning.
We
would also quote words of similar purport occurring in the Apocalypse: “Here is
wisdom; let him that hath understanding count the number of the
beast “; showing that the matter as presented was an enigma requiring to be
unlocked by the keys of knowledge. In view of this, we need not be surprised at
the mistakes that have from time to time been made in the interpretation of the
times and seasons. Numberless and outrageously absurd theories have, in all
ages of the world, been put forward on the strength of what is written on times
and seasons. Dates have been fixed, and events predicted which time has falsified.
352
This
fact has staggered weak minds, and induced contempt and scepticism in reference
to the whole subject. Even many of the devout have become disgusted, and refuse
to give credence to anything advanced on the subject; but this must surely be
admitted to be evidence of short-sightedness rather than of wisdom.
There
is a great difference between incompetent interpretation and essential
absurdity in the nature of the matter interpreted. No devout mind, receiving
the word of God in all sincerity, as the manifestation of His mind for the
enlightenment of His servants, will be content to accept the fooleries of the
past as a disproof of the intelligibility of what God has made known; but under
the conviction that underneath the misunderstood enigmas of His word, there lie
important facts which He would have us understand, will anxiously endeavour to
penetrate the obscurity which has baffled others, and get at the mind of God in
a matter so important in its bearings on our mental relation to the purposes of
God.
Some
people imagine that the New Testament bars the way against all enquiry on the
subject of times and seasons; but on examination this will appear to be a
mistake. It is true that Jesus said to his desciples, “It is not for you to
know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power”
(Acts i, 7); but this had a special bearing on the time and the persons in
reference to whom the words were uttered, in no way conflicting with the
present enquiry.
They
were spoken to the disciples on the eve of his ascension at a time when they
needed such words. Their minds were filled with solicitude for the
manifestation of the kingdom. They had asked, “Lord, wilt thou at this time
restore again the kingdom to Israel?” They did not know that the time for the
kingdom was yet afar off. They were apparently ignorant that a great interval
had to elapse, even “the times of the Gentiles.” They did not know that the
hard work of preaching the Gospel had to be done; and the harder work of
developing a people for God by the faith preached involving much suffering for
His name, much long and weary waiting through a long night of centuries, for
his coming.
The
idea that the kingdom was then to be established was an obstacle in the way of
the work on which they were about to enter, and therefore Jesus dispels it by
telling them it was not for them in their circumstances, to be thinking of
times and seasons, but to return to Jerusalem, and there await the effusion of
the Spirit which was to qualify them to give testi353
mony
for him as his witnesses throughout all Judea and Saniaria, and the uttermost
parts of the earth. This was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances;
but to construe what was said appropriately to the time and circumstances, into
a discountenance and prohibition of all subsequent research on the subject
would evince a short-sighted judgment, and introduce an element of discord into
the Word, which would thus be made to discourage in one place the study of that
which it revealed in another.
Reliance
is also placed on I Thess. v, 1, by those who disparage the study of prophetic
times. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians : -“Of the times and the seasons,
brethren, ye have no need that I write
unto
you, for yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a
thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden
destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child, and they
shall not escape. But ye. brethren, are
not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all
the children of the light, and the children of the day. We are not of the
night, nor of darkness” (I Thess. v, 1-5).
But
so far from answering the intended purpose, these words of Paul show that the
subject of “the times and seasons” was not a proscribed one. Paul intimates
that he would have written on the subject to them, but he says, “YE HAVE NO
NEED that I do so, and the reason is yourselves
know that when the day comes, it will come as a thief-unexpected and undesired
-upon
the world, but not upon you, for ye are all the children of the light and of
the day.” The sense in which they were the children of light may be understood
in two ways. It may mean “You, Thessalonians, are ready for the day of the
Lord; therefore it does not matter when the day comes; it is needless to speak
of times and seasons when you are prepared for the event.”
This
is, evidently, the view the Thessalonians took of it; for Paul’s second letter
to them found them expecting the immediate manifestation of Christ. But that
this was the wrong constructIon of his words, appears in what he said in his
second letter to the same church. He says (ch. ii, 1), “We beseech you.
brethren. . . that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit,
nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: FOR
THAT DAY SHALL NOT COME, EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY FIRST.” From this it
is evident that the second
354
way
of construing Paul’s words, in the 1st Epistle, is the correct one, viz., “It
is not necessary for me to write about times and seasons, for ye are the
children of the light, and ought to know about them.” Why should Paul assume
they knew all about it? He gives us his reason in the 2nd Epistle: “Remember ye
not, that when / was yet with you, 1 TOLD
YOU THESE THINGS?” (verse 5). If they
were ignorant, it was because they had forgotten what Paul told them; for Paul
had told them that Christ could not be manifested until certain events foretold
in the prophets had transpired.
At
the same time, it cannot be denied, that their ideas of the times and seasons
would, necessarily, be more imperfect and confused than ours: first because of
the great distance of time which divided them from the end; and, second,
because of the then impending visitation of divine judgment upon Jerusalem and
the Jewish nation, foretold by Jesus, which had the effect of concentrating
their interest to some extent upon their own generation, and in many cases, of
creating the expectation that as God was about to come on the scene in
judgment, He would not leave it without effecting their deliverance, the more
especially as Jesus associated the latter with the former, as regards the
succession of events, though, as time has shown, not as regards chronological
sequence.
A
statement in Daniel (xii, 4), seems to indicate that it is in our own times
more particularly that the prophetic visions are to be understood, both as
regards their events and times:
“But
thou, 0 Daniel, shut up the words, and seal
the book even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.” There is
a reason why the words may be understood at the time of the end. In “the words”
are prophetically delineated historical events extending over centuries, and at
the time of the end, we have the facts of accomplished history as the
infallible interpreters of these words. By the aid of those facts, we are
enabled to comprehend the prophetic scheme, both as regards its events and
times, and so to gauge our position as to determine where we stand in relation
to the wonderful consummation of the end itself.
Coming
to the question of “How long?” it will be observed that in the passages quoted,
the times defined are measured for the most part by “days.” The first question
to be considered therefore, is, what are we to understand by the word so used?
Are we to read it as a representative of so many days of 24 hours’ duration? A
class has arisen and multiplied considerably,
355
who
say “Yes,” with all confidence. But we ask them if that is so, how it is that
Daniel did not understand; “I heard, but
understood not” (Dan. xii, 8), wheti informed of the duration of the vision
in days. And how is it that the wise alone are to understand? If it mean
literal days, there is no wisdom required. To read it as literal days is a
simple method of interpretation, which may be accepted with relief by minds
incapable from disuse of going below the surface of things, and of rising to
heights of knowledge through stepping-stone indications on the level; but the
fallacy of the principle becomes apparent on the merest attempt to interpret
the statements in question in accordance with it.
For
instance, Daniel saw a vision (chap. viii,) in which the following events are
comprehended; the beginning and rise of the Persian empire, its overthrow by
Alexander the Great, the partition of the Grecian empire, at that monarch’s
death, into four parts, and the appearance of the Roman power in the southern
section of the divided empire, resulting in the death of Jesus, the disruption
of the Jewish commonwealth, and the final casting down of the destroying enemy.
The vision having passed before Daniel, he hears the question asked, “How LONG shall be the vision?” in answer to
which, the statement was made, “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then
shall the sanctuary be cleansed (or avenged).”
Now,
if we interpret this to mean that the events represented in the vision should
only occupy 2,300 natural days, we turn the vision into absurdity. We make it
compress into little more than six years, events, the first of which, viz., the
rise and development of the Persian empire alone took nearly 250 years! The
literal-day theorists attempt to get out of the difficulty by applying the
period mentioned in the vision to the ravitges of Antiochus Epiphanes, who
suppressed the daily sacrifice for something like seven years, at the end of
which it was restored by the Maccabees; but this suggestion is entirely set aside
by the statement of the angel (verse 17), that “AT THE TIME OF THE END s/tall be the vision.” Even if we had
not this distinct intimation, the suggestion would be negatived by the
improbability of such a minor event being made the subject of prophecy for the
wise of all time; but it is effectually precluded by the scope of the exents,
represented in the vision to which the statement of time applies, and by the
further declaration of the angel that the vision should be “for many days” (verse
26).
In
the 11th chap. we have a prophetic message angelically communicated to Daniel,
“in the third year of Cyrus, kmg of Persia.” This message commences with the
date given, and, bridging all subsequent history, goes down to the destruction
of “the king of the north,” on the mountains of Israel, at the manifestation of
Jesus when the resurrection takes place. As in the other case, Daniel hears the
question asked, “How long shall it be to
the end of these wonders?” The answer is,
“For a time, times, and an half.” Daniel says, “I heard, but I understood
not.” A time was a Jewish period made up of 360 days. “Time, times, and an
half” were, therefore, equivalent to “one time, two times, and half a time,” or
“three times and a half,” or 1,260 days. It was, therefore, no wonder that
Daniel failed to understand, because the events he had witnessed in vision were
on such a scale as required centuries for development. The measure of such
events by days might well baffle his understanding.
This
mode of measurement is repeated in answer to Damel’s beseeching question, “0,
my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?” (Dan. xii, 8). “From the time
that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh
desolate set up, there shall be a
thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and
cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days (45 days more). But go thy way till the
end be; for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.” It is evident that literal days are not meant
in these expressions. Centuries have elapsed since the events to which they
apply commenced to transpire; and the period defined, taken literally, has
multiplied itself hundreds of times, and yet there is no arrival of the end
foretold.
The
question then is, what is meant by these prophetic days? We affirm, on the
strength of the following evidence, that each day represents a year.
Moses
sent spies to search the land of Canaan, in the second year after the children
of Israel came out of Egypt. The spies were away forty days, and returned, at
the end of that time, with a discouraging report as to the probabilities of a
successful invasion of the country, and advised a rejection of Moses, and a
return of the whole congregation into Egypt. The people, ever prone to distrust
God, hearkened to the counsel of the spies, and were about to put it into
execution, when God interfered, and vindicating Moses, gave sentence against
the whole congregation, in the following words : -357
“Your
carcases shall fall in this wilderness, and all that were numbered of you,
according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upwards, which have
murmured against me, doubtless ye shall not come into the land . . . and your
children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms,
until your carcases be wasted in the wilderness. After the number of days in which ye searched the land, even forty
days, EACH DAY FOR A YEAR, shall ye
bear your iniquities, even forty years” (Numbers xiv, 29, 30, 33, 34).
This
is an historical transaction, in which a literal day was made the basis of a
literal year. We now cite a case of prophecy.
Ezekiel
was commanded to make a miniature representation of Jerusalem, and conduct a
mimic siege against it, for the purpose of signifying to the people of
Jerusalem that God intended to punish them for their iniquity. He was then
instructed to signify the times in relation to the events represented : -“Lie
thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house
of
Israel upon it; according to the number of days that thou shalt lie upon it,
thou shalt bear their inquity; for I have
laid upon thee THE YEARS of their
inquity ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF THE DAYS, 390 days: so shalt thou bear
the inquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie
again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah
forty days: I have appointed these EACH
DAY FOR A YEAR” (Ezek. iv, 4-6).
Here
was a symbolical transaction, in which “times and seasons” were to be
represented; and it is expressly directed that the symbolisation of time should
be on the scale of a day for a year.
That
this is the scale on which the prophetic periods of Daniel are fixed, is
evident from a well-known case in which his prediction of time has been
historically verified. “Seventy weeks” are employed to define the period that
was to elapse from the issue of the final Persian edict for the restoration and
rebuilding of Jerusalem, to the accomplishment of the following objects in the
death of Messiah: 1st, to finish the transgression; 2nd, to make an end of sin;
3rd, to make reconciliation for iniquity; 4th, to bring in everlasting
righteousness; 5th, to seal up the vision and the prophecy; and 6th, to anoint
the Most Holy. Seventy weeks are 490 days: hence, “seventy weeks” is but
another way of expressing 490 days. In view of this, how significant is the
fact that from the edict in question (Artaxerxes, B.C. 456), to the crucifixion of Christ, there elapsed a period of exactly 490 years. A dispute
among chronologists, as to
358
whether
the period reached exactly to the 490th year, does not detract from the weight
of the evidence furnished in the fulfilment of this prophecy of the truth of
the day-for-a-year principle, as applied to the solution of the prophetic
periods; the fact that there is a dispute, only illustrates the obscurity of
ancient history where precise dates are involved.
Adopting
the year-day principle, we shall proceed to point out the evidences which show
that we have now reached nearly the utmost limit of the times of the Gentiles,
and stand upon the verge of the future foretold by the prophets. There are four
or five distinct methods of demonstrating this conclusion; four or five
independent modes of computation, which lead to an identical result; four or
five separate chronological lines which converge on a single epoch in the
world’s history, uniting to tell us the grand and awful tidings that the moment
is nearly on us when the Most High, inhabiting eternity, having long holden His
peace, is, in the person of Jesus, about to stir Himself up like a mighty man
of war, and to enter into controversy with the nations of the earth, breaking
their ungodly power, bringing down their strength to the earth, teaching them
righteousness by angry judgments, and subduing them to the sceptre of the
kingdom of David, under the yoke of which they will taste the blessedness that
all the generations of Adam for a weary 6,000 years, have yearned and sighed
after, but which they cannot have and never will realise until “that man whom
God hath ordained” is manifested in the earth as a “hiding place from the wind,
and a covert from the tempest, as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow
of a great rock in a weary land “ (Isa. xxxii, 1).
The
first is not in itself a conclusive mode of reckoning; but its coincidence with
those that are certain, shows there is truth in it. We refer to the tradition,
which is of very ancient origin, that as God effected the reorganisation of the
world physical in six natural days, and consecrated the seventh as a day of
rest and blessing, so will he occupy six days, of a thousand years each, in
setting in order the political heaven and earth of human affairs, and set apart
the seventh millennium, or period of a thousand years, as a Sabbatical era, in
which righteousness and peace will prevail, as the waters cover the sea.
This
theory is not expressly affirmed in the Word, but it is not altogether without
countenance. The duration of the kingdom, for instance, happens to be the exact
length of the
359
supposed
Sabbatical era; and this period-the kingdom prepared of God for them that love
Him-is expressly spokes~ of by Paul as a Sabbatical rest, and, therefore, in
some sense a seventh period (Heb. iv, 9). Peter’s expression, “One day is with
the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day)” (II Pet. iii,
8)-is quoted by some writers in favour of the tradition in question, but much
stress cannot be laid on it. The theory rests on other grounds; and the
strongest of these is its chronological agreement with the minor prophetic
periods.
Assuming
it to be a correct method of reckoning, how far are we on this principle from
the end of the human era? The answer to this question depends upon the age of
the world (not geologically, but since the Adamic creation). The process by
which this point is ascertained, is necessarily a long and laborious one. We
must refer to the results achieved by those who have gone through the process,
and who have demonstrated every link in the chronological chain. We rely
particularly on the deductions of Dr. Thomas, who has given a great deal of
attention to the subject, and who has placed the results of his research in
such a form before the general reader-(see Chronikon
Hebraikon-t hat the process which has cost him much time and labour can, in
a moment, be verified or impugned.
The
general result is to show that the world was 4,090 years old at the birth of
Christ, instead of 4,004, as commonly supposed. Add to 4,090 the present AD.
1905, and we get 5,995 as the real age of the world at the present time. If
this be so, there wants only about five years to complete the 6,000 years of
the great world-week, and therefore we are that number of years from the time
when the blessing of Abraham shall prevail over the whole world through
Christ.* But we are not, therefore, that number of years from the advent. The
coming of Christ is one event; the setting up of the kingdom another. The
former event must necessarily precede the latter by a considerable period. The
constitution of human society cannot be broken up in judgment and reorganised
in righteousness in a day. This is a work which will take time. It is natural
to suppose that there must be years of divine operation in the
*
There are certain intricacies in Bible chronology which deter us from accepting
4090 B.C. as a finality for the true date of “creation.” But, apart from this,
the general bearing of the argument here remains.- Publisher.
earth
before the final inauguration of the Sabbatical millennium, and this,
therefore, admits of Christ coming before the end of the 6,000 years.
The
next period is the one known as “The Seven Times of Daniel,” which arises in
connection with a brief and familiar history recorded in Daniel iv.
Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, saw in a dream a stately tree affording
shelter to the beasts of the field and the fowls of heaven; and while he
beheld, an angel descended, and gave orders that the tree should be hewn down,
but that the stump should be left in the earth and banded with iron and brass,
and that seven times should pass over it. Daniel interpreted this to mean that
Nebuchadnezzar should be driven from his kingdom, and should herd with the
beasts of the field, for a literal period of seven times, or nearly seven
years, in accordance with which, it came so to pass, and at the end of the
period, Nebuchadnezzar’s reason returned, and he blessed the Most High.
On
a superficial view of the case, it would appear as if there was nothing but the
literal in this narrative, and as if the import of the vision terminated with
the restoration of Nebuchadnezzar, at the end of seven literal times; but a
deeper insight will reveal a splendid political allegory on the face of the
literal narrative. In political symbolism, a tree represents a kingdom (see
Ezek. xxxi, and Matt. xiii, 32). The tree of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream would,
therefore, represent Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom, though standing primarily for
himself. On this principle, we can understand the banding of the tree stump
with iron and brass; because when the Babylonian dominion was shorn away, the
kingdoms that succeeded it were but a political bandaging of the power of
Babylon with the brazen and iron or Greek and Roman elements.
Furthermore,
in standing for Nebuchadnezzar personally, the tree necessarily stood for the
kingdom of Babylon, for Nebuchadnezzar was himself but the representative of
the kingdom. This is apparent from the second chapter. Nebuchadnezzar is there
addressed by Daniel (verse 38) as the dynastic representative of the golden
dominion. “THOU art this head of gold; and after thee shall arise ANOTHER
kingdom,” as if Nebuchadnezzar were a kingdom. So he was, representatively, in
the second chapter; and so we may presume he was in the fourth chapter, and
went through the transactions therein narrated, as the dramatic personator of
the fortunes of his kingdom.
Pg
162 ?
At
any rate, the narrative bears an extraordinary allegorical correspondence to
the historical sequel. The seven times allegorically computed would commence
with Nebuchadnezzar’s ascension to the throne of Babylon. This was in 610 B.C.
Now, by adding seven times of years 360 X 7 = 2,520 years to that date, we come
to the ending of the 6,000 years of the world’s age. Thus : -SEVEN
TIMEs-commencing Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, 610 B.C. 2,520
To
find the conclusion of this period, AD., deduct the years that
elapsed before Christ ... ... ... ... ... 610
Giving
as the expiry of the seven times AD. 1,910
World,
6,000 years old AD. 1,910
This
result is remarkable, and confirms the supposition arising on a close
consideration of Dan. iv, viz., that the seven times that literally measured
Nebuchadnezzar’s banishment from the empire, are also intended symbolically to
measure the era of the world’s alienation from God, from the time of the
vision. At the end of the seven literal times, Nebuchadnezzar says, “Mine
understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the Most High, and I praised and
honoured Him that liveth for ever.” How strikingly this represents the change
that will come over the kingdoms of the world at the close of the symbolic
seven times, when : -“The Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the
earth, and
shall
say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there
is no profit” (Jer. xvi, 19).
“All
nations whom Thou hast made shall come and worship before Thee, 0 Lord, and
shall glorify Thy name” (Psa. lxxxvi, 9).
“Neither
shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart” (Jer. iii,
17).
“Many
people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the house of the God of Jacob, and He will teach us of His ways, and we will
walk in His paths” (Isa. ii, 3).
“When
the people are gathered together, and the kingdoms to serve the Lord” (Psa.
cii, 22).
“From
the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be
great among the Gentiles” (Ma!. i, 11).
“So
shall they fear the name of the Lord from the west, and His glory from the
rising of the sun” (Isa. lix, 19).
recorded
in Dan. viii. The vision was communicated in symbol, and the features of it
were these:-A ram with two unequal horns was seen prevailing in a western,
northern, and southern direction, when having “become great,” its career was
interrupted by the advent of a he-goat from the west, with a great horn between
its eyes. A collision between the two symbolic animals resulted in the utter
discomfiture and down-trampling of the rams and the aggrandisement of the goat.
The goat’s notable horn, however was broken immediately afterwards, and in its
place, there sprang four horns, out of one of which came a fifth horn, which
prospered to the destroying of all things Jewish.
The
interpretation is supplied along with the vision itself, so that the symbols
become highly interesting. The ram with two horns is stated (verse 20), to be
the joint dynasty of Media and Persia; and the goat the kingdom of Greece,
under the leadership of its “first (imperial) king” or Alexander the Great.
This being so, the fight between the animals represents the war between the two
powers, which resulted in the subjugation of the Persian empire, and the
establishment of Grecian rule over the civilised habitable. The breaking of the
notable horn is the death of Alexander, just as he completed his military
triumphs; and the up-growth of four horns, the division of Alexander’s empire
among his four generals Ptolemy, Seleucus, Cassander, and Lysimachus.
Out
of one of these was to appear a power which should “destroy the mighty and the
holy people,” or the Jews. This identifies it as the Roman power, which, in
relation to the Jewish state, made its first appearance in the territory
allotted to Seleucus, and afterwards completely uprooted the Jewish power in a
series of campaigns culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem, and the nearly
total extermination of the race of Jews. The vision closes with this triumph,
and leaves the future in darkness, with the exception of a general intimation
that the power thus destroying the mighty and the holy people should be “broken
without hand.”
In
the vision itself, there was nothing to represent to Daniel the length of time
during which this little-horn power of the goat (described as of fierce
countenance) should prevail over the kingdom of Jehovah. In a word, the length
of “the times of the Gentiles” was not indicated in the symbols. This defect,
however, was supplied before the vision finally closed : -“Then I heard one
saint speaking, and another saint said unto that
certain
saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the
363
daily
sacrifice and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and
the host to be trodden underfoot? And he said unto me, UNro Two THOUSAND AND
ThREE HUNDRED DAys; then shall the
sanctuary be cleansed” (verses 13, 14).
Now
it happens that the Vatican MS. of the Suptuagint reads, “2,400 days,” which,
it is said, agrees with certain MSS in possession of the Jews of Bokhara. And
it is to be noticed that an “evening morning” is 24 and not 23 hours, which
seems to favour the “2,400.” We have, therefore, to choose between the two.
Five hundred years ago, it would have been difficult to make an election,
except in so far as other (conterminous) dates, with which this must have been
made to agree, might have assisted us in the choice. Now, however, we are
enabled to decide, for the simple reason that the first reading is negatived by
historic failure in the date. “2,300” days expired over 100 years ago, and no
avenging of the sanctuary took place. But it may be said, How do you know that
“2,300” ended over a hundred years ago? The answer is very simple. Find the
commencement of any term of years, and the termination follows of itself.
Now
the commencement of the period in question, is identical with the commencement
of the vision itself. The question is “How
long shall be THE VISION,” etc., that is, over what time will the vision
just witnessed extend? This being so, we have only to ascertain the date of the
first event seen in the vision, and from that date reckon the currency of the
period defined as the duration of the events represented. By consulting the
vision, the reader will perceive that the first event is the appearance of the
Medo-Persjan empire, in that particular aspect of it signified by the greater
altitude of one horn of the ram over the other. The two horns are expressly
declared to be representative of the two elements of the ram kingdom- the
Median and the Persian. This being so, it follows that the increase of the
second horn over the first in size (for it is said “the higher came up last “)
represents the more prolonged ascendency of the Persian element, which was the
last to come to the throne. Darius, the Mede, reigned two years, and, dying
without issue, he was succeeded by his nephew, Cyrus, the Persian, whose family
retained power till the empire was overthrown by Greece 200 years later.
When
Daniel saw the ram, it would appear at first, that both horns were on its head,
from which it might be argued that the date of the vision’s commencement would
be indefinitely
364
somewhere
at the beginning of the Persian monarchy; but the supplementary statement that
“the higher came up last” would suggest that Daniel was a witness of the first
shooting out of the second or over-topping horn. If this is a correct
deduction, “the times of the vision” would commence with the ascension of Cyrus
to the throne; he being the inception of the higher horn that came up last.
This would be 540 B.C. as the beginning of the days. Certainly the days did not
begin earlier. They may have begun later. If the statement “the higher came up
last” is an explanation, and not a description of what Daniel actually saw, the
date of commencement would have to be sought for at the time when Cyrus had
reigned long enough to constitute the Persian horn, as a matter of fact, the
higher of the two.
Adopting
540 B.C. as the date of commencement, the erroneousness of the 2,300 reading is
at once apparent; for it would. give AD. 1760 as the termination of the vision,
and the time for the avenging of the sanctuary. Adopting 2,400 we get 1860 as
the date of the expiry. Some may think that this must be equally a mistake with
the other, as no steps, such as are contemplated in the predicted “avengement,”
have yet been taken. To this it can only be remarked that supposing this to be
the case, it does not show the “2,400 days” to be wrong, but only that they
have been commenced too early in fixing upon the first year of Cyrus’s sole
reign as the commencement, which would favour the suggestion already thrown~
out, that the commencement ought to be dated later on in Persian annals, when
the second horn had, as a matter of history, waxed greater than the Median
horn, with which the Empire commenced.
But
it is not certain that nothing marks the epoch commencing 1860, as affecting
the land and interests of “the holy people.” On the contrary, it is a fact of
the greatest notoriety, that this is a period of great activity in connection
with Palestine and the Jews.
In
France, in 1860, was established “The Universal Alliance of Israelites,” a
society now numbering many thousands of subscribers. In England, in 1871, “The
Anglo-Jewish Association” was established in connection with the older society.
And in Vienna another branch was established. Thus began that international
strengthening of the bonds of brotherhood in Israel that is so notable a
phenomenon of our times.
These
things arose out of the earlier necessities of the Jews. In Damascus, in ~1840,
there was considerable robbery and persecution of the Jews by the Turkish
officials, culminating in
365
massacre.
Sir Moses Monteflore went out to the East in connection with this, and received
the personal thanks of Queen Victoria and a knighthood for so doing.
There
are other evidences of revival in relation to Jewish affairs, which it would
occupy much space to notice; Whether 1860 or a later date be the true
termination of the 2,400 period, there is no doubt about the epochal ending of
the period falling in the lifetime of the present generation. This is the broad
fact to which we desire special attention. The period must end on this side of
the marginal period already mentioned, for the simple reason that that period
witnesses the process by which the result mentioned in the 2,400 vision is
accomplished, viz., the cleansing or avengemeat of the sanctuary.
The
next period can be demonstrated with greater certainty and exactitude, and
coincides with the result to which the 2,400 vision leads us, thereby affording
powerful collateral evidence of the correctness of the millennary-week theory,
and the “seven times” method of computing the duration of the kingdom of men,
and, at the same time, establishing, with a strength that is almost
irresistible, the general conclusion that in 1905 we stand in close proximity
to that wonder of historic wonders. the advent of Jesus in power and great
glory, to destroy them that destroy the earth, and establish “glory to God in
the highest, on earth peace, and good will toward men.”
We
refer to the four-beasts vision of Daniel. The four beasts, hke the four metals
of the image, are explained to mean the four great imperial dynasties, under
which mankind should successively be ruled with something like universal
dominion (Dan. vii, 17, 23). Attention is specially directed to the forth
beast, as it is in connection with it more particularly that the chronological
considerations of the vision arise. This is universally admitted to be
representative of the Roman empire, which, in relation to the Babylonish, was
“the fourth kingdom” (verse 23).
On
the head of the fourth beast were ten horns. This number was augmented by the
appearance of an eleventh, which, however, by its aggressive acts, speedily
diminished the whole number to eight. The eleventh horn was distinguished from
its neighbours in having eyes and mouth, a “stout look,” and a hostile
propensity about it, which displaced three of the first horns to make way for
itself. It employed its mouth in “speaking great words against the Most High”
and used its power against the Almighty, ultimately bringing about the
perdition of
366
the
whole body corporate of which it formed a part. This, however, was not an
instantaneous result; the horn prevailed for a period before retribution came.
The testimony is : -“He shall speak great words against the Most High and shall
wear
out
the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws, and they shall be given into his hand UNTIL
A TIME AND TIMES, AND THE DIVIDING OF TIME” (Dan. vii, 25).
The
conclusion of this period is marked by an event as follows : -“I beheld, then,
because of the voice of the great words which the
horn
spake; I beheld even till the beast was
slain, and his body destroyed. and given to the burning flame” (verse 11).
“The same horn made war with the saints and prevailed against them, until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment
was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints
possessed the kingdom” (verses 21, 22). “The
judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to
destroy it unto the end” (verse 26).
Now
the import of this symbolism is evident enough. The body of the beast being the
Roman empire, it follows that the Roman empire (notwithstanding historical
vicissitudes) was in some form to continue till the arrival of “the Ancient of
Days” to destroy it, an event still in the future: but as an undivided kingdom
it was not to continue: the ten horns on the head of the beast show this. The
interpretation is: “the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise.” Kings represent dominions, and
hence the appearance of ten kings in the head of the beast shows that,
ultimately, the Roman empire of undivided magnitude, instead of continuing to
be controlled by a single imperial will, as the body of a beast is by its head,
was to be broken up into ten separate royalties or kingdoms, obeying so many
separate political wills, and sustaining independent political existence,
though forming part and parcel of the Roman system of nations.
This
fact is not less clearly apparent in Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of the image. The
legs of iron represent the autonomy of the empire in its prosperous days; the
feet, a mixture of iron and clay, and divided into ten toes, symbolise the
later stage of Roman history-a stage embracing the “modern” era up to the
present time, and a little beyond-a stage in which the po’~’er and territory of
the Roman empire are distributed among rival states and monarchs who have
sprung out of her political embers.
The
chronology of the fourth-beast symbol is determinable by the career of the
little horn. The fourth-beast system was to continue, at least, a time, times,
and a half, from the time the little horn
made its appearance, after the end of which, it was to be destroyed by
divine judgment, and the dominion transferred to the saints. Hence, if we can
identify the lIttle horn in history, and fix the date of its appearance, we
shall be enabled to arrive at a correct conclusion as to the arrival of the
time of the fourth-beast destroying judgment to take effect in the coming of
the Ancient of Days, in the person of Jesus to put an end to the arrogant
blasphemies which prevail for time, times, and a half. To do this, we must give
a little attention to the appearance of the ten horz1s of the fourth beast, as
the ten horns precede the advent of the little horn power. This takes us back
to what is called “the fall of the Roman empire,” when “the fourth kingdom”
passed from its imperial to its divided and multiregal phase.
Here
we contemplate a protracted period of bloody revolution. The Roman arms, after
centuries of resistless prowess, had lost their terror through the effeminacy
of a race accustomed to victory and luxury, and the misgovernment of emperors,
who ruled for private advantage instead of the public weal. The consequence
was, that the rapacious hordes of Northern Europe and Asia, attracted to the
tottering empire, like birds of prey to a rotting carcase, came down in clouds
upon the fertile and cultivated countries of the south, and though held back
for a time, ultimately broke through every barrier, and defeating the Roman
armies, capturing the Roman fortresses, and ultimately sacking the proud empire
city herself, put an end to the mightiest dominion that ever ruled the
civilised habitable. This, however (which took more than a century to
accomplish), though a destruction of what was considered the Roman empire, was
but the introduction of the clay amongst the iron, not the displacing of the
iron by the clay.
The
northern nations were too lacking in genius, either social or political, to
substitute a new order of society for that which they found among the civilised
peoples of Rome. They were a vigorous, but an uncivilised race, and
substanially fell in with the Roman order of things. True, there was an attempt
by the Vandals, to abolish everything Roman and assimilate the conquered empire
to the institutions of its barbarian conquerors; but this movement soon gave
way before a reaction, which demanded and hastened the restoration of Roman
civilisation.
368
The
clay intermingled itself with the iron, and was, ultimately moulded into shape
by the stronger element. This is the time at which we are to look for the ten
horns; for the ten horns in the beast vision represent the same aspect of the
fourth kingdom. as the clay and iron ten-toed feet of the image vision. It is
reasonable to assume that as soon as the Roman beast ceased to be controlled by
its own head it passed into the ten-horned state of government; that is, as
soon as imperial Rome fell, as soon as the central government of the empire was
destroyed, the empire passed into the dismembered state represented by the ten
horns. If this be a reasonable assumption, we ought to find in her dismemberment
a number of political divisions answering to the number of the horns.
In
considering this matter, we are met with the fact that the barbarian nations,
on overturning the Roman Empire, did not unite themselves under one government,
and set up a new empire. They scattered themselves among the provinces of Roman
Europe, and settled in such countries as were according to their liking, each
nation setting up its own government independently of all the rest. In this way
there sprang up a number of separate kingdoms in the territory formerly ruled
by the undivided Roman sceptre; that is, several distinct horns sprang out of
the head of the beast. The question is how many? Daniel says ten, and history
says ten.
Sir
Isaac Newton gives the following enumeration of the states that sprang up under
the barbarian nations after the overthrow of Rome: 1-Vandals and Alans (under
one government, occupying Spain and Africa); 2-Suevians (another part of
Spain); 3-Visigoths; 4-Alans (France); 5-Burgundians; 6- Franks (separate from
the Alans); 7-Britons; 8-Hirns; 9- Lombards; lO-Ravenna. This enumeration is
broadly taken and confined to Roman territory. It takes no account of minor
divisions, such as the dukedoms (dignified by the name of kingdoms) into which
Britain was divided, or the petty factions that were here and there to be found
in connection with other States. It only takes note of the conspicuous and
great divisions of political power, properly considered “kingdoms,” that
followed the downfall of Rome, in Roman territory. It takes no cognisance of
Asiatic dominion, or of any political phenomenon beyond the limits of the
fourth-beast territory; and in this the discerning reader will say Sir Isaac
Newton only adhered to the necessities imposed upon all interpreters of the
vision itself.
Dr.
Brewster, in his “Life of Sir Isaac Newton” (pp. 227.
369
228),
paraphrasing Sir Isaac’s views on the subject, observes:
“Some
of these kingdoms at length fell, and new ones sprang up; but, whatever was
their subsequent number, they still retain the name of the ten kings from their first number.”
Machiavelli,
in his history of Florence, enumerates ten kingdoms, into which the Roman
empire was dismembered by the incursions of the northern nations. This list* is
as follows:
1-Ostrogoths
(in Moesia); 2--the Visigoths (in Pannonia); 3- Suevis and Alans (in Gascoigne
and Spain); 4-The Vandals (in Africa); 5-the Franks (in France); 6-the
Burgundians (in Burgundy); 7-the Herlui and Turingi (in Italy); 8-the Saxons
and Angles (in Britain); 9-the Huns (in Hungary); 10-the Lombards (at first
upon the Danube, and afterwards in Italy). This enumeration appears to differ a
little from that adopted by Sir Isaac Newton, but a close comparison will
reveal a resemblance between the two, amounting to identity.
The
only substantial difference is the exclusion of the Ostrogoths in Moesia
(answering to the southern border of the empire of Austria) from the list of
Sir Isaac Newton; but this difference is more a difference in the way of
reckoning than in the actual enumeration of the ten kingdoms. Machiavelli’s may
be the true list, and Newton’s may be reconcilable with it, by reckoning the
nations of the Alans one kingdom instead of two, as Sir Isaac counts them,
which would make room for the Ostrogoths as one of the ten. On the other hand,
it is possible, though less likely, that the Ostrogoths may have been part and
parcel of the adjoining Visigoth state of Pannonia, on the eastern shore of the
Adriatic, answering to the Mediterranean seaboard of Austria.
In
any case, the identification of the ten horns is complete. The process is not
circumvented by minor difficulties, arising from the obscurities of ancient
records, which can never overthrow the broad fact that the territory of the
Roman empire, after the overthrow of the Roman Imperial power, was divided into
a number of political sections, more or less answering to the number ten. The
diversity of race and tribe existing in
*
This list does not appear as a list in Machiavelli’s book, but in the form of
an account, extending over several pages, of which this is a
condensation.-Author
Europe
at the time, in no way interferes with the fact of a decimal division of
political power. There were, no doubt, many more nationalities than ten; but
this no more disproves their political division into ten parts, than does the
existence of the English, Scotch, and Irish in Great Britain disprove the
political unity of the three kingdoms.
The
vision predicts the uprise of ten kingdoms in the territory of the Roman
Empire. We would, therefore, argue a
priori, that there must have been that number in the States that made their
appearance when the unity of the empire was dissolved, whatever the obscurity
of history might indicate to the contrary. But, fortunately, we do no violence
to history in believing that the vision was realised. History shows us a number
of kingdoms, so nearly approximating to the prophetic number, that two
independent historical writers give us the exact number; and it must be
remembered that one of these two-Machiavelli-was not writing for the
illustration of prophecy-of which there is no reason to believe he knew
anything-but simply in exercise of his function as an impartial recorder of
historical facts.
The
ten horns appeared about the fifth and sixth centuries. but were afterwards
reduced and multiplied in number by the revolutions of war. It is evident,
however, that they reappear at the time that the fourth-beast system as a whole
is destroyed by divine judgment. This is apparent by the later visions, seen by
John in the Isle of Patmos, in which the fourth beast of Daniel is divided up
into several beasts, for the purpose of illustrating subordinate and internal
features of the system represented. According to these, we find that ten horns
figure conspicuously at the end, as well as the beginning, of the little horn
(time, times, and a half) era (Rev. xvii, 12, 14). “The ten horns which thou
sawest (on the head of the scarlet-coloured beast, verse 3) are ten kings,
which have received no kingdom as yet, but receive power as kings one hour with
the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto
the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome
them.”
Here
there is no mention of an eleventh horn plucking up three of the ten by the
roots, because it refers to an entirely different period of history from that
represented by the ten horns on the head of Daniel’s fourth beast. It shows us
the constitution and attitude of the beast at the time the Lamb, as the Ancient
of Days, comes to give its body to the burning flame of destroying war, from
which it appears that the original ten-horned
371
phase
of Daniel’s fourth beast is to be resuscitated, at the era of its destruction, and not only
resuscitated, but established on the basis of corporate unity. That is to say
the ten kingdoms into which the fourth beast system is to be divided at the
end, are to unite in a unanimous policy, under a single head. They are to give
their power and strength to the little horn blaspheming power (separately
symbolised as a scarlet-coloured beast), for the purpose of carrying on war
against Jesus when he has manifested himself in the earth as the Lion of the
tribe of Judah.
The
beast will thus act once more as a living unity, but this time, a ten-horned
unity-a confederacy of the kings of the Roman territory, formed for the purpose
of mutual self-defence against the power which will have threateningly appeared
in the east, and of whose real nature they will be entirely ignorant, until
overwhelmed in the fearful whirlwind of His destroying anger (Jer. xxx, 23,
24).
These
facts enable us not only to reconcile Daniel’s fourth beast with the Visions of
John, but to make use of all together, in forming a complete picture of the
purpose of God, as unfolded in the past, and yet remaining to be fulfilled in
“the end afore determined.”
They
teach us that the ten-horned phase of the Roman system of nations has relation
to two epochs in its existence; first, when its imperial unity disappeared in
the “fall of the Roman Empire,” and the second, when that unity is restored,
for the purpose of a united effort against “that determined,” which is to be
“poured upon the desolate.”
We
have now to enquire if history affords any parallel to the uprise of an
eleventh political power in the Roman system, subsequent to the appearance of
the ten, and of the uprooting by it of three of its predecessors, and the
assumption by it of an arrogant dictatorial attitude toward the other powers,
as symbolised by the eleventh horn, having a stout look and a mouth speaking
great words of blasphemy.
The
merest retrospective glance affords the answer. The eye falls upon a power
answering all the requirements of the prophecy; and the eye has not to search
for it. It is not a secondrate object in the historical retrospect. It looms up
in the past with over-shadowing breadth; it fills the whole picture with its
imposing figure; which though no longer a recognised power in the political
system of Europe, by reason of the termination of its allotted “time, times,
and an half,” is still conspicuous as a
372
religious
element. Do we require to mention the power to which these remarks apply? Its
name will instinctively spring to the reader’s lips-THE PAPACY.
The
Papacy appeared in the territory of the Roman or fourth beast, after the division of the empire by the
barbarians of the north-that is (symbolically), after the ten horns had
appeared. It was not till the beginning of the seventh century, that the Bishop
of Rome-till that time a mere diocesan, an ecclesiastic among other
ecciesiastics-was constituted by imperial edict, universal bishop or pope-the
supreme pontiff of the State religion. The decree which finally elevated him to
this position was issued by the emperor Phocas, from Constantinople (the mouth
of the Dragon which gave the Papistical beast his power, and his seat, and
great authority: Rev. xiii, 2).
The
date of the decree is given by one as A.D. 606, and another A.D. 608, which
gives two years’ uncertainty as to the beginning, and, therefore, ending of the
period. But the date is sufficiently definite and exact for all practical
purposes. The appearance of the eleventh horn is, doubtless, to be reckoned
from the date of the edict which constituted it a power in Europe. It is true
it was at first merely an ecclesiastical power, but history shows that it very
soon became a political power, exercising secular authority in the territory
provided for it by the displacement of three of the original ten horns, and, in
addition to that, claiming and exercising imperial jurisdiction over
contemporary “crowned heads.”
The
plucking up of the three horns did not precede the advent of the eleventh horn,
but followed as the consequence of it. An interval would elapse between the one
thing and the other. The eleventh horn would be some time erect before the
three fell: how long is not stated. It would necessarily be very short in the
symbol; but then the events and times represented by the symbol were on the
historical scale; and, therefore, a momentary interval on the head of the
beast, would represent an interval of years in the course of history. It is not
stated that the three horns were plucked up before the commencement of the
time, times and a half; it is stated the eleventh horn prevailed for that time;
but ibis does not exclude the self-evident conclusion that the plucking up of
the three horns would be within the period of the eleventh horn’s prevalence.
The plucking up of the three horns was, in fact, part of its “prevalence” and,
therefore, would necessarily transpire within the period of its ascendency.
Hence, we do not find that three kingdoms were
373
given
to the Pope the moment he appeared, but we do find that he received them about
a century afterwards.
In
a work published in 1782 entitled, “The
History of Modern Europe, with an account of the Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire, and a view of the progress of Society, from the rise of the Modern
Kingdoms to the Peace of Pans, in 1763,” there occurs the following
statement, on page 47 : -“Before Pepin returned to France, he renewed his
donation
to
St. Peter, yielding to Stephen and his successors the Exarchate; iEmelia, now
Romagna; .and Pentapolis, now Marca d’Ancona, with all the cities therein, to
be held by them for ever; the kings of France, as patricians, retaining only an
ideal superiority, which was soon
forgotten. THUS WAS THE SCEPTRE ADDED TO THE KEYS, THE SOVEREIGNTY TO THE
PRIESTHOOD, AND THE POPES ENRICHED WITH THE SPOILS OF THE LOMBARD KINGS AND THE
ROMAN EMPERORS. In the three states here mentioned, the reader will recognise
three of the ten kingdoms that appeared on the declension of the empire, viz.:
-1- Ravenna (the Exarchate); 2-Heruli and Turingi (iEmelia, now Romagna); and
3-Lombardy (Pentapolis).”
Dr.
Keith’s version of the matter is as follows: -“The Exarchate of Ravenna, the
kingdom of the Lombards, and the State of Rome, were subject to the secular
dominion of the church of Rome, and mainly form, to this hour, ‘the States of
the Church,’ over which the Pope, as a temporal sovereign, exercises
sovereignty, and wears the ‘TRIPLE CROWN,’ as if in obvious token that three of the first kingdoms were rooted up
before him.”-Signs of the Times, page 22.
The
eleventh horn had eyes: it could, therefore, see the other horns; while the
other horns being without eyes, could not see it. What politica’ peculiarity of
the Papacy corresponds with this symbol? Obviously its priesthood. The
institution exists in the territory of all the other horns, and by means of it
Rome is made privy to the concerns of every power in Europe; while these powers
are unable to penetrate the secrets of Rome, on account of the fidelity which
the priesthood have always maintained to their ecclesiastical chief. History
affords perpetually-recurring illustrations of the political power which Papal
Rome was enabled to exert in all the realms of Europe, through this system of
espionage, which she was enabled to maintain through her priests. It is
remarkable that the Papal Power should be known in diplomatic language as “The
HOLY SEE.”
The
eleventh king was to be “diverse from the first (ten)”
374
(Dan.
vii, 24). It required no ingenuity to make out the diversity between the Pope
and the crowned heads of Europe. The Pope does not belong to the order of
kings. His appearance in Europe was a new political phenomenon. Such a
personage had never appeared before as a sacerdotal imperial despot, claiming
not only the actual sovereignty of the three territories transferred to his
secular dominion, but divinely-conferred jurisdiction over every sovereign in
Europe. This character was not assumed by the Roman Pontiffs all at once, but
it had grown to full development before the Papacy was more than two centuries
old.
In
the days of Pope Gregory VII it ripened to maturity. Of this Pope it is
recorded that “he engaged the Church in an open war with the sovereigns of all
nations.” He formed a purpose to “engage in the bond of fidelity and
allegiance, to the Vicar of Christ, as king of kings, and lord of lords, all the potentates of the earth, and to
establish at Rome an annual assembly of bishops, by whom the contests which
might arise between kingdoms and sovereign states were to be decided-the
pretensions of princes to be examined, and the fate of nations and empires to
be determined.” So far did he succeed in his scheme of supremacy, that Henry
IV., Emperor of Germany whom he had summoned to his presence as a delinquent,
applied for absolution at the Gates of Canosa, a fortress in the Appenines,
where Gregory happened to be resident at the time, “and being stripped of his
robes, and, wrapt in sackcloth, he was obliged to remain in an outer court
three days, in the month of January, bare-footed and fasting, before he was
permitted to kiss the feet of His Holiness. The haughty pontiff condescended to
grant him absolution, after he had sworn obedience to His Holiness in all
things.”
Gregory,
elated by his triumph, and now looking upon himself, not altogether without
reason, as the lord and master of all the crowned heads in Christendom, said in
several of ‘his letters which were written at the time, that it was his duty to
“pull down the pride of kings.” In accordance with this sentiment, he wrote to
Solomon, a refractory king of Hungary, “You ought to know the kingdom of
Hungary belongs to the Roman Church; and learn that you will incur the
indignation of the Holy See, if you do
not acknowledge that you hold your dominions of the Pope, and not of the
Emperor.” He subsequently deposed Henry IV., in the words “In the name of
Almighty God, and by your (the council’s) authority, I prohibit Henry, the son
of our Emperor Henry, from governing the Teutonic
375
Kingdom,
and Italy; I release all Christians from their oath of allegiance to him, and I
strictly forbid all persons from serving or attending him as king.”
He
appointed a successor to Henry, one Rodolph, and sent him a golden crown, with
an address, in which, after depriving Henry of strength in combat, and condemning him never to be victorious, he delivers himself of the following
apostrophe to Peter and Paul, in which the nature of his pretensions as their
pretended successor becomes apparent: “Make all men sensible that as you can
bind and loose everything in heaven, you can also upon earth TAKE FROM OR GIVE to every one,
according to his deserts, empires,
kingdoms, principalities. Let the kings and princes of the age then
instantly feel your power, that they may not dare to despise the orders of your
church.”
These
sentiments Gregory VII left as an heritage to his successors, and they have
continued to be the animating spirit of the Roman See to the present day,
illustrating the statement of the vision that the eleventh horn, with eyes,
should be “diverse from the first (ten),” and should have a “look more stout than his fellows.”
The
horn had a mouth. This indicates that it would in some sense presume to speak
to the others, and the speaking could not be for the purpose of mutual
deliberation, because the others had no mouths, and, therefore, no conversation
could tal~e place; the speaking, therefore, could only take the form of
legislative dictation: the eleventh horn would presume to make law to the
others. The applicability of this to the Papacy is abundantly manifested in the
last paragraph.
•The
words it spoke were “great words against the Most High,” not words in the
verbal sense: “words” here has a more comprehensive signification than the
dictionary meaning. It imports the policy of the power spoken of, as
represented and expressed by its utterances over the whole period of its
existence. These are “the words” by which the indignation that destroys the
beast is evoked. Now these words, in order to be “against the Most High,” need
not to be verbally directed against Him. They need not take the form of denunciations
of the Almighty.
In
the Scriptural sense, everything uttered against the truth is uttered against
the Almighty, though it may be couched in the language of allegiance. Hence,
for the Papacy to “speak great words against the Most High,” it is not
necessary for her to have formally fulminated her denunciations against the
Deity. If her
376
ecclesiastical
creed and her ecclesiastical policy have practically involved the repudiation
of His truth, and His people, her “words” have been none the less, but all the
more, “against the most High” for being framed in the language of sanctimonious
pretence.
We
have only to enquire whether the policy of Rome has or has not been one of
arrogant presumption and destructive opposition to everything in which the name
and honour of God are involved; and we have not to go far for the answer. No
one having any knowledge of history, and any understanding of the truth, can be
ignorant that Papal Rome has, from the beginning of its days, “spoken great
words against the Most High,” and “made war with, and prevailed against, the
saints.” Her career, since the day her bishop was crowned universal
Dictator-ecclesiastical, has been an unbroken chapter of enormities perpetrated
against God and man. During the long period of her ascendancy, she has well
merited the designation bestowed upon her by the Spirit in vision to John, in
the Isle of Patmos. She has been the sum of all abomination-the hold of every
foul spirit-the” MOTHER of harlots and ABOMINATIONS
of the EARTH” (Rev. xvii, 5).
She
is well-styled “MYSTERY,” and more apppropriately still, the MYSTERY OF INIQUITY” (II Thess, ii, 7).
She has been iniquity mystified-iniquity veiled-iniquity dressed in a robe of
religious pretence-iniquity tricked out in the splendid paraphernalia of regal
pomp and civil authority-iniquity of the deepest dye, draped in holy garments-a
whited sepulchre of mystified iniquity, showing a beautiful exterior, and
inviting all nations to worship at its cursed shrine of “rottenness and dead
men’s bones “; and all nations have gone and bowed the knee, and garnished this
grave of the saints with costly things, proving themselves the seed of the
accursed rejecters of Jesus, who honoured the tombs of the prophets, and
thereby were held by Jesus to be proved accomplices of those who killed them,
and put them in their graves.
T~ LITTLE HORN imposture-this proud,
wilful, stout-looking pretentious, audacious, blasphemous, saint-killing power,
which has prevailed against all divine things for twelve centuries, in
accordance with the words of Daniel-this depraved, hypocritical, corrupt,
iniquitous, tyrannical, and murderous Church of Rome, with which it is now
becoming fashionable at religious meetings to bandy compliments, and speak
respectfully of, and which blinded and becrazed “charity” would make room for,
377
and
deal liberally with, as an institution “doing good” in its own way, and
“advancing the cause of Christ under the banners of the Catholic religion “;
this execrable mistress of witchery, whose cunning arts of simulated kindness,
and ornaments of learning and fascinations of venerable pedigree, are, in
England, entrapping thousands upon thousands into the bondage which it was the boast of this country to
have escaped three hundred years ago-this system of unmixed iniquity is further
introduced to our notice in Rev. xvii, 3, 4, as a gaudy, betrinketed, whorish
woman, drunk with the blood of saints, and having in her hand a cup of
abominable liquor, with which she intoxicates kings.
The
appropriateness of this figure will be seen at a glance. The Church of Rome
pretends to be the faithful spouse of the absent bridegroom; whereas she acts
the part of a prostitute of the most profligate and abandoned type. She coquets
with the kings of the earth, and administers to them free libations of her
bemuddling doctrines, with which “all nations are drunk.” She commits
fornication with them, for her loves and her aims are confined to the worldly
objects she can accomplish in her ecclesiastical dealings with them. She revels
in lust and lucre, and is drenched in all her garments with the reeking blood
of the righteous slain, whom she has put to death for their testimony.
This
LITTLE-HORN blaspheming prevailing
power, is further spoken of as a “king doing according to his will” (Dan. xi,
36), exalting and magnifying himself above every power (Heb., au), and speaking marvellous things
against the God of gods; which is an exact description of the Pope’s
presumption, as historically illustrated. It is said he should not regard the
God of his fathers nor the desire of women. This is also descriptive of him.
The emperors of Rome-the “fathers” or predecessors of the Pope
-were
Pagans, and worshipped the deities of Pagan mythology. The Pope disregarded
these, and set up a god which the emperors “knew not,” viz., the triune God of
their superstition, and the Virgin Mary, whom they “honoured with gold and
silver, and precious stones,” in erecting begemmed and garnished temples to
their worship. He was to “disregard the desire of women.” He should be a
celibate, “forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats” (I Tim.
iv, 3). How signally this has been fulfilled, history testifies. The whole
hierarchy of Rome, from the Pope in “the chair of St. Peter” to the mendicant
friar, are under a bond to remain in bachelorhood, and thus they set at naught
the “desire of women,” and fulfil the prophecy. “He shall magnify himself above
every God,” and “shall prosper till
378
the indignation be accomplished.” His
existence and supremacy will, therefore, continue till the return of Christ;
for the indignation is not accomplished until he come to “ tread the winepress
of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God” (Rev. xix, 15), and to pour out the wine of HIS wrath into the cup of His
indignation, without mixture (Rev. xiv, 10).
These
prophecies are reproduced by Paul in II Thess. ii, 3-10. The church at
Thessahonica had been agitated with ideas of the imminence of Christ’s
appearing. Paul writes to quiet their apprehensions on the subject, and reminds
them of what he had told them while he was with them (verse 5), namely, that before that day of
Christ would come, there should be a widespread departure from the truth, and a
subsequent and consequent development of “that Man of Sin, the son of
perdition, who opposeth and EXALTETH
HIMSELF ABOVE ALL THAT IS CALLED
GOD, or that is worshipped, so
that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”
These
words of Paul amount to a paraphrase of the words of Daniel. There is, however,
a feature in them which is lacking in Daniel’s representation of the matter.
Paul connects the development of the “Man of Sin” with the “falling away” that
was to come, and intimates by the concatenation of his words, that the one was
to result from the other-that the revelation of the “Man of Sin” was to be the
result of the falling away from the truth. This is an important addition . to
the information communicated by Daniel, without which, the identification of
the power represented would not have been so complete as it is. There is
nothing in Daniel to indicate that the appearance of the little horn of the
fourth beast was to be connected with God’s operations among men by the truth.
For anything there is in Daniel to the contrary, the little horn might have
represented a heathen power, like Babylon, or like the original ten horns,
having no germinal connection with anything pertaining to God; but, by Paul’s
words, we are enabled to see that this little horn was to be the political
offspring of an aposta,sy which was to
take place among those professing the truth of Christ.
This
leads us straight to the Papacy, for the fact is notorious that the Papacy which has ruled the political and
ecclesiastical destinies of Europe for twelve centuries, is nothing more nor
less than the political incorporation of the principles developed as the result
of a departure from the truth on the part of the early professing Christians. In
the Papacy, therefore, we behold the MAN OF SIN predicted by Paul, and the system
which is to be
379
“consumed
with the spirit of his (Christ’s) mouth, and destroyed with the brightness of
his coming.” So long as the brethren, as a whole, were faithful to the truth,
it was impossible for this Man of Sin to be revealed, and, therefore, it was
impossible for Christ’s coming to take place, because the coming of Christ was
to occur for the destruction of the Man of Sin.
There
was another obstacle in the way at the time that Paul wrote. “Ye know,” says
he, “what withholdeth, that he might be revealed in hi~ time.” The “Man of Sin”
was to be the supreme power in the state. Before this could be accomplished,
Paganism in high places had to be abolished. The Pope, as the professed “Vicar
of Jesus Christ,” claiming to be “King of Kings and Lords of Lords,” could
never be politically developed in Europe until the Roman empire was
revolutionised, and changed from a Pagan to a professed Christian power. The
paganism of Rome was, therefore, an obstruction. It was that “withholding” the
revelation of “the Man of Sin.” But the hindrance was to be “taken out of the
way,” and “THEN shall that Wicked be revealed,” etc. We know, as a matter of
history, that Paganism, in due time, was taken out of the way, and that the way
was thereby opened for the uprise of the Little Horn on the head of the fourth
or Roman (symbolic) beast, which, as “a Man of Sin,” should prevail against the
saints for 1,260 years, and exalt himself in the earth above every object of
worship.
There
are some who hold that this “Man of Sin” is a particular person-an individual
of extraordinary audacity and impiety, who has yet to appear and theoretically
abjure the existence of the Almighty, and offer himself to all the world as the
object of worship. But such take an extremely narrow and utterly untenable view
of the matter. All they rely upon is the phrase “Man of Sin “; but this no more
proves the personality of the power referred to, than do Paul’s other words, “THE OLD MAN,” prove that he meant a
literal octogenarian, whose company we were to avoid, in “putting off the old
man with his deeds.” If the “he” applied to the Man of Sin, prove the
personality of the power referred to, what is to be made of the “he” applied to
the “what withholdeth”? “HE who now
letteth (or hindereth) will let (or hinder) until HE be taken out of the way.” There was a “ HE” existing in Paul’s days,
obstructing the development of the “Man of Sin,” and who was in due time to be
removed to make way for his impious successor. Who was this? Let the
individualists answer. Was there a
particular man living in Paul’s day, whose death or deposition was
necessary to the appearance
380
of
the “Man of Sin”? If the answer is “Yea,” who was it? and how is it that
eighteen hundred years have elapsed since his death, and yet the “Man of Sin”
of the individualist has never made his appearance? A full confrontage of this
difficulty will demolish the individual theory.
The
obstruction in the way of Paul’s Man of Sin was the faithfulness of the
brotherhood, and the political supremacy of Paganism. Both these barriers
vanished in course of time, and up rose, in the historical arena, that
monstrosity which has overshadowed the historic page with records of
transcendent cruelty and iniquity. Historically, the Pope is absolutely THE MAN OF SIN; for throughout all the generations of the Papacy, the Pope
has been the only man in the earth in his position. The system of the Papacy is
essentially a ONE-MAN system. The theory of the system does not admit of more
than a single head. It has happened once or twice that there have been rival
Popes, but this was an anomaly never sanctioned by the system. Politically the
Pope is the “MAN OF SIN,” whoever
the Pope may happen to be. The individuality of the man is entirely absorbed in
the position. No individual man is essential to constitute the Pope-ship. The Popeship has always found
a man to fill it, whoever has lived or died, which shows that it is the office
or position which Paul contemplated when he spoke of the revelation of the “Man
of Sin.” One man filled the “MAN-OF-SIN”
office when that which hindered was taken out of the way; and another
entirely different man will be in it when Jesus is manifested to destroy the
whole system.
Those
who individualise and futurise the “Man of Sin” are in the habit of
literalising the period of the Little Horn’s prevalence. “Time, times, and an
half,” to them are literal three-and-a-half years, at some undiscoverable time
in the future, during which “the ANTI-CHRIST”
of their theory will appear on the scene, rise to the summit of universal
power, and come to his end by divine interposition. How this theory can be
entertained by an intelligent mind on a full review of the bearings of the
case, it is difficult to conceive. It involves several anomalies of the most
palpable kind. In the first place, if the time, times, and a half of Daniel’s
fourth beast are literal and future, of course the little horn represents a
power yet to appear; and, in that case, the political visions shown to Daniel
and John take no notice of the greatest
political phenomenon of the fourth-beast period of the world’s history. Daniel
is shown the fourth-beast, and told about the fourth-beast kingdom, and put in
possession of details
381
respecting
it, but is withheld all information of the most prominent, extraordinary, and
longest-lived feature of the system, viz., the PAPACY. The most astounding phase of the fourth-beast history is
left out of the symbolism of the fourth-beast period! He receives no
information of a persecuting regal imposture, which should lift its head and
voice over all the kings of the Continent, for more than 1,260 years, and
trample under foot the truth and the friends of the truth all that time; but he
is particularly enlightened with reference to an insignificant threeyears-and-a-half,
during which a daring man is only to equal (for he could not surpass) the
impiety and cruelty exhibited by the Roman Pontiffs for more than a half-score
centuries!
The
suggestion has only to be stated to be condemned. How utterly incongruous, that
in a symbol, confessedly extending over a chronological period of 2,000 years,
an incident of only three-and-a-half literal years’ duration should receive a
place as its most conspicuous feature-a period of utter insignificance as
history goes. Again, such an assumption would make the vision teach that the saints were not to be prevailed against
in the course of history, EXCEPT
DURING ThREE-AND-A-HALF YEARS AT ITS
CLOSE, and would place in a curious position the fact, that as a matter of history, the Papacy has
spoken great words against the Most High, and prevailed against the saints for
a PERIOD OF UPWARDS OF 1,200 YEARS. Besides, of what service wotild
the vision be, if its applicability were confined to a single oppressor, and a
period of three-years-and-a-half at the close of history? Especially as it is
denied by those who maintain this theory, that there is any clue to the time
when the Man of Sin may be expected to appear. As it could in that case only
interest those contemporary with that epoch, it would throw the vision into the
corner, as a thing destitute of spiritual utility for all time, and only
possessing the kind of interest attaching to any prodigy-a view of the matter
eminently derogatory to God, in view of the fact that it was communicated by
Him for enlightenment, encouragement, and guidance.
The
literal theory is puerile and untenable. It is utterly unworthy of
consideration, and can never be entertained where a broad and competent view of
the facts is taken. The historical view of the matter, which is “the truth of
the matter,” gives utility and importance to the vision. We read in it the
consoling assurance that “the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men,” and that
the “practising and prospering” of human wickedness and presumption in the
earth, has a determined end-that the
382
triumphing
of the wicked, like the waves of the sea, has an appointed bound that it cannot
pass-that the times of the Gentiles are fixed and defined, and that standing
where we are, we can look forward with intelligent expectation to their early
expiry, and the glorious manifestation of the Ancient of Days, in righteousness
to judge and make war, and destroy them that destroy the earth.
With
righteous triumph may we hail the day of Rome’s perdition. Her history shows a
dark and dreadful retrospect. No language can adequately depict the enormity of
her crimes. The Pagan murderer of the apostles, the Papal blasphemer of the
truth, and destroyer of the saints, “Great Babylon,” has heaped to herself wrath
against the day of wrath. Her crimes are without number and without measure.
For a long period of centuries, she has prevailed against everything divine.
She has waged open war against the word of God. She has done her utmost to
cxtirpate it from among mankind. She has made the study of it a crime, and the
possession of it a capital offence. She has trampled the truth under her feet,
and drenched the earth with the blood of unresisting victims, who loved it, and
counted not their lives dear unto them in defence of it. She has invented and
established every kind of abomination in doctrine and practice. For ages, she
has held up a mortal man as an object of universal adoration, above all on
earth called God, or worshipped. To this living idol, she has commanded the
ascription of more than mortal honours, and ordered all who would not bow down
to the image to be cast into the furnace of fiery affliction, of persecution,
bonds, imprisonments and death.
She
has deified the ghost of a dead woman, and commanded the world to worship “the
Queen of heaven,” under the blasphemous title of “the Mother of God.” She has
burlesqued and brought to mockery the truth of the miraculous conception. She
has enjoined prayer to dead men, and taught men to look to them for guardianship.
The world, drunk with the wine of her abomination, has responded to the
injunction, and elected their “patron saints,” to whom they address their
ignorant devotions, and whose guardianship they invoke upon the temples of
their superstition by calling them after their names.
She
has changed the memorials of Christ’s death into objects of worship, telling
her dupes that the touch of her lying priests transmutes the emblematic bread
and wine into the veritable essence of Christ’s nature; and she has degraded
the intelligent observance of the institution, commanded for the affectionate
383
participation
of all the members of Christ’s household, into a scene of superstitious and
meaningless mummery, enacted by her foul-handed priests. She holds up as objects
of faith and acts of obedience, dead men’s bones, musty relics, crosses,
genuflexions, bodily penances; and exacts money from the pockets of her dupes
on the iniquitous pretence of imparting ‘spiritual benefit.
She
has descended to the unutterable infamy of selling licentiousness for
gain-pretending to give liberty to sin with impunity, for money-blasphemously
professing to avert the course of eternal justice for a consideration in cash!
She has invented the chimera of purgatory, and befooled the deluded masses of
mankind into the belief that she had power, for money, to liberate “departed
souls” from its custody.
There
is no religious folly of which she has not been guilty. She has arrogated the
power to forgive sins, and by her priests in “the Confessional,” has enforced
the most execrable inquisition into the private affairs of her devotees,
especially women, in whose “spiritual interests” her celibate scoundrels have
professed a solicitude which has only been the cloak of their lust. She has
established nests of infamy throughout the world, in the name of spiritual
purity and seclusion; and in convents and nunneries, carries on secret
abominations and cruelties, of which the unutterable heinousness will only be
fully known when “Great Babylon comes into remembrance before God,” and the
time arrives to give unto her “double for all her sins.” She has decreed the
heathen fiction of the immortality of the soul to be the cardinal point of the
Christian faith, and has exalted the Pagan dreams of Hell and Elysian Fields,
to the same eminence. She has turned away from the truth, and given heed to
fables. She has made lies her refuge.
From
the sole of the foot to the crown of the head, she is one mass of spiritual
putrefaction; and when to this is added her great swelling words of vanity, her
proud looks, and rapacious deeds, her wicked principles and cruel acts, her
malignant hostility to the truth in every shape and form, and her implacable
persecution by rack torture, fire and death, of all who professed it, whom she
could get into her power, the picture of her enormities is complete. Yet, like
the adulterous woman, “she wipeth her mouth, and saith, I am innocent.” In the
language imputed to her in the Apocalypse, she says, “I sit a queen, and am no
widow, and shall see no sorrow” (Rev. xviii, 7).
Well
might the servants of God be represented as crying,
384
I
“How
long, 0 Lord, holy and true?” Such a triumph of iniquity in the earth is
well-nigh beyond the capacity of human forbearance; but our patience is strengthened
by the word which God has sent, “that His servants might know the things which
must shortly come to pass.” Through it, as through a telescope, we see the
coming retribution, and we hear the murmuring echoes of that mighty p~an of
triumph, which will ascend from countless tongues, like the noise of a tumult
of waters: “Alleluia! Salvation, and glory and honour, and power unto the Lord
our God: for true and righteous are His judgments; for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with
her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of His servants at her hand.” (Rev.
xix, 1, 2).
The
sound of this song of triumph is very near, even at the door. In all
probability, another generation will not pass before its joyous peals will
burst upon the world. “Time, times, and a half” of years are up. 1866-70 (a
margin covered by the French occupation of Rome) saw the end of the 1,260 years
which commenced in 606-8, and with the end of her allotted time comes the swift
and decisive sword of divine justice. “Her
sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
Therefore
shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine, and she
shall be utterly burned with fire:
for
strong is the Lord God who judgeth her” (Rev. xviii, 5-8). “The Lord shall consume her with the spirit of His mouth, and
destroy her with the brightness of HIS COMING” (II Thess. ii, 8).
CONFIRMATORY
SIGNS
Being
at the end of the prophetic periods, are there any events extant in the world
at the present moment indicative of the fact? In answering this question, we
desire to draw attention to what has been revealed in reference to the events
attendant upon “the latter days.” We begin by quoting Rev. xvi, 12, 16, where
this matter is the subject of symbol : -“And the sixth angel poured out his
vial upon the great river
Euphrates;
and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might
be prepared. And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth
of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the
false prophet; for they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go
forth unto the kings of the earth, and of the whole world, to gather them to
the battle of that great day of God Almighty. (Behold, I come as a thief:
blessed is he that watcheth,
385
and
keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, aiid they see his shame.) And he
gathered them together into a place called, in the Hebrew tongue, Armageddon.”
The
main feature of this testimony is a predicted gathering of nations to a war in
which God Almighty (through the Lord Jesus Christ, who arrives on earth like a
thief, before the conflict commences), is to take a part.
There
are, however, certain signs preceding the gathering. which demand our
attention. There is, first the drying up of the river Euphrates, “that the way
of the kings of the east might be prepared.” Now, we cannot take this to mean the literal evaporation of the river known
by that name; because there would be no connection between such an event and
the preparation of “the way of the kings of the east,” or sunrising. whoever we
take these to be.
There
are only two classes that answer to the designation. viz. : -the saints and the
Jews: the first being the kings of a future age-having their origin and
constitution in Christ, the great rising sun of righteousness, who is to
reappear in the east, and subjugate the world from that quarter; and the
second, being the royal eastern nation, or lords of the east. If we suppose
that “the kings of the east” of the testimony are the saints, we are at once
precluded from the literal view of “ the river Euphrates,” for how should the
drying up of a river be necessary to make way for those who shall be caught (or snatched) away to meet the Lord
in the air? If, on the other hand, we assume that it is the Jews who are meant
(and the truth is, it means both, for they are part and parcel of the same
system of things), the idea of literality of the river is equally untenable;
because the Jews are principally scattered in Europe and America, and in their
restoration will come in “the ships of Tarshish first” (Isaiah lx, 9), and be
brought “on horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon
swift beasts: for an offering, to the holy mountain of the Lord at Jerusalem”
(Isaiah lxvi, 20).
The
question is, what does the statement of the prophecy mean? Turning to the
prophets, we find rivers frequently chosen to represent nations, powers,
armies, etc. We read in Isaiah viii, 7, for instance: - “Behold, the Lord
bringeth up upon them the waters of the
river, strong and many, EVEN THE KING OF ASSYRIA, AND ALL HIS GLORY.” In this case, the Assyrian power is figuratively
represented by the river which irrigated the territory on which it was established,
viz., the Euphrates, which was designated “the river.” Again, in Isaiah xviii,
where the Jews are
386
the
subject of discourse, we find the following phrase, “whose land the rivers have spoiled,” referring to the
repeated military invasions of Palestine; for we never heard of watery
inundations in that part of the world. Hence also, “many waters” are explained
to mean “peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues” (Rev. xvii, 15).
Now,
in view of these considerations, it is legitimate to argue that “the river
Euphrates” dried up by the sixth vial, is intended to signify that power which
is located on the territory to which it pertains, at the time contemporary with
the pouring out of the sixth vial. If this is admitted, the interpretation would
at once fix upon Turkey as the power represented; because she occupies the
territory in question at the present time, when the events of the prophecy are
near their fulfilment. If so, the meaning of the symbol is that the political
life of the Turkish empire will die out as a necessary preparation for the way
of the kings of the east. The fitness of this interpretation is at once
apparent, whf’n we remember that Turkey had held the land of the Jew in servile
possession, precluding him from possessing soil in his own land. and refusing
to guarantee him the ordinary privileges of his heathen denizens; because,
until the Turkish power is removed out of the way-until this political
Euphrates is dried up. the restoration of the Jews, in the complete sense required
by other parts of the prophetic word, is not possible. Hence, the necessity for
its evaporation predicted in the vision.
The
next sign connected with the development of the end, was seen by John in the
issuing of “three unclean spirits like frogs out of the mouth of the dragon and
out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.” The
three sources of issue first demand attention. The beast is said to have had
“seven heads and ten horns, and ten crowns upon his horns” (Rev. xiii, 1). This
is interpreted in chapter xvii, 9, as follows: “The seven heads are seven
mountains, on which the woman sitteth (the woman being explained as that great
city which reigneth over the kings of the earth-verse 18), and there are seven
kings . . . And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have
received no kingdom as yet,” etc. (verse
Here
it is evident that “the beast” is representative of a political organisation. and not descriptive of the reptilious
monstrosity suggested by a literal construction of the symbol. This being so.
“the mouth of the beast” must also be political; and we must seek for its
equivalent in the beast-system, as politically maui387
fested.
By this rule, we select the capital city as being the mouth of the state, both
as to the exposition of its policy, and as to its corporate nourishment. Now on
this principle of interpretation, which is suggested by the explanation
contained in the vision itself, the mouths of the dragon, beast, and false
prophet signify the capital cities of the political systems severally
represented by these symbols; and all that is necessary to identify them is, to
ascertain what systems are symbolised by “the dragon, the beast, and the false
prophet.”
This
cannot be done without going largely into history, which is impossible within
the short limits of a lecture. The dragon is demonstrably the Eastern Roman
Empire, having Constantinople as its capital: the beast, the Holy Roman Empire
of the middle ages, having Vienna as its representative mouth; and the false
prophet, that absurdity in Christendom, the ecclesiastical tyrant of Rome, from
which, as “his mouth,” he fulminates his blasphemous “bulls “ and gives forth
his false pretentions to spiritual unction and infallibility.
The
mouths, then, from which the unclean spirits issue, are Constantinople, Vienna
and Rome. What are those spirits? They are like frogs. This cannot mean a
resemblance to the little mud reptiles which inhabit marshes; because these
creatures are devoid of intelligent quality; hence, a policy issuing from a
political mouth could never be said to resemble them. The mouths being
political, the frog-likeness must have a political significance likewise; but
where shall we seek for anything political connected with three frogs?
Well,
it is a fact that the original arms of France consisted of three frogs, of which anyone may satisfy himself by consulting
early French history. Here is a clue. If the Spirit has selected the dragon-the
first heraldic symbol of the Eastern Roman Empire
-to
represent the modern phase of that empire, does it not seem appropriate that
the original national symbol of France should be selected to represent her,
when the occasion occurred to introduce her into the scene? Only one answer can
be given, and that answer brings a moral certainty with it, that France is
brought before us in the three frogs seen by John. This being so, the
explanation of the phenomenon seen by John is this-that a French inspired
policy should issue from Constantinople, Vienna, and Rome, causing a gathering
of nations to the final war of the great day of God Almighty.
Here,
then, are two notable signs to be looked for, as indicative of the approach of
the end. First-The decadence of the
388
Turkish
Empire, and second-the predominance of French influence at the great political
council board of Europe. Who can fail to see that these two signs have been
conspicuous for many years on the Continent? Turkey is rapidly falling to
pieces; and Louis Napoleon, the French Emperor, was next to all-powerful during
the principal part of his reign. He was instrumental in bringing about the wars
that have led to the present development of the military system of Europe.
In
the confidence inspired by French assurance of support, the Sultan of Turkey declared
war against Russia; thus the unclean frog-like spirit proceeded out of the
mouth of the dragon. Provoked by the belligerent attitude of the French
Government as the instigator of Sardinia, Austria declared war against the
latter; and thus the unclean spirit was caused to issue from the mouth of the
beast. Supported by the French Emperor, the Pope made war upon the
Revolutionists, who rose against him under Garibaldi, in 1866-7, when the
French evacuated Rome, under the Franco-Italian Convention, and thus the
unclean spirit went out of the mouth of the False Prophet. The general effect
of all three operations has been to give politics an eastern direction. The
Holy Land is now the centre of interest, and will become more and more so as
the time for the gathering at Armageddon draws near. Russia must appear upon
the scene as con“ueror of Turkey. This appears from Daniel xi, 40, 41, 44, 45:
xii,
I:- “At the time of the end ... the
king of the north shall come against
him
(viz., against the power mentioned in the previous verse, as occupying and
dividing the Holy Land for gain, which is Turkey), like a whirlwind, with
chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships, and He shall enter into the COUNTRIES,
and shall overflow and pass over. He shall enter also into the glorious
land, and MANY CO~NTIUES shall be
overthrown. . . . He shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly
to take away many. He shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the
seas, in the glorious holy mountain; yet he
shall come to his end, and none shall help him: (for) AT THAT TIME shall Michael stand up, the great prince which
standeth for the children of thy people; and
there shall be a time of trouble such as never was since there was a ?Iatiofl
even to that same time.”
In
proof that the victorious invading power described in this testimony as “the
king of the north,” is Russia, let it be observed that it comes against another
power that is in occupation of the Holy
Land. That power is Turkey, as must be obvious to everyone from the facts
of the case. Now the king of the north, in relation to Turkey, and to eveiy
other country in the world, is
389
the
Emperor of Russia. In a peculiar and absolute sense, that potentate answers to
the description of the prophecy; for his empire girdles the northern zone,
almost of both hemispheres, constituting him, in an exclusive sense, “the king
of the north.” This is still more evident from Ezekiel xxxviii, where we read,
commencing first verse : -“And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son
of Man, set
they
face against Gog, the land of Magog, the
chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him, and say, Thus
saith the Lord God: Behold, I am against thee, 0 G6g, the chief prince of
Meshech and Tubal :• and I will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws;
and I will bring thee forth and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all of
them clothed with all sorts of armour, even a great company with bucklers and
shields, all of them handling swords: Persia,
Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet; Gomer and all his bands, the house of
Togarmah, of the north quarters, and all his bands; and MANY PEOPLE with thee. Be thou prepared, and prepare for thyself thou and all
thy company that are assembled Unto thee, and be thou a guard unto them.
After
many days thou shalt be visited: IN THE
LA~I~fER YEARS thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the
sword, and is gathered cut of many people AGAINST THE MOUNTAINS OF
ISRAEL, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the
nations, and they shall dwell safely, all of them. Thou shalt ascend and come
like a storm, thou shalt be like a cloud to cover the land, thou and all thy
bands and many people with thee (verse 9). In that day when my people of Israel
dwelleth safely, shalt thou not know it. And thou shalt come from thy place out of the north parts, thou and many
people with thee, all of them riding upon horses-a great company and a mighty
army; and thou shalt come up against my people of Israel, as a cloud to cover
the land: IT SHALL BE IN TI-fE LATTER DAYS: and I will bring thee against my land, that the heathen may know me
when I shall be sanctified in thee, 0 Gog, before their eyes.”
The
evidence that the potentate addressed in this prophecy is the Emperor of Russia
is overwhelming. First, there is something in the use of the phrase, “Gog, the
land of Magog.” if you turn to any map of the ancient world you will find that
the land of Magog-taking its name from Magog, the son of Japheth, who was the
first settler-lies in the northern part of Europe, and is now embraced in the
modern Russian Empire. Secondly, the phrase, “the chief prince of Meshech and
Tubal “; YOU will find those ancient
territorial names to be descriptive of countries now incorporated with Russia,
and now modified in the names Muscovy and Toboiski. Thirdly, the remark, “Thou
shalt come from thy place out of the
north parts,” shows that the land of Magog, and the provinces of Meshech
and Tubal, are geographically situated in the realms of the Emperor of Russia
390
The
points of coincidence between Ezekiel’s “Gog, the land of Magog,” and Daniel’s
“king of the north,” are striking. The one appears “at the time of the end “; the other “in the latter days.” The one is the king of the north “; the other comes out of his place “ in the north parts.” The one “overflows many countries, and enters into the glorious land “; the other, “with many people at his steps, comes against the mountains of israel like a cloud to cover
the land “; the one “comes to his end with none to help hint “: the
other meets with retribution described in the following words : -I will call
for a sword against him throughout all my mountains;
saith
the Lord God; every man’s sword shall be against his brother, and I will plead against him wit/i pestilence
mid wit/i blood; and I ~vill rain upon him and upon his bands, and upon the
many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire,
and brimstone” (Ezek. xxxviii. 21, 22).
In
both cases, the contemporary supremacy of Russia is foretold; in both, is the
smiting of her power supernatural. She is to vanquish many countries, and hold
a protectorate over them, as indicated by the words, “Be thou a guard unto
them.” Those countries include all the nations of the Continent. “Gorner and
all his bands, the house of Togarmah of the north quarters,” will be found, on
reference to ancient geography, to embrace nearly every country in Europe; and,
in addition to these, there are “Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them,”
showing that at the time, Russia will have attained to something like universal
dominion.
Previous
to this full development of her power, the Jews will have been the subjects of
partial restoration. They are represented as having been “brought forth out of
the nations,” and as having gotten cattle and goods and “dwelling safely all of
them without bars and gates.” This is a state of things existing before the
coming of Christ. Consequently it is to be brought about by natural means. What
those natural means are may be inferred from the allusion, in verse 13, to “the
merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof,” and from Isaiah
xviii. The probability is that the beginning of the return of Jewish prosperity
is connected with British efforts to checkmate Russia in her designs upon
India.
By
establishing a Jewish colony in Palestine, the British Government will secure
her communications with India-always vital to her safety. The motive of this
northern C~sar, in his advance upon the “mountains of Israel, which have been
always
391
waste,”
is apparcnt. In the attempt to sever British communications, he goes forth,
“with great fury to destroy and utterly to make away many” (Dan. xi, 44). He
comes “like a cloud to cover the land,” with nations at his steps. But his
course is suddenly interrupted. While his forces are encamped at Bozrah, in
Edom, the lion of the tribe of Judah breaks in upon them, and a great carnage
takes place. The event is described in Isaiah lxiii, 3,4,6:- “I will tread them
in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and
their
blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment; for
the day of vengeance is in my heart, and
the year of my redeemed is come. . . . I will tread down the people in mine
anger, and make them drunk in my fury, and I will bring down their strength to
the earth.
The
complete discomfiture of Gog is predicted by Zechariah in the following
language : -“Then shall the Lord go forth
and fight against those nations, as when
he fought in the day of
battle; AND
HIS FEET SHALL STAND IN THAT DAY UPON THE MOUNT OF OLIVES, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives
shall cleave in the midst thereof’: (Zech. xiv, 3, 4).
Ezekiel
describes what follows (chapter xxxviii, 18-22): -“And it shall come to pass,
at the same time ... that my fury shall
come
up in my face. For in my jealousy, and in the fire of my wrath, have I spoken,
Surely in that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel; so
that the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of heaven, and the beasts of the
field, and all creeping things that creep upon the earth, and all the men that
are upon the face of the earth, shall shake
at my PRESENCE; and the mountains shall be thrown down, and the steep
places shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground; and I will call for
a sword against him throughout all my mountains; saith the Lord God: every
man’s sword shall be against his brother. And I will plead against him with
pestilence and with blood, and I will
rain upon him and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him,
an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone.”
Zechariah
adds to this:
“This
shall be the plague wherewith the Lord shall smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem. Their flesh shall
consume away while they stand upon their feet; their eyes shall consume away in
their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth; and it shall
come to pass in that day that a great tumult from the Lord shall be among them;
and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbour, and his hand
shall rise up against the hand of his neighbour”
(ZeCh. xiv, 12, 13).
The
result of the conflict is the destruction of the assembled
392
armies.
A remnant escapes in flight (Ezek. xxxix, 2), and carries the report of the
supernatural defeat to the nations that “have not heard of His fame, nor seen
His glory” (Isa. lxvi, 19).
At
this juncture, a manifesto, or imperial summons, issues from Jerusalem, calling
upon the nations to submit to the God-appointed king of all the earth. This is
represented in Rev. xiv, 6, as “an angel flying in the midst of heaven, having
the everlasting gospel” (or glad tidings of the age), to preach unto them that
dwell on the earth . . . saying “Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come.” The
summons is unheeded; “the beast of the earth and his armies assemble to make
war with the Lamb,” and them “who are with him,” who are called, and chosen,
and faithful. The Lamb allows the gathering hosts to proceed to conflict. He
could disperse them with a word, but there is a purpose to be served by their
attempts to overthrow him. In the war that ensues, “The Lamb shall overcome,”
and afterwards the world will see the following prediction fulfilled : -“And I will Set my glory among the heathen,
and all the heathen
shall see my judgment that I
have executed, and my hand that I have laid upon
them. So the house of Israel shall know that I am the Lord their God from that day and forward. And the heathen shall know that the house of
Israel went into captivity for their iniquity; because they trespassed against
me, therefore hid I my face from them, and gave them into the hand of their
enemies. . . . Now will I bring
again the captivity of Jacob, and have mercy upon the whole house of Israel; .
. . neither will I hide my face any more from them, for I have
poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord God” (Ezek.
xxxix, 21, 23, 25, 29).
Current
events indicate the proximity of the crisis. The Papacy has wonderfully lost
its power. Felled from its position of supremacy by the shock of the French
Revolution, over seventy years ago, it has been steadily declining ever since
that time. It was deprived of its last prop by the defeat of the Austrian
forces, in the Austro-Prussian war, and the incorporation of the greater part
of the States of the Church by the young kingdom of Italy. With the overthrow
of France by Germany, the Pope’s temporal dominion crumbled to the ground, and
the Pope now complains on every suitable occasion that he is a prisoner in the
Vatican, and that in the -loss of the temporal power he has lost the dignity
and independence necessary for the exercise of the Pontificate. Doubtless the
final scene is at the door.
The
attitude of Russia points to an early probable attainment to the position
assigned to her by the prophets in the time of
393
the
end. Her recovery from the disasters of the Crimean War is notorious to all the
world. Her territorial extension has never for a moment been suspended. During
the last twenty years she has added large provinces in Central Asia, and
conquered the great barrier that lay between her and Asia Minor, in the
Caucasus, while as the result of the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-8, she has
penetrated to the heart of the Turkish empire. Her d~srk shadow is now looming
ominously behind the Eastern question.
As
to Turkey, as already said, she is rapidly falling to pieces. Herzegovina and
Bosnia are annexed to Austria. Servia, Roumania, and Montenegro have been
erected into independent kingdoms. Bulgaria is all but a Russian province. East
Roumelia has become an autonomous province, ruled by a Christian governor.
Egypt is in English occupation. The Christian populations throughout the whole
of the dominions of the Sultan are in a seething ferment of rebellion,
preparing to rise against him and throw off his yoke. The “sick man” is given
up by the diplomatic doctors as incurable, and the papers are teeming with
prognostications of the early downfall of the Turkish empire.
In
the scramble for the spoil, Russia will come in for the lion’s share; Britain
will doubtless lay her hand on Syria, to protect the highway to her Eastern
possessions. This will be the time for the Jews to realise the partial
restoration which takes place before the invasion of the land by Gog. They have
already begun to carry it out to a partial extent. Schemes for the colonisation
of the land are in vogue among the Jews, and are received with increasing
favour. Several societies exist to promote their return, and several colonies
have actually been formed and are now in operation in the Holy Land. They have
sprung into existence within the last twenty years, and have received a powerful
impetus from the sentiment of nationality, which now prevails on the Continent,
and regulates European politics : -Italy for the Italians; Palestine for the
Jews; these are political
corollaries,
and are on the eve of being placed side by side on the same basis of
accomplished fact. The land of Palestine has come much under notice of late;
and, as is well known, a society, with the Prince of Wales at its head, has
made a complete ordnance survey of the country. This helps to pave the way for
the pohtical sequel, in which Britain, mistress and protector of the Jews, not
from any love of them, but from her own political exigencies having reference
to India, will be the enemy of Russia when she comes like a cloud to cover the
land. England once in possession of the country, the restoration of the Jews
will
394
be
the development of a day. The Jews are ready, in great wealth, and with prompt
disposition, to return to the land of their fathers when the political obstacle
presented by Turkey is finally removed.
As
to the state of the world generally, the temper of the nations is highly
significant of the predicted crisis. The Scriptures inform us that in the epoch
of the end, the world will become highly belligerent. This is intimated in such
statements as the following:- “Proclaim
ye this among the Gentiles: Prepare war, wake up the
mighty men, let all the men
of war draw near; let them come up. Beat your ploughshares into swords, and
your pruning hooks into spears; let the weak say, I am strong” (Joel iii,
9-10).
“Evil
shall go forth from nation to nation, and a great whirlwind shall be raised up
from the coasts of the earth” (Jer. xxv,
32).
“Upon
the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
men’s hearts failing them for fear” (Luke xxi, 25, 26).
“The nations were angry, and
Thy wrath is come” (Rev. xi, 18).
Now,
it is notorious that the present state of the world is one of preparation for
war. Never was there a time of such military preparation. Universal military
service by conscription has become the order of the day. Europe, in the
language of a British statesman, has been turned into a vast entrenched camp.
The war fever is universal. Peace is on the lips of rulers, but war in their
hearts. The war-cloud that darkens will spread over all the sky and burst in
terrible violence.
A
time of trouble, such as never was, is in store for the world. The worst
experiences of antiquity, when blood ran like water, and famine waited in the
train of war, to kill its millions, will be repeated on a scale of magnitude
that will strike the world with terror, and thin down its over-stocked and
corrupt population to a purified remnant in sympathy with Christ. The storm of
divine vengeance will relieve the atmosphere of the f~tid and oppressive
elements with which it is charged. The relentless arm of righteous retribution-
for “in righteousness he doth judge and make war,” will lay the foundation for
peace on earth, and goodwill to men.
When
the kingdoms of this world shall have become the kingdoms of Jehovah and of His
Christ, His glory shall cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. The smoke
and carnage of judgment will pass, and the peaceful morning of righteous395
ness
and happiness will open with a smile upon the world. Jerusalem, at first the
scene of destroying judgment, will become the centre of blessing for all
nations. The king will reign, who shall “come down like rain upon the mown
grass, as showers that water the earth.” The sun will break through the
quick-dispersing clouds of judgment storm, and fill the world with healing and
gladness. After the thunderstorm of judgment, the sun of righteousness will
rise with healing in his wings. Earth’s troubles will be hushed in the calm of
universal peace. There will be glory to God in the highest heaven, over the
earth peace and good-will among men.
LECTURE 17
THE
REFUGE FROM THE STORM: OR “WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?”
THIS subject follows the others
in natural sequence; it over-tops and comes after all the topics that have been
discussed. It concerns the question raised in every healthy mind, by the
discussion of these topics, the great solicitude created by a contemplation of
the truth of God, as therein unfolded. If it be shewn that we are mortal in
constitution, and that immortality and the undefiled inheritance of the future
ages are conditionally attainable, the mind conceives a strong anxiety to learn
the nature of those conditions on which so much depends, with a sincere desire
to fulfil them.
“WHAT MUST WE DO TO BE
SAVED?” What
are the conditions which we are required to fulfil, in order to a participation
in the great salvation to be revealed at the coming of the Lord? Let it be
premised, that such a question pre-supposes a disposition on the part of the
questioner, to gladly receive any conditions which the great Lawgiver may think
fit to impose. It indicates a conviction that the boon to be bestowed is at the
absolute disposal of the Giver.
It
is an admssion that the petitioner has no natural claim upon it, and that the Bestower
has the right to say upon what conditions it will be granted. In fact, when
sincerely put, it shews the questioner to be in that childlike frame of mind
which Jesus refers to when he says, “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in no wise
enter therein” (Luke xviii, 17). This is not the mental condidon of moralists,
who think that goodness of character entitles
a man to future reward; nor is it the condition of those who decry the
belief of the Gospel, which God has appointed as the initial “power unto
salvation,” to everyone believing (Rom. i, 16).
Both
these forms of opposition have their origin in the
397
doctrine
of the immortality of the soul. This may not seem to be the case at first
sight, but thorough reflection will shew
it.
The immortal soul doctrine has this effect: It causes the believer thereof to
look upon every human being as the inevitable subject of positive eternal
destiny; and as their theology recognises only two places and two classes as
related to that eternal destiny, viz., heaven and hell, and the inhabitants
thereof respectively, he necessarily assigns all mankind, in every age and
country-.-of every state, stature, and condition-to one or other of those
places.
Now,
it is not conceivable to the ordinary orthodox believer that God should
predicate entrance into heaven upon conditions which would have the effect of
shutting out from it the great majority of mankind, or that He should in any
case consign to hell those myriads of “good” people, who, though ignorant of
the gospel, are not only harmless, but in some cases, positively admirable in
the characters they develop. Hence the belief forces itself upon the mind, that
general goodness and moral worth will be sure of acceptance, without reference
to the understanding and belief of the gospel. Some even go the length of
believing that all mankind will ultimately be saved. All this comes in logical
consequence from the belief of a doctrine which (imputing to man an immortal
nature) makes it inevitable that every class of mankind should be in a state of
either eternal happiness or eternal misery. But take away immortal soulism, and
what do we find? We behold all mankind perishing under a process of
dissolution, from which they are unable to deliver themselves.
Death
passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom. v, 12). It has constituted
them a race of mortals, incapable, in the absence of some divine
pre-arrangement, of elevating themselves (by any act of their own) above the
condition in which they are involved. Hence, morality cannot save. To know what
can save, we must listen to the apostles. Jesus Christ was sent for the purpose
of opening a way of salvation; and
having opened the way, he sent his apostles to tell mankind how it might be entered.
The
object in sending this message to the nations was not to convert them en masse, and bring about the
millennium, as many erroneously suppose. Jehovah never proposed such a result
from the preaching of the gospel. Had He done so, we should have found a
different state of things existing in this late period of the world’s history.
It is now nearly nineteen hundred
398
years
since the gospel was introduced into the world, and, instead of the world being
converted through its influence, “the whole world lieth in wickedness” now as
much as ever it did, though the wickedness may have changed form and hue
somewhat. Men will greedily run after any kind of foolishness that will tickle
the fancy and pander to the fleshly mind; but when the gospel is “reasoned out
of the Scriptures” for the commendation of their judgment, and the obedience of
a thereby enlightened conscience, they pronounce the matter “dry” and turn
listlessly away, as from a thing of no interest.
Accepting
Peter as a competent authority in the case, we find him reported by James to
have said that the object which Jehovah had in view, in visiting the Gentiles,
was “to TAKE OUT OF THEM a people for
His name” (Acts xv, 14). This is all, then, that is proposed in the
preaching of the Gospel-the gathering “Out
of every kindred, tongue, and nation,” of all generations, a people who
shall constitute that great manifested name in the earth, when “there shall be
one Lord in all the earth, and His name (in
which all who bear it will be included) ONE.” The gospel is, in fact, an
invitation to all who accept it, to form part of that name, by putting it on in
the appointed way; but the class who effectually comply is very small. “Many
are called, but FEW ARE CHOSEN.” “Many shall strive to enter in, and shall
not be able.” Jesus gave his commission to his disciples in the following
words : -“Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is
baptised shall be saved: but he that believeth not s/ia!! be damned” (Mark xvi, 15, 16).
Here
is a clear indication of the principle on which the “people for His name” were to be selected. The
gospel was to be proclaimed, and those to whom it was proclaimed, were required
to believe it. Without compliance, there could be no salvation; for whosoever
would not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child should in nowise enter
therein. The gospel was thus constituted the agency of salvation; hence, Paul
styles it “the gospel of your salvation” (Eph.
i, 13). He also says “(the gospel) is the
power of God unto salvation TO EVERY
ONE THAT BELIEVETH” (Rom. i, 16); and again, “It pleased God BY THE FOOLISHNESS OF PREACHING to save the’n that believe” (I Cor. i.
21). Hence, if any man desires to be saved, the very first thing he has to do
is to believe the gospel.
Cornelius
was instructed by an angel to “send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose
surname is Peter, who shall tell thee
words WHEREBY thou and all thy house shall be saved” (Acts xi, 13, 14). And
the Philippian jailor was told by Paul, in answer to his enquiry, “What must I
do to be saved?”-” Believe on the Lord
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (ch. xvi, 30, 31).
Believing on the Lord Jesus, and believing the gospel, are exactly the same
thing; for the gospel is made up of glad tidings concerning the Lord Jesus
Christ: and if a man believe the gospel, he believes on the Lord Jesus Christ.
If he is ignorant of the gosp&J, he cannot believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ, for “the Lord Jesus Christ” is not the mere name of the Saviour as a
personage, but a grand doctrinal symbol, which can only be understood by those
who are acquainted with the gospel in its amplitude.
The
first thing a man has to do, then, in order to gain salvation, is to believe
the gospel. To do this he must know the gospel, for as Paul says, “How shall
they believe in him of whom they have not heard”? (Rom. x, 14). Knowledge must
always precede belief; for a man cannot believe that of which he has not
previously been informed. Hence, the first inquiry on the part of man or woman
anxious to be saved will be, Wa&T IS
THE GOSPEL? Until they know this, they cannot go onto the second stage of believing unto salvation. The gospel is
styled “the one faith,” because it is made up of things which require faith to
receive them-the act of the mind by which these are apprehended being
metonymically put for the things themselves. It is laid down as a principle, “Without faith IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PLEASE GOD” (Heb. xi, 6), and it is
affirmed of believers, “Ye are saved through
faith” (Eph. ii, 8), and “the just shall live by faith,” (Heb. x. 38). Now this faith, in scriptural usage, is
not a mere abstract reliance on the omnipotence of Jehovah, but the belief of
specific promise. It is said that “faith was reckoned to Abraham for
righteousness” (Rom. iv, 9). Now let us note the character of this
righteousness-acquiring faith:- “He
staggered not at THE PROMISE OF GOD through unbelief, but was
strong in faith, giving glory to God: and being fully persuaded that WHAT HE HAD PROMISED, he was able also to
perform” (Rom. iv, 20, 21).
Hence,
it is said that faithful Abraham was
constituted the father of them that BELIEVE, by which it is evident that
scriptural
400
faith
is belief in the promises of God; and
thus by the consideration of terms of a more general nature, we arrive at the
conclusion to which we were guided in a former lecture by specific testimony,
viz. : -that the Gospel which must be believed in order to obtain salvation, is
made up of unfulfilled promises as its
chief element.
What
is the Gospel which is so composed? As summarised by Luke, in Acts viii, 12,
where he describes the preaching of Philip to the Samaritans, it is “THE THINGS CONCERNING THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIsT.” It
thus
appears to be a compound of two elements-the one relating to the kingdom of
God, and the other to the doctrinal import of “ THE NAME” of Jesus, as affecting our individual salvation. Both of
these must be known; and each must be understood before saving faith is
possible. Of the first, we have already treated in Lectures VIII. and X., and
indirectly in Lectures IX., XI., XII., XIII., and XIV. To these collectively,
the reader is referred for an exposition of “the things concerning the kingdom
of God.”
As
for the things concerning “the Name,” we are introduced to them in Acts iv, 12;
“There is none other NAME under
heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved,”
-which
is equivalent to saying, that there is
only one name so given, and that is, the name of Jesus the Christ. How this
name has been “given” is illustrated in the events recorded in Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John. Begotten by the Holy Spirit, Jesus was “made unto us wisdom and righteousness, and sanctification, and
redemption” (I Cor. i, 30). He manifested in human nature a character with
which the Father was well pleased. In his crucifixion, flesh and blood were
sacrificially slain, and God’s righteousness, in His dealings with Adamic
nature, declared. In resurrection, the slain sacrifice was accepted, and Jesus
lives, to die no more-a name which men may take upon themselves, and stand
before God, accepted in him.
The
way by which believers may take this name upon them exists in the ordinance of
baptism, which, according to the divinely appointed formula, introduces “into the name of the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit.” Says the Apostle, “As
many of you as have been baptised INTO Christ
have PUT ON Christ” (Gal. iii, 27). Having put on Christ, they have put on the
name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as Jesus is a
manifestation of the Father, in the Son, by means of the Holy Spirit. Those who
are thus
401
invested
no longer stand in the nakedness of the natural man, but are “found in i-u~,
not having their own righteousness
but the righteousness which
is of God, BY FAITH.”
We
must, therefore, understand “the things concerning the kingdom of God AND the
name of Jesus Christ,” before we can understand and believe the gospel which is
the power of God unto salvation. The one without the other is of no efficacy.
To be ignorant of “the things concerning the kingdom of God,” is to be ignorant
of the gospel. A man may be well acquainted with the historical facts of
Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension; but unless he understands
them in their true doctrinal
significance, and in their connection
with “the glory that shall follow,” his knowledge of them conveys to him no
enlightenment as to God’s purposes.
This
is peculiarly the case where the knowledge in question is associated with the
doctrine of the immortality of the soul; for it then ceases to have any
scriptural significance or efficacy what ever. This will be seen if we realise
that Christ died to purchase life. “He
brought life and immortality to light,” by the sacrifice which he submitted to.
By the grace of God, he tasted death for every man (Heb. ii, 9). But if we
regard immortality as the essential. attribute of human nature, we displace the
sacrifice of Christ from its Scriptural position. We destroy its character as a
means of securing life, and are
compelled to transform it into that anomalous doctrine of pulpitology which
regards it as substitutionary suffering of divine wrath, in order to save
immortal souls from the eternal tortures of hell ! -a suffering, which, after
all, according to orthodox teaching, is awfully inadequate; for countless
myriads of immortal souls, according to that system of teaching, still continue
unreconciled, and are fated to spend an eternity of existence in raging,
blaspheming torture!
The
doctrine of the immortality of the soul must be removed from the mind before
gospel truth can obtain a proper entrance, for it nullifies the whole system,
by obliterating its foundation doctrine, that “by one man came death,” and destroys its efficacy by
entirely diverting attention from the salvation which it offers, and directing
it to a reward which God has never promised. In fact, its effect is to pervert,
vitiate, poison, nullify, and destroy everything pertaining to God’s truth. It
sends its jarring vibrations through the entire system of revelation,
introducing confusion and absurdity where otherwise reign peace, order,
harmony, and beauty. Theologically, it is an unclean
402
spirit,
of which a man must be exorcised, before he can become clothed and in his right
mind in relation to divine truth. Previously to this, his mind is filled with
truth-neutralising doctrine, which effectually prevents the entrance of a
single ray of the truth.
The
point at which we have arrived, is, that one of the fundamental conditions of
salvation, is, belief of certain definite matters of teaching contained in the
gospel, styled “the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus
Christ.” Those “things” involve the whole circle of divine truth. They embrace
the knowledge of the Creator himself; our relation to Him as sinful, worthless
creatures; the teaching concerning Jesus Christ; Jehovah’s dealings with our
race, His promises, the means which he has provided for salvation, our duties
towards Him, etc. What more fitting than that such a knowledge, and such a
faith, should be required as a condition of fitness for an eternal existence of
service based thereupon? It is only the merest ignorance that opposes “creed”
as a means of present improvement and future salvation. How can the moral
nature be developed without appropriate stimulus? If a man have nothing
definite to hope for, how can his hope be active? If he have no particular
object of faith presented to him, how can his faith be exercised? The very
beauty of doctrinal Christianity is, that it supplies to the mind just exactly
what is needed to draw out and satisfy its higher instincts.
Suppose
a generation of untuored men who had never heard of the gospel-whose minds had
never been exercised in hope of the promised salvation; whose affections had
never been drawn out towards God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the saints
past~ and present; whose natures had never been chastened into submission to
divine will; but who might be amiable enough- suppose such were admitted into
the kingdom of God, at the coming of Christ, what happiness could result to
them, or glory to God? They would be thoroughly inappreciative. They would fail
to experience the gratitude which years of definite expectation will create in
the bosom of the saints, and be incapable of giving that glory to God which
will burst with spontaneous outflow from the mouths and hearts of those who
have been “looking for that blessed hope.”
God
purposes a higher consummation than this: He is making ready “a chosen generation, a royal
priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, to show forth the praises of Him who hath called them out of darkness
into His marvellous light,” (I Peter ii, 9). And this people He is
preparing on the principle of
403
“putting
on the new man, which is renewed in KNOWLEDGE
after the image of Him that created him” (Col.
in, 10), “filling them with THE KNOWLEDGE OF HIS WILL, in all wisdom and spiritual understanding” (Col. j, 9). The means
by which He is effectually accomplishing this work is the preaching of the
gospel, and though the “enlightened” may sneer at “creed” and “points of
doctrine,” and the “charitable” may enlarge the breadth of their liberality,
even to the obliteration of every distinctive feature from the system to which
they profess attachment, no one whose mind is enlightened in the Word will be
misled by their cavillings. “The wisdom
of this world is foolishness with God.”
Nothing
will serve a man in the end, but an exact knowledge of the will of God as
contained in the Scriptures, and faithfully carrying out the same. The wise may
protest against the “ dogmatism” and “bigotry” involved in such a course, but
the enlightened conscience will approve. “Our faith standeth not in the wisdom
of men, but in the word of God.” Jesus has said (and let every man give ear!)
“The woiws that I speak unto YOU, THEY are
spirit, and THEY are life” (John
vi, 63). That is, the gospel which he approved was “the power of God unto
salvation,” and therefore, “the words of
eternal life,” as they are designated by Peter (John vi, 68). And saith the
Lord Jesus : -“He that rejecteth me, and receiveth
not my words, hath one that
judgeth
him: THE WORD THAT I HAVE SPOKEN, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John xii, 48).
Here,
then, is the standard by which our position will be measured when the great
testing time arrives; and whether judged “uncharitable” or not, it is better to
walk in “the narrow way” of the
Words’ exact teaching, with little company, than to be found in the “broad
road” of either vague speculation or popular heresies, which the great
multitude perambulate. The former leadeth unto life: the other leadeth to
certain destruction : -“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself,
and take up
his
cross daily, and follow me; for whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but
whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it: For what is a
man advantaged if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of MY WORDS, of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed when he shall come in his own
glory” (Luke ix, 23-26).
404
“If
any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool that he may be wise; for the wisdom of this
world is foolishness with God” (I Cor. iii, 18, 19).
‘~Go
ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be
saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark xvi, 15, 16).
The
all-in-all of “true religion” in these modern days, is fast resolving itself
into abstract sincerity, goodness of character, piety of sentiment, etc.;
belief in “doctrinal point” is at a discount. Only let a man be sincere in
goodness of intention, and live a moral and exemplary life, and be he ever so
ignorant, or mistaken as to the cardinal points of religious truth, he is sure
of a goodly share in any inheritance that may be in store for the deserving;
this is popular sentiment.
Now
it is either true or false-safe or delusive. If it is true and safe, then the
Scriptures are of no authority. It really comes to this. No man can
consistently profess a belief in the divine authority of the Bible, and hold
this loose sentiment on such a momentously important subject; because the Bible
uniformly and distinctly narrows down salvation to a certain arbitary “narrow
way” which few find, or care to walk in when found. Definite conditions are
stated, and compliance required, involving something more than general goodness
of moral nature: and all who are intentionally or circumstantially on the side
of noncompliance are excluded from the blessing.
The
issue is, therefore, direct between the Bible and unbelief. We are on one side
or the other in reference to this question; there is no neutral ground. If we
have any expectation of future perfection at all, it is because of promises
contained in the Bible; for we can draw no expectation from any other source.
If, then, we desire, or even dimly conceive it possible to realise this
perfection, it can only be on the ground of a full compliance with the
conditions upon which it is predicated; for what other ground of confidence
have we?
If
on the other hand, we discard the Bible altogether from the account as a book
of questionable authority, we are without hope of any kind. There is no middle
position. If a man hope to attain to the salvation of the Bible, he must comply
with the Bible’s own terms. It is not at his command on any terms he pleases.
It is not purchasable by the shabby virtue of human character. It is special in
relation to human life; and the means of attainment are, therefore, special. If
you are not pleased
405
with
the speciality-” the contractedness of the affair-” you are at liberty to let
it alone; you will not be compellec! to take a part in a thing so distasteful
to you; you will be allowed to make the most you can out of your ephemeral
mortality, with all its petty concerns, which you hug with so much desire. Only
remember that you will have nothing to hope for in the future, and that you may /tave something to answer for, in
contemptuously refusing the proferred conditional goodness of God.
You
may begin to talk about justice requiring the recognition and rewards of your
virtue in a future life. Do you know whereof you affirm? On what principle do
you make out your claim? You have uniformly refrained from crime; you have made
it a practice to restore lost property to its owner; to bestow charity upon the
poor; to show kindness to your equals. Very good. Have you thereby established
a title to another life? A claim upon reward? Nay, my friend, philosopher as
thou art, thou oughtest to know that such a course of virtue is, in its
bearing, restricted to the life that thou hast.
Thou hereby givest action to the noble qualities that distinguish thee from
the brutes, and dost the more nearly approach the happiness of which thy nature
is capable; but thou dost not necessarily secure a right to that other life,
which is something special in relation to thy poor mortal existence, growing
not out of it in natural course, but (to be conditionally) super-added to it by
the creative power of God. It is vain for thee thus to hope for it as a reward
of thy natural virtue. It is deposited in Christ Jesus for thy benefit; if thou
wilt accept him, thou shalt have life (I John v, 10, 12); otherwise, thy poor
virtue will profit thee nothing, but will vanish with thyself from the creation
of God.
That
there should be so much philosophical hostility to belief is matter for surprise. Belief is no invention of creed
makers; it is the natural, constant, essential act of finite minds. We cannot
exist without it. If we don’t believe in religjous creeds, we believe in
something. We cannot help believing. It is the mainspring of all intelligent
action-the source of every sensation of happiness and woe. What makes a man
toil all day in the factory? Because lie believes
he will get his wages; would he do so if he did not? Why is the condemned
criminal so overwhelmed and dejected? Because he believes his death will take place on an early day; but let him be
told that a reprieve has arrived, and he flies into ecstasies of joy. Why?
Because he believes he shall escape
the doom that was impending over
406
j
him.
Our whole commercial system is based on belief, and the moment that society
begins to be distrustful, that is, unbelieving,
then we have a panic, and all the evils that come in its train. So in
matters religious: belief is the first principle, the foundation of practical
faith, the source of spiritual ecstasy, the cause of consistent action.
Now,
what is belief? It is the assent of the mind to definite points of information.
Before belief can take place, the mind must be informed; that is. it must first
know or be aware of the subject of belief. Hence, knowledge (though only in the
limited sense of information) is the foundation of belief. This principle is
practically admitted in things secular; how inconsistent, then, to deny its
importance in things religious. How foolish to talk down “doctrinal points” as
of no moment. Those “points,” so much disparaged by the wise men of this
generation, are, in reality, so many items of information on which our belief
concerning the future is founded, and to run them down as undeserving of an
intelligent man’s attention, is to insult his judgment, and in reality, betray
unbelief.
If
they are untrue, they are something more than trivial, and deserve to be
scouted; but if they are true, it is folly of a type bordering on insanity to
treat them with indifference. The issue, therefore, lies between belief and
unbelief-not between “bigotry” and “charity.” Religious “liberality” sounds
well, but what is it? It means indifference, for yourself and neighbour, to
what God has required at your hands. Liberality is pleasanter for this life,
than “the narrow way.” In the broader road, in respectable company, with the
delights of intellect, and the sweets of refinement, myriads of souls are
delightfully escorted to destruction. God grant that some in the reading of
these pages, may be enticed from the worldly throng, and induced to cast in
their lot with a humbler people, who, in the spirit of profoundest regard for
the word of the living God, are seeking to do His will according to His
revealed requirements.
Belief
of the Gospel is the first condition of salvation. This, however, is not all. A
man may believe in all the glorious promises of God, and yet not be a
participator in them. He must be baptised, as we have seen: “He that believeth,
and baptised, shall be saved.”
This
is a feature of the apostolic system which is pretty generally ignored by the
great body of those who claim the Christian name in the present day. How
extraordinary that a loud profession of Christian allegiance should be allied
to
407
systematic
violation of one of the plainest of Christian precepts! It cannot be said that
there is any ambiguity in the manner in which the duty is set forth in the new
Testament; for we find that Christ’s general announcement on the subject is
copiously illustrated both by exegetical comment and recorded example.
On
the day of Pentecost, for instance, when the stricken-in-heart exclaimed, “Men
and brethren, what shall we do”? the answer was, “Repent and be baptised every one of you, in the
name of Jesus Christ,” and the narrative tells us that “They that gladly received his word WERE BAPTISED and the same day there were added unto them about
3,000 souls” (Acts ii. 37, 38, 41). Here is both precept and example. We are
told in Acts viii, 12, that “ when (the
Samaritans) believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God
and the name of Jesus Christ, THEY
WERE BAPTISED BOTH MEN AND WOMEN.”
Again,
in the case of Cornelius and his companions, we read in Acts x, 47, 48, that at
the close of their interview with Peter, that apostle said, “Can any man forbid water that these should
not be baptised, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptised in the
name of the Lord.” Again, in the case of Paul himself, we find the same
course adopted after his conversion. “And now, why tarriest thou”? said Ananias
to him (Acts xxii, 16); “arise and be
baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord.” “AND HE AROSE AND WAS BAPTISED” (Acts
ix, 18).
Then
we have the case of the Philippian jailor, recorded in Acts xvi, in which the
same lesson is enforced by the powerful argument of example. It is stated in v,
33, “(He) was baptised, he and all his
straightway.” Then we have to remember that even the Lord Jesus himself
submitted to this act of obedience. We read : -“Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan, unto John, to be baptised
of him; but
John forbad him, saying, I have need to
be baptised of thee, and comest thou
to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all
righteousness.
Then he suffered him” (Matt. iii, 13-15).
Thus
New Testament examples (numerous and decisive) shew that baptism in- water was
a rite attended to by all who believed the truth in early times. Surely what
was necessary or appropriate in the first Christians, is just as necessary and
appropriate (and more so, if there be any difference) in Christians of the
nineteenth century. It is by no means fashionable,
408
however
to take this view. The generality of professing Christians argue against the
neccesity of baptism in their case, and prefer to risk neglect on their own
responsibility. It is clear, however, that the apostles looked upon the act in
a much more serious light. Paul, in the words already quoted, is very
expressive on the subject : -“As many of
you as have been baptised into
Christ, HAVE PUT ON
CHRIST”
(Gal. iii, 27).
Again:-
“Ye are circumcised with the
circumcision made without hands, in
putting off the body of the
sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; BURIED wiTh HIM IN BAPTISM, wherein also ye are risen with him through
the faith of the operation of God” (Col. ii, 11, 12).
Again
Paul says, in Rom. vi, 3-6: -“Know ye
not that so many of us as were BAPTISED i~ro JEsus CHRIST.
were baptised into his death? Therefore, we are BURIED WITH HIM BY BAPTISM into death: that like as
Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also
should walk in newness of life:
for if we have been planted
together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his
resurrection. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the
body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.”
Finally,
Peter makes the following allusion to it, which, though incidental, is
unmistakable: -“In the days of Noah
while the ark was a preparing,
wherein few, that
is, eight souls, were saved
by (or as the marginal reading gives it, through’) water. The like figure whereunto even BAPTISM DOTH ALSO NOW SAVE US
(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good
conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (I Pet. iii, 20, 21).
There
are other similar references to baptism throughout the epistles; but these are
sufficient to shew that whatever may be the difficulty of modern professing
Christians in discovering any significance or efficacy in the ordinance of
baptism, the apostles saw much of both. They recognised in it a constitutional
transition from one relationship to another,-a representative putting off of
the old man, or Adam nature, and a putting on of the new man, or Christ, who is
the ONE COVERING NAME, ifl which,
when the naked son of Adam is invested, he stands clothed before Jehovah, and
is approved in His sight. Of course this effect is imputative; that is to say,
it is not brought about
409
by
the mere act of submersion in water, which in itself has no religious virtue
whatever, but is the result recognised by
God when the act is performed in connection with an intelligent
apprehension and affectionate belief of the truth.
It
may seem strange and incredible that God would connect such a momentous change
with a trivial and (as some regard it) ridiculous observance. An earnest mind,
however, will not stop to reason on the matter when once satisfied that it is
the will of God, especially when he remembers that it is one of the
characteristics of God’s dealings with men, that He selects “weak things,
things despised, yea, and things that are not” (1 Cor. i, 27, 28), by which to
accomplish important results that it may be seen that the power is of God, and
not in the means, and that true obedience may be secured in His servants. It
was not the eating of the fruit in
itself-apart from the divine prohibition
-that
constituted Adam’s offence. It was not the mere looking at the brazen serpent
in the wilderness that cured the serpent-bitten Israelites. It was not Naaman’s
mere immersion in Jordan in itself that cured him of his leprosy. It was the principle involved in each case that
developed the results, viz., the principle of obedience to the divine law,
which is one prominent feature in all God’s dealings with man. Obedience is the
great thing required at our hands : -“Hath
the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as
in obeying the voice of the
Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of
rams (I Sam. xv, 22).
It
matters not what the act may be; the more unlikely the thing required, the more
severe the test, and the more conspicuous the obedience, even if it be the
offering up of an only son, or the slaughtering of a whole nation. In any case,
and at all hazards, obedience must be yielded. God is not less exacting in this
respect under the Christian dispensation than He was under the law; but, if
possible, more so. This appears from Paul saying in Heb. ii, 1, 3:- “Therefore, we ought to give the more
earnest heed to the things
which we (Christians) have
heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels (viz., the
law which was given through the disposition of angels-Acts vii, 53) was
steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense
of reward, HOW SHALL WE ESCAPE if we
neglect so great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord,
and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him?”
So
that although Christianity may be said, in its prescriptions, to be “a yoke
that is easy and a burden that is light,” yet in respect of its obligation, we are taught by the apostle
that it exceeds the law in rigidness and responsibility. How perilous, then, to
tinker with it after the fashion of modern “charity,” saying that it is of no
importance whether we believe its doctrines or not, and of no concern whether we
attend to its ordinances!
God
requires the one hope, the one faith, and one baptism, as the only acceptable
offering which a poor son of Adam can present under the Christian dispensation;
and to offer Him, instead, a mere sentimental piety of our own devising, is to
offer “strange fire,” which assuredly will bring death upon the offerer. God
has required all believers of His truth to be immersed, as a means of
transferring them from the dominion of the old mortal Adam to a life-giving
connection with the second Adam, the Lord from heaven, who is made a quickening
spirit; and though it may be very humiliating to submit to an act in which the
eye of sense can perceive no reason, yet in that very submission, obedience is
more thoroughly tested and more God-honouringly exemplified than in the
performance of that which necessity or a natural sense of fitness would
dictate.
The
change wrought in our position by baptism is “through the faith of THE OPERATION OF GOD” (Col. ii, 12). If there be no such faith, of course there is
no efficacy in the act; so that the view we take of baptism really depends on
our condition of mind in relation to God. Child-like faith in His word and
implicit obedience to His will (without which it is impossible to please Him),
will at once lead us to regard it as an essential act, under the Christian
dispensation, on the part of every one desiring to attain to the great
salvation; for had it been unessential, it would never have been enjoined as a
Christian dispensation and never attended to by the Lord Jesus, the apostles,
and the early Christians.
Yet
the character of the act depends upon the condition of the person attending to
it; for as has been already observed, in
itself it is nothing. An unenlightened person is not a fit subject for its
observance, however sincere he may be in his desire to do the will of God. It
is only prescribed for those who believe
the Gospel; and in early times it never was administered to any other. Men
were never exhorted to be baptised until they had arrived at a knowledge of
“the word of salvation.” For without such a knowledge, the act would have been
a mere bodily ablution, as profitless, in relation to eternal life, as those
411
performed
under the law, in every New Testament
instance, the Gospel was understood and believed before baptism was
administered. It requires the “one faith” to constitute the “one baptism.”
It was only a “washing of water BY
THE WORD” (Eph. v, 26).
But
when the word was absent from the mind, the cleansing element was wanting, and
the subject of the rite was still unwashed. This is the condition of vast
multitudes in our own day, who have been immersed as a religious ordinance, but
who are in total ignorance of the gospel preached by Jesus and his apostles.
Their immersion in ignorance is worthless, if repeated a thousand times; and if
ever they come to a true knowledge of the word, baptism will be just as
necessary as if they had never gone into the water at all. For a scriptural
case of re-immersion, see Acts xix, 1-5, where
twelve disciples, who had been baptised by John the Baptist, were re-immersed
on having their faith rectified on a certain point by Paul.
As
for those who give countenance to the sprinkling of babies as Christian
baptism, the whole tendency of the foregoing argument is to shew that they are
guilty of religious foolishness, of a type so palpable and self-evident, as to
require no formal refutation; and their case must be dismissed with the remark
that the doctrine of infant baptismal regeneration, like all the other
absurdities of the apostasy, is indebted for its existence and support, to the
one great central delusion which is the very life of orthodoxy-the doctrine of
the immortality of the soul.
To
sum up the whole matter, a person instructed in “the word of the kingdom,”
enquiring what must he do to be saved, has only one scriptural answer to
receive: “Repent and be baptised into the
name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins” (Acts ii, 38). When he has
yielded this “obedience of faith” he is “born of water” through the inceptive
influence of the truth; and having entered “The Name,” his sins are “covered “; his transgressions “hid “;
his whole past life is cancelled, and he has commenced a term of probation in
which he is a lawful candidate for that “birth of the spirit” from the grave,
which will finally constitute him a “son of God, being of the children of the
resurrection” (Luke xx, 36), “waiting for the ADOPTION, to wit, the
redemption of the body “ (Rom. viii, 23).
But
his ultimate acceptance will depend upon the character he develops in this new
relation. If he brings forth the fruits of the Spint, viz., moral results
proceeding from the spirit-words
412
(John
vi, 63), which have obtained a lodgment in his mind, as the motive power, he
will be approved by the Lord when he returns “to take account of his servants,”
as of those who “bring forth fruit, some thirty, and some sixty, and some a
hundredfold.” But if he continue to perform “the works of the flesh,” or
actions, whether “respectable” or otherwise, which are dictated by the mere
fleshly instincts, apart from the enlightenment of the Word, of which his mind
has been the subject-he will be adjudged of those “who, when they have heard,
go forth, and are choked with cares and riches, and pleasures of this life, and
bring no fruit to perfection.”
“HE THAT SOWETH TO HIS
FLESH, shall of the flesh reap corruption, BUT HE THAT SOWETH TO THE SPIRIT, shall of the
spirit reap life everlasting” (Gal. vi, 8). The two classes are differently dealt
with by the Father. “Every branch IN
ME,” says Jesus, “that beareth not fruit, He taketh away; and every branch that beareth fruit, He purgeth it, that it may bring forth more
fruit.” The names of the former are “blotted out of the Lamb’s book of
life” (Rev. iii, 5), in which they
had been inscribed at their immersion; while the other become the special
objects of divine training, by means of the circumstances around them
providentially arranged-” all things working together for good, to them who are the called according to His purpose”
(Rom. viii, 28).
“Teach
them to observe all things WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED” (Matt, xxviii, 20). This was Christ’s parting
instruction to his apostles. On another occasion he said, “Ye are my friends, if ye do WHATSOEVER I command you” (John
xv, 14). Now there is a certain ordinance of which he has said “THIS DO -IN
REMEMBRANCE OF ME” (Luke xxii, 19); and this being one of “all things
whatsoever he has commanded,” it is demanded as a sign of our friendship, that
we attend to it. The reference is to the “breaking of bread,” or “ the Lord’s
supper,” in which we are informed the first Christians “continued steadfastly”
(Acts ii, 42). It was originally instituted when Christ and his disciples were
met together for the last time to observe the Jewish passover. We read that on
the occasion : -“He (Jesus) took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto
them, saying, This is my
body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of
me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying,
This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you” (Luke xxii,
19, 20).
for
the observance of his disciples during
his absence. It was to be attended to “in
remembrance of him,” till he should return again as is evident from Paul’s
remark in I Cor. xi, 26, “As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death TILL HE COME.” The observance is a very
appropriate one. The bread, according to the Master’s direction, represents his
broken body, and the wine his shed’ blood; and thus the scene which human
nature is most liable to forget- the exhibition of Christ’s personal love and
the condemnation of sin in the flesh-memorialised before the disciples in
partaking of those symbols. The observance furnishes a common centre, around which
the brethren of Christ may rally in that capacity, and be spiritually refreshed
by the contemplation of the great sacrifice to which he lovingly submitted on
their account, while it affords a tangible mode of expressing their love for
him who, though absent, has promised to come again. Though simple in its
nature, it is profoundly adapted to their spiritual exigencies, necessitating
assembly which might rarely take place, and calling forth exhortation and
counsel, which might never be uttered; thus creating circumstances
pre-eminently conducive to their building up in the glorious faith and hope
which they possess, and counteracting the secularising and
spiritually-corrosive effect of he business life which they have to live in the
world.
Having
been commanded, its observance is a binding duty which no really enlightened
Christian will underrate in importance, or seek to evade. The Quaker runs to
one extreme in the matter, discarding the use of all Christian institutions
whatever and the Roman Catholic runs to the other-exalting them into de facto vehicles of spiritual virtue.
But those who are intelligent in the Word will be preserved from both extremes.
As
to the time at which the ordinance is to be attended to, or the frequency with
which it must be waited upon, there is no command; but the practice of the
first Christians may be taken as a certain guide, considering that they were
under the immediate supervision of the apostles. We read in Acts xx, 7, “Upon the first day’ of the week, when
the disciples came together to BREAK
BREAD, Paul preached unto them “; and again in I Cor. xvi, 2, “Upon the first day of the week, let
every one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him.” The first day
of the week was the Jewish Monday, and therefore our Sunday. It was the day
upon which Christ rose from the dead, and, therefore, an appropriate occasion
for the celebration
414
ot’
an event of which his resurrection was the glorious consumation.
It
will be noted that there is no warrant in the facts and testimonies produced on
this subject, for the stringent doctrine on the Sabbath as enforced in
Christendom of the present day. The Sabbath was a Jewish institution. It was
part of the yoke “which,” says Peter, “neither we nor our forefathers were able
to bear.” It was no part of the Christian system. It was abolished with “the
handwriting of ordinances that was against us “; and the fact of its
incorporation with Christianity may be best explained by the fact, that in the
days of the apostles, there were some who rose up and said “Ye must be
circumcised and keep the law of Moses.” But
this doctrine was not a true one then, any more than it is now: for at a
council of the apostles which was held to consider the matter, the following
letter was adopted: -“The apostles, and
elders, and brethren send greeting unto the brethren
which are of the Gentiles in
Antioch, and Syria,
and Cilicia. Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you
with
words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the tow, TO WHOM WE GAVE NO SUCH COMMANDMENT; it seemed good unto us, being
assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you . . . to tell you the same things by mouth. For
it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary
things: that ye abstain from meats
offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from
fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well “ (Acts xv,
23, 29).
Thus
the apostles distinctly prohibited the imposition of any of the Mosaic
enactments, except such as they specifically mention, upon the practice of the
Christians of the olden times, and, therefore, the Sabbath amongst the rest,
for, if it had been an exception, it would have been mentioned among the exceptions. But this
authoritative prohibition did not extinguish the Judaising spirit which had
crept in. Hence, we find Paul writing in the following strain to the Galatians
: -“Ye observe DAYS, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid
of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain” (chap.
iv, 10, 11). Again, “Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or
in
respect of an holy-day, or
of the new moon, or of the Sabbath” (Col. ii,
16).
His
teaching on the subject of the Sabbath is, “One man esteemeth one day above
another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let
every man be fully persuaded in his own mind”
415
(Rom.
xiv, 5); as much as to say, it is a
matter of so little importance, that every one must be regulated by private
conviction. Popular views on this subject, then, as illustrated in pulpit
inculcation, are obviously mistaken. It is the privilege of Christ’s brethren
to rest from labour on the first day of the week, and to engage more especially
in spiritual meditation than is possible on a week-day, but they are under no
bondage. They are free to engage as expediency may determine, without the risk
of infringing any law of God. Whatever is right to be done by him on a
week-day, is not wrong to be done on Sunday, although it may not be expedient.
He does not advocate the abolition of Sunday as a day of rest from secular
labour, and attendance upon religion. He is only too thankful for the
opportunity it confers upon him. He only protests against an error which binds
a grievious burden on the backs of those who are its subjects, remembering that
his Master hath said, “It is lawful to do well on the Sabbath day,” even if
that well doing be the pulling of ears of
corn in the field to gratify hunger, or the
rescue of an unfortunate sheep which may have fallen into the pit on the
Sabbath day.
In
conclusion, let a man become acquainted with the truth expressed in the New
Testament phrase, “the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus
Christ “; let him then he baptised into the name of the Father, the Son and
Holy Spirit, the great covering name provided in the Lord Jesus; let him
thenceforward wait with those “of like precious faith” upon the weekly memorial
institution appointed by the absent master; and let him continue in the daily
practice of ALL THINGS commanded by Christ, and in the daily cultivation of
that exalted character which was exemplified in Christ himself, waiting and anxiously desiring the return of
the Lord from heaven. If he put himself into this position, and faithfully
occupy it to the end, he will certainly be approved when the Lord comes, and be
invited as a “good and faithful servant,” to enter into the refuge provided for
the Lord’s people against the day of storm, and to inherit his glorious
kingdom.
LECTURE 18
THE
WAYS OF CHRISTENDOM
INCONSISTENT WITH THE
COMMANDMENTS OF CHRIST
IN THE lecture last delivered,
mention was made of the necessity disclosed in the Scriptures, of believers
continuing in “the daily practice of all things commanded by Christ.”
Christendom, which has gone astray from the doctrines, has also forsaken the
commandments of Christ, if ever it made them a rule of life. It has probably
left the commandments as the result of losing the doctrines; for the force of
the commandments can only be felt by those who recognise that salvation is
dependent on their obedience. Popular theology has reduced them to a practical
nullity. It has totally obscured the principle of obedience as the basis of our
acceptance with God in Christ, by its doctrine of “justification by faith
alone.”
It
is part of the modern restitution of primitive apostolic ways, to recognise
distinctly, that while faith turns a sinner into a saint, obedience only will
secure a saint’s acceptance at the judgment seat of Christ; and that a
disobedient saint will be rejected more decisively than even an unjustified
sinner.
The
rule or standard of obedience is to be found in the commandments of Christ.
Christ speaks very plainly on this mbject:- “Ye are my friends if ye do
whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I
call you not servants but I
have called you friends” (John xv, 14).
“Teach them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded” (Matt. xxviii, 20).
“If
ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them” (John xiii, 17).
“Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord,
shall enter into the Kingdom, but he that doeth the will of my Father” (Matt. vii, 21).
417
“Be
ye doers of the Word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves” (James i, 22).
“He
that saith ‘I know him,’ and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar” (I John
ii, 4).
These
statements are summed up in the saying of Christ, “If ye keep my commandments,
ye shall abide in my love” (John xv, 10).
We
shall look at these commandments with the result of seeing that they are
neutralised by the traditions and practices of so-called Christians of the
modern era. But let us first realise that the
commandments of the Apostles are included in the commandments of Christ. It
is common to make a distinction. You will hear it said sometimes that while the
commandments of Christ are all that is estimable and binding, the commandments
of the apostles are marred by the weaknesses of the men who communicated them,
and are by no means to be placed on a level with the precepts of their Master,
who was without flaw. This plausible distinction is not founded on truth. The
commandments delivered by the apostles were not of their authorship. They were
as definitely divine as those that came from the mouth of the Lord. Paul
distinctly claims this : -“If any man
think himself to be a prophet or spiritual let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you ARE THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LAW” (1 Cor. xiv, 37).
This
claim is only in harmony with what the Lord Jesus himself said on the subject.
In sending his apostles forth to teach his doctrine after he should have
departed from the earth, he did not leave them to their own resources as
natural men for the execution of the work. He made specific promise of
supernatural wisdom and guidance. This promise occurs in various forms, e.g. : -“I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries
shall not be able to gainsay
nor resist” (Luke xxi, 15).
“If
I depart, I will send him the comforter,
. . . which is the HOLY SPIRIT, whom the Father will send in my name. He shall teach you all things, and bring
all things to your remembrance
whatsoever I have said unto you” (John xvi, 7: xiv 26).
“When
they deliver you up, take no thought how
or what ye shall speak, for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
For
it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh
in you” (Matt. x, 19, 20).
The
promise of Christ that he should send the Spirit to the apostles was fulfilled
on the Day of Pentecost. Jesus told them not to begin their apostolic labours
until the Spirit should come (Luke xxiv, 49; Acts i, 4). They were to “tarry at
Jerusalem” till the promised “power from on high” came, by which they were
enabled to give an effective testimony to the word. They had not long to wait.
In ten days, while they were all assembled (the apostles and disciples to the
number of 120), the Spirit came with sound of a rushing mighty wind, and filled
all the place where they were, crowning each apostle with a visible wreath of
flame, and manifesting its intelligent power in imparting to the apostles the
power of extemporising the word in all the spoken languages of the day (Acts
ii, 1-13).
When
the commotion caused by this wonderful occurrence had come to a head, Peter
explained the nature of it to the bewildered spectators. He reminded the
assembled multitude of the recent crucifixion of Jesus, which they were aware
of. He then declared his resurrection as a fact within the personal eye-witness
of the apostles, and added, “Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the
promise of the Holy Spirit, HE HATH
SHED FORTH THIS WHICH YE NOW SEE AND HEAR “ (Acts ii, 33).
The
spirit which was thus bestowed upon them remained with them as a guiding
teaching presence to the end. It was this that justified Paul’s claim to divine
authority for the things he wrote, as above quoted; for although Paul was not
among the apostles at that time, he was added to their number shortly
afterwards, and in every way supernaturally endowed as the other apostles were.
It was this that enabled John the apostle to take the same strong ground in his
first epistle: “We are of God: he I/ia!
knoweth God heareth us: he that is not of God, heareth not us. HEREBY KNOW WE THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH AND THE SPIRIT OF ERROR” (I
John iv, 6). When John said this he said no more in substance than Jesus said
himself concerning John and his fellow apostles: “As my Father hath sent me,
even so send I you” (John xx, 21). “He that heareth you heareth me, and he that
despiseth you despiseth me” (Luke x, 16).
Here
is Christ’s own authority for placing the word of his apostles on a level with
his own. He said concerning his own teaching, “The word which ye hear is not mine but the Father’s which sent me” (John
xiv, 24). On the same principle, the apostles could say with Paul, “The things
which we write
419
(and
speak) are (not ours but) Christ’s who sent us.” The principle is this: the
Holy Spirit was upon the Lord from the Father without measure, making him one
with the Father, who is the eternal and universe-filling Spirit; through which
he was enabled to give commandments that were as truly divine as if proclaimed
direct from heaven in the hearing of all the world. (Luke iii, 22; John iii, 35; Acts i, 2). So the Holy Spirit was
upon the Apostles from Christ, who is one with the Father, imparting to their
words a divine authority, equal to that which attached to his own words. Hence,
it is a perfectly natural relation of things that Christ exhibits when he says,
“He that despiseth you, despiseth me, and he that despiseth me despiseth Him that sent me.”
It
must be evident in the light of these considerations how grievously mistaken is
the view which would treat with small respect the apostolic precepts, while
according a high sentimental regard for those which come out of the actual
mouth of Christ. The commandments of the apostles are the commandments of
Christ, and the commandments of Christ are the commandments of God. And the
keeping of the commandments of God is of an importance that cannot be
represented in too extreme a light, in view of what is written in the
Apocalypse: “Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have
right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city”
(Rev. xxii, 14).
When
Jesus sent forth his apostles, he not only commanded them to preach the gospel,
but he said, “Teach them to observe all
things whatsover I have commanded you” (Matt. xxviii, 20). It must be
obvious that this extends the obligatoriness of the commandments delivered to
the apostles, to all believers as well and this not merely in the sense of
seemliness or suitability, but in the sense of imperative obligation. That is,
the obedience of these commandments is essential to the believers. Christ said
this plainly in concluding what is called his “sermon on the mount,” which is
nothing else than a long series of these very commandments-in fact, the most
methodical and extensive collection of them to be found in the whole course of
his recorded teaching. He said. “Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken him unto A WISE MAN which built his house upon a rock;
and every one that heareth these sayings of mine and DOETH THEM NOT, shall be likened unto A FOOLISH MAN which built his house upon the sand, and the rain descended, and
the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, and it fell, and
great was the fall of it” (Matt. viii, 24-26).
420
In
no plainer way could Christ tell us that our ultimate acceptance with him will
depend upon our doing of the things he has commanded. If he did say it more
plainly, it was when he said, “Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord,
shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but HE THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER, which is in heaven” (Matt.
vii, 21).
The
idea thus explicitly enunciated is of very frequent occurrence in the Lord’s
teaching. It comes out in various connections and forms, but always with the
same pointedness and vigour. There is never room for misconception. Once as he
stood in the midst of a listening crowd, one said, “Thy mother and thy brethren
stand without, desiring to speak with thee.” His rejoinder was, “Who is my
mother and who are my brethren?
WHOSOEVER SHALL DO THE WILL
OF MY FATHER which
is in
heaven,
the same is my brother, and sister, and
mother “(Matt. xii, 47, 50). On
another occasion, a woman in the crowd exclaimed, “Blessed is the womb that
bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.” His response was, “Yea,
rather, blessed are they that hear the
word of God, and KEEP IT” (Luke
xi, 27, 28). On another occasion he said, “Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which 1 say?” (Luke
vi, 46); and on another, “Except your righteousness shall exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye
shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. v, 20); and,
again. “Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you” (John xv, 14).
Now,
as to the relation of Christendom to these commandments, it is well described
in the words which Jesus applied to the religious leaders of the Jewish nation:
“Ye have made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition” (Matt.
xv, 6). There is scarcely a commandment of Christ but what is systematically
disregarded in the practice of the Christian world so-called. It is not merely
that the commandments are not obeyed: they are not recognised. They have been
explained away and nullified through the influence of human opinion and precept,
traditionally received. We have seen how entirely the command to believe the
gospel has been set aside; to what a nonentity the command to be baptised has
been reduced; and into what neglect has fallen the command to break bread from
week to week in remembrance of him. It is not of these we would now speak.
Our
illusion is to a class of commandments that run much more directly counter to
human bias and inclination. By reason of their very aim to try, and purify, and
chasten and discipline
421
the
mind into subjection to the divine will, there is a universal predilection in
favour of that way of understanding these commandments that takes away their
inconvenience for men called to serve Christ in the present world, and inclined
perhaps to do so, though with no great amount of faith, or its resultant
enthusiasm. Because of this “concensus of opinion,” as it is the modern fashion
to phrase it, the common run of men are afraid to think as the commandments,
without sophistication, would lead men to think. But the commandments are not
altered by the “concensus” They remain as-the expression of Christ’s will,
however successfully they may be nullified by tradition: and it will be a poor
apology for disobedience, in the day of judgment to say that we did not dare to
comply with them, because they were not currently understood to have any
practical bearing in modern times. The inclinations and traditions of the
multitude have always been in antagonism to the will of God. The divinely
recorded history of the world is proof of this. It is, therefore, the part of
men who believe in God, to hearken to the voice of His word, and not to the
opinions of the people and their leaders.
Of
those commandments that are recognised though not acted on, it will not be in
place here to speak. That God should be loved and served; that men should be
true, just and kind; that our neighbour’s interests should have as high a
consideration at our hands as our own, no man considering himself a member of
Christendom would deny, however little able he might be to give practical
effect to these commandments in his life. These commandments are such as are
beautiful in themselves, and commend themselves to the moral instincts of all
men (not degraded to the very level of the brute) as the dictates of the
highest wisdom.
It
is of the commandments whose excellence is not so self-evident that there is
need to speak: commandments whose aim is not to make the present life
agreeable, but to subject obedient believers to a discipline that will subdue and
mould them to the divine pattern in preparation for the perfectly agreeable
state of existence to be established by Christ upon the earth in the day of His
coming.
1. Be
not conformed to this world (Rom. xii, 2). There is not much danger of
mistaking the meaning of this. The world is the people, as distinguished from
the earth which they inhabit. Peter puts this beyond doubt in calling it “ the
world OF THE UNGODLY” (II Peter ii, 5). Jesus also makes it plain in
speaking of the world as a lover and a hater, “If the world hate you, ye know
that it
422
hated me before it hated you. If ye
were of the world, the world would love his
own” (John xv, 18). This could only apply to the people. The command is to
be not conformed to the world of peopie upon the earth as it now is. Jesus
plainly laid it down that he did not belong to such a world, and commanded his
disciples to accept a similar position in relation to it. “The world to come “is the world of their citizenship.
Of their position in the present world, Jesus said in prayer, “They are not of the world even as I am not of the
world” (John xvii, 16). By John he commanded them, “Love not the world, neither
the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the
Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and
the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life; is not of the Father, but of the
world” (I John ii, 15). By Peter, he indicates their position in the world as
that of “strangers and pilgrims” (I Peter ii, 11), and their life in it as a
“time of sojourning” (i, 17), to be passed in holiness and fear (verses 14 and
17).
The
world that hated Jesus was the Jewish world. Consequently, we are saved from
the mistake of supposing that by the world is meant the extremely vile and
immoral of mankind. The Jews were far from being such: they were a very
religious and ostentatiously professing and ceremonially punctilious people.
among whom the standard of respectability was high in a religious sense. All
their conversations with Christ shew this. That which led to the complete
separation indicated in Christ’s words and precepts, is indicated by Jesus
himself, in his prayer to the Father, so wonderfully recorded in John xvii: “0
righteous Father, the world hath not
known thee” (verse 25). It is the world’s relation to God that cuts off the
friends of God from the world (if the friends of God are faithful). The world
neither loves, nor knows, nor considers God. They care for Him in no sense. His
expressed will-His declared purpose-His intrinsically sovereign claims, are
either expressly rejected or treated with entire indifference. His great and
dreadful and eternal reality is ignored. Daniel’s indictment against Beishazzar
is chargeable against them all. “The God in
whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not
glorified” (Dan. v, 23).
This
is an all-sufficient explanation of the matter we are considering. If the world
is God’s enemy, how can the friends of God be friends with it? Itis not without
the profoundest reason in the nature of things, that it is written, “The friendship of the world is enmity with
God. Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world, is the enemy of God” (James
iv, 4). “No
423
MAN CAN SERVE TWO MASTERS. . . . YE CANNOT SERVE GOD AND
MAMMON” (Matt. vi, 24).
The
force of this reason increases tenfold when we contemplate the present
situation in the light of its divine explanation and the divine purpose
concerning it. We must seek for this explanation in the beginning of things-the
beginning as Mosaic-ally exhibited (an exhibition endorsed by Christ, and
therefore to be trusted in the face of all modern theories and speculations).
This beginning shews us man in harmony with God, and things “very good.” Then
it shews us disobedience (the setting aside of the divine will as the rule of
human action-alias, sin), and as the result of this, the divine fellowship
withdrawn, and men driven off to exile and to death, permitted only,
thereafter, to approach in sacrifice, in token of the final way of return. The
present world is the continuance and enlargement of the evil state of man,
resulting from man’s alienation from God in the beginning. It is enlarged and
aggravated. “The whole world lieth in wickedness” (I John v, 19), “dead in trespasses
and sins
by
nature children of wrath” (Eph. ii, 1-3), “without Christ, having no hope, and
without God.” (Eph. ii, 12).
Now,
what is the purpose concerning this state of things? We have seen it in
previous lectures. It is briefly summarised in 11 Thes. i, 7, and Rev. xix,
11-16, “The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with his mighty angels in
flaming fire, taking vengeance on them
that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
“In righteousness doth he judge and make
war. . . treading the wine-press of
the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.” When this work of judgment and
destruction is done, the kingdom of God prevails on earth for a thousand years,
leading the nations in ways of righteousness and peace; and after a brief
renewal of conflict with the diabolism of human nature. there comes at last the
day of complete restoration, the ungodly consumed off the earth; the servants
of God saved. “No more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in
it; and his servants shall serve him;
and they shall see his face, and his name shall be in their foreheads” (Rev.
xxii
3).
Here,
then, we have harmony with God at the beginning of things, and harmony with Him
at the end of things, and the dark and dreadful interval of “the present evil
world” between, in which God is not obeyed nor recognised, but the pleasures,
gratifications, and interests of mere natural existence made the objects of
universal pursuit. In this dark interval, however, the divine
work
goes on of separating a family from the evil, in preparati’ n for the day of
recovery and blessing. It is not easy, in view of these things, to realise the
reasonableness of the divine command to His servants meanwhile, not to be
conformed to an evil world, in which God is disowned, and to which they do not
belong?
Now,
how does Christendom look in this light? Is it not evident at a glance that
this elementary axiom of the law of Christ is totally disregarded? The idea of
a Christian of the ordinary type being “not of the world” is an anomaly only
calculated to excite the sarcastic smile of the cynic. If the ordinary
“Christian” is not “of the world,” where are we to find the people that are? To
call a man “a man of the world,” has, in fact, become one of the highest compliments
that can be paid to a man’s judgment and culture: as a man at home everywhere,
who sees good in everything; and nothing very wrong in anything. In the ears of
such a man, the distinctions and scrupulosities enjoined by Christ and his
apostles have an antiquated sound: and worse
-a
sound of uncharity, of harshness, of narrow-minded and bigoted sectarianism.
The earnest recognition and obervance of right and wrong. as arising out of the
law of Christ, are in his eyes the symptoms of an odious fanaticism,
disqualifying the subject of them for society or the commonest good fellowship.
Yet
“the man of the world,” with his kindly unconcern about all things, is a good
Christian by the popular standard. He is “of the world” essentially; and though
Christ proclaimed himself as “not of the world” and commanded his disciples to
accept a similar position, this man’s being of the world, is held to be no
drawback to his Christian standing in the eyes of Christendom. No wonder! The
church is the world. What is there in and of the world that the church does not
mix with? (and by “the church” we may understand the dissenting bodies as well
as the State establishment).
Take
the political sphere. If there is anything characteristically “of the world,” it is politics, whether in the exercise
or the discussion of temporal power, and its forms. It is written: “The KINGDOMS of this world are to become (at Christ’s return) the kingdoms of
our Lord and of His Christ.” Consequently, the kingdoms are meanwhile “of this
world.” In modern usage “kingdom” has become “State,” because the political
form of the State varies. Where is the church in relation to the State? The
alliance of the church with the State is of itself a sufficient illustration of
the departure of Christendom from the corn425
mandments
of Christ. It is a proof that the modern church is “of this world,” even if the
private practice of its members were in harmony with the mind of Christ.
The
common private practice of those who consider themselves “Christians,” removes
any doubt that the public form of things might leave. That common private
practice may be summed up as an earnest discharge of all the parts and
functions that belong, or could possibly belong, to citizens of the present
world. There is no point, part or feature of the present evil world, in which
they are not found incorporate. The bishops are part of the world-system in
Britain, as they sit in their lawn sleeves in the House of Lords, to supervise
the laws made for this world by the much jangling that goes on in “the lower
house.” The clergy are “gentlemen,” eligible for the society of the world, and
welcome in the drawing-rooms of the aristocracy and on the huntingfield with
the squires. Her churchwardens and minor officials have the management of the
world in hand in their several departments, whether exacting the tithes with
the sword of the law in hand, or refusing a resting place in the parish
churchyard to dead heretics. Her laity look on riches, place, and power as
legitimate objects-with all of them-the most successful in attaining which, are
the most honourable. In minuter details, they are voters (the secerning blood
vessels of the political system); they are patriots and political spouters at
public meetings (the thew and muscle of the system); they burn gunpowder on the
battlefield, or compete for the civic or Parliamentary honours of the State in
the boroughs (and become the organs of the system). They run in crowds to the
public amusements, or in private indulge (heir liking without the least
restraint or reference to the New Testament injunctions of sobriety,
self-denial and holiness.
What
is to be done in such a state of things by the man earnestly seeking to be the
servant of Christ, and desiring to be found of him at his coming, in the attitude
of a chaste and loyal bride, preparing for marriage? Common sense would supply
the answer if it were not plainly given to us by God Himself: “Come out from
among them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will
receive you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty”
(II Cor. vi, 17-18). The questions with which Paul prefaces this quotation
strike home the reasonableness of this command at a blow: “What fellowship hath
righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with
darkness? And what
426
concord
hath Christ with Belial: or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?”
The
believer of the gospel has no alternative but to step aside from the world. He
cannot otherwise carry out the will of Christ concerning those whom he asks for
his own. What this stepping aside from the world means, there need be no
difficulty in the earnest man determining for himself. Christ and the apostles
have in themselves furnished an example which we are invited to imitate (I
Peter ii, 21; John xiii, 15; xv,
18-20; I Cor. xi, 1: iv, 17).
It
does not mean seclusion: for they lived an open daily public life. It does not
mean isolation: for they are always seen among men. It means abstinence from
the aims and principles of the world, and from the movements and enterprises in
which these find expression. The activities of Christ and the apostles were all
in connection with and on behalf of, the work of God among men. They never
appear in connection with the enterprises of the world. Their temporal
avocations are all private. Christ was a carpenter; Paul a tent maker; but at
these, both worked as the sons of God. Disciples of Christ may follow any
occupation of good repute; (they are expressly prohibited from having to do
with anything of an evil appearance or giving occasion of reproach to the
adversary-Rom. xii 9; I Thess. v,
22). But in all they do, they are to remember they are the Lord’s servants, and
to act as if the matter they have in hand were performed directly to him (Col.
iii, 23-24). Even servants are to do their part to a bad mastar faithfully as
“to the Lord” (I Peter, ii, 18-20).
The
sense in which they stand apart from the world is in the objects for which they
work, and in the use to which they put the time and means which they call
“their own.” They are to “follow after (works of) righteousness, faith,
charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart” (II Tim.
ii, 22). They are to “deny ungodliness and worldly lusts,” and “live soberly
and righteously and godly” (Tit. ii, 12). They are not to live, in pleasure
(Tit. iii, 3; I Tim. v, 6). They are to live to give God pleasure, in which, as
they grow, they will find their own highest pleasure. They are to be “holy in
all manner of conversation,” cleansing themselves from all filthiness of the
flesh and spirit, and walking as those who are the temple of God among men (I
Pet. i, 15; II Cor. xiii, 7; II Cor. vi, 16).
Guided
by these apostolic principles, they will abstain from the defiling habits that
are common to ungodly Christendom,
427
amongst
which smoking and drinking stand prominent. And as men waiting and preparing
for the kingdom of God (whose citizenship ‘is in heaven, and not upon the,
earth) they accept the position of “strangers and pilgrims” among men. They are
not at home; they are passing on. They take no part with Ciesar. They pay his
taxes and obey his laws where they do not conflict with the laws of Christ; but
they take no part in his affairs.
They
do not vote; they do not ask the suifrages of his supporters; they do not
aspire to C~sar’s honours or emoluments; they do not bear arms. They are
sojourners in Caesar’s realms during the short time God may appoint for their
probation; and as such, they sustain a passive and non-resisting attitude, bent
only upon earning Christ’s approbation at his coming, by their obedience to his
commandments during his absence. They are not of the world, even as he was not
of the world; and therefore they refuse to be conformed to it. The way is
narrow and full of self-denial-too much so for those who would like to perform
the impossible feat of “making the best of both worlds.” But the destination is
so attractive, and the results of the cross-bearing so glorious, that the
enlightened pilgrim deliberately chooses the journey, and resolutely endures
its hardships.
2. “They
that are great (among the Gentiles) exercise authority upon them. BUT iT SHALL NOT BE SO AMONG YOU. But
whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister, and whosoever will
be chief among you, let him be your servant” (Matt. xx, 25-27). “BE NOT YE ~ALLED R~BI, for one
is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren.” Nothing is more
natura} than for men to seek honour and deference among their fellow men. It is
the universal habit, of society “to receive honour one of another, and seek not
the honour that cometh from God only” (John v, 44). Men everywhere “love the
praise of men more than the praise of God” (John xii, 43). It is considered the
right thing to nurse “ambition “-to indulge the desire for “fame”
-which
is the same thing in modern times. Jesus condemns it without qualification. He
forbids men to aim at human approbation. It is his express commandment in
almsgiving, for example, to “let not thy left hand know what thy right hand
doeth” (Matt. vi, 3); and in prayer, to “ pray to thy Father which is in
secret” (verse 6), and in the exercises of divine sorrow, “to appear not unto
men to fast” (verse 18). The object is that “thy
428
Father
which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.” For the same reason, he
forbids us to accept honourable titles and honourable places, and enjoins us to
take a low and serving place. In illustration of his meaning, he himself washed
the feet of his disciples, remarking, “I have given you an example that ye
should do as I have done to you” (John xiii, 15). He expressly said, “Whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased
(Luke
xiv, 11). His command by the apostles is, “All of you be clothed with humility
“; put away pride: “mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate”
(Rom. xii, 3, 16; Phil. ii, 3; I
Pet. v, 5-6).
The
object of these commandments must be apparent to every reflecting mind that
realises Christ’s object in the preaching of the gospel. It is to “purify unto
himself a peculiar people” (Tit. ii, 14), to show forth “the praises of Him who
hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light” (I Pet. ii, 9). The
celebration of this praise is not finally and effectually rendered until the
summons comes forth from the throne, to the immortal multitude of the saints in
the day of His appearing:
“praise
our God all ye His servants” (Rev. xix, 5);
who respond to the thrilling mandate in a tempest of enthusiastic
acclamation, “as the voice of many waters and as the voice of mighty
thunderings” (verse 6). How could a people be prepared for such a part except
by the command to crucify the propensity that seeks the honour of men in this
evil age?
The
acceptance of that honour necessarily engenders self-absorption, and unfits the
heart for that self-abasement which is the first ingredient of true glory to
God. We can see what the cultivation of ambition does for its poor worshippers.
Take the elegant crowd at a levee-the haughty, quick-glancing, susceptible sons
and daughters of fashion: how would they be qualified to praise God in the
heart-felt way required? It is the praise of men that fills and controls
them-visible in their arrogance, and impatience and pride. They are eaten up
with it as with a fever. The commandments of Christ have no acceptiblity to
them. Their motto is “Who is Lord over us?” When the commandments of Christ
obtain an entrance, they allay this fever, and bring the mind into a frame in
harmony with true reason in the ennobling recognition that all things are
derived, and that the glory and credit of everything is ultimately due to God
alone, and not safe to be accepted, in however small a measure, at the hands of
man in the present age of godlessness.
How
is it with Christendom? Are names of honour repu429
diated?
Are good deeds done in private? Is the praise of men deprecated? Is it not
notoriously the reverse in all particulars? Have we not “Rev.”, “Right Rev.”,
“Most Rev.”, “Very Rev.”, and “Fathers in God,” and a legion of plain revs.?--
a stupendous lying title in its plainest form. Have we not “Masters” and
“Doctors” of all sorts-M.A’s and B.A’s, and D.D’s, and the M.P’s and T.C’s, of
Parliamentary and municipal dignities, impressing the crowd all the more as an
abstraction reduced to what are to them mysterious monograms? And in more
private ways, do we not see the same aping after greatness, the same fawning to
greatness, in all sorts of complimentary titles exacted and accorded by the
millions who call themselves
Christian
“?
And
are the leaders better than the people? Are not the leaders first in the
offence? Who so quick as they to resent the omission of conventional honours,
which they call “courtesies,” and who so irresponsive to the claims of
benevolence and right when out of human sight? There may be, and doubtless are,
exceptions; but as a rule, it is now, as Jesus said it was with the Scribes and
Pharisees of his day, “All their works they do to be seen of men. They make
broad their phylacteries, and enlar;~ the borders of their garments. And love
the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and
greetings in the markets, and to be called of men ‘Rabbi, Rabbi’” (Matt. xxiii,
5-7).
Look
at the public subscription lists: where would the contributions be if the names
and amounts were not published? Is it not a fact that the contributors of
Christendom as a class, aim to get their contributions advertised, and that
those who ask them, pander to the popular weakness, in the certain knowledge
that, if they do not soothe the unholy ambitions with public acknowledgements,
the donations would stay in the pockets of the donors?
And
as for the “praise of men,” it is the inspiration of all public life, the
incense of public worship, and the peculiar fragrance of all public
proceedings. Who can read the report of a public meeting without having his
senses sickened with fulsome eulogy, uncalled for presentations and
testimonials, and the cheap, but indispensable vote of thanks? The motives of
men are corrupted by breathing such an atmosphere. There is no remedy but the
remedy of destruction and of reconstruction which is waiting to be applied at
the coming of Christ. The individual remedy lies in “coming out,” and doing the
will of God
430
in
privacy and obscurity, in patient waiting for the glorious day of rectification
and recompense which God will assuredly bring at the time of His purpose in
fulfilment of His promise.
3. “Lay
not up for yourselves treasures upon earth” Matt. vi,
19).
This is plainly expressed in another part of the word of wisdom thus: “Labour
not to be rich” (Prov. xxiii, 4). Nothing in the whole range of language could
be plainer than this. Christ, who surely knew better than all, states a fact
which constitutes a powerful reason for the commandment not to aim at riches.
“How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God” (Luke
xviii, 24). Riches he calls “the mammon of unrighteousness.” He does not say
their possession is absolutely inconsistent with divine favour and inheritance
of life eternal. But He gives us to understand that the danger of their
“choking the word” is extreme (Matt. xiii, 22), and that the only safety of
those who have them, lies in turning them by use into friends and safeguards.
His advice is: “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness”
(Luke xvi, 9). How this is to be done, he indicates: “Give alms: provide
yourselves bags that wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not”
(Luke xii, 33). This advice is repeated by the apostles, “Charge them that are
rich in this world. . . that they do good, that they be rich in good works,
ready to distribute, willing to communicate, laying up in store for themselves
a good foundation against the time to come” (I Tim. vi, 17). “As every man hath
received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards
of the manifold grace of God” (I Peter iv, 10).
The
rich in Christendom do not conform to these divine prescriptions. On the
contrary, they lavish their superabundance on themselves in a thousand ways
that minister to “the lust of the eye, and the pride of life.” If they get
more, their plan is to enlarge the basis of their own individual
aggrandisement. They would be considered fools if they did otherwise. How
Christ regards the matter (that, in fact, he considers them fools for doing
that which the world considers them wise for doing), they may learn beforehand
from Luke xii, 16:- “The ground of a certain rich man brought forth
plentifully.
And
he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do because I have no room where
to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do; I will pull down my barns and
build greater, and there
431
will
I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast
much goods laid up for many years: take thine ease; eat, drink, and be merry.
But God said unto him, THOU FOOL, this
night thy soul shall be required of thee: then, whose shall those things be
which thou hast provided? So is he that
layeth up treasure for himself and is not rich towards God.”
Here
we have the law of Christ forbidding the poor to labour to be rich, and
commanding the rich to use their abundance in the alleviation of the want
around them. What is the practice of Christendom with regard to these
institutes? Is not “laying up treasure upon earth” the one thing aimed at, the
one thing commended, the one thing needful and respectable on all hands? and do
not the rich resent the suggestion of liberality to the poor as an
impertinence, entitling them to fling the suggestor into the gutters? These
things are true. But the commandment calmly remains, and we shall have to face
it one day, as Jesus says:
“The
word that I have spoken, the same shall judge you at the last day.” We may
prosper in our diligent laying by, or pleasantly enjoy ourselves inside the
ring-fence we set up for our unrighteous mammon-justifying our course on the
social economic theories yielded by the experience of a sinful generation; but
where will both be in the day when we emerge empty-handed from the grave, to
appear before Him who will “judge the living and the dead,” and who will open
our eyes to the fact that what we had in the day of our probation, was His? He
will decide the issue on His own principles alone, and not on the principle that
sinners have rendered popular among themselves.
4. Resist
not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the
other also. Of him that taketh thy goods, ask them not again. And if any man
will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain (Matt. v,
39-41; Luke vi, 30). Of all the commandments of Christ, this of unresisting
submission to legal and personal wrong is the one that most severely tests the
allegiance of his disciples, and which accordingly is most decisively neglected
in all Christendom. It would not be too much to say that it is deliberately
refused and formally set aside by the mass of professing Christians, as an
impracticable rule of life. That it stands there as the plainest of
432
Christ’s
commandments, cannot be denied; and that it was reechoed by the apostles and carried out in the practice of the
early Christians, is equally beyond contradiction. Yet, by all classes, it is
ignored as much as if it had never been written. To what are we to attribute
this deliberate disobedience of all ranks and classes of men, nominally
professing subjection to Christ?
Something
of it is doubtless due to a wrong conception of the object of the commandments.
It is commonly imagined that the commandments of Christ apply, and are intended
to supply, the best modes of life among men-that is, those modes that are best
adapted to secure a beneficial adaptation of man to man in the present state of
life upon earth. Doubtless they would prove such if all men acted on them. But
in a world where the majority ignore them and act out their selfish instincts
without scruple, it is otherwise. They expose the obedient to personal
disadvantage. They were never intended tc have any other effect. They were
intended to develop “a peculiar people,” whose peculiarity should consist in
the restraint of natural impulse in submission to the will of God. They were
designed to chasten and discipline and purify such a people by the exercise of
patient submission to wrong in preparation for another time when such
commandments will be no longer in force, but when it will be given to the
developed and obedient saints to “execute judgment” upon the ungodly, and
“break in pieces the oppressor” as a preliminary to the blessing of all people
(Rev. ii, 26; Dan. vii, 22; Psa. cxlix, 9).
Men
say society could not be carried on if these principles were acted on. Such a
speech is not the speech of a disciple. Christ is not aiming at carrying on
society on its present footing, but at “taking out a people” to carry it on
rightly-that is, on divine principles-in the age to come. His own case
illustrates the position. The people wanted to take him by force and make him a
king, but he withdrew (John vi, 15). A
man wanted him~ to interfere in a will dispute. He declined, saying, “Who made
me a judge and a divider?” (Luke xii, 14). His part was to testify the truth,
to do the will of the Father, to do all the good he could on divine grounds,
and as for the world, to “testify of it that the works thereof are evil” (John
vii, 7). In this course he created hatred for himself, which finally took the
form of personal violence. This violence he did not resist. He was led as a
lamb to the slaughter; his life was taken from the earth. And he aid, with
regard to his whole experience. “The servant is not greater
than
his Lord. If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you”
(John xv, 18, 20).
Christendom
resists evil; sues at law; resents injury, brandishes the constable’s
truncheon, and fights in the army, even if the men it is called upon to shoot
are fellow Christians. If pointed to the law of Christ, it shakes its head. It
speaks of “duty to society,” the “protection of life and property,” and the
certain chaos that would set in if the law of Christ were in force. In this,
Christendom speaks as the world, and not as “the church,” because it is not the
church, but the world. The true church is composed of the brethren of Christ; and
he tells us that his brethren are those who obey his commandments, and do the
will of the Father, as expressed by his mouth (Matt. xii, 50; John xii, 49, 50). The
question for such has no difficulties. The question is: “Does the law of Christ
allow them to employ violence under any circumstances?” If not, the loss of
life itself would not be a consequence to be considered by them. Thoughts of
expediency or philanthropy are out of place when urged in defence of doing that
which the law of Christ forbids. If riots must rage unless we disobey Christ,
let riots rage. If life and property must be exposed to the ravages of wicked
men, unless we do that which Christ tells us we are not to do, let all houses
and all lives be unprotected. If we must incur and pay heavy penalties, unless
we choose to break the law of God, let the penalties be paid. If we must be
killed, and all our families with us. unless we forfeit the approbation of the
Lord and Master, and lose eternal life at his coming, let us die at once.
It is
a mistake to hamper the question of duty with any secondary consideration
whatever. The time has not come for the saints to keep the world right. It has
to be made right before even keeping it right can be in question. The position
of the saints is that of sojourners on trial for eternal life. God will take
care that their probation is not interfered with by murder and violence before
the time. The matter is His. We are in His hands: so is all the world. We need
not therefore be distressed by thoughts of what will be the effect of any
course required by Christ. He will take care that His work comes out right at
last. The simple and only question for us, is that which Paul put near
Damascus: “Lord, what wouldst Thou have me do?” We may not do what involves
disobedience to Him.
A
special constable, for example, is required if need be, to break a man’s head
with a truncheon. The question in such a case is, therefore, best put thus:
“Does Christ allow his servants
434
to
break people’s heads with truncheons?” It is not a proper answer to this
question to say that being commanded to obey magistrates (Titus iii. 1), we are
bound to act as special constables if the magistrates order us; because no one
will deny that this exhortation is governed by the larger precept, that we are
to “obey God rather than man” (Acts iv, 19). No candid person will contend that
Paul meant we were to obey magistrates when their order might be to disobey
God. If any such contention is made, it is a sufficient answer to cite the
practice of the apostles, who must be allowed to be reliable interpreters. of
their own exhortations.
They
were constantly disobeying magistrates in the particular matter of preaching
the gospel, and brought themselves to prison and death by this disobedience.
There was no inconsistency between this course of theirs, and their exhortation
to “obey magistrates “; for in the matters referred to in this exhortation,
they were themselves obedient to magistrates. They paid tribute, honoured the
ruling powers, and recognised the authority of the law, in all matters not
affecting their allegiance to the law of God. This is a duty required of all
saints, and cheerfully rendered by them, notwithstanding that they expect all
such orders and institutions to be abolished in due time. That time is the
Lord’s time; and for this they patiently wait. The work is the Lord’s work, and
for Him they wait.
But
are they to be induced or coerced by human law to do what Christ has expressly
forbidden? The only question is, has he forbidden what is in question in this
case? Has he forbidden violence? As to this, nothing is clearer, “He hath left us an example that we should
follow his steps” (I Pet. ii, 21). This is what Christ himself said to his
disciples: “I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to
you” (John xiii. 15). Now what is the
example of Christ as to the matter in hand? The testimony is that he did no violence, neither was deceit
found in his mouth (Isaiah liii, 9). As Peter tells us, “When he was reviled,
he reviled not again; when he suffered he threatened not, but committed himself
to him that judgeth righteously” (I Peter ii, 23).
But
some say, this refers only to circumstances of persecution:
that
when he said: “Resist not evil,” he meant that his friends were not to fight
against those who persecuted them for their faith, but patiently and
unresistingly allow them to do their will. It will be found, upon
investigation, that this is a mistake. Christ was not speaking of persecution
at all. He was speaking of the
435
legal
maxims and practices of the Jewish nation. He says: “Ye have heard that it hath
been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” By whom-to whom, for
what purpose had this been said? It was said by Moses to Israel, as the
principle that was to regulate proceedings
at law. This will be apparent by referring to Exodus xxi, 22-24. “He (the
offender) shall pay as THE JUDGES determine, and if any mischief follow, thou
shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,” etc. When, therefore,
Jesus enjoins non-resistance of evil, it is not with reference to persecutors,
but with reference to legal proceedings, and the ordinary relations of man with
man.
This
is perhaps more evident in the next verse (Matt. v, 40). “If any man will sue thee at law and take away thy coat,
let him have thy cloke also.” Here is no persecutor but a man who simply wants
your property and tries to dispossess you by legal process. “Whosoever shall
compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.” A persecutor would not be likely
to want your company on the road. It is the case of a wayfarer who wants your
comfort and protection on a lonely road, and to whom you are commanded to be
liberal beyond his desires. “Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that
would borrow of thee, turn not thou away.” Surely this is no persecutor, who
would take without your leave.
The
suggestion that these precepts apply only to circumstances of persecution, is
the thought of a combative nature which rebels against Christ’s flesh-crucifying
precepts, but is not prepared to go the length of openly denying Christ. It is
a suggestion that is absurd in itself; for why should we be allowed to fight
for ourselves, and be forbidden to fight for the Lord? One would imagine that
the distinction, if it existed, would lie in the other direction, viz., that we
would be allowed to repel and retaliate when it was the authority of the Lord
that was in question, but that we should be submissive when it was a mere
question of taking our purse. But the fact is, no such distinction is made. The
suggestion that it exists is gratuitous. It is a distinction that cannot, in
fact, be made; for how are you to know when a man hurts you for your faith, and
when from his own cupidity?
The
command of the Lord is absolute, that we are to act the part of sheep in the
midst of wolves; wise as serpents, but unharmful as doves. The faithful of the
first century recognised this as involving non-resistance. This is evident from
James’s incidental remark to the wanton rich men of the twelve tribes:
“Ye
have condemned and killed the just, and he
doth not resist
436
you” (James v, 6). It is also
distinctly evident from Paul’s claim in 2nd Epistle Corinthians xi, 20, to be
heard on this ground:
“For
ye suffer, if a man bring you into
bondage, if a man devour you, if
a man take of you, if a man exalt
himself, if a man smite you on the face.”
As
much as to say, “It is a usual thing with you to submit without resistance, to
personal injury; how much more may you endure my words.” He had expressly
enjoined: “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto
wrath, for it is written: Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.
Therefore, if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for
in so doing, thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of
evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom. xii, 19-21). Again, he says, “See that
none render evil for evil” (I Thess. v, 15). Again, “Why do ye not rather
suffer yourselves to be defrauded?” (I Cor. vi, 7).
These
principles exclude a resort to law on the part of those who obey the
commandments of Christ. Going to law is inconsistent with submission to
precepts requiring us to accept evil, and to refrain from vindicating
ourselves. What is going to law but resorting to the utmost extremity of
personal violence and coercion? Those who look on the surface may not see this,
but they feel it readily enough when directed against themselves. They may
imagine it is doing a very gentle deed to pay a visit to a quiet lawyer’s
office, and ask him to set the law in motion in a “legitimate” way, protesting
you want only justice. etc., etc.
But
follow the matter to its upshot; see what it means, and then judge whether, as
a friend of Christ, you are at liberty to do such a bloody and forbidden thing.
You get the judgment of the law in your favour: and let us suppose the debtor
is unable to pay. What happens? Your servants (for the agents of the law are
your servants, for the time being, and would not act a moment after your
authority was withdrawn) enter his house and sell his bed, and cast him
homeless on the street. But suppose he is able to pay and won’t, and takes it
into his head to resist, enlisting, let us suppose, a band of bold spirits to
his aid. The myrmidons of the law arrive at the house; the door is locked:
admission demanded in vain. Your agents knock the door down, but they find the
passage barricaded. They demolish the barricades, but find the occupants of the
house in an attitude of defiance. Your servants of the law push them; the
debtor’s friends smite your servants of the law. Your servants smite in return,
but seeing they are over-matched, they withdraw.
437
The
debtor exults and fearing a return of the myrmidons, he sends for and obtains a
reinforcement of roughs. The bailiffs return with assistance. A mêlée ensues:
heads are broken and property destroyed, and the bailiffs are repulsed. What
next? A riot. Part of the people take sides with the debtor and part with the
bailiffs. What next? The soldiers are sent for. The soldiers are now your
servants. If the men in the house don’t give in brains will be blown out and
lives taken; and all this will be done because you have set the law in motion.
In fact, this is the law in motion. What is commonly called “the law,” is but
the smooth end of the bludgeon. It is the fear of the other end that makes
people cower at the sight of the handle. A bailiff goes and shews the handle,
and this is generally sufficient; but the fact remains, that what is called the
law is a terrible instrument of destruction, which will break skulls if there
is any resistance. A battered house and blood-covered corpses, are elements in
the picture to be considered. The fact that it is rarely needful to push
matters to this length does not alter the nature of the transaction, or weaken
the conclusion that saints are not at liberty to employ such an engine of
offence.
The
fact that a man does not personally employ the violence only makes the matter
worse, so far as the nature of his act is concerned; for which is worse: to do
the deed honestly and bravely yourself, or to stand behind a curtain and
whisper the words that set a lot of heartless ruffians to do it? If you were
the personal actor, your debtor might have some chance of mercy by personal
appeal; but when, you set the law in motion, you hand him over to the tender
mercies of men with hearts of stone, and without the power to be merciful even
if they had the mind.
It
is generally conceded that a brother has no right to resort to law against a
brother, because of Paul’s express words in I Cor. vi, 1-4; but some conceive
they may do so against a stranger. The first thought upon such a proposition
is, that it is contrary to the entire spirit of Christ’s teaching to suppose we
are at liberty to apply any process of hurt to strangers which we are not to
apply to brethren. His command to be absolutely harmless, extends even to any
enemy, still more to a debtor, who may not necessarily be an enemy. The
supposed distinction in favour of brethren in this matter would be a return to
the spirit of things which said “Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine
enemy,” which Christ expressly superseded.
How
comes it that Paul mentions a “brother,” in connection
438
with
law-going at all in I Cor vi.? Is it to intimate that a brother may go to law
with a stranger, while not at liberty to do so with a brother? There is no such
hint in the context. It is rather to illustrate the great extent to which the
Corinthians had gone in their disobedience. “Brother goeth to law with brother,
and that before the unbelievers.” He commands the brethren to judge if there is anything wrong between
brother and brother; but does he recommend a resort to even this judicature? On
the contrary, he says, “Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be
defrauded?”
The
command to be passive in relation to evil, is an ordinance for the present
probation merely. In due time, the saints will trample the wicked as ashes
under the soles of their feet, if they prove themselves worthy of the honour by
a faithful submission to what God requires of them now. “He that overcometh,
and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations.”
(Rev. ii, 26). In this view, it is of paramount importance that the saints remain
true to the commandments of Christ; and do not suffer themselves to be led into
the path of disobedience by glosses on his word, which while making the way
smoother to the flesh will have the effect of depriving us of the crown in the
day of glory to be revealed.
5.
There are other commands to which the everyday practice of Christendom is
totally opposed, but to which, after the great length to which this lecture has
already gone, we cannot do more than merely refer. Christ: -
a. Forbids all manner of oaths
(Matt. v, 34; James v, 12).
b. Prohibits the taking of the
sword (Matt. xxvi, 52; Rev. xiii, 10).
c. Condemns retaliation and
rough speech, and all evil speaking (Matt. v, 44; I Pet. iii, 9; Rom. xii, 14).
d. Insists on peace-making and
personal private communication with the offended with this view (Matt. v, 24:
xviii, 15; Col. iii, 13).
e. Commands kindness to even
the undeserving and the evil (Matt. v, 44; Luke vi, 35).
f. Allows marriage with
believers only (I Cor. vii, 39).
g. Enjoins modesty of dress and
deportment even to shamefacedness and sobriety (I Tim. ii, 9; I Pet. iii, 3-4).
439
It
is notorious that Christendom habitually violates all these commandments,
without the violation of them being supposed to unchristianise the violators in
the least degree, although Christ has plainly declared that it is vain for men
to call him Lord who do not obey his commandments.
Oaths
are regularly administered in public courts (not to speak of the profanities of
private intercourse).
The
military profession is cultivated as a fitting sphere for the Christian sons of
Christian men. The countenance of the “church” is extended to the army in the
appointment of chaplains, involving this fearful anomaly that when two
so-called Christian nations go to war, Christians on one side cut the throats
of Christians on the other side, as a perfectly legitimate business, and
Christian “chaplains” on one side pray to the God of all Christians so
considered, to prosper the deadly measures of one set of Christians against the
prayer of Christian chaplains and the deadly efforts of another set of
Christians, that the latter set may strew the field of strife with their
corpses while the others march victoriously over their dead bodies, singing Te Deums to God for enabling them to
butcher their Christian brethren!
Retaliation
is both preached and practised among the masses of Christendom as the right and
the noble and manly thing to do; and arrogant and resentful speech is excused
on the score of necessity, while speaking evil and gloating on the frailties of
your neighbours, is the daintiest luxury of common life.
Peace-loving
and peace-making are looked upon as signs of effeminacy, and the man who should
advocate and practise the duty of seeking a private interview with an enemy,
with a view to reconciliation, would be regarded as a demented nuisance.
Kindness
to the evil is almost unheard of. Ingratitude and unworthiness are invariably
seized on as a reason for not helping anyone in distress. It is the rule to
consider yourself justified in withholding help in such a case. It is only
excellence (and that, too, carried to the heroic point) that propitiates the
grace of Christendom in favour of private distress.
The
idea of restricting matrimony to discipleship is scouted as the prejudice of
fanaticism.
And
as for dress, so far is Christendom astray from the apostolic standard that the
mass of so-called Christian women (especially in the upper walks of society),
consider it an honourable thing to enter into mutual rivalry in the style and
magnificence of their attire. “Fashion” is a goddess whose sway is undisputed.
No one owns to be a worshipper, but everyone acts
440
the
part of one. Ambition, the love of display, the lust of the eye, and the pride
of life, are not acknowledged as the ruling motives, though there is scarcely
another at work. All is justified on the score of “ taste.”
This
state of things is grievous to every mind in sympathy with divine aims in human
life, as revealed in the Scriptures. There is no alternative but to fight the
prevailing corruption. It is for earnest men, in private practice and in public
inculcation, so far as there may be opportunity. to uphold the ideal exhibited
in the apostolic writings. By no other course can we save ourselves from a generation
which is as “untoward” as the one that listened to a similar exhortation from
Peter. The fight may be hard, but the objects are supreme.
We
can afford to shut our ears to cavils of the adversary. It is not true that the
commandments of Christ enfeeble and deteriorate the character. What is
considered enfeeblement and deterioration is only the discipline and restraint
of the lower propensities, which re-act in the invigoration of all that is
noble and pure. While excluding the animal energies and activities that go to
make up what is popularly considered “manliness,” the commandments of Christ
draw us into the channel of higher and ennobling obligations in the direction
of goodness and duty, activities unknown to the mere man of natural feelings. They
give us the fear of God for deference to public-opinion; the enterprise of
benevolence for the energy of self-assertion; the enlightening stimulus of a
clear philosophy for the muddy impulse of self-gratification; the guidance of
rectitude for the slavish and uncertain law of expediency, the virtue of
self-restraint for the action of resentment; the power of motive for the
caprice of feeling; principle for whim; knowledge for feeling; godliness for
manliness; life for death.
The
unpopularity of the commandments of Christ is due to their opposition to
natural impulse; and their opposition to natural impulse constitutes their very
power to educate men in obedience of God, that they may be disciplined and
prepared for the great glory He has in store for those who please Him. Let us
not make the great mistake of following popular doctrines. If we are to
continue in the disobedience which the world practices-(though called
Christendom)-we had better hold on to their superstitious and theological
monstrosities; for the aban441
donment
of the latter, while holding on to the former, will only expose us to all the
inconveniences of the faith of Christ, while securing for us none of its
glorious benefits.
These
lectures must now be brought to a close. Where they may be instrumental in
shewing the truth in contrast to prevalent error, the merit lies not with him
who has delivered them, but with another-(John Thomas, M.D., of America; died, 1871)- who, under God, has been the means
of opening the Scriptures in our generation, and removing from them the veil
thrown over them by popular theology.
These
lectures constitute a feeble attempt on the part of the author to render the
service to others which has been rendered to himself; and if any mind be
exorcised of error-if any taste attracted to the study of the Word of God-any
judgment matured to the comprehension, belief, and obedience of the truth, the
effort will have received a perfect recompense in that which shall have been
accompished for THE AGES BEYOND.
The
only thing deserving a man’s earnest attention in this state of existence, is
the truth revealed in the Bible. It makes him free for the present, and safe
for the future. Time devoted to anything else in preference, is wasted. The
truth does that for a man which no other study can do: it sets him at ease with
reference to the many questions which perplex the unenlightened; it gives a key
for all the problems of life: it inspires him with confidence amid the
uncertainties which distract other mortals; it guides him into a simple,
one-hearted, peaceful direction of his affairs; it fills his mind twith
comforting assurance concerning the future, illuminating his prospect with a
well-founded expectation of attaining the perfection which the yearning heart
finds not in all the present; it subdues his propensities, corrects his natural
tendency to moral obliquity, awakes his holiest affections, develops lagging
interest, and improves and elevates and sanctifies his whole nature, while
giving him a guarantee of, and making him meet for” the inheritance of the
saints in light.”
“It
hath promise of the life that now is, and also of that which is to come.” Its
pursuit is more worthy than that of any secular object. Labour spent in its
acquirement, or put forth in its dissemination, will develop results that will
gloriously flourish, when the fruits of mere worldly effort will have perished
in irrecoverable oblivion. “All flesh is as grass, and all the glory
442
of
man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth and the flower thereof falleth
away; but the WORD OF THE Low ENDUREflI
FOR EVER; and this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you” (I Peter i, 24, 25).
Pg
445
A SUMMARY
OF THE
THINGS SET FORTH IN THE
FOREGOiNG LECTURES.
shewn in contrast with
THE THEOLOGICAL TENETS OF
THE BULK OF
CHRISTENDOM.
THIS
BOOK.
1.-The
Scriptures are to be read in their natural sense, except where natural fitness
and necessity determine a metaphorical or symbolical construction.
2.-The
understanding of the Old Testament necessary to the understanding of New.
3.-Man
mortal, and made of the dust of the ground. The life of man not himself, but
the power which enables him to exist, in the same way as the life of any animal
sustains that animal in being. It is the very same life that is possessed by
the beasts of the field.
(‘HR
ISTENDOM
1.-The
Bible not to be read literally, but to be “spiritualised” or interpreted in a
secondary and non-natural sense, according to the established rules of
“divinity.”
2.-The
Old Testament done away with by the New, and only useful to supply texts for
sermons.
3.-Man
immortal and made of Spirit from heaven. The life of man, his immortal soul,
which, inhabiting the body, gives it life, and when it leaves the body,
continues to exist in a disembodied state as fully conscious as when the man is
alive.
4.-Man
in death in a state of non-existence for the time being, requiring resurrection
and judgment to determine his future destiny.
5.-Immortality
a state of incorruptible and deathless bodily existence, developed by
resurrection, and attainable only by the righteous, at the second appearing of
Jesus Christ on earth.
6.-The
wicked will be put out of existence for ever, by the infliction of the “second
death” at the judgment.
7.-Judgment
to come will be dispensed only to the responsible classes of mankind, the rest
never seeing the light of resurrection, but perishing for ever like beasts.
8.-At
the resurrection, the dead “come forth” in unquickened natural body, to have it
determined whether they are worthy of the gift of immortality, or deserving of
consignment, after punishment, to corruption and death.
4.-Man
in death is not dead, but passes out of “his body,” and enters upon happiness
or woe, according to his deeds.
5 -Immortality, the natural
attribute of every human being, and in the highest sense, a state of happiness
in heaven, to which the immortal souls of the righteous will ascend after
death.
6.-The
wicked will be tormented by the devil to all eternity in hell, a bottomless
abyss of fire and brimstone.
7.-Every
human immortal soul will be re-united to its body at the resurrection, and will
appear before the judgment seat at the “last day,” to be judged.
8.-At
the resurrection, disembodied immortal souls enter incorruptible and immortal
bodies, before they appear at the judgment seat; and if found righteous, they
take their immortal bodies to heaven, and if wicked they drag them to hell.
9.-God
is ONE POWER, the Increate Father, by whom all things have been created, dwelling
in unapproachable light.
10.-Jesus
Christ, the Son of God through the Holy Spirit’s begettal, of the Virgin Mary,
raised up as a “last Adam,” to remove (by death and resurrection) the death
brought by the first Adam.
11
-The Spirit, the energy, or power of the Father in heaven, effluent from His
person and presence, ifihing universal space. The “Holy Spirit,” the same power
wielded by direct and specific will on the part of the Father.
1
2.---Angels, corporeal beings of incorruptible spirit-substance, employed
throughout the universe in the accomplishment of the Father’s purposes-exalted
to their present position after probation.
9.-God
is three co-equal, coeternal elements or powers, styled “Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost,” in universal diffusion.
10.-Jesus
Christ, the eternal Son, a part of the eternal God from all eternity, who came
into a body to suffer bodily death for the sins of immortal souls, doomed to
the eternal pains of hell.
11.-The
Holy Ghost, one of the Trinity, co-equal, coeternal, and identical with the
Father and Son, though why styled the “Holy Ghost” there is no answer; and why
sometimes Holy Spirit, while in other cases simply “Spirit,” equal silence.
12.-Angels,
incorporeal spirits, whose nature, origin, and function are equally
incomprehensible - supposed to be largely recruited from the supposed immortal
spirits of dead children.
13.-The
devil, a Bible synonym for sin-abstract and concrete-existing as the spirit of
disobedience in the children of men and embodied and manifested in the persons
and institutions of the present order of things.
14.-The
kingdom of God, the visible and personal administration of political affairs by
Christ at his second appearing.
15.-The
promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, yet to be fulfilled in the setting
up of the kingdom of God on earth, when all nations will rejoice in the
righteous government of the seed of Abraham, who shall save the children of the
needy, and break in pieces the oppressor.
16.-Christ,
the coming destroyer of all human governments, and the appointed ruler of
mankind; who will break the kingdoms of men in pieces, like a potter’s vessel,
and raise the standard of universal dominion in Jerusalem, the Holy City.
13.-The
Devil, a fallen archangel, who notwithstanding his opposition to God, is
allowed to retain possession of supernatural power and permitted to tempt,
harass, and ensnare poor immortal souls to their destruction.
14.-The
kingdom of God, a state of the human “soul,” in which the impulses are
subjected to the divine supremacy?
15.-The
promises made to the Fathers fulfilled in the preaching of the Gospel in
heathen lands by missionaries, and at home by ministers and clergymen, and more
particularly in the experience of those who “get religion” at revivals and
salvation army meetings.
16.-Christ,
the spiritual king of his own people, reigning in their hearts now and for
evermore, and having nothing further to do with Jerusalem, the Holy Land, or
the earth, but to consign all to the perdition of unquenchable fire at the last
day.
17.-The
Saints-Christ’s people
-the
destined kings and priests of the world, destined to reign with Christ over all
the earth, administering his authority, and dispensing blessings to all
mankind.
18.-The
covenant made with David yet to be realised in the re-establishment of the
kingdom of David in the Holy Land, in the personal hands of Christ.
19.-The
second coming of Christ, the time when, and the event by which, Christ’s people
will receive the promised salvation, even the gift of immortality, by
resurrection, and the glory and honour of a throne in the kingdom of Christ,
then to be established over all the earth.
20.-The
restoration of the Jews from their present dispersion to their own land, a part
of the divine purpose; and the enunciation of it, an element of the Qospel, as
part and parcel of the “Gospel of the Kingdom.”
l7.-l’he
doctrine of a “temporal” kingdom on earth, a carnal, “damnable doctrine.” The
only reigning with Christ possible consists of the floating of immortal souls
in celestial ether.
18.-The
covenant made with David fulfilled in Christ’s ascension to heaven, where he
sits on the throne of David, and rules the kingdom of heaven.
19.-The
death of the Christian the great epoch of his emancipation from this mortal
coil, when his redeemed soul mounts to mansions in the skies, and is received
at the portals of the celestial city by the angels, and conducted to the throne
before which he casts his crown.
20.-The
Jews are greatly deluded in expecting a “temporal Messiah,” and as for their
restoration (which is an entirely doubtful affair) having anything to do with
the Gospel, the whole suggestion is mohstrous,
21.-Christ’s
coming will be prefaced by great wars, commotions, and distresses, and attended
by terrible judgments which he will directly bring down upon men to teach the
world righteousness, and prepare men for the government of the Prince of Peace.
22.-In
the light of Daniel’s visions, verified by history, and recommended for
enlightenment by Christ, it is evident we are near the close of the human
dispensation, and that Christ may be expected within the lifetime of the
present generation.
23.-In
order to be saved, men must believe the glad tidings (or gospel) oi the Kingdom
of God, set forth in the prophets, and preached by the apostles; and must
accept the doctrine of immortality brought to light by Christ in his death,
resurrection, and ascension.
21.-The
Millennium will be brought about by the preaching of the gospel, which will
subdue human propensities, and gradually bring mankind into a state of peace,
harmony, and goodwill. The Church will then be triumphant on earth and in
heaven.
22.-The
prophets are a sealed book, and he who attempts to explain them, or to fix a
time for the day of Christ, is guilty of presumption amounting almost to
blasphemy. At the very least he is cracked and fit for the asylum.
23.-It
is of no consequence what a man believes, if he be sincere in his course of
life before God, and be. lieve that Christ died for sin. Points of creed belong
to by-gone days. As for immortality, every man, sane or idiotic, has an
immortal soul to save.
24.-Upon
believing the gospel, a man must be immersed in water for a union with the name
of Christ, that his sins may be forgiven, that he may be placed in a position
to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling, by patient continuance
in well-doing.
25.-There
is no salvation apart from a belief and obedience of the Gospel.
26.-Ignorance
alienates from eternal life, and makes death the certain and irretrievable lot
of the subject thereof.
27.-The
obedience of the commandments of Christ is essential to the salvation of those
who believe the Gospel. While faith (made effectual in baptism) turns a sinner
into a saint, obedience only will secure a saint’s acceptance at the judgment
seat of the Christ. A disobedient saint will be rejected more decisively than
even an unjustified sinner.
24.-It
is a matter of insignificance whether a man be baptised or not. Christian
baptism can be administered by dipping, pouring or sprinkling, and is equally
efficacious to babies, or grown-up persons-the instructed or the ignorant- with
or without faith.
25.-Babies,
heathens and idiots, and all sincere persons will be saved, irrespective of the
Gospel.
26.-A
state of total darkness makes an immortal soul not responsible, and therefore
qualified to enter heaven.
27.-The
obedience of the commandments of Christ is beyond human power. Salvation is not
of works. lest any man should boast. if a man hath faith in the atoning blood
of Christ, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to him, and although the love
of Christ will constrain him to good works, still his salvation in no way
depends upon those.
28.-Forgiveness
of errors and failures is secured for saints, by the intercession of Christ,
when they confess and forsake them. Christ has no priestly function for the
world of unjustified sinners. He is a priest for those only who become members
of his house, in the belief and obedience of the Gospel.
452
28.-To
the last moment, Christians have to say, “We
have
done those things that we ought not to have done. and we have left undone those
things which we ought to have done; and there is no health in us.” The
priesthood of Christ avails for all mankind who are sorry for their sins.
TO THE INTERESTED
READER
THERE EXISTS a body of people, scattered throughout the
English-speaking communities of the world, who hold the views advocated in this
book of lectures.
They
are formed into communities styled “ecclesias,” which is the Greek word
translated “churches.” They use that word in preference to “churches,” because
the word “church” does not express the idea of “ecciesia,” either philologically
or conventionally. “Church,” in the abstract, means the portion of a lord, and
in current use, denotes a building set apart for religious purposes, or any
congregation professing the name of Christ, all of which meanings are totally
foreign to the idea expressed by ecclesia.”
Ecclesia”
means the assembly of the called out, and
iS appropriately employed to
designate those who by the truth have been called out both from the world and
from the multitude of professing Christian bodies, who hold the traditions of a
corrupt ecclesiasticism instead of the doctrines promulgated by Jesus and the
apostles. It was the name bestowed by the Spirit upon the communities holding
the truth of Christ in the early centuries; and as it has no proper English
equivalent, there is no alternative but to use it in its original form.
But
there is another name by which those holding the faith herein set forth, are
individually distinguished from the profession of orthodoxy. “Ecciesia” applies
only to a number, and approximately answers to “church” of popular usage. But
there is need for a name of individual application (having a generic
significance) answering to the “Christian” of common parlance. The believers in
Christ were called “Christians,” at Antioch, in the first century, and
afterwards, everywhere else.
453
This
was the name by which they were known-the nickname which their enemies
originated, and which, at that time, was an epithet of disgrace, though from
the disciples’ point of view, a name of honour. But the purpose which the name
served in ancient times is no longer answered by it; it no longer distinguishes the brethren of Christ from those who reject
the faith of Christ. Everybody European is called “Christian.” The word
defines nothing beyond an adhesion to the historical tradition of Jesus Christ.
It imports nothing doctrinal. A man can believe anything and be a Christian.
For this reason, it has ceased to serve its original use.
But
it may be argued, that the abuse of a right word-a New Testament word-does not
justify its repudiation on the part of those apprehending it truly. The answer
to this is: the word is not necessarily a right word, because it was invented
by the enemies of the truth. The word is not a New Testament word, except that
the New Testament records that it was used first in Antioch, in reference to
Christ’s brethren, and afterwards employs it only once as a current designation
(I Peter iv, 16), and then only in accommodation to popular usage, in the same
way as Agrippa is recorded to have used it in reference to himself in Acts
xxvi, 28. No claim can be made for the name on the ground of its divine
authority. We must deal with it on the other grounds. It was a name employed for purposes of social distinction. It could
be employed with no other object. To call a man a “Christian,” did not make him
a saint; it only identified him in the popular eye with a sect which, at that
time, was everywhere spoken against. This use of it is sanctioned by Peter,
from which it follows that it is
Scriptural to acknowledge a distinctive designation if it accord with the
truth. “Christian” accorded with the truth in the days of Peter; it does
not do so now.
What
is to be substituted? Something expressive of the truth, something
Scriptural-nothing of human derivation-nothing expressive of human affinities.
Everything savouring of the Corinthian schisms must be reprobated. Let no man
say, “I am of Paul,” as against another, saying, “I am of Cephas,” let us all
say “I am of Christ,” But how shall we do this in a name which shall be
scriptural, and yet distinguish from the masses of “Christendom,” who call
themselves “Christians “? The answer is before the reader in the word
“CHRISTADELPHIAN.”
This
answers all the requirements of the case. It is the Anglicised form of the
Greek phrase, Christou adelphoi, “brethren
of Christ,” and is unmistakably distinctive, never having been employed in the
English tongue to designate those who are Christ’s. It has an advantage over
“Christian” in being more Scriptural and definite in its significance.
“Christian” merely expresses the world’s dim and unintelligent apprehension of
the position of Christ’s brethren. The world understood not the nature of the
relation subsisting between them and Christ. It merely saw the former had
something to do with the latter, and called them Christ-ones; but
“Christadelphians” goes closer, and reveals the fact that the disciples of
Christ are not merely his servants, but his friends (John xv, 14-15)---his “brethren” (Heb. ii, 11,
17; Matt. xxviii, 10; Rom. viii, 29; John xx, 17)- “joint heirs with him of the
promises made to Abraham” (Gal. iii, 29; Rom. viii, 17).
But
it may be asked, why not express that fact in plain English, and call them
“brethren of Christ?” For the simple reason that in plain English these words
would be as indistinctive as Christian, since all classes of professors would
own to “brethren of Christ.” No one will acknowledge “Christadelphian” but
those who, from a knowledge of the truth, realise the necessity of being
distinguished from the great apostasy in all its sects and denominations.
If
these considerations are not satisfactory to those who object to the Greek form
of the phrase, and stickle for “Christian,” let them remember that “Christian”
is as much a Greek word as “Christadelphian,” and that the choice really lies
between a Greek appellative devised by the enemies of the truth in the first
century, and one expressive of the truth affirmed by the Spirit in the same age
of the world.
The
Christadelphians scattered throughout the world have no ecclesiastical
organisation beyond the simple arrangements necessary to conduct their
assemblies as effectively as possible for the objects in view, which objects
are, 1st-their mutual upbuilding in the faith, by observance of the Lord’s Supper,
“upon the first day of the week” (Acts xx, 7; I Cor. xvi, 2), and exhortation;
2nd-the setting forth of the truth for the enlightenment and salvation of the
ignorant; and 3rd-a mutual care of each other in things spiritual and temporal.
They have no “ministers” or paid officials of any kind, and in the absence of
the Spirit, no rulers. Official brethren are merely servants for the conduct of
the necessary business, and attendance to
455
the
general affairs and interests of the ecclesia. The brethren.
•one
and all, meet on the basis of brotherly love and good sense, all striving,
without distinction, to promote the general objects of their union.
Any
desiring acquaintance with a view to fraternity on the basis of the truth, can
have their wishes gratified, by reference to the address from which this book
is issued, where the applicant can procure the address of persons nearest his
or her neighbourhood.
INDEX
Bible,
the professional
interpretation of, Divine authorship of, 17
structure of, 17-19
only intelligible account
of, 19
effect
of belief in, 21
misunderstood for centuries,
22
circulation of the, 23
Bible not generally studied,
23, 24
hose to interpret, 25
mainly literal, 25
hope only in promises of, 404
Bbsphemiesof Rome, 382
Blood, the life in the, 99
Body, the, supposed distinct
fr~ns the
soul, 34
periodical changes in the,
40
the Spiritual, 98
Born of the Spirit “, 100
Brain, us,nctions of the, 37
connection of mind and 41-4
Branch “-Christ the, 2~7
Brethren of Christ, the, 277
Breath of Life “ common to all, 90
Breaking of bread, duty of
the, 413
Time
of the, 414
C
Caesar
and Christ, relations of, 428
Calvanistic view of destiny,
78
Casting out demons, 207
Character essential to
acceptance, 412
Chastening of Christ, 292
Children, idea of, gone to
Heaven, 70
Christ-Mosaic Writings
endorsed by, 17
accounts of, in the New
Testament, 19
the “ Resurrection and the Life “, 95
Spiritual body of, 98
ascension of, 138
pre-existence of, 163, 164
authority of, from the
Father, 162
taised from the dead, 164,
170
death of, 165
died as Representative. 169
sinlessness of, 169
death of, part of Gospel,
210, 227
delivers up the Kingdom 259
the King of the World, 2~1
the King of Israel, 272
on David’s throne, 273
Christ, parallel of Solomon
and, 289,
292
the Son of David, 292
the return of, 295, 311, 320
preached Gospel of Kingdom, 312
A
Abraham, resurrection of, 69
responsibility of, Ii?
promises made to, 233, 234, 250
spiritual seed of, 325
Absent from the body
captained, 63
Adam in Eden 92
under law, 92, 108
and Chri,t parallel, 170
Advent of Christ, 340, 341. 342
how iong to the, 353
Age of the world, present,
359
Ambiguity
of evidence unsatisfactory, 58, Angels,
The,r,” criticism of, 70
Angels, God represented by. 140, i30
supposed
to be men, i52
the forns of, 153
Angels, the, that sinned , 179
Animal magnetism--what’ 144
Annual Journey to Jerusalem.
259
Antediluvians,
responsibility of the, 108, 109
Apocalypse,
the, 180
time periods of the, 352
Apostasy foretold, 15
responsibility for ~nbclieF,
20. 21, 134, 141
admitted in early times, 22
truth hidden by the, 134, 306, 315, 322
Apostolic notion of the
Kingdom of God, 272, 278
teaching of Christ’s return.
320
commandments. 417, 420
Ascension of Christ. 138
Assumptions of the Papacy,
37b-8
Aspirations for immortality,
88
value of proof, 89
in conflict with Nature, 91
Authority and titles
forbidden, 428
B
Babylon. tl,e empire of, 216
Baptism into Christ, 171
necessary to salvation, 399
connection of faith with,
408, 409
Beast, apocalyptic, seven heads of the, 387
Beasts not immortal, 90
Belief in things of the
Kingdom, 226
necessary,
3981, 399
in the “ f’~ame “ essential. 400
457
not
looked for by sects, 315
as
a Destroyer, 342, 343
commandments
of, the standard ol
duty,
417
Christendom
astray-va000s recognitions
of
15
Christian
Communities, earliest history
of,
19
Chronology
of the end, 351, 352
Church
and State-relations of, 425
(7lericalism
unfavoarable to the truth, 23
Commandments,
obedience so, necessars, 413, 420
nullified
by popular teaching. 417. 422
apostolic
of same value as Christ’s, 419.
42(1
opposed
to the natural man, 433
perfect
the character, 441
Conformity
to the world, rebuke of, 422
Christendom
guilty of, 425
Colonisation
l’alesiine, ~c.he’mes, 394
Conditions
of immortality, 102
Conditions
of salvation, 397. 404
Constantinople-mouth
of Dragon, 388
Covenant
with David. 286, 237
not
yet realised. 287-9
partly
verified, 291
established
in David s presrnrc, 297
Creation,
ideas is1, 141
of
the soul, 49
Crucifision,
the, IS
object
of the, 166
D
Daniel,
authority of, on ‘‘ Kingdom
Nebuchadnezzar’s
dream, and, 214
vision
of Four Beasts, of, 216
Seven
Times “, of, :361
2,3(X)
years “ period of, 364
sen
horns “ of, 369
Daniel,
enquiry i)l as to times, 35~’, Dark Ages, growth of the, 22
David
not gone to Heaven, 75, 275
kingdom
of, restored, 274, 329
throne
of, considered. 274, 286
throne
of, in ruins, 293
covenant
with, 286, 287, 294
novenant
not fulfilled, 287
Jesus
born unto, 291
Day
‘ periods of time, 356
Day
for a year “ principle, 357
Dead,
the hunsan instinct as to, 53
condition
of, 56. 57
saints
among,, 235
Death,
popular idea of, 36
meaning
of threatening of. 65
universal
and inevitable, 52, 90
the
opposite of life, 53
scriptural
account of, 54, 55
destiny
of the wicked. 78
relates to being “, 90
the
wages of sin, 167
inherited
from Adam, 168
destruction
of, 260, 261
the
second, 262
during
millennial age, 266, 267
Death,
the, of Christ, 165
as
representative, 169
Drtns,ns,
203
Destiny
of the wicked, 7t~l
Destroy
‘. Scriptural use of, 71
Destruction
of ungodly, 80
of
Christ’s enemies. 342
Devil,
the 172
importance
of the troth as to. 173
works
of the, destroyed, 174, 202
destroyed,
195
personality
of i,nscriptural. 174
in
Eden, 178, 200
Devil,
etymology of word, 182
Scripture
use of word, 192
synonymous
with san, 195
Christ
tempted hs, 202
Devils,
203
Disciples’
expectation of a king. 271, 310, 312, 31:3
Distress
of nations, 341
Divine
names, sIte. 151
Doctrine,
insportiincr of. 407, 411
Di,ubt,
the remedies of, 24
Dragon,
the apocalyptic. :3831
Dreams,
supposed argianietri (toni, 03
Dust,
titan if i hr. 49
E
Earth,
the, the area of sals aunts , 77
future
prospects of, 2~sl3
Ebionites.
tile. 156
Electricity
and spirit. 147
in
magnetic phenomena, 144
Ellipsis,
occurrence of. in I Cor, xx, 13.1
Empires,
tile Four of Daniel. 216. ?17
Enemies,
all subdued by Christ. 23~
Epiphanius,
156
Epistles,
t lie, in New h’estamt’tit. 11)
Eternal
Life ‘‘, criticism of, 104, 105
Euphrates,
drying up of the. :385
Everlasting
punishinient. ens irises of. 84, 104
Evidence,
plainness of, 57
Evil,
liumami remedies for. 2.th
final
irruption of. 261
Evil.
resistance of, forbidden. 432
resisted
by Christendom, 434
Es’ohitinn,
unfounded hypothesis of, 92
Ezekiel.
si,ion if temple by. 299
laitli.
necessity of, 403. 411
Faith
in the kingdom necessary, 226, 2,1
in
this name necessary, 401
Faith
based on rea500, 20
Father,
the Scriptural explanation ef, 135, (36
Imitation
of. 137
tnanifested
in Christ. 160
Fathers.
the, asleep, 2b
Fear
not them which kill the body
criticism
of, 71
Figurative
use of language, 28
French
influence, predominance of, 383
Fruits’of
the Spirit, the. 412
Frog
symbol, the, 388
Fulfl~ment
oh prophecy, literal, 26
Funeral
sermons. onscriptural language
-of,
59, 76
458
G
Gehenna,
meaning of, 82
fallacy
of argument, from 83
Gentiles,
times of tIle, 279, ~53
hope
of the, 325
Gifts
of the Spirit, 143, necessity for the,, 146
God-bends
to human conditions, lIP
being
of, misunderstood, 133
God,
unity of, 135, 136
science
in harmony with, fact of location of, 137, 138
Gaid
in angelic manifestation, 139, ISO
the
Fountain of Being, 141
names
of, 151, 152
the
~murpose of, in the kingdona, 254, finally “ All in all ‘‘, 255, 268
purpose
of, for the Jews, 323
Cog
and Magog ‘, meaning of, 390
Goodness
‘, no guarantee of imniortality, 94
Gospel,
the, of the kingdom, 209, 226
hope
inspired by the, 309
the
popular, 211. 228
belief
in the essential. 399, 400
Government,
imperfection of, 256
Grave,
the dead in the, 56
hell
and the, 81
Grecian
Empire, the. 217
Gregory
VII, assumption of, 375
H
liades
“, meaning of 81
lleart,
the source of evil in the, 190
Heathen,
notions of immortality 85, 86
Heaven
not promised at death, ~0
supposed
proofs of going to, 60, 66
not
promised at all, 73, 75
Heaven
in “, criticism of, 73
Heaven,
popular ideas. 234
Heir,
the “, Christ, 282
Ilell,
popular notions of, 61
erroneous
notions of, 73, 74
true
meaning of, 80
the
grave, 81
hades
and, 81
Gehenna
and, 82
Herod
troubled, 2,8
Holy
Spirit, what, 145, 146
at
Pentecost, 145
in
miracles, 145, 146
Honour
sought by, Christendom, 429
Hope,
human, Bible only source m,f, 21, 405
created
by the Gospel, 309
Christ’s
coming tIme world’s, 309, 310, 318
importance
of understanding the, 309
the,
of Israel, 323, 324, 333
horns
“~ rise of the, 367
Human
misery, universality of, 284
I
Ignorance,
human, assumed in the Scriptures, 85
Immateriality,
mind traselhing no proof
of,
38
dreams,
no proof of, 39
consciousness
of lost limbs, 39
yearly
change of body, 40
Immateriality
disproved by memory, 43
unequal
intelligence, 44
Immortality-popular
notions of, 34
man
destitute of, 34
reason,
no proof of, 38
Scripture
language against, 43
supposed
self-evidence of. 44
not
taught in account of creation, 49
heathen
Opinions on. 85
Immortality
hosing hold on belief, 85
aspirations
for, natural. 88
placed
in the future, 96
conditionally
bestowed, 101
conferred
through Christ, 170
of
the devil considered, 176
restored,
261
I
mmortahisation after resurrection, 128.
130
of
the nations, 264
Imposture,
theory of, 20
Intelligence
unequal, 44
Inspiration,
17-20
Incorruptibility
what? 98, 99
Infants
and idiots not responsible, 104
Interpretation,
rules of. 25
Israel,
promises made to, 233, 324
the
Hope of, 324, 335
the
spiritual, 336
J
Jerusalem,
metropolis of the world, 259
destruction
of, 276
restoration
of, 279, 280
Jesus
Christ, popular conceptions of, 154
distinct
from the Father, 155
Unitarian
view of, 156
King
of the Jews, 277
born
unto David, 290, 291
Jews,
penitence of the, 280
Chr,stian
interest in the, 323
Christ
sent to, 324
Gentiles
become, 325
Origin
of tIme, 326
God’s
purpose for the. 325. 326, 328
present
condition of the, 333
aspirations
and hope of the, 394
Jewish
History, value of in Scripture, 18
expectation
of Messiah, 271. 274
affairs,
revival of in 1860, ‘365
Job
and his adversary, 1(34
Judgment,
the inconsistent ideat of, 73, 106
after
resurrection, 103
expounded
by Jesus, 116
necessity
of the, 118
official
expression of, 118
a
first principle of truth, 119
purpose
of, 120
parables
affirming the, 121
coincidence
of reason with, 123
the
wicked present at the, 123
reap
results of life at, 124
an
sndivmdual reckoning, 126
Judgment,
the final, 261
of
the saints 348
Judgments,
eftect of, in the earth, 344.
424
K
Kindness
to time evil commanded, 440
Kingdom
of God in Israel. 311
Kingdonm
of God, the, 209
subject
of apostolic preaching. 209, 226
not
an existing fact, 211
within
you ‘‘, 211
not
‘‘ the church ‘‘, 211
not
sIte universe, 212
origin
of phrase 212
Kingdom
of God, the, established with
violence,
219, 342, 344
constitution
of the, 222
king
and aristocracy of the, 223, 346
subjects
of the, 223
territory
of the, 224 -
perfect
government of, 22,u, 304
belief
in, necessary, 226
tIme
basis of practical teaching, 227
purpose
oF t,,od in, ‘254
delivered
~p to the Father, 269
in
ruins. 276, 294
foretold
by Prophets, 311
givetu
to Slit saints, 312
explained
by Christ, 313
Kin~doms
of men, the, 212
suldtmed
by Christ, 255, 344
Chrisiendom,
as related to, 315, 316
Kingship
of Christ, the. 271, 272, 273, 277, 278, 282, 283, 310
Knowledge
of God, tIme essential, 133, 403
L
Lake
of lime, the, 262
Land,
the, of Palestine, God’s purpose
(or,
224
promised
tn Abraham, 234
Language,
ordinary site of, in the Bible, 50
symbolic,
30
metaphorical,
211
Law,
reason of the Jewish, 112, 113, 250
responsibility
tinder the, 112
Law,
disciples’ relation tO. 435
resort
to, forbidden, 43b
resort
to against the stranger 438
Lazarus,
Christ’s testimony as to, ‘63
Life,
nature of organic, 54
the
begintung of, 54
Limbs,
consciousness of amputated, 39
Little
Horn ‘, appearance of the, 368
Ihisttry
oh the, 377
M
Man,
tIme nature of, 34
poptular
notions of, 34
correct
ideas of. 36
observations
of Science as to, 34, 36
founded
in dust, 49
under
sentence of death, 50
an
organised being, 90
Man
of Sin “, development of the, 379
idea
of a future individual considered, 381
Marcion,
156
Marriage
with believers only, commanded, 440
Matter: can it think? 37, 38
what
is it? 39
no
affinity of with immatet ial, 42
Medo-Persian
Empire, the, 217
Memorial
Sacrifices of age to come, 303
Memory,
facts of, against immortality, 42, 43
Messiah,
the, of Daniel, 222
hooked
for by the Jets’s, 272
Millennial
reign, the, 247
close
of, 261
probation
during, 264
death
during, 265, 266
Mind-travelling
iso proof of immateriality, Mind, development of the, 42, 43
dependent
on the body, 42
suffers
from brain injury, 42, 43
instances
of injury to the, 43
Miracles
wrought by holy Spirit, 146
necessary
to support testimony, 146
Miraculous
power imparted to others, 147
Miractilous
Conception, the, 136
Modesty
of dress and deportment commanded, 426
Mortality,
meaning of, 90, 96
origin
of, 93.
removal
of, 261
Moses
and Ehias on the Mount, 68
Moses
endorsed by Christ, 92
N
Name,
the ‘‘ of Jesus Christ, 227, 401
belief
in. essential, 44)1
Names
of God in the Scriptures, 151
National
gatherings at Jerusalem, 258
2111
coalition
against Christ. 344
Natural
body, the, 98
Nature,
testimony of. against immortality, 35
denies
aspirations for immortality, 90, 91
dumb
as to future life, 94
teaching
of, touching God, 133
Nebuchadnezzar,
dream of, 214
Newton,
Sir Isaac, “ ten kingdoms “ of, 369
0
Oaths
forbidden, 439
Obedience
to commandments necessary, 413, 420
Order
of events at advent of Christ, 349
Organic
qualities transmissible, 40
Organisation
of man, 93
Orthodoxy
losing ground, 86
P
Paganism,
man of sin ‘‘, hindered by.
380,
381
Palestine,
the kingdom in, 224, 330
Desolation
of, 328
Revival
of, in 1860, 365
Colonisation
schemes, 394
Papacy,
rise of the, 373
Political
power added to the, 374
460
Assumptions
of time, 375, 377
Decline
of the, 393
Paul
bound with a chain 324
Paul’s
anticipations of dlmrist’s return, 67
Parables,
nature of tIme, 61
Purpose
of the, 62
Judgment
tauught in the, 121
Peace
making commanded, 440
Pentecost,
the Holy Spirit at, 145
Personification
of Sin, etc., 198
Personality
of she devil unscriptural, 174
Pil6rimages
to Jerusalem, 259, 281
Politics
and Christendom, 425, Popular ignorance of the Scriptures, 23, 24
Popular
teaching false, as to death, 58
false
inference of, 58
Popular
belief in Christ the King, 271
Praise
of nien, sought form 430
Preaching
the Gospel reason of, 403
Pre-Adanmite
earth, tIme, 180
Pre-existence
of Christ, 163
Priesthood
of Rome, the “ eyes “ oh
Beast,
374
Probation
during n’millennial age 261, 262
Problem
of lile and mind “ the, 90
Promises
given to Abi-aham, etc., (lie, 233, 236, 250, 251
confirmed
by Christ, 233, 252
Promises,
the, to the fathers, not fulfilled, 234
the
basis of Gospel hope, 308
Prophets,
the value of the, 18
Prophetic
testimony to the kingdom, 311
dates,
352
days
“, meaning of, 357
Prophecy,
mainly literal, 26
Protestantism,
incompleteness of reformation of, ‘22
Punishment
after resurrection, 103
degrees
of 104, 109
Purpose
of áod, tIme, in she kingdom, 254
R
Reason
“ no proof of immortality, 38
Redemption
contemplated, 108
limited
principles of, 109
Religion,
popular, valueless for future
life,
404
Reformation,
the partial nature of, 22, 23
basis
of modern theology 22~ 23
Representative,
Christ a, 1~9
Resistance
of evil forbidden, 432
Responsibility,
grounds of, 103, 107, lii, of antediluvians, 109
of
the Gentiles, 114
of
the intermediate classes, 114
Responsible,
the classes of the, 104, 107
Restoration
of the Kingdom of God 277, 294, 295
Resurrection,
the necessity of the, 58, 113
an
object desired, 66, 67
of
Abraham, 69
by
Jesus Christ, 95, 100. 113
in
order to judgment, 337
before
unmortalisation, 124, 127
the
first, 267 317
at
the end 01 millennial age, 267
Retaliation,
forbidden, 439
Return
of Christ to the eai’thm, 295, 316, 317
tIme
object of hope, 318, 319
preached
by the Apostles, 320
Revivals,
explanation of, 149
Rich,
aiming at being, forbidden, 431
Riches,
general pursuit of, 431
Rich
man and Lazarus, the, 61
Righteousness
by faith, 112
Rivers
“ as a symbol, 386
Roman
theology prevalent, 23
Roman
Empire, the fourth beast, 218
duration
of the, 367
divided
state of the, 369
Eastern,
the dragon of the, 388
Roman
Priesthood, the e5es “ of the, 374
Bishop
styled universal “, 373
political
power given to the, 373
Rome-perdition
of, certain, 3113
crimes
and abominations of 383
Russia,
the predicted be of ‘furkey, 389
The
Gog of the Scriptures, 390
Russia,
overthrow of by Christ, 392, 393
gruuwing
posser of, 394
S
Sabbath
binding only on Jews, 413
Sacrifices
of the law imperfect, 169
Sacrifices
restored, 304
Sacrifice,
she, of Christ in Old Testament, 272
Saints
asleep in the dust, 76
raised
for judgment, 127, 131, 348
Saints-the,
gathered so Christ, 346
removal
of the, 348
Saints,
Cod’s care of the, 434
Salvation
at present in purpose, i4
in
the earth, 77
not
for the unenli8htencd, 104
on
principle of faith, 111
Satan
“, etymology of, 182
Satan,
the, of Job, 183
and
David’s numberin~g Israel. 185
and
Joshua the High Pricst, 186
seat
of, at Pergamos, 186
Satan,
Peter denominated, 187
Hymenacus
and Alexander delivered to, 187
Judas
entered by. 189
and
Ananias and Sapphira, 190
Scriptures,
the, spirituahised, 26
figurative
language in the, 28
Old
and New Testament, slit, compared, 30
Sea
“ no more, 268
Seed
of Abraham, the true, 238
Separation
from the world, duty of, 426
Seven
times “, the, of Daniel, 361
Seven
heads “, the, of apocalyptic
beast,
387
Seventy
weeks “, the period of, 358
Signs
of the end, 352
confirmnatory,
385
Sin,
man’s mortality explained by, 91
history
of, in Eden, 92
reasonablenets
of origin of, 93
Sin
in the flesh, 196
origin
of, 195
461
personified,
198
Sin,
final irruption of, 261
Sin
and death, prevalence of, 264
connection
of with crucifixion, 167
Sinlessness
of Christ, 169
Six
thousand years’ tradition concerning, 360
Sixth
vial, operation of the 385
Solomon,
Covenant not fullllled in, 289
parallel
of Christ and, 290, 29’3
S,un
of God, the prerogative of judgment
of
sIte, 116
Scripture
teaching on, 158
Soul,
popular ideas of, 34
unscriptural
language about, 44
Soul,
scriptural meaning of, 45
v’srious
applications of word, 46, 47
goes
to the grave, 81
Spirit,
the Holy, 143
in
inspiration, 144
in
miracles, 145
Apostles
emsdowed with, 146
not
now given, 148
in
written word, 149
Spirit,
nature of tIme, 142
agent
in creation, 142
Spirit
in all organisms, 90, 100, 141
born
of the, 100
and
electricity, 143
vehicle
of divine power, 144
sifts
of tIme, 147
Spum’~tuial
body, the, 98
substantial
nature of, 98, 99
Spiritual
“ kingdom1 a, 278
Stephen’s
prayer, consideration of, 64
anxiety
of, explained, 65
Stone
“, the, mission of, 216, 219
Sword
taking forbidden, 439
Symbolic
language, use of, 29
Meaning
of “ Rivers “ 386
Symbol
of three frogs, 38~~
T
Tempter,
the, in Eden, 178, 200
Temptation
from whence, 197
of
Christ, 202 -
Temple
the, built by Christ, 297
seen
by Ezekiel, 299
built
by tIme stranger, 305
Testaments,
relative value of Old and
New,
30
Testament,
Christianity rooted in Old, 32
Thessalonians,
knowledge of advent by
the,
354
Thief,
the dyin~, 60
Thought,
a brain product, 42, 43
Times,
the appointed, 351, 355
New
Testament on the, 353
of
the Gentiles, 358
Time
of the end “, 355, 364, 365
Time, times, and half a time “,
357, 367, 385
literal
view considered, ‘381
Titles
“ and authority forbidden, 428
Today,
meaning of, 60
Tormented
day and night ‘‘, criticism
of,
85
Tradition
of 6,000 years, 360
Tradition,
commandment nullified in, 421
Transfiguration,
the, 68
Treasure
on earth, laying sup, 431
Tree
of knôwledge, the, 92
of
life, 94
Trinity,
popular ideas of the, 134
the,
unscriptural, 154
Trinitarian
ideas of Christ, 155
Troubles,
world-wide, coming, 341
Truth?
what is? everybody’s question, 16
qualifications
for exammnit~g, 16
Tuurkey,
decadence of, 389, 394
assailed
by Russia, 389
U
Unbelief,
explanation of, 21, 78
remedy
of, 24
Unenhightened,
end of tIme, 104
Unity
of God, the 135
Unitarian
view of Christ uunscrmptural, 154
Universalism
unscriptural, 102
Universal
Bishop, title of, conferred, 373
Unquenchable
fire “, criticism of, 103
V
Vienna,
the mouth of the dragon, 388, 389
Vision,
hypothesis of, 68
of
Nebuchadnezzar, 213
of
Daniel, 216
Virtue,
value of, 406
w
War
spirit, the, abroad, 395
Wicked,
the destruction of 78, 103
present
at judgment, 124
Word,
the spirit in, 149
World,
the, incurable by human means, ‘256
future
prospects of, 258
present
degradation of, 284
present
age of, 360
Worldliness
forbidden, 422
Christendom,
guilty of, 425
Worship in the future age, 298
Actual copy of
pages 108-111 of Christendom Astray 1899 Edition BEFORE
Subsequent
changes
108 CHRISTENDOM ASTRAY. ELECT. V.
(what
~ The state of things that John witnessed -the reigning of the accepted for a
thousand years)-THIS IS TILE FIRST
RESURRECTION (Rev. xx. 4, 5). There is no mention of the act of coming
out of the grave. John merely sees certain persons who had been dead, occupying
a certain position with Christ; and, describiic. the scene as a
whole, he caUs it THE FIRST RESURRECTION. Evidently
the word
resurrection
cannot here be restricted to the act of rising from the grave. Many will have a
part in this “first resurrection “ who will never go into the grave at all,
viz., “ those who are alive and remain,” “Resurrection” here broadly covers a
state and a time to which the pé sonsseeii are introduced by rising from the
death-state, whether in that state they are below the sod, or walking above it
in mortality. But both living and dead will have to appear before the judgment
seat, before they take the position in which ,John saw them, and when they appe~it
at the judgment-seat, they will have companions whom they will never see again,
for to some, Christ will “say unto them in that day, I never knew you; depart
from me, ye that work ini~uity” (Matt. vii. 22, 23). Such will be “ASHAMED before him r1 /zia’
coin
(1
John ii. 2~ ; Pan. xii. 2).
A principal ohstacle is found
in the words “ The rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years
were finished.” This is made
an obstacle by assuming that it
applies to the faithful servants of
Christ.
This assumption is evidently a mistake, because at the time when that is
developed which John styles the “ first resurrection,” viz, a living and
reigning with Christ, the judgment which disposes of the unfaithful and rewards
the worthy is past. The “rest of the dead
cannot
apply to the unfaithful persons
ameiahle, to the judgment seat of Christ, inasmuch as if raised at
that. time, their resurrection and condemnation are accomplished facts at
the time when these words are used. If
they apply to a specific class, it is a class hot amenable to the judgment
which Christ brings to bear on his household, and a class undealtwith till the close of the thousand years. Possibly, it may refer to men like Nero, and
others great in wickedness, who are unpunished in the present life, and who,
though outside of specific law to God, have acquired a degree of moral
responsibility by external contact
with divine things. Rejectors of the Word,
who do not come under the law to Christ
by belief and obedience may be
reserved till the close of the thousand rears.
J t does not seem reasonable that those who put away the counsel of God from themselves should be passed
over without judgment, and vet, since they do not become constituents of the
househokl uf faith, their resurrecdon, at the time when account is taken of
that household, woul(l seem inappropriate. May they not be dealt with at the
end? On the other hand, the language under consideration may have a more
general meaning than this, viz., that there is to be 110 further resurrection of (lead people till the end of the
thousand~
LECT. v.1
CHRISTENDOM ASTRAY.
Pg 109years;
that though power to raise the dead is upon the earth for a thousand years,
it is not to be exercised till the
close of that period. In that case it may
only be intended to teach that the dead, or mortal population of the earth, left over after the advent, and,
therefore, a remainder, or “the rest” divided from this dispensation by the
advent, and related entirely to the
dispensation of the kingdom, will not he dealt with till the close of the
kingdom, when those who live and die4~ under
the reign of Christ will rise again.1 All that it really proves is, that
there is to he no more resurrection of dead
people after Christ has come till
the end of the thousand vear~.J\Ve cannot be certain whether its bearing is retrospective or prospective,
whether it relates to people actually in death when the saints begin to reign,
or to the dead comprehensively, of whom a remainder will exist during all the
thousand years.~~Iliis much is certiun, that it is not intended to teach,
and, as we hav~. seen, does not teach, that there will be no resurrection
of unjust at the coming of Christ. No one part of the Scriptures can violate
the unequivocal testimony of other
parts. To admit of the common interpretation of Rev. xx. 6, would be to
abandon the great doctrine of judgment with which the Scriptures (the New Testament more particularly) teem in
an emphatic form.
But
the greatest stumbling.block with those who deny the judgrnent of the saints consists of Paul’s statements on the subject of resurrection in 1 Cor. xv. “So
also is the resurrection of the
dead. It tR SOWfl in corr~ption, it is
raised in incorruption ; ,~ ~ sown in dishonour, it is raised in
glory; it is si’u’n in. weakness, it is raised in. power; it is
sown a natural body, it is raist’d a spiritual body.
The deed shall lie raised
incorruptible” (verses 4 2-44, 52). Restricting these words to the mere act of
enwrgenee from the ground, they naturally seem an express affirmation that the body ig incorruptible, spiritual, and immortal from the first
moment of its restoration; and that,
therefore, judgment is anticipated and
superseded by this silent proclamation
of acceptance, and that nothing lies
between those thus rising incorruptible and perfected salvation, but a
joyous re-union with the Lord. The mistake consists in construing Paul’s words
too narrowly, and reading them as if lie
were dealing with the dramatic incidents of the resucrection, instead of
the state of existence to which the act of resurrection leads. Paul ~s not discussing the scientific aspect of
the subject. He is not defining the
cess by which a tiend man ascends from the depths of corruption to the nature of the angels; the literal details are foreign to the subject before his mind. He is dealing with the broad question propounded by the
objector; first, how-as a question of possibilitv-~- are the dead raised? and second, for or to (“ with” not being in the
LECT. V. pg 110
second
he meets by challenging attention to the fact that there is a great diversit of
power and glory in the universe of God, and that (lead people, in a future
state, need not necessarily, therefore,
be the corruptible flesh and blood they are in mundane life. This being so,
raise”
must be taken in its widest sense, incluling, of neces.sit.y, the act by which
the dead first resume bodily form and consciousness, but, at the same time,
covering the whole process, w/in!ev.”r it
may be, which leads to incorruption. It could not he that Paul intended to
exclude any part of the process. it is doubtful if the qnestiou of process was
at all present to his mind. This is suggested by the entire absence of allusion
either to the judgment or the unfaithful. It was the broad question he looked
at, viz., the position of those
destined to he accepted, in relation to the two facts, that they are to see
corruption, and that God intends to promote them, in a renewed existence, to an
incorruptible and immortal state. Paul affirms that a.s there is a differeace
of nature in different orders of being, and a difference between heavenly and
earthly glory, SO there is a
difference between the present and the future constitution of the saints,
because the present is the earthly and the future the heavenly; the present the
animal and the future the spiritual. The characteristics of the present
state-ofwhich death is but the conclusion-are corruption, dishonour, weakness,
and naturality: from this the body will emerge. at the resurrection, in
inc)rruption, glory, power, and spirituality. This is true, without at all
involving the conclusion that at the precise moment existence is
resurreetionally renewed, the saints will be in possession of these qualities.
The resurrection, as a complete transaction, inclusive of the judgment seat of
Christ, will, in tile else of the righteous, ultimate in incorruption, glory,
power, and immortality. In a sense, they will attain to these on emerging from
the ground, since they will never return to corruption; hut actually, they will
he in the neutral state, to be determined for good or evil by judgment. Paul,
however, does not take this into account. He is not treating of details. He
overleaps every item in the programme, and looks broadly at the fact that the
destiny of the ri.~hteous, by resurrection, is the swallowing up of death in
the victory of immortality.
The
word “raised” is used elliptically, or as an act covering details not
expressed, in Matt. iii. 9 ; Luke i. 69 ; and Acts xiii. 22. 23. That Paul is
dealing wit1~ his subject elliptically is evident from other parts of the
chapter. He intro(lUCes Adam and Christ in proof of his proposition that “there
is a natural body and a spiritual body.’ He quotes the record of Moses with
reference to Adam in proof of the
existence of a natural body. “ The
first man, Adam, was made a living soul “(or natural body). His proof of the
second lies in this : “the last Adam wu~ made
a juick”ning spirit.” Now supposing a person, i400rant of the history of
Christ, were to receive his impressions of
Page
111Christ’s history from this statement-supposing he had no other source of information-would he not come to the conclusion
that “the last Adam” was a spiritual body from the first moment of his
existence? Would lie ever conclude from it that “tile last Adam” was first a helpless babe at Bethlehem,
clad in the flesh-and-blood-nature of his mother ; then a boy, submissive to
his parents; then a carpenter, helping in the workshop to earn a livelihood for
the family; then anointed with the Holy Spirit and power, going about doing
good, and performing works which “none other man did,” and that, finally, he
was abandoned of the power of God, and crucified
through
even
the weakness of frail human nature? Would the uninformed and the superficial
reader of Paul’s allusion to the last Adam learn from it that not only the
first Adam, but the last Adam also, was a natural body fur
thirty-three-and-a-half years, and that he only became a life-giving spirit by
the power of God, in his resurrection i By no means. All these facts, so
familiar to us, are elliptically compressed into the words “was made.” A proce~
with so many striking features is expressed in a way which, if there were no
other information, would conceal it. If this is the ease with reference to Christ-if
we are at liberty to believe against the appearance of things in 1 Cor. xv.
that Christ was first a living soul and then a quickening spirit, why need
there be a greater difficulty in reference to his people, whose re-awakening in
the flesh and appearance at the judgment-seat is kept out of sight, in a phrase
which its use in other cases admits to the possibility of covering the whole
ground.
Coincidentally
and elliptically speaking, “the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we-the
living-shall be changed.” Both events will occur at the advent. This is true,
speaking broadly of the subject, without reference to details; but it is not,
therefore, untrue that both classes will “appear before the judgment-seat of
Christ, to receive in body according to what they have done, whether good or
bad” (2 Cor. v. 10). A general statement of truth cannot exclude the involved
particulars, though it may appear to do so. Those who oppose the judgment of
the saints, front I Cor. xv., argue as if it did; as if Paul’s glorious
bird’s-eye delineation of the resurrection scene here, in its relation to the
accepted, invalidated the more sober details of the judicial transition
process, which he elsewhere declares to he attendant on this epoch ; a process in which, for a time, it remains
problematical who are to be confessed before the angels and crowned with life
everlasting. As well might they argue that because in Gen.
xxii.
IS, it is declared that all families of the earth shall be blessed in Abraham
and his seed, therefore, they will not suffer by judgment which will decimate
millions when Christ, the seed of Abraham, comes to l)riflg the promise to
pass, first “treading the winepress of the wrath of God,” as declared in Rev.
xix.; that because in Zech. ix. 10,
COMPARESON
OF 1899/1951 TEXT OF CHRISTENDOM ASTRAY
1899:
A principal obstacle is found in the words “The rest of the dead
1951:
A principal obstacle is found in the words, “The rest of the dead
lived
not again till the thousand years were finished.” This is made
lived
not again till the thousand years were finished.” This is made
an
obstacle by assuming that it applies to the unfaithful servants of
an
obstacle by assuming that it applies to the unfaithful servants of
Christ.
This assumption is evidently a mistake, because at the time
Christ.
This assumption is evidently a mistake, because _________
the
vision of John comprehended only the resurrection of the just,
________________________________________________________
when that is developed which John styles the
“first resurrection,” viz.,
__________________________________________________________
a
living and reigning with Christ, the judgment which disposes of the
who
“lived and reigned with Christ.” ______________________
unfaithful
and rew2rds the worthy is past. The “rest of the dead”
______________________________________________________
cannot
apply to the unfaithful persons amenable to the judgment seat
________________________________________________________
of
Christ, inasmuch as if raised at that time, their resurrection
________________________________________________
and
condemnation are accomplished facts at the time when these words are
____________________________________________________________
used.
If they apply to a specific class, it is a class not amenable to the
judgment
which Christ brings to bear on his household, and a class
undealt
with till the close of the thousand ears.
Possibly, it may refer
to
men like Nero, and others great in wickedness who are unpunished
in_______________________________________________________________ the present
life and who, though outside of specific law to God, have
_________________________________________________________
acquired
a degree of moral responsibility by external contact with
divine
things. Rejectors of the Word, who do not come under the law
to
Christ by belief and obedience may be reserved till the close of the
____________________________________________________________
thousand
years. It does not seem reasonable that those who put away
the
counsel of God from themselves should be passed over without
judgment,
and yet, since they do not become constituents of the house
__________________________________________________________
hold
of faith, their resurrection, at the time when account is taken of
that
household, would seem inappropriate. May they not be dealt
with
at the end? On the other hand, the language under consideration
may
have a more general meaning than this, viz., that there is to be
no
further resurrection of dead people till the end of the thousand
______________________________________________________--
years;
that though power to raise the dead is upon the earth for a
years,
it is not to be exercised till the close of that period.
In
that case it may only be intended to teach that the dead, or mortal
population
of the earth, left over after the advent, and, therefore, a
remainder,
or “the rest” divided from this dispensation by the advent,
and related entirely to the dispensation of
the kingdom, will not be
dealt
with till the close of the kingdom, when those who live and die
________________________________________________________
under
the reign of Christ will rise again. All that it really
proves is, -------------- -----------------_______________All that
the passage really proves is,
that
there is to be no more resurrection of dead people after Christ
that
there is to be no more resurrection of dead people after Christ
has
come till the end of the thousand years. We cannot, be certain
has
come till the end of the thousand years. ----------------------
whether
its bearing is retrospective or prospective, whether it relates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to
people actually in death when the saints begin to reign, or to the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dead
comprehensively, of whom a remainder will exist during all the
thousand
years. This much is certain, that it is not intended to teach,
--------------------------------It
is certain that it is not intended to teach,
and,
as we have seen, does not teach, that there will be no resurrec
and,
as we have seen, does not teach, that there will be no resurrect
ion
of unjust at the corning of Christ. No one part of the Scriptures
tion
of unjust at the coming of Christ. No one part of the Scriptures
can violate the unequivocal
testimony of other parts. To admit of the
can violate the unequivocal
testimony of other parts. To admit of the
common interpretation of
Rev. xx. 6, would be to abandon the great
common interpretation of
Rev. xx. 6 would be to abandon the-------
doctrine of judgment with
which the Scriptures (the New Testament New Testament
doctrine of judgment.
------------------------------------------------------------------
more particularly) teem in
an emphatic form.
-----------------------------------------------------