The World's Redemption
ACCORDING TO THE ETERNAL PLAN
Revealed and Elaborated in the Scriptures of Truth
and Embraced in the Covenants of Promise
and Hope of Israel.
Intended to assist in rescuing honest hearts from the delusions
of apostate Christendom, and to guide them into the strait and narrow way which
alone leads to life and glory in the coming Kingdom of God.
BY
Thomas Williams
Back to Home
|
|
Chapter 1 |
|
Chapter 2 |
|
Chapter 3 |
|
Chapter 4 |
|
Chapter 5 |
|
Chapter 6 |
|
Chapter 7 |
The Restoration of Israel in Relation
to the World's Redemption |
Chapter 8 |
The Messianic Restoration of the
Kingdom of Israel and Throne of David |
Chapter 9 |
|
Chapter 10 |
|
Chapter 11 |
|
Chapter 12 |
|
Chapter 13 |
|
Chapter 14 |
|
Chapter 15 |
Man Unconscious in Death -
Resurrection the Only Hope of Future Life |
Chapter 16 |
|
Chapter 17 |
|
Chapter 18 |
|
Chapter 19 |
The Judgments of God and the
Dispensation of Rewards and Punishment |
Chapter 20 |
|
Chapter 21 |
|
Chapter 22 |
|
Chapter 23 |
|
Chapter 24 |
|
Chapter 25 |
|
Chapter 26 |
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
The author has traveled over the greater part of the United
States and Canada for fourteen years setting forth from the platform, the
glorious truths of the Bible. Many in many places have expressed a wish to have
his lectures in print for careful and frequent perusal, and to help in their
efforts to bring their friend and neighbors to the light of the glorious
gospel. Since the author always in his public efforts speaks extemporaneously
it has only occasionally been possible to publish a lecture verbatim, when it
happened that a reporter would be present. In response to these wishes and that
he might do what seemed to be his part in the good work in which he sincerely
hopes this book will assist, he has reduced his public addresses to chapters in
which to a large extent, the matter and method are the same as in his
extemporaneous lectures, much of the book having been dictated to a
stenographer.
The author does not feel that he owes any apology for the
seeming presumption of adding another book to the world full of books already
in existence, because he does not regard this as of the worlds books. It is not
of the world, and is intended as an earnest appeal to its readers to come out
of the world. It is therefore not one of many books but one of few; and if
apology be necessary for adding to the few, it is not to be found in a claim on
the authors part of superior or equal ability in a literary sense or to go more
profoundly into the important subjects deal with: but rather in the need for a
simplicity that might the more effectually reach the only class which we can
hope to reach in this evil age the "poor of this world" capable of
becoming ""rich in faith.” It is a consciousness of having the
faculty of making himself easily understood that has given the author the
courage to send out THE WORLDS REDEMPTION to the perishing masses of our times,
in the hope that it may rescue a few, whom God grant, he may be worthy to meet
in the kingdom of God, and with whom he may be blessed with the power of
endless life free from the pangs of sickness, sorrow, pain and death.
1898 THE AUTHOR.
THE Author of THE WORLD'S REDEMPTION was born April 7, 1847
"probably in Parkmill," a small village not far from Swansea, Gower
Peninsula, Glamorgan County, South Wales. The death of his mother deprived him
of her tender care when he was two, and he was taken into the home of a good
old grandmother, who lived not far from the coast near the town of Llagadranta.
When he became old enough, he was apprenticed and taught carpentry - in
Parkmill. Acquiring skill in that trade he went to Mumbles to work, and there
came in contact with William Clement - also a carpenter - his prospective
father-in-law. Mr. Clement was a disciple of Dr. John Thomas, and an ardent
Christadelphian. It was not long until there was a new disciple, as Thomas
Williams embraced the Faith at the age of seventeen. He had been christened
according to the practice of the Established Church, in irresponsible infancy;
and he used to say, in after-life, that his godfather had repudiated the devil
for him as a child, but that as a man he had repudiated the devil for himself
in a way his sponsor never dreamed of. It was not long before he and Elizabeth
Clement were joined in marriage, as he remarked near the end of life, "for
the better without the worse." By the time the family had grown to five,
the magnetic attraction of the New World began to draw them. In 1872 they
packed their bags and embarked for the land of opportunity. They traveled first
to Chicago, which was bustling with building activity as the result of the
devastating fire of October, 1871. They did not, however, remain there for
long, but went farther west, to locate in Riverside, Iowa. They made
friendships among the Believers in Chicago that were to endure stedfast until
the end. In Riverside; he engaged for a time in farming, the lumber business
and construction business on his own account.
Eight children were born to the couple, altogether -
Clement, William, Katherine, in Wales; and Gershom, Fred, May, George and
Bessie, this side the ocean. Gershom, their first-born after reaching these
shores, was so named, because they felt themselves to be "strangers in a
strange land." (See Exod. 2: 22.)
Thomas Williams' superior ability as an expounder and
defender of the Faith was very evident from the first. Arrangements were soon
made for him to devote his entire time, with pen and voice, to this work.
Removing to Waterloo, Iowa, he began in 1885 the publication of the
Christadelphian Advocate, for "The Promulgation and Defense of 'The Things
Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ'... with a view of
assisting in the work of taking out a people preparatory to the coming of the Lord."
His services as a lecturer and debater were soon in demand throughout the
United States and Canada, and he devoted himself to this work with great
energy. The unusual character of his Bible expositions often brought the
challenge to meet the exponents of popular and traditional doctrines in public
discussion. Such invitations were never declined, when details could be
satisfactorily arranged. Mr. Williams always insisted that some part of the
debate be conducted on the Socratic method of direct questions and answers.
This was necessary to make the issues plain and bring the discussion to a
focus; but not every opponent was willing to meet this condition. Mr. Williams'
training no doubt aided a naturally keen and logical mind to give him
extraordinary skill as a debater. He took the platform with church leaders to
debate the subjects of the Nature of Man, Punishment of the Wicked, Scope of
the Resurrection. Location of the Kingdom of God, and the Time of its
Establishment, Universal Salvation, the Sabbath Question, and Anglo-Israelism.
On separate occasions he met two infidels, a Col. Billings in Riverside, and
Mr. Charles Watts, of London, England. Several efforts to arrange a discussion
with "Pastor" Charles Taze Russell, author of the Millennial Dawn
series, were not successful.
A somewhat turbulent affair took place in Toronto, Canada,
in 1906. A popular revivalist had been holding meetings in Massey Hall, seating
about six thousand. At the close he was called upon to defend his teachings as
to the immortality of the soul and eternal torments in public debate with
Thomas Williams. This he declined to do, whereupon arrangements were made for a
well advertised address by Thomas Williams to be delivered from the platform
lately occupied by the evangelist. "Eternal Torments-a Fallacy, a Failure
and a Fraud." was the title of this address, which aroused much interest
and evoked favorable comment in the Canadian Press.
Not only was the Author of THE WORLD·S REDEMPTION active on
the platform, but he was also busy with his pen, and published many tracts and
pamphlets, illuminating Scripture teachings, and exposing popular errors as to
Bible doctrines. He and his family moved back to Chicago, to build a home and
printing plant, in 1892. The following was the year of "The World's
Columbian Exposition," in connection with which was to be held a
"World's Congress of Religions." A booklet for free distribution was
prepared by Mr. Williams, entitled The Great Salvation. - What it is, and
How to Obtain it. This summary of Bible teaching has had a wide
circulation.
In addition to his activities in the United States and
Canada, the Author made four trips to England to lecture and to visit the place
of his birth and home of his youth in Wales. In May of 1900, he and Mrs.
Williams, always his faithful helpmate, sailed from Montreal on the S. S.
Dominion. The purpose of this journey was threefold: To deliver a series of
addresses according to an itinerary planned by co-workers in England; to
endeavor to compose differences which were causing controversy and division
within the Fraternity; and to visit the homeland and people he and Mrs.
Williams had left twenty-eight years before.
His second visit was in 1903, this time on the Lucania.
Guglielmo Marconi was a passenger on the same vessel, and wireless messages
-quite new at the time - were being exchanged between ship and shore. and
between ship and ship. Mr. Williams was naturally much impressed, by this and
commented in the Advocate. "A strange feeling came over me when we received
the first bulletin of Mlarconigrams. Just think of it! Out in mid-ocean,
hundreds of miles from land and from other vessels, and yet receiving news of
what was happening on land and sea! If such is possible in the finite sphere,
who can doubt the omnipresence and the omniscience of the Infinite. More real
than ever are we impressed with the thought that wherever we are the eye of the
Almighty is upon us - a pleasing thought if we are walking in the way of
righteousness; but a dreadful one if otherwise.... The telegrams were in detail
as much as any ordinary telegrams - and if the expense is not too great to
interfere with the practicability of the wonderful system, what a revolution it
will make! and how closely will the world seem to have become united! Surely we
are now living in the time predicted - 'Many shall run to and fro, and
knowledge shall increase."' He remarks about the youthfulness and
friendliness of the inventor, who would be twenty-nine at the time. (May the
writer be permitted the observation, that little less wonder had been felt
half-a-century earlier at the transmitting of messages by wire. Since 1903,
wireless has made possible the radio, the wireless telephone, and now
television. Is it not probable that the future holds other great marvels, one
day to become commonplace-perhaps in God's Kingdom!)
A third trip across was made in 1907, which occupied almost
a year.
After passing his sixtieth birthday, Mr. Williams' incessant
activity - began to tell upon his constitution. He was a man of deep and
definite convictions, and was ever ready to "give a reason for his
Hope." He was sensitive of conscience and fervent of spirit. He had
responded promptly - for pleas for his help, coming from the north, the south,
the east and the west, in heat of summer and the cold and snows of winter.
Train connections were not always according to schedule, and there were the
other trials and inconveniences incidental to travel. The very nature of his
work often caused him to be subjected to severe emotional stress and strain.
Then, how many occasions there were which called for sympathy and condolence!
Only a cheerful and equable disposition, fortified by profound faith in God,
could ever for so long have sustained him.
Decline of health caused his thoughts to turn to the sunny
South. He had been in Orlando, Florida, in 1905, for lectures and to visit old
friends and had tarried a while for rest and recuperation. Finding the climate
there so much to his liking, he decided five years later to make his home
there, moving there in 1910, he continued his publishing work, with travel in
the North restricted to summertime.
In 1913, with his faithful companion, he undertook the
fourth journey to England and Wales, from which he was not to return. While
traveling in England and meeting lecture appointments, his strength suddenly
failed, and he returned to Mrs. Williams' old home in Wales where he died
within a few days. The end came in the very house where youth's springtime
began, with all its joyful promise. A fruitful life was finished.
He fell asleep December 8, 1913 with his hope fixed - not
upon death - but upon the coming of the Lord and the resurrection. As for the
validity of that Hope, we invite the reader's earnest attention to the pages of
THE WORLD'S REDEMPTION.
1951 BERTON LITTLE.
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
DEAR READER: - If our appeal to you is earnest, it is because the
subject upon which we address you is an important one. It is a subject upon
which hangs our eternal destiny. The perplexities of the present evil world and
the greed for gain of the temporalities of life so engross the minds of this
generation that the great vital question of the life that is to come is thought
but little of, and the masses are recklessly rushing headlong into perdition.
You, like many others, will perhaps impatiently answer, "It is no use
talking religion to me. Look at the confusion there is in the world. What is
the use for me to trouble myself in trying to understand a subject that our
wisest men cannot agree upon?" We confess your words have considerable
force, in view of the confusion there is in the religious world at the present
time. The common people who, by the exigencies of an evil state of things, are
kept busy providing for the necessities of life have little time to study the
subtle and technical questions which divide and confuse the churches of
Christendom; and they are given to understand that these are matters to be left
to the "clergy" while the "laity" are to accept the
situation, asking no questions, but putting their trust in their leaders that
in some way, they are not supposed to know how, all will end well. If you are
disposed to think for yourself, you will not be satisfied to blindly follow the
dictates of men, but you will want to know that you are upon safe ground, and
that the road you are traveling will lead to the haven of rest which many weary
travelers are earnestly seeking.
Did it ever occur to you that God in providing His
beneficent plan of salvation so arranged it that it would be more nearly within
the reach of the poor and commonplace people of the world than of the great and
the learned and the opulent? Honor belongs to Him who is the Great Creator, in
whom we live and move and have our being. Therefore the honor and submission
given to the so-called learned leaders of men are misplaced. It would be
strange, would it not, if God had revealed a plan of salvation which, by the
very mystery of its nature, must necessarily become a monopoly in the hands of
a few men who happened to be thrown into circumstances admitting of a technical
theological education. This would have made the salvation of the masses
dependent upon the few favored ones in a worldly sense. And since these
very-few comparatively-seriously and sometimes violently disagree among
themselves, what a hopeless plight we should all be in were we dependent solely
upon them for guidance in the way of life. What is in our day considered
learning is familiarity with the mysteries of the darkness of Egypt, Greece and
Rome. A man whose college education enables him to glibly talk of heathen gods
and pagan myths is regarded as a "learned man." Is Egypt likely to be
a good place to go to for heavenly light? Are the heathen philosophers of
Greece to be supposed to be luminaries of divine revelation? Why should any one
expect to receive the light of salvation from Rome, which, whether under pagan
or papal power has drenched her soil with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus?
These are not the sources whence we may expect to derive saving truth, and the
fact that preparation for the popular pulpit consist~ Largely, if not
principally, in the study of heathen "philosophers" is sufficient
reason why you should turn from the highways of popular religion and seek for
truth at the fountain head of the stream of life eternal.
I am not presenting to you a new thought, nor advising you
to pursue a new course, though to you, possibly, it may appear so. I am simply
asking you to remember the words of the prophet who said, "Thus saith the
Lord, stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old path, where is the
good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls'' (Jer. 6:
16). To do this you must "not put your trust in princes nor in the sons of
men, in whom there is no help" (Ps. 146. 3), but you must realize that
"not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are
called; but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the
wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things
which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised
hath God chosen, yea and things which are not, to bring to naught things that
are; that no flesh should glory in his presence" (I. Cor. 1: 26-29).
There is only one authority for us all in relation to the problem
of life; and, God be thanked, there is free access to that in our land and in
our times for all who will avail themselves of the privilege. While the world's
wise are disputing and fighting about the "wisdom of the world" let
the humble seeker after truth search the old paths that lead to the grand old
book of the ages, which has withstood the severe tests of times of darkness,
wickedness and cruelty and yet brightly burns as a beacon of light to every way
worn and footsore traveler. "Familiar spirits" have multiplied in our
times because of the barrenness; of Bible teaching. The prevailing ignorance of
God's Word admits of their tricks and turns in deceiving the hearts of the
simple. Let me appeal to YOU dear leader, not to allow yourself to be deceived
"when" the warning so clearly and loudly cries out, "When they
shall Say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards
that peep and that mutter; should not a people seek unto their God? Why should
you seek unto the dead concerning the living (Septuagint rendering)? To the law
and, to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word it is because
there is no light in them" (Isa. 8: 19, 20).
To say that there is barrenness of Bible teaching may
astonish you in view of the boasted claims of Progress in the study of Bible
lore: but it is a sad fact that the boasted progress is rapidly reducing the
Word of God to an object of contempt and ridicule. The very highest leaders of
the schools are doing with God's Word what Judas Iscariot did with the Son of
God. It is being sold to the enemy - infidelity - while its professed friends
are impressing upon its pages the betraying kiss. The more flaws their
flaunting "scholarship" can find in the Bible, the more they pretend
to like it. What matters it to them if the Son of God himself sealed the
divinity of Moses and the prophets with his life's blood, if they can persuade
their dupes that through their deep researches (?) in the darkness of
superstitious antiquity, and their masterful detection of verbal peculiarities
and imaginary distinctions they can pose before their admirers as men and
masters of great profundity. The traps and snares that are being set for the
young and unwary the theological schools of our times are among the great evils
of the century, and if we look not well to ourselves we shall be carried down
to oblivion with the great destructive popular wave of skepticism.
Familiarity with the unerring Predictions of the Word of God
will remove any cause for surprise that there is such prevailing and widespread
ignorance of the real teachings of the Bible. If it were otherwise prophecy
bearing upon our times would be a failure. Let me quote here a few testimonies
which you will readily see foretell the present state of things in relation to
the subject in hand
Amos 8: 11 - Behold the days come, saith the Lord God, that
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.
Luke 18: 7, 8 - And shall not God avenge his own elect,
which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you
that he shall avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall
he find faith on the earth?
II Thes. 2: 3-12 - Let no man, deceive you by any means; for
that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man
of sin be revealed, 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, Remember ye not that when
I was with you I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that
he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already
work; only he who doth letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And
then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit
of his mouth and destroy with the brightness of his coming; even him, whose
coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying
wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, because
they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for
this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie.
I Tim. 4: 1-3 - Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in
the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing
spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their
conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to
abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of
them which believe and know the truth.
II Tim. 3: 17--This know also, that in the last days
perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their ownselves,
covetous, boasters, proud blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful,
unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers incontinent,
fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors heady, high-minded, lovers
of pleasure more than followers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying
the power thereof; from such turn away.
Verses 12, 13 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ
Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and
worse, deceiving and being deceived.
II Tim. 4: 3-4 - For the time will come when they will not
endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves
teachers, having itching ears, and they shall turn away their ears from the
truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Now, dear reader, not only do these testimonies foretell a
departure from the truth, but they show clearly that the apostasy would be
wide-spread, and be the prevailing character of the latter times. The question
asked by the Saviour, "Shall he find faith on earth?" referring to
His second coming, warns us that the true faith would scarcely be found; and
this agrees with what He says upon another occasion in the awful words,
"Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way
that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat; because strait
is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be
that find it" (Malt. 7: 13, 14) - And, again, "But as the days of
Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matt. 24·: 37).
My object in dwelling upon this unhappy state of things is
to remove the delusion which has largely led the people to believe that the
world is getting better and is being "converted" through the agencies
now at work. This claim is in direct opposition to the testimony of God's Word
and to the real facts in the case. The testimonies speak for themselves and
cannot be ignored nor gain said. If so-called Christendom is what it claims to
be God's word in declaring a great apostasy has failed, and all the predictions
and warnings have proven false. These testimonies of Holy Writ cannot be
harmonized with popular claims. Which will you believe? If you believe the
latter you must deny the former, and then you will surely be in the "broad
way;· that leadeth to destruction. If you believe the testimonies, then you
must turn from the highways of popular so-called Christianity in order that you
might enter the "strait gate": and the "narrow way which leadeth
unto life." Are you still inclined to give credence to the popular claims of
present world conversion, then look at a few facts that some of the religious
periodicals are frank enough to publish.
On the increase Of Crime we quote the following from THE
TRUTH:
The San Francisco Examiner calls attention to the statistics
of crime which the Chicago Tribune carefully collects and publishes every year.
The record shows that murders are increasing far beyond the growth of the
population, and that this so-called Christian country with its boasted
20,000,000 of Christians, far surpasses Italy or any known heathen land in the
number of its homicides.
The rapid increase of murder in the United States is one of
the most distressing facts in our history. The figures are worthy of deep
consideration by every man who is interested in the welfare of the country and
his own safety. The recorded homicides for ten years run:
1886.............…...........................................................................1,449
1887.........................................................................................
2,335
1888.........................................................................................
2,184
1889..........................................................................................3,567
1890.............…...........................................................................4,090
1891.....…...................................................................................5,906
1892..........................................................................................6,791
1893..........................................................................................6,615
1894.............…...........................................................................9,800
1895.............…...........................................................................10,500
This awful record of slaughter, a record that shows an
annual loss of life by knife and pistol, equal to the loss by almost any of the
great battles of history, is an indictment of our civilization. It is a record
that cannot be matched out of Armenia or the brutalized regions of Darkest
Africa. There is no part of the civilized globe in which human life is so
little regarded, and the taking of it so lightly condoned, as in the United
States of America. Beside the annual murder record of 150 to 200 that is found
in England, or even the 2,500 to 3,000 murders that are found in Italy, the
record of the United States is a national disgrace and humiliation.
[Even though over 100 years have passed since the writing of
this book the United States still is one of the world leaders as it relates to
violent crime.]
Some of the editors of religious papers are being compelled
by the force of cold facts to confess that in the efforts to convert the world
there is utter failure. Here is what the editor of The Truth says;
The ablest statisticians estimate that the Pagan and
Mohammedan population of the earth has increased during this century 250,000,000.
The number of professed converts to Christianity- can be set down at 3,000,000.
It is claimed that that there are 20,000,000 Christians in this land, that is,
one out of every two or three of the adult inhabitants, whereas not ten ever
attend church; but admitting the extravagant and foolish claim, there are
50,000,000 more remaining to he converted than at the beginning of the century.
In other words, the increase of Christians does not begin to equal those who
are not Christians; and at this rate, when will the world be converted? Many
will reply that the result is sure according to the Word of God; but is not a
single promise that the end will be reached by the agencies, instrumentality's
and means now employed.
If God is not converting the world through the agencies now
at work, what is his purpose in sending the gospel? you may ask. His purpose is
ultimately to convert the world, that is, the world consisting of the survivors
of the calamities of hastening vengeance to be visited upon the people of this
ungodly age. But the honor and the power are His, and belong not to "man
whose breath is in his nostrils" and who is puffed up with pride in his
ability to form society here and society there for this and for that. When the
appointed time arrives "The Lord will make bare his holy arm in the eyes
of all the nations: and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of
our God" (Isa. 52 :10). It is when God's "judgments are in the
earth,. the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness" (Isa. 26:
9). Not till then will the veil that has been drawn over the eyes of the people
be torn off, and, coming to see how they have been deceived and deluded, the
Gentiles will "come from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our
fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no
profit" (Jer. 16: 19). In the meantime however, the door is not closed
against any honest seeker after truth. The gospel is doing the work it was
foretold it should during these dark days of Gentile times; for we are assured
that God's word "shall not return unto him void, but it shall accomplish
that which I please and prosper in the thing whereto I sent it" (Isa. 55:
11).
It is now clear that we must seek for the way of salvation,
not in the popular systems of the world, but aside from these, and in the
"old paths" which lead to the "strait gate and the narrow way,''
to walk in which requires that we be "converted and become as little
children" if we would enter into the kingdom of God" (Matt. 18: 3).
To this end it is necessary that we come out from the world, for true disciples
are those who are chosen out of the world, and are not of the world (John 15:
16-19). Hence the gentiles are not visited by the gospel to be converted en
mass, but through it God is "visiting the Gentiles to take out of them a
people for his name'' (Acts 15: 14)) and when "the fullness of the
Gentiles be come in" (Rom. 11: 25), Christ 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." Then it is that the "residue of
men shall seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom his name is
called" (Acts 15: 16, 17).
Since the gospel is sent out for this purpose it must be
evident that its conditions must be complied with by those who would share in
the blessings it offers. Here is another growing evil in our day, in the
delusive stupor that many honest people allow themselves to pass into with the
thought that it makes no difference what our belief is if we do our best. The
greatest danger of this lies in its plausibility and in its adaptability to the
likings of the flesh. Dear reader, deceive not yourself, but awake to the
importance of seeking for life in the way - the only way- the wisdom and
goodness of God have provided. You cannot hope to be much better in "doing
your best" than was Cornelius of Cesarea. It is testified that he was
"a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much
alms to the people, and prayed to God always" (Acts 10: 1, 2).
Notwithstanding this, his salvation depended upon a correct faith. The Apostle
Peter is therefore sent to tell him what he must do before he can he saved.
"He shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do" says verse 6, and Peter
tells him "words where by he and all his house should be saved"
(chap. 11:14). This is in strict harmony with the commission given to the apostles,
in the words, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 25:
29). The people must be taught the truth of the gospel; for it is "He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be
condemned" (Mark 16: 16).
This does not allow us to believe what we please or be
indifferent as to whether we have any particular belief. When some in Galatia
became "foolish" and "bewitched" in departing somewhat from
the true gospel the Apostle Paul wrote them in the strongest terms of warning
saying, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you
into the grace of Christ unto another gospel; which is not another; but there
be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we
or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we
have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now
again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received,
let him be accursed" (Gal. 1: 6-9). The absolute necessity of believing
the one true gospel and rejecting all others is thus made clear, and our duty
to stand firm and earnestly to contend for the truth is further sustained by
the following testimonies:
Isa. 8: 20 - To the law and to the testimony; if they speak
not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
John 6: 45 - It is written in the prophets, And they shall
be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of
the Father cometh unto me.
Rom. 1: 16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ:
for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.
Rom. 10: 17--So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by
the word of God.
Heb. 11: 6 - But without faith it is impossible to please
God.
I Thess. 5: 21 - Prove all things; hold fast that which is
good.
I John 5: 10 - He that believeth not God hath made him a
liar; because he believerh not the record that God gave of his Son.
Jude 3-Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you
of the common salvation. it was, needful for me to write unto you, and exhort
you that you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered
to the saints.
It is a well-known fact that the Scriptures are read but
very little these days, and as for a careful study of them it is out of the
question. The example for this deplorable neglect of God's Word is set before
the people by their leaders; for the Bible scarcely enters into modern popular
sermons A single text is sometimes quoted and then left, while the speaker
rambles into the fields of politics, "philosophy" and fiction.
You may not be fully aware of the extent and evil of this
departure from the reading and study of God's Word, and may shrink from
believing that it is possible for the leaders of the people to be so remiss,
but a glance over the customs of the so-called evangelism and revivalism of the
day will show what little use is made of the Scriptures and what cunning
devices men are resorting to stir, not the sober intellectual faculties, but
the impulses and excitement of the natural man.
It is not a new thing for the ways and traditions of men to
supplant God's words. It was the crime of the first century, and from the
predictions we have quoted it will be seen that it was to be that of the latter
days of Gentile times. Let not, therefore, the fear and awe of pomp and
flaunting "learning," or pious pretences in high places daunt you or
deter you, dear reader, from resolving to turn earnestly and persistently- to
the reading and study of God's Word; for remember what is said in the
"warning" of the first century, even to those who read the Scriptures
in a formal way more than their successors do now. Pause over the indictment of
the "learned" in the following testimonies:
Matt 15:3 But he answered and said unto them. Why do ye also
transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Mark 7: 7, 9, l3 - Howbeit in vain do they worship me:
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the
commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and
cups; and many other things ye do and he said unto them, Full well ye reject
the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. * * * (verse 13)
making the word of God of none effect by your tradition.
Col. 2: 8 - Beware, lest any man spoil you through
philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of
the world, and not after Christ.
ISRAEL COMMANDED TO READ THE SCRIPTURES
The danger of neglect of God's word caused serious and
imperative warnings to be given Israel as will be seen in the following:
Deut. 6: 7; 8 - Thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy
children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when
thou walkest in the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. But
thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets
between thine eyes.
Jos. 3: 9 - And Joshua said unto the children of Israel,
Come hither, and hear the words of the Lord your God.
Ps. 50: 7 - Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel,
and I will testify against thee; I am God, even thy God.
Ps. 78: 1 - Give ear, O my people, to my law; incline your
ears to the words of my mouth.
"The carnal mind is enmity against God," but when
it is subjected to the spiritual mind, which can be done only by the power of
God's word, then there is a real hunger and thirst for the Word, from which
flows the utmost satisfaction and the sweet peace of mind "which passeth
all understanding."
Ps. 119: 105--Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light
unto my path.
Prov. 6: 23---For the commandment is a lamp and the law is a
light, and reproofs of instruction are the way of life.
II Pet. 1: 19 - And we have the word of prophecy made sure
whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shineth in a dark place
until the day dawn and the daystar arise in your hearts; knowing this first
that no prophecy of the Scripture is of private interpretation (R. V.).
I John 2: 8 - Again, a new commandment I write unto you,
which thing is true in him and in you; because the darkness is past, and the
true light now shineth.
Ps. 12: 6 - The words of the Lord are pure words; as silver
tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Ps. 119: 140--Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant
loveth it.
Prov. 30: 5 - Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto
them that put their trust in him.
John 15: 3 - Now are ye clean through the word which I have
spoken unto you.
II Sam. 22: 31 - As for God, his way is perfect; the word of
the Lord is tried; he is a buckler to them that trust in him.
Ps 19: 7--The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the
soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple. The fear of the
Lord is clean enduring forever; the judgments of the Lord are true and
righteous altogether.
Ps. 91:5 Thy testimonies are very sure, holiness becometh
thine house O Lord forever.
Ps, 119: I28 - Therefore I esteem; all thy precepts
concerning all things to be right; and hate every false way.
Verse 142 - Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness,
and thy law is truth.
Verse 151 - Thou art near, O Lord, and all thy commandments
are truth.
Verse 160 - Thy word is true from the beginning; and every
one of thy judgments endureth forever.
Prov. 22: 20 - Have not I written to thee excellent things
in counsels and knowledge that I might make thee know the certainty of the
words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send
unto thee.
Eccl. 12: 10 - The preacher sought to find out acceptable
words; and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.
Is. 25: 1 - O Lord. thou art my God; I will exalt thee. I
will praise thy name; for thou hast done wonderful things; thy counsels of old
are faithfulness and truth.
John 17: 17 - Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is
truth.
John 21: 24--This is the disciple which testifieth of these
things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
Rev 19: 9 - And he said, Write, Blessed are they which are
called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are
the true sayings of God.
Rev. 21: 5 - And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold I
make all things new. And he said unto me, Write; for these words are true and
faithful.
Rev 22:6 - And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful
and true; and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to show unto his
servants the things which must shortly be done.
Deut. 32: 2 - My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech
shall distill as the dew as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the
showers upon the grass.
Is. 55: 10, 11 - For as the rain cometh down and the snow
from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it
bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the
eater. So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth; it shall not
return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall
prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Jer. 23: 29 - Is not my word like fire? saith the Lord; and
like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces.
Ps 119: 144--The righteousness of thy testimonies is
everlasting; give me understanding and I shall live.
Verse 152 - Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old
that thou hast founded them forever.
Is 40: 8 - The grass withereth, the flower fadeth; but the
word of our God shall stand forever.
Luke 21: 33 - Heaven and earth shall pass away but my word
shall not pass away.
John 10: 35 - If ye call them gods, unto whom the word of
God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, Etc.
I Pet. 1: 25 - But the word of the Lord endureth forever.
And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
II Sam 23:2 - The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his
word was in my tongue.
II Kings 21: 10 - And the Lord spake unto his servants the
prophets, saying. etc.
Neh. 9: 13 - Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and
spakest with them from heaven and gavest them right judgments, and true laws,
good statutes and commmandments.
I Cor. 2: 4,5 - And my speech and my preaching were not with
enticing words of man’s wisdom. but in demonstration of the Spirit and of
power, that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power
of God.
Verse 13 - Which things also we speak not in the words which
mans wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth; comparing spiritual
things with spiritual.
Col 14:36 - What Came the word of God out from you? or came it
unto you only. 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
Lord.
Gal. 1: 11, 12 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel
which was preached by me is not after man. For I neither received it of man,
neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
II Tim 3:16 - All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness.
II Pet 1:21 - For prophecy came not in old time by the will
of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
1 John 5:9 -If we receive the witness of men, the witness of
god is greater, for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his
Son.
Now, dear reader, we have given these selections of
testimonies from God's Word to offset the disparaging assertions of those who
profess to be the friends of the Bible, but who, like the rulers of the Jews in
the days of our Lord and his Apostles, are making it of none effect by their
traditions and vain philosophy. Ponder over these words of Holy Scripture, and,
we beseech of you, make up your mind to thoroughly examine your faith in the
light of Divine truth; and if you already are in possession of the one saving
faith, you will be strengthened; and if not, God grant that the eyes of your
understanding may be opened and your heart prepared to receive with meekness
the engrafted word, which is able to save your soul. It is with this hope that
we ask you to follow us in what we shall, the Lord willing, set forth in
chapters to follow, carrying with us that unshaken confidence in God and in his
word, which finds such forceful expression in the words, "For I am
persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor
powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any
other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in
Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8: 38, 39).
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
LIFE is sweet, with all its pains and perplexities. Natural
law has endowed man with the love of life, and we are quite willing to endure
great hardships and suffer many pangs and pains, wrestle with powerful enemies
and meet with numerous difficulties and disappointments if we are allowed to
live and given the hope of length of days.
But after all life is but a span, "an inch or two of
time," hung upon a slender cord that is momentarily in danger of breaking
and in the end-the inevitable end-sure to be cut asunder by the ever-busy hand
of man's universal enemy, the dread of all mankind - Death, Death, pitiless,
cruel and relentless Death. Sickness, sorrow, pain and death are realities
alike in the experience of young and old, rich and poor, great and small, in
every land and in every clime.
In the face of such facts the questions press themselves
upon every sensible man and woman, Does death end all? Is there a life beyond?
Is evil eternal? Is there a remedy for the world's woes and provision for man's
inmost wants? What, if any, are the possible dangers ahead? What, if any, are
the blessings attainable? What mean these inmost longings of the heart, and
these wellsprings of hope, these lofty aspirations of the intelligent mind
whose eyes look over and beyond life's vale of tears with anxious hope and
expectation of ultimate realization? Have these longings and throbbings taken
hold of us to mock us? Or have they been begotten, born and nourished by
promises that the evils of this troubled, sin-stricken and death-stricken world
are to be eliminated and give place to a good time that's coming that shall
gladden the hearts and bless the lives of those whose love of their Creator and
faithfulness to their Redeemer have moulded their faith and their character
into form and fitness for a life that shall know no end? In view of the power
and wisdom manifest in the natural world, in "the heavens that declare the
glory of God and the firmament that showeth his handiwork," surely it is
wise to conclude that a better time is coming, and a glance at the only compass
that is safe upon the troubled and angry sea reveals the fact that there is a
spoken of by all the holy prophets since the world
began," and in this restitution will be found the panacea for man's ills
and evils, wants and woes, and by its accomplishment will be made manifest to
an admiring and happy world the wisdom and might and goodness and glory of Him
in whom we "live and move and have our being." When this grand end is
seen in its splendid brightness to be the sun that is yet to rise and chase
away the darkness and mist of present night, the evils and burdens we groan
under will be viewed from the standpoint of Divine philosophy and seen to be
wisely permitted, as it were, but for a moment, and utilized to sharpen our
appetite and intensify our feelings for the rapturous joy of deliverance and
the unspeakable happiness of eternity, unmarred by the sufferings of this
transitory, preparatory, evil life.
Six thousand years of continued and increasing evils and
perplexities show that the world is incurable by human agencies, and we may not
hope for help from man, but when the time for the promised restitution arrives,
the great Deliverer shall appear in His glory and majesty; and though dark be
the clouds that precede and usher in His majestic advent, and terrible the
convulsions that shall attend the mighty revolution, yet great shall be the
glory that shall follow and peaceful and tranquil the repose that shall forever
settle upon earth's everlasting hills.
Now, dear reader, shall we ask you to pause and consider
fully the meaning of the words "restitution of all things." They are
found in the Acts of the apostles, chap. 3: 21. Verses 20 and 21 read as
follows: "And 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." Words in frequent use and to be found in various parts of the
Bible are, "salvation," "redemption,"
"reconciliation" and "restoration." What do they mean? To
what do they apply? What is salvation? These are questions we may well pause
over and consider their meaning in relation to the vital question they
represent. The words imply that there has been a loss of something somewhere;
and is it unreasonable to believe that salvation, whatever it is, will deal
with that which is lost? And that restitution, restoration and redemption will
meet requirements and deal with conditions arising from the loss, in accordance
with the character of the loss and right where the lost condition is found?
What is it that has gone wrong, and where is the wrong that
needs rectifying? Salvation, whatever it is, redemption, whatever it is,
restitution, whatever it is, surely ought to be understood to remedy the wrong
where the wrong is, and deal with it practically whatever it is. Now we do not
know that things have gone wrong on other planets. We know not whether
salvation, redemption and restitution are needed on any of them; and we may be
sure from what is revealed of the character of God that there are no wrongs to
right in heaven, His holy habitation. With the healing balm contained in the
words salvation, restitution, etc., we should seek for the wounds and sores it
is intended to soothe and heal. The plaster surely is made for the wound and it
ought to fit and be adapted to the nature of the wound. What is it that has
received the wound? Where are the diseases to be cured, the lost to be gained,
the wrongs to be righted, the captives to be redeemed? They are not in the
moon, in the stars nor in the sky; neither are they 'beyond the bounds of time
and space." They are here, right here in this world of ours; on this
earth, in the very ground; on man universally, in man. They are real. They are
to be seen, to he heard, to be felt, and all this right here, and we need look
no farther, no higher, no lower. It is our world and we ourselves that are
lost, and it is our world and we ourselves that need salvation and restitution.
There would be no restitution were we, a few of us, transported to another
planet and the rest dragged down into regions eternal and infernal, and our
earth, beautiful, notwithstanding all its blightings and cursings through sin,
were burnt up and dissolved into smoke. Can you, dear reader, bring yourself to
believe that the wisdom whose marvelous works strike us with awe and admiration
as we behold them in the shining starry heavens above and in the wonders of
creation in the earth beneath-can you I ask, bring yourself to believe that He
whose wisdom and power you behold has created this terrestrial sphere to be
desecrated by sin, blighted by curse, tortured by sickness, darkened by death,
devasted by war and blood-shed, and after all to end in conflagration that
shall send it up in smoke or precipitate it into the irrecoverable depths of
oblivion? In such a sad end where would he the glory and honor of the Creator?
Dream not then of ghostly flights to worlds unknown, where Elysium fields are
supposed to bloom with flowers of endless beauty. Look no deeper for sufferings
and terrors than you behold upon a sin-stricken earth, groaning beneath its
burdens of sinful suffering humanity. But look for salvation where it is needed
to "heal the broken-hearted, to bring deliverance to the captive, and
recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised"
(Luke 4: 18); and look for restitution in the world and upon the earth of which
it was said, "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 bring forth
unto 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. 3: 17-19).
The very first promise we have, involving salvation, was
made immediately upon the entrance of the evil it was intended to deal with,
and it meets the real requirements in the case. Figuratively speaking, the
serpent had pierced man with a fatal sting, whose poison was destined to affect
the entire race, the earth and all that is in it. This is met by the promise
contained in the words, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman,
and between thy seed and he; seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt
bruise his heel" (Gen. 3: 15).
When the work of creation was completed "God saw every
thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good" (Gen. 1: 31). Of man
and woman it was said, "so God created man in his own image, in the image
of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them,
and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and
subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" (Gen. 1:
26-28).
The Psalmist, referring to this part of the work of
creation. says, "When I consider the heavens, the work of thy fingers, the
moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man that thou art mindful
of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou host made him a
little lower than the angels and host crowned him with glory and honor. Thou
madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all
things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;
the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through
the paths of the sea. O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the
earth" (Psa. 8: 3-9)! While this doubtless has a prophetic significance as
well as historic, the latter is what we are particularly concerned about now.
Still it will be seen that the prophetic aspect is in strict agreement with the
thought of the restitution of all things. Commenting upon this passage the
Apostle Paul, after quoting the passage to prove that all things had been put
under man, and that all things would be put under him again, says, "But
now we see not yet all things put under him" (Heb. 2: 8). This raises the
question. If all things were put under man's dominion in the beginning, and now
"we see not all things put under him," what was the cause of this
loss of power and dominion? In the answer to this question we shall discover
what the loss is that salvation and restitution are intended to remedy.
With creation "very good," every creature happy
and the first human pair enthroned and given dominion over a world that was an
honor to its Creator and possessed of every thing conducive to happiness and
well-being man is placed under a law that would test his fidelity to his
Creator He is endowed with the power of free volition and this is what makes
him a responsible creature, higher in the scale of intellectuality than all
others and possessed of a moral nature capable of maintaining a moral image
accept able or of falling under the condemnation of his Lawgiver what gives man
his superiority and his divine right to " have dominion" is this
moral element of his nature and the power of free volition arising therefrom,
crowned with a noble intellect. By this it was possible to place upon him a
responsibility that was inapplicable to other creatures of lower grades or
intellectual power Those who would find fault with this procedure and claim
that it would have been better if man had been left without a law that could test
his faithfulness and fidelity seem to forget that this is the essential thing
to constitute him a man This is why he is a man and to deprive him of the
opportunity of exercising at first the latent mental and moral possibilities of
his nature under the guidance of law to reduce him to a level with the
creatures over whom he is given dominion. If it was wise to endow man with this
latent moral power, it was only the next step in the way of wisdom to give
scope for its exercise under law.
To this intellectual capable man, then, the law is given as
follows: "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying Of every tree of the
garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil thou shalt not eat of it for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou
shalt surely die" (Gen 2:16, 17). At this time nothing had been lost.
Everything was as God in His wisdom had created it. The words salvation,
redemption and restitution were useless words there was nothing to be saved or redeemed,
because there was nothing lost. It is so arranged by the wise law of the
Creator that if a loss occurs it shall be by man's breach of law and his
unfaithfulness to his Benefactor. The machinery of this world was given into
the hands of man in perfect order. If ever a cog slip or a belt fly off, it
shall be the fault of him who is given the responsibility of the dominion. If
ever joy give place to sorrow, happiness to woe, health to sickness, life to
death and the very good" condition is turned into a very bad one, man
shall be the cause and not God. The change is made dependent upon man's
honoring and obeying a righteous law, which his Creator had a right to place
over him; and when the fall, the crash, the loss, the curse comes it shall come
justly, and man will have one to blame but himself.
It came. Yes it came and that, too, by man's breach of the
divine law. Here is how it was brought about:
Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field
which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman. Yea, hath God said, Ye
shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent,
we may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the
tree which is in the midst of the garden, God bath said, Ye shall not eat of it
neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye
shall not surely die; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then
your eyes shall he opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil And
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, arid gave also unto her husband with her, and he did
eat'' Gen. 3: 1-6.
Here is the first sin committed and here is the cause of the
fall man and his kingdom which God had given into his hands. Sin brings sorrow,
sickness, pain and death, and its far-reaching effects are seen in a lost
world, with its once ruling monarch stricken with shame and remorse, hiding
himself from the face of the Elohim and, when called to account, trying to
excuse his unfaithfulness with the cowardly answer. "I was afraid, because
I was naked; and I hid myself. * * * The woman whom thou gavest to be with me,
she gave me of the tree, and I did eat" (Gen. 3: 10-12). In the sentence
passed upon our first parents for thus transgressing God's law is to be seen
the world-wide results of man's first act of unfaithfulness to God, results
which are not confined to the man and the woman, but which blight and curse
their entire domain. To the serpent, the woman and to the man it is said,
And the Lord God said unto the serpent, 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. * * * Unto the woman he said, I wilt greatly multiply thy sorrow and
thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall
he to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because
thou hast harkened 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 bring forth unto thee, and thou shalt eat of the
herbs 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. 3: 14-19.
Now, dear reader, we have before us the root of all the
world's evils, and by careful consideration of the nature of the loss, and an
understanding of what is lost, we shall be helped toward a correct
understanding of what salvation is and what the restitution is "which God
hath spoken of by all his holy prophets since the world began."
Subsequently to the pronouncing of the sentence man is driven out of the garden
of Eden and access is guarded by a "flaming sword " which turned
every way to keep the way of the tree of life (Verse 24).
The earth, so far as its primitive very good condition is
concerned, is lost, Paradise is lost, dominion is lost, life is lost, man is
lost - the whole creation is lost, until sin, for the time being has made every
thing vanitv, vanity, all is vanity, and, as the prophet Isaiah says, "The
earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have
transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are
desolate" (Isa. 24: 5, 6). The whole creation groaneth and travaileth in
pain together (Rom. 8: 22).
Now salvation for fallen lost man and restitution for a
cursed earth are provisions made by the God of heaven to remove the evils and
bring goodness and blessing here yes here in the very place it is needed, and
in which a sin wrecked creation groans. The wise plan of salvation revealed in
the Scriptures is not one that leaves a lost Paradise forever lost and
transports man to the sky. It is not a plan that retreats foiled and frustrated
by sin and leaves this sin-wrecked and sin ruined planet of God's handiwork to be
carried down to an ignominious oblivion. While God has permitted the sad
results of sin for a time to mar the beauty and dim the splendor and darken the
light of His grand and marvelous work, think not that He has retreated and
forsaken the work of His Almighty hand. In this we may safely "trust Him
for His grace," and know that "behind a frowning providence He hides
a smiling face;" and when His good time comes salvation and restitution
shall be realities here, to take the place of the evils that are here now; for
He has declared in burning words that never can be quenched, "As truly as
I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord" (Numb.
14: 21).
The earth, then, is not to be the scene of six thousand
years of trouble in its thousands of forms, and at last to be destroyed. It is
to abide forever:
Eccle. 1: 4 - One generation passeth away, and another
generation cometh; but the earth abideth forever.
Psa. 104: 1-5 - Blessed be the Lord, * * * who laid the
foundation of the earth, that it shall not be removed forever.
Psa. 119: 90 - Thy faithfulness is unto all generations, thou
hast establislied the earth, and it abideth.
Since the wisdom of Solomon could see the earth and all that
is in it as in a state of vanity, and since we learn from the above testimonies
that the earth is to abide forever, we may safely conclude that God has in
store better days for this our habitation. He has assured us that He has not
created it in vain in the beautiful words of the prophet Isaiah: "For thus
saith the Lord, that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and
made it; he hath established it he created it not in vain. He formed it to be
inhabited; I am the Lord; and there is none else (Isa. 45: 18). When the vanity
of the present is removed and the earth restored to the very good" state
that was lost through man's fall, the following promises will find joyful
realization:
Numb. 14: 21 - But as truly as I live, all the earth shall
be filled with the glory of the Lord.
Psa. 72: 17-l9 - His name shall endure forever; his name
shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall he blessed in him: all
nations shall call him blessed. Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel. who
only doeth wondrous things. And blessed be his glorious name forever; and let
the whole earth be filled with his glory.
Isa. 11: 9 - They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holly
mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as
the waters cover the sea.
Hab. 2: l4 -For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge
of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.
Matt. 6: 6, 10 - After this manner pray Ye: * * * Thy
kingdom come, thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven.
Luke 2: 14 - Glory to God in the highest, and on earth
peace, good will toward men.
Isa 55: 10-13 - For as the rain cometh down and the snow
from heaven and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it
bring forth bud, * * * so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth; it
shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I
please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it For ye shall go out
with joy, and be led forth with peace, the mountains and the hills shall break
forth before you in to singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their
hands. Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree and instead of the briar
shall come up the myrtle tree and it shall be to the Lord for a name, for an
everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.
It is when the earth is thus blessed, and man redeemed that
it will become the everlasting inheritance of the righteous, who will have been
saved from the lost state and exalted to glory and honor with the second Adam,
whose righteousness and faithfulness shall have undone and eliminated the evils
resulting from the transgression of our first parents. Hence in God's plan of
salvation the earth is promised as our everlasting inheritance, as the
following Scriptures will clearly show:
Gen. 13: 15 - For all the land which thou seest, to
thee will I give it and to thy seed forever.
Rom. 4: 13 - For the promsise that he (Abraham) should be
the heir of the world was not to Abraham, or to his seed through the law but
(it was) through the righteousness of faith.
Psa. 37:9 - For evil doers shall be cut off: but those that
wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth.
Verse 11 - But the meek shall inherit the earth and
shall delight them selves in the abundance of peace.
Verse 22 - For such as be blessed of him shall inherit
the earth and they that be cursed of him shall be cut off.
Verse 29 - The righteous shall inherit the land and dwell
therein forever.
Verse 34 - Wait 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 115: 16 - The Heaven, even the heavens are the Lord's,
but the earth hath he given to the children of men.
Prov. 11:31 - Behold the righteous shall be recompensed
in the earth; much more than the wicked and the sinner.
Dan 7:27 - And the kingdom and the dominion and the
greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the people
of the saints of the most high.
Matt. 5: 5 - Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit
the earth.
Rev. 5: 9, 10 - And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art
worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof for 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.
Here we have clear testimony, that the earth is to be the
everlasting inheritance of the righteous, and do not be alarmed, dear reader,
when we assert that nowhere in the Scriptures are we promised that we shall go
to heaven when we die or at any other time. You will now begin to see clearly
from the many testimonies given that the great plan of salvaition is very
different thing from that taught in the popular religion of our times According
to the creeds of so called "Orthodoxy" this earth is to be the
habitation of man in its present evil state for a time perhaps six thousand
years, during which comparatively a few will at death be transported to heaven
and countless millions will be dragged to a place they call hell to be
indescribably tormented eternally, and then, without any restitution the earth
which has borne the curse of sin, is to be burned up and pass away in fire and
smoke. You will readily see that with this view restitution or restoration is
out of the question, and the Paradise that was lost will forever remain lost,
and the earth and its history be a blot upon the pages of the Divine plan of
the ages. Of the millions which the earth has produced, it is claimed that not
one has ceased to be and never can cease to be. The words of Scripture about
the "strait gate and broad way" are forced into service to describe
the destiny of those millions, and it therefore follows, that while our planet
has produced a few for realms of happiness and bliss, it has supplied a
yawning, burning, agonizing, torturing hell with food and fuel for endless time
in the form of millions of immortal indestructible beings whose groans and
moans and shrieks of eternal despair shall endlessly echo and re-echo the
failure of one of the planets of the Almighty's handiwork and the eternal and
ever-visible and audible triumph of evil in its most horrible form. The
spectacle is appalling to man and dishonoring to God, who is wise and just and
powerful, and it is the imputation of such myths of pagan thoughts of cruelty
and barbarity to God's Word that feeds the sneers of the skeptic and the
reckless profanity of infidelity. As men's minds become enlightened and their
hearts softened by the influence of Divine Revelation, they become ashamed of
popular creeds and a few are bold and fearless enough to relegate them to the
darkness and cruelty of fallen, depraved and degraded men, who revelled in
thoughts of the sorrow and suffering, pain and panic, torment and torture, of
their fellow-creatures.
The Bible must be snatched out of this burning fire of the
depraved and savage passions of degraded men, and we must cry out amid the
noise and confusion of modern Babel that the Bible is the book Divine, full of
wisdom, justice and love. In it, while for a time we have a Paradise lost
through man, we have the promise of the same Paradise regained through the
Divine man. While sin is allowed to curse the earth for a time God's mighty arm
will yet bring it blessings for eternity; while sin and death now reign by
man's transgression the righteous Son of God shall "reign till he hath put
down all enemies under His feet," when ""the last enemy - death
- shall be destroyed" and sickness, sorrow, pain and death shall be no more.
Jesus shall reign wher'er the sun
Doth his successive journeys run;
His kingdom stretch from shore to shore,
Till sin shall curse the earth no more.
For him shall endless prayer be made,
And praises throng to crown his bead,
His name like sweet perfume shall rise
With every morning sacrifice.
People and realms of every tongue
Dwell on his love with sweetest song;
And infant voices shall proclaim
Their early blessings on his name.
Blessings abound where'er he reigns,
The pris'ner leaps to loose his chains,
The weary find eternal rest,
And all the sons of want are blest.
Where he displays his healing power,
Sorrow and pain are known no more;
In him the tribes of Adam boast
More blessings than their father lost.
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
We have seen that the Scriptures teach the fall of man and his
kingdom and the consequent evils universal in the earth. The testimonies cited
glowingly promise redemption and restitution for fallen man and the kingdom and
dominion God graciously gave him, which he wrecked and ruined by sin. The
question which now naturally presents itself is, By what means does God's
revealed plan provide for the great and universal remedy promised? Before we
open the Bible for the answer to this question we may glance at the troubled
world we live in and ask, "What is the matter?" History is almost an
unbroken tale of woe and war in all the conflicting kingdoms and empires that
have had their day and disappeared from the face of the earth amid the raging,
dashing waves of the angry and restless sea of nations. Ever since sin's demoralizing
power threw out of balance the peaceful, harmonious state of God's handiwork in
the creation, confusion, trouble, turmoil, tyranny, bloodshed and war have
deluged the earth, and in our own times we see preparations for war on every
hand which threaten a time of trouble such as never was since there was a
nation. The Saviour foretold this present state of unrest among the nations,
declaring that there should be wars and commotions, great earthquakes in divers
places, and famines and pestilences" (Luke 21: 9-1 1 ). "Upon the
earth." He says, "there 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 on the earth (Luke 21: 25, 26). Now
in view of the spectacle we behold in this troubled world what would meet the
requirements of the case? Frequently we hear of nations when they reach a
crisis crying out, "for a coming man." They find themselves, after
all their experience and experimenting in trying to rule themselves, enveloped
in trouble beyond their power to deal with, and in their perplexity they cry
out and long for a coming man to settle their difficulties. The coming man in
the sense in which they call for him will never come. Man, after all his
experience and experiments, has proven himself unable to rule himself and to
bring peace and tranquility to the burdened and groaning masses. If a man were
to come' who should be wise enough, good enough and powerful enough to calm
this raging sea and bring peace, prosperity and happiness to the world
universally, would it not settle all the difficulties which now burden the
world of humanity? If the conflicting kingdoms and empires were consolidated
into one, purified of their political, social and religious evils and placed
under the power and jurisdiction of a wise, good and powerful king, organized
into a kingdom with laws from heaven guiding it in ways of peace and happiness,
would not this meet all the requirements of the case and bring about the
world's redemption? There is no power upon earth able to produce such a state
of things. The world's salvation is not to be found in man, but it must proceed
from God; righteous laws and wise government must come from heaven, the source
of all wisdom and goodness. It is no vain speculation to say that such a grand
state of things awaits this burdened world of ours and that it will be realized
in the establishment of the kingdom of God universally in all the earth. That
kingdom which existed in miniature form and fell in the hands of our first
parents through sin will in its amplitude arise to glory and splendor in the
hands of a second Adam who has proven himself under the most stringent tests to
be faithful, wise and good. You will see dear reader that when this kingdom of
God sweeps from the face of the earth the wickedness of man and fills the earth
to its utmost bounds with the glory of the Lord the world's redemption will be
a grand and glorious reality and in view of this what folly it is to hope for
transportation to the sky or to the stars.
This view of the matter however is so unpopular in the
religious world and men's minds have been so alienated from this grand truth
that it is not sufficient simply to state the case Every inch of ground has to be
carefully examined every claim pro and con subjected to a rigid test and at
last all must be weighed measured and decided by the infallible rule which God
has given us the "law and the testimony", for "if we speak not
according to this word, it is because there is no light in us."
The scope of the first promise made to fallen man, though
couched in very few words. is wide enough to embrace this universal kingdom of
God-"It shall bruise thy head." The cure must reach as far as the
disease; and since it is a world which is lost by the downfall of a righteous,
Divinely-given dominion, the same world must be redeemed by the raising up of a
righteous, Divinely given dominion and kingdom adequate to the removal of every
evil and the cure of every ill Hence it is said by the apostle John, when
carried in vision down to the end of the kingdoms of men, "The kingdoms of
this world are become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ" (Rev. 11:
15); and it is this kingdom that is to be the instrumentality in the hands of
Christ to effect the world's redemption. Is it to be wondered, then, that our
Saviour embodied it in the prayer He taught His disciples, in the words,
"Thy kingdom come, thy will be done in earth as it is done in heaven"
(Matt. 6: 10)? Since salvation is for man and for his world-this planet - and
since the kingdom of God is to be the means by which redemption is to be
realized we can readily understand why so much is said in the Scriptures about
the kingdom of God and why it is the subject matter of the gospel.
What would be gospel or good news to men who realize the
hopelessness of release and rest from the confused and corrupt kingdoms of men?
Would that not be a gospel which provided for a righteous government that would
insure "Glory to God in the Highest, on earth peace, good will toward
men" (Luke 2: 14)? It was this very gospel that Jesus preached, and that
He sent His twelve disciples out to preach. It involved "glad
tidings" for a world that needed such tidings. Hence Luke says of Jesus
that "He went throughout every city and village preaching and showing the
glad tidings of the kingdom of God." "And he sent them (His
disciples) to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick" (Luke 8: 1;
9: 2). It is here that such a kingdom is needed. We know not what is needed in
other planets, and the Bible is a revelation fitted for this earth, dealing
with its history and destiny. It is here that a kingdom has fallen, not in
heaven. The gospel proclaims good news of a kingdom to be set up (Dan. 2: 44),
not of one which never fell and therefore never needed to be set up. We may be
sure that a kingdom never fell in heaven, God's holy habitation. There His will
is done to perfection and the promised kingdom of the gospel is one which will
come, and cause God's will to be done here - "in earth-as it is done in
heaven."
We have seen that God declares that as truly as He lives
"the whole earth shall be filled with his glory" (Numb. 14: 21).
Promises sure and grand such as this can never be realized while human
governments continue their exaltation and flattery of man and the dishonor of
God. Kingdoms had risen and fallen before the days of King David. He himself
had won many battles and established upon Zion's stronghold the best kingdom
the world had then and has ever since seen. He was a prophet and could look
down the ages and see the great and mighty empires of Babylon, Greece and Rome;
hut in none of these, not even in his own kingdom, given into his hands by
Israel's God, could he see salvation and redemption for our sin-burdened earth.
Looking down the distance of about twelve hundred years he could see his Lord
at Yahweh's right hand, waiting the time when His enemies should be made His
foot-stool. Stretching still further, about two thousand years, he saw that
"The Lord at Yahweh's right hand shall strike through kings in the day of
his wrath. He shall judge among the heathen (nations), he shall fill the places
with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries" (Psa.
110: 1, 5, 6). Not that he gloried in the world's great crisis and catastrophe
which thus opened out before his prophetic vision, but that he saw that a mighty
storm and terrible convulsions must clear away the foul and stifling atmosphere
of sin and corruption in the political, social and religious world before he
could hope for all his salvation and all his desire" (II. Sam. 23: 5).
With the vain vicissitudes of the past and the increasing and world-wide
desolations of the future in the hands of man apostate from God all before his
eyes; with the "spirit of the Lord speaking by him and the word of
inspiration on his tongue" (II. Sam. 23: 2) he exclaimed, "Give the
king thy judgments, O God, and thy righteousness unto the king's son. He shall
judge thy people with righteousness, and thy poor with judgment. The mountains
shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills by righteousness. 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. His name shall endure forever, his name shall be
continued as long as the sun; and men shall be blessed in him: all nations
shall call him blessed. Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, who only
doeth wondrous things; and blessed be his glorious name forever; and let the
whole earth be filled with his glory. Amen and amen." David's mind and
heart had been prepared for this outburst of hope by being made the medium of
precious promises concerning his royal son Christ, whom on account of His
destined greatness he called "My Lord." Through him God had declared
to Christ prophetically, "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; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a
potter's vessel" (PS 2: 8, 9). ""Ye that fear the Lord, praise
him: all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him all ye the seed of
Israel. For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted,
neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him he heard. My
praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before
them that fear him. The meek shall eat and be satisfied; they shall praise the
Lord that seek him: your heart shall live forever. All the ends of the world
shall remember and turn unto the Lord and all the kindreds shall worship before
thee. For the kingdom is the Lord's; and he is the governor among the
nations" (Psa 22: 23-28).
This theme of Israel's sweetest psalmist is the thrilling
theme that made the hearts of the prophets and apostles burn within them in
contemplation of its rapturous realization. Here are a few of the testimonies
which make clear the purpose of God to establish a divine real, literal kingdom
on the earth succeeding the utter destruction of human governments in every
form:
Gen 22: 1 7 - That in blessing I wilt bless thee, and in
multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the
sand which is upon the shore and thy seed shall possess the gate of his
enemies.
Num. 14: 21 - But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be
filled with the glory of the Lord.
Psa. 2: 5 - Ask of me and I shall give thee the heathen for
thine inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Psa. 149: 2-8 - Let Israel rejoice in him that made him; let
the children of Zion be joyful in their king. * * * 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 (nations) and punishments upon the people to bind their kings with
chains and their nobles with fetters of iron.
Isa. 2: 4, 5 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall
rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their
spears into pruning hooks nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more. O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk
in the light of the Lord.
Dan 2 44 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 consunse all
these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.
Dan. 7: 13, 14-I saw in the night visions, and beheld, one
like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven. and came to the Ancient of
days, and they brought him near before him. 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 dominioms, which shall not pass away, and
his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
Dan. 7: 18, 22, 27-But the saints of the Most High shall
take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.* * *
And the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom. 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, whose kingdom is an
everlasting kingdom and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
Zech. 14: 9 - And the Lord shall be king over all the earth:
in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.
Matt 6: 10 - Thy kingdom come. Thy' will be done in earth,
as it is in heaven.
I Cor, 15: 25 - For he must reign, till he hath put all
enemies under his feet.
II Tim 4: 1 - I charge thee therefore before God, and the
Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and
his kingdom.
Rev. 11: 15 - The kingdoms of this world are become the
kingdom of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign forever and ever.
Isa. 29: 18-20 - And in that day shall the deaf hear the
words of the book and the eyes of the blind shall 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 the terrible one is brought to
nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut
off.
Isa. 32: 1-4 - Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness
and princes shall rule in judgment. And a man shall be as an 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. 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 shalt be
ready to speak plainly.
Isa. 35: 3-10 - Strengthen ye the weak hands and confirm the
feeble knees. Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not;
behold, your God will come with vengeance even God with a recompense; 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 man leap as an hart and the
tongue of the dumb sing; for in the wilderness shalt waters break out, and
streams in the desert. And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the
thirsty land springs of waters in the habitation of dragons where each lay,
shall be grass, with reeds and rushes. And an highway shalt be there, and a way
and it shall be called The way of holiness, the unclean shall not pass ever it;
but it shalt be for those time wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err
therein. No lion shall be there nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it
shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there. And the ransomed
of the Lord shall return and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon
their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall
flee away.
Zech. 9: 10 - And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim,
and the horse from Jerusalem, and 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.
Mal 1: 11 - 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 shalt be offered unto my name, and a pure offering; for my name
shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.
In view of the glorious state of things which is to prevail in
all the earth, when the kingdom of God is established, as shown by these
testimonies, do you not consider it strange, dear reader, that the religious
leaders of our day are claiming that God's kingdom was set up in the first
century of the Christian era and that Christ is now reigning in so-called
Christendom? Christendom means dominion of Christ, and the civilized world has
been so christened because it is claimed that Christ is now reigning
spiritually in the earth. To see the fallacy of this you have only to ask
yourself whether such a state of things now exists as the testimonies quoted
declare is to be the result of the establishment of the kingdom of God. As we
have before shown from facts published in current religious periodicals, crime
is on the increase and the world is getting worse. If Christ were reigning it
would be the reverse. A spiritual kingdom, such as popular theology believes
in, does not and cannot deal with the literal evils which keep the world in
turmoil and distress. It requires a real government, one that will deal with
the affairs of men politically, socially, commercially and religiously, and
right all wrongs and keep them right.
Though the world has increased in knowledge in many and
various ways, and civilization, such as it is, has spread out more widely, no
progress has been made toward giving "Glory to God in the highest, on
earth peace and good will toward men," but the stubborn facts show the
very reverse of this. Do you think it is an honor to Christ to call Christendom
His kingdom? If He is now reigning why is it that all forms of wickedness in
high and low places are not put down? If He is now the world's teacher, why is
it that all do not "know the Lord from the least to the greatest"?
Were things progressing in this direction, you might say these good ends will
be reached by degrees, but the "progress" is the other way-the wrong
way, and it is the height of folly to allow ourselves to be persuaded that
Christendom is what its name is Intended to signify. You may depend upon it,
the heavy foot of the oppressor, and the cruel hand of the assassin would not
be allowed to distress and shock the world as they do now were Christ upon the
throne of the earth's dominion.
It is strange that so called Christians should have fallen
into the very same mistake that caused the Jews to crucify Christ - the same in
one sense, but somewhat changed by their own inventions. The Jews, to whom the
"oracles of God were committed," learned from those oracles that their
Messiah was to be king of all the earth and that he would break in pieces the
oppressor and judge and rule in behalf of the poor and the needy. How could
they learn otherwise from testimonies that declared that He should have all
nations for His inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for His
possession; and that He would rule the nations with a rod of iron and dash
their wicked governments in pieces like a potter's vessel? Trampled down
successively by the despotic powers of Babylon, Greece and Rome, the Jewish
nation had become so absorbed in the hope of deliverance at the hands of their
Messiah that they overlooked prophecies of his first coming to be as a lamb led
to the slaughter, and to be followed by his response to His Father's invitation,
"Sit thou at my right hand until I make thy foes thy footstool." With
these prophecies eclipsed by the dazzling brightness of a rising "sun of
righteousness," they made the mistake of expecting the establishment of
God's kingdom upon the ruins of the kingdoms of men at the time that Christ
appeared among them, and because He did not come as they expected, and as He
will yet come, they denied Him and stretched out their cruel hands to crucify
Him. Their mistake was in expecting the kingdom then, and so-called Christians
have fallen into the very same mistake, and have gone further, to say that it
was then set up. Feeling, however, that the visible facts of the world's evil
condition was against them, they have invented the mythical theory of a
spiritual kingdom, which they have reduced some of them to the limits of men's
hearts, and others to that small portion of the earth called Christendom, a
kingdom that is intangible and invisible. Let us not insult the Lord of glory
by imputing to Him the kingship of the hearts of members of the Churches who
make this foolish claim. Let us not dishonor Him by pointing to so-called
Christendom and saying this is the dominion of Christ. As well might we point
to Babylon, and we should be more nearly right were we to point to Christendom
and cry out, Babylon! yes, "Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots and
the abominations of the earth."
In order to make somewhat of a show of sustaining the theory
of the present spiritual existence of the kingdom of God, the ingenuity of man
has been employed to make it appear that the spiritual kingdom can and does
exist contemporarily with the temporal powers of the world, a sort of a kingdom
within kingdoms, and one which allies itself with the world's politics, forming
a kind of twin relationship. There is an endeavor to mutually compromise so as
to get along in peace and prevent a rupture between Church and State. The
Church flirts with the legislative department in the prayers of Chaplains and
by influencing votes at the polls, and the State in return helps the Church by
patronage in various ways exemption from taxation, bestowing of official
titles, and rich endowments, etc. Thus hand in hand they go and they are
"hail fellows well met."
This of itself is sufficient to show that there is no
semblance of the kingdom of God in this system of things; for the kingdom of
God will give no quarters to any government in the hands of mortal men. It will
compromise with nothing which feeds the pride and vanity of pompous man, and
when the time arrives for its establishment, man will have been permitted, like
Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar of old, to reach the climax of his vanity and pride
and to inflate himself with his own self-importance, then to he dashed to the
earth by a strong and righteous arm that will allow no flesh to glory in the
presence of the God of heaven.
Representative and characteristic of vain ambitious man,
King Nebuchadnezzar, having reached the pinnacle of human honor and power cried
out, "'Is not this great Babylon that I have built?" Anxious no
doubt, to perpetuate his name and the greatness of his empire, "thoughts
came into his mind upon his bed what should come to pass hereafter" (Dan.
2: 29). You will, no doubt, remember the remarkable dream which followed; it
was a prophetic dream and the wise men of Babylon could not meet the strenuous
demands of the King, to give him the interpretation thereof. The prophet Daniel
was God's instrument in revealing the dream in its far-reaching and vastly
important significance. In the interpretation given we have a clear and
positive settlement of the question of the destiny of all human governments and
the attitude of the kingdom of God toward them, when the time for its
establishment shall come. In his dream King Nebuchadnezzar saw a great image
composed of gold, silver, brass, iron and clay. It was intended to make known
to the King "what shall be in the latter days" (Dan. 2: 28).
Proceeding to interpret the dream, the prophet begins with the head, saying to
Nebuchadnezzar, "Thou art this head of gold" (verse 38). Or in other
words, Thy kingdom is represented by his head of gold; and then he adds,
"And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another
third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth." Then he
proceeded to describe the fourth kingdom, saying, '"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
(verse 40). By the mixing of clay with the iron the King was given to
understand that the fourth empire "shall be partly strong and partly
broken" (verse 42). Here we have four great empires-Babylonian,
Medo-Persian, Grecian and Roman, and we have also the weakening and dividing up
of the Roman empire as is represented by the introduction of the clay element.
There is nothing of the so-called spiritual nature about these empires. If
these are not literal powers in the earth, then there are no literal powers.
They are real, as real as it is possible for a kingdom or empire to be real.
You will pardon me if I remind you that they are every one of them on this very
earth of ours. In considering this remarkable prophecy you are not carried to
the sky, the stars, nor "beyond the bounds of time and space." You
are dealing with real empires within the bounds of time and space~time and
space pertaining to this planet on which we live and move and have our being.
There is therefore no mistake in our position here. We have taken our bearings.
we know where we are. Standing here upon this solid foundation and taking a
retrospective view of the world of nations we read in the writings of men what
was here foretold by the inspiration of God. Viewing it from a human standpoint,
the most unlikely things happened. The proud and mighty empire of Babylon went
down. Persia, Grecia and Rome came upon the scene one after another just
exactly as the prophet had declared. There was a time when no one would have
dreamed of the strong iron empire of Rome being broken; but the clay mixed with
the iron and the "decline and fall" of the Roman empire became a fact
to be recorded by the pen of the eloquent historian, Gibbon. Remember that when
Christ was here despised and rejected of men and finally crucified after a life
of suffering by the authorities of this very Roman empire, the Roman empire
existed in the greatness of its strength It was in the zenith of its glory and
no division had yet taken place no indication of crumbling appeared. And right
here let us recall the fact that in Nebuchadnezzar's dream a fifth empire
appeared, in speaking of which the prophet tells the King, "Thou sawest
till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his
feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them in pieces No clay existed in
this iron part of the image when Christ appeared upon the earth as the despised
Nazarene. At that time it was impossible to strike the feet of the image, for
the feet had not yet developed in the course of the historical formation of the
image. This fifth empire represented by a stone, was not to ally itself with
the iron kingdom but it was to break in pieces every form of human government
grind them to powder until they become as the chaff of the summer threshing
floor to be carried away by the wind of Divine vengeance. What is this stone
that is to smite the great military image of the kingdom of men? We shall find
the answer to the question; but first let me ask again, What is the gold of the
image? The answer will be, The Babylonian empire; the silver the Medo-Persian;
the brass the Macedonian; the iron the Roman; the clay mixed with the iron Rome
weakened and divided. Surely there ought to be an answer to the question,
"What does the stone represent?" Who in the Scripture is called the
"stone of stumbling and a rock of offence?" Who is spoken of as the
"stone which the builders rejected which is to become the head of the
corner?" Anybody who knows anything about the Bible knows that these refer
to Christ, the "stone of Israel" the "'typical rock that
followed Israel" in the wilderness, from which, at the stroke of the rod
of Moses and Aaron the waters of life gushed out, and that rock, says the
Apostle Paul, was (a type of) Christ. This is the rock upon which the Church of
Christ is built, so that "the gates of hades cannot prevail against
it." The stone then of Nebuchadnezzar's prophetic dream is Christ, coming
in his power and might as the king of all the earth. If the stone smiting the image
represents the kingdom of God breaking the kingdoms of men to pieces, grinding
them to powder and blowing them away as chaff, surely this must mean the end of
all powers of human governments that their place might be occupied by the
kingdom of God. There can be no question about this, because when this
destruction is accomplished it is said, "and the stone which smote the
image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth" (Dan. 2: 35)
Here is a universal kingdom taking the place of the kingdoms
of men. Breaking in pieces the gold, the silver, the brass, the iron and the
clay together can mean nothing else but the utter destruction of every element
of these historic empires, under whose tyranny the world has groaned for
centuries. If the stone represents Christ in His establishment of the kingdom
of God, the mountain, which the stone becomes, must represent His kingdom as
the only one on the face of the earth. His kingdom therefore is a constitution
of things to be established here and not there - in the earth not in the sky.
So far as we can know the sky is no place for a kingdom; but here a kingdom is
needed. Here a man is needed good enough, wise enough and strong enough to
"show strength with his arm; to scatter the proud in the imagination of
their hearts; to put down the mighty from their seats, and exalt them of low
degree." This Man will come and He will "fill the hungry with good
things and the rich He will send empty away, (Luke 1: 51-53). How can there be
any question that this stone is Christ, and that its breaking in pieces of the
image is Christ's destruction of the kingdoms of men and inauguration of the
grand and glorious kingdom of God? Hear what the inspired prophet himself says:
"And in the days of these kings shalt 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 forever" (Dan. 2: 44). What have we here? Who is this who is
to set up a kingdom and what is the stone to fill? The whole earth. Whose
kingdom is this that is to be set up represented by the stone filling the whole
earth? Mark the words, "And in the days of these kings shall the God of
heaven set up a kingdom." "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, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all
dominions shall serve and obey him" (Dan. 7: 27). Here the question is
settled. While God permits human rule or rather misrule, for a time, His
glorious plan has provided for its utter destruction and the elimination of the
evils which have filled the earth, and then the good time will come to bless
the World of mankind with peace, prosperity, righteousness and everlasting joy.
Let me remind you again of the words, "In the days of
these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom." If the God of
heaven sets up a kingdom it will be the kingdom of the God of heaven will it
not? In other words the kingdom of heaven or the kingdom of God. This recalls
the fact that Jesus and His disciples preached the glad tidings or the gospel
of the kingdom of God, which brings home to our minds that they preached the
very gospel which is proclaimed in this wonderful prophecy of the book of
Daniel, that the kingdom of God, which supercedes upon the earth the kingdoms
of men, removes the curse and brings the heavenly blessings for which "the
whole creation groans and travails together in pain waiting for the manifestation
of the Sons of God."
Is this an important matter for you, dear reader, and for
me? Does it concern our salvation or eternal welfare? Surely it must, since
this kingdom of God, which is the only kingdom involved in the plan of
salvation, is the subject matter of the gospel. The gospel was preached that
men and women might believe it, and be saved by it. For them to believe any
other gospel would be for them to disbelieve the true gospel. If the kingdom of
God is the subject matter of the only saving gospel and that gospel must be
believed in order to obtain salvation, surely we must have a correct idea of
what the kingdom is; where it will be established and the grand object of its
establishment. It cannot be that it can be had by belief in a false gospel.
Salvation is predicated upon a belief of the only true gospel. The Saviour, in
commissioning His apostles, commanded them to preach the gospel to every
creature. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that
believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark 16: 16). The Apostle Paul says,
"If we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than
that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed"
Gal. 1: 6-9). The gospel which Paul had preached to the
Galatians was the same as he preached in Rome, where he "dwelt two whole
years in his own hired house and received all that came in unto him, preaching
the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus
Christ, with all coirfidence, no man forbidding him" (Acts 28: 30, 31).
This is the same gospel he speaks of when writing to the Romans, saying,
"I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto
salvation to every one that believeth" (Rom. 1: 16).
Now to preach or to believe another gospel different from
the one the Scriptures set forth will not suffice; and this is the danger with
the believer in a kingdom beyond the skies, and that at death we "mount
triumphant there." When God fulfills His promise to give Christ the
"uttermost parts of the earth for His possession," and Christ becomes
king over all the earth, as the prophet Zechariah declares; when He comes again
in like manner as He departed and literally stands upon the Mount of Olives as
He stood before He ascended is it not reasonable to believe that His true
followers will be with Him The one hundred and forty-four thousand redeemed
ones of the Book of Revelation "follow the Lamb whithersoever he
goeth." How can this be if the eternal abode of the righteous is in
heaven? The Saviour, in correcting a mistake which the disciples fell into when
He was here on the earth, also corrects the mistake made by the popular
teachings in regard to heaven-going at death, and He also corrects the mistake
made by those who claim that the kingdom of God would "immediately
appear." or, as they say, was established when Christ was here on earth.
It was because the disciples thought that the kingdom of God would
"immediately appear" that He spake to them the parable of the
nobleman. In this parable He says, "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
But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him saying "We will
not have this man to reign over us. And it came to pass, 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, that he might know how much every man had
gained by trading" (Luke 19: 12-15). Here He clearly teaches His return to
establish His kingdom and therefore shows that His kingdom was not established
at His first coming Here He teaches that His kingdom is to be established upon
the earth, and not in heaven, and now may we ask. What is the commandment he
gave to his faithful servants concerning this matter? Does he say, "Occupy
till you come to me? or does He say, "Occupy till I come." Does He call
his servants to Him in heaven and judge them there, and reward them there, or
is it when the nobleman returns that He calls His servants together and judges
them and rewards them? Note the parable carefully and you must see that it is
entirely out of harmony with popular tradition and in beautiful harmony with
the things concerning the kingdom of God, which we have learned from
testimonies quoted. If when we die we go to heaven and are received
there-and-then by Christ, where would be the force of the words, "When He
was returned he called his servants together"? They will have been called
together to him in heaven if popular tradition is right and they will not be
here for Him to call them together at His return. The truth of God in relation
to this grand subject is as a perfect arch. Take out one stone and it falls to
pieces. Every stone is made to fit, and the keystone is Christ himself. This
kingdom us the one that we should seek for so that when Christ shall come we
may be blessed with an abundant entrance "into the everlasting kingdom of
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (II Peter 1: 11) It is 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 glory and before him shall be gathered all nations and
he shall separate them one from another as a shepherd divideth his sheep from
the goats and he shall set the sheep on his right hand but the goats on the
left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand Come ye blessed of my
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world
(Matt 25: 31-34). Do you not think it would be a matter of great astonishment
for Christ to say, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom to
one who believes he has been in the kingdom as long as he has been in the
Church"? Would not such a deluded person be inclined to answer I have been
in the kingdom ever since I entered the Church. It is therefore not necessary
to invite me to inherit the kingdom I have been in since my conversion. But
with the inconsistencies of popular tradition we have very little to do except
to endeavor or to escape their snares and delusions and be found among those
occupying" with a view of being prepared for Christ's coming instead of
for our going so that we may be worthy of His words of commendation, "Well
done thou good and faithful servant", words that will not be addressed to
those who have believed the traditions of the world and refused the clear
teachings of the word of God. Should it be our lot to be accepted by Him at His
righteous judgment we shall then be among that happy company to whom the
kingdom shall be given, for it is said, "The time came that the saints
possessed the kingdom." "The kingdom and the 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
dominions shall serve and obey him" (Dan. 7: 27). Then with hearts
thrilled with joy and delight and voices tuned in harmony with truth and
righteousness, we shall send up to heaven the anthem of praise, "Thou art
worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for 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. 5: 8-10).
Hark? ten thousand, thousand voices
Sing the song of jubilee;
Earth through all her tribes rejoices,
Broke her long captivity.
Now the theme in pealing thunders.
Through the gladsome air is rung;
Now in gentler tones the wonders.
Of redeeming grace are sung.
Hail, Emmanuel, great deliverer,
Hail, Emmanuel, praise to thee.
Oh! the rapturous, blissful story,
Spoken to Emmanuel's praise;
And the strains so full of glory
That immortal voices raise;
While our crowns of glory casting
At His feet in rapture lost,
We, in anthems everlasting,
Mingle with the ransomed host.
Hail, Emmanuel, great deliverer,
Thou art worthy of all praise.
Yes, He reigns, the great Messiah
In millennial glory crowned;
"Israel's Hope" and "Earth's Desire"
Now triumphant and renowned;
Heaven and earth with all their regions,
At His footstool prostrate fall;
Heaven and earth with all their legions,
Crown Emmanuel Lord of all
Hail, Emmanuel; reign forever
Heaven to earth reflects the sound.
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
MAN, through sin, having fallen from the exalted position in
which God had placed him, becomes an outcast, an alien from God and in the
language Of the Apostle Paul, was "without hope and without God in the
world". He was then so far as he himself was concerned hopeless and
absolutely powerless to help himself. He had fallen. He was lost. While he had
thus brought evil into the world, dethroned himself and become the subject of
sin, resulting in the deplorable history of human affairs which followed, he
placed himself in a predicament to become the subject of Divine mercy. This
gave scope for the manifestation of the love of God, to show that His tender
mercies are always manifest towards those who will believe His word and obey
His commandments He does not leave man to die under the sentence and go down
into dust without hope, but He comes to his rescue opening up a new
relationship.
Here, we may safely say is the first covenant of promise to be
found in the Bible. While the promise is made in so many words the covenant
feature is only implied The implication however is sufficient to assure us that
a covenant relationship was opened up between man and his creator. The
Scriptures lay down the principle that "without the shedding of blood
there is no remission of sin" (Heb. 9: 22). A covenant, therefore,
providing for man's redemption must always provide for a sacrifice for the
remission of sins. Was there such a sacrifice in the case of our first parents?
May we not safely conclude that the coats of skins made for covering their
nakedness implied a sacrifice involving the shedding of blood? That by the
goodness of God an arrangement was entered into between God and man at that
early stage, requiring sacrificial offerings, is clear from the words of the
Apostle Paul By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than
Cain by which he obtained witness that he was righteous God testifying of his
gifts: and by it he, being dead, yet speaketh (Heb 11: 4) This alludes to Gen
4: 3, 4 - "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of
the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of
the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect
unto Abel and to his offering." How could Cain and Abel know that it was
necessary to make offerings unless they had received the revelation from God?
That a covenant had been entered into, God promising redemption and requiring
submission to his prescribed conditions, would seem to be more than implied in
what the apostle says. He first defines faith, saying, "Now faith is the
substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Our first
parents and their sons could know nothing of future life and could hope for
nothing after the fall, unless God had made promises to them. In these promises
they had "evidence of things not seen," things far in the future,
involving human redemption. Without this faith "it is impossible to please
God" (Heb. 11: 6). This is what is called in other parts of the Scriptures
"the one faith," the "one hope." We may safely conclude
also that this one faith is what is termed the one gospel, and therefore the
gospel from the beginning and throughout all ages since has been the same,
involving the redemption of man and the "restitution of all things spoken
of by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began." Having
defined what the one faith is, the apostle proceeds to say, "Through faith
we understand that the worlds (ages) were framed." and then he adds,
"By faith," this faith already defined, "Abel offered unto God a
more excellent sacrifice than Cain." The one faith was therefore revealed
to them, and this one faith instructed them that God required an offering from
them, or rather offerings, for evidently there were two kinds of offerings to
be made - one of the fruit of the ground and the other of the firstlings of the
flock. It does not appear that God found fault with Cain's offering in itself,
it was all right in its place, but where he fell short was that he did not do
all that God had required as Abel his brother did. That it was not displeasing
to God to offer the fruit of the ground us shown by the fact that such
offerings were instituted in the Mosaic law. The difference between the two was
that the one was an offering of gratitude to God, while the other, the
firstlings of the flock, involving the shedding of blood, acknowledged man as a
sinner and his dependence upon God for forgiveness and redemption through the
shedding of the blood of the typical victims, which pointed to Christ, whose
blood has been shed for redemption. An offering which acknowledged the justice
of God in inflicting death for sin and His goodness in granting remission of sin
and release from its evil effects was esteemed very important, sufficiently so
to cause God to have respect to Abel's obedience and to bring frowns upon the
disobedience of Cain. The words spoken to Cain, "Sin lieth at the
door" (Gen. 4: 7) should be rendered "A sin-offering croucheth at thy
door," intimating that an animal proper to be offered for atonement, and
which Cain had failed to offer, was within reach. We may safely say that
"Jesus Christ and Him crucified" was in the gospel or the faith known
to our first parents, and that their offering pointed directly to Him, as all
the types and shadows of the Mosaic law did, of which the apostles assure us.
Here then in the Garden of Eden, as soon as man fell, we have a covenant of
promise.
Coming down to the time of Noah when the wickedness of man
became great and God's justice and vengeance required the destruction of almost
everything that existed, provision being made for the safety of Noah and his
family and sufficient of the animal kingdom to give the world a fresh start,
another covenant of promise was made. In the building of the ark which saved
Noah and all that went in with him we have a figure of Christ The apostle Peter
says, "The like figure whereunto baptism doth also now save us" 1 Pet
3 21 ) The storm and flood having subsided God enters into covenant with Noah,
instructing him in certain details concerning thie various animals by which he
could discriminate between the clean and the unclean, He then says,
Gen 9: 9-17 And I, behold I establish my covenant with you
and with your seed after you and with every living creature that is with you,
of the fowl, of the cattle and and every beast of the earth with you; from all
that go out of the ark to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my
covenant with you neither shalt all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of
a flood, neither shall all there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And
God said This is the token of the covenant which l make between me and you and
every living creature that is with you for perpetual generations I do set my
bow in the cloud and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the
earth And it shall come to pass when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the
bow shall be seen in the cloud and I will remember my covenant which is between
me and you and every living creature of all flesh and the waters shall no more
become a flood to destroy all flesh And the bow shall be in the cloud: and I
will look upon it that l may remember the everlasting covenant between God and
every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth And God said unto
Noah, This is the token of the covenant which I have established between me and
all flesh that is upon the earth.
Again we would pause here and ask the reader to remember
that these covenants, so far is we have gone pertain to the earth and the
creatures upon it that they deal with the results of the curse which was the
origin as cause of all the evils necessitating the covenants and the end they
are intended to reach. No doubt there were many details in these covenants
communicated to the people of the times that are not recorded revelation not
seeming to abound in giving particulars from Adam to Abraham as it does from
Abraham to Christ and His apostles. The outlines given, however, with
references made in more recent writings in the Scriptures, are sufficient to
assure us that God's promises and all His arrangements with man in those early
ages dealt with things as they had come to be in the earth with a view of
ultimately righting all wrongs and eradicating every vestige of sin and its
woeful effects. Over two thousand years pass away before the details of the
covenants of promise begin to be clearly revealed and assume tangible form,
which brings them well within the scope of the comprehension of following ages.
Abraham is told to leave his native country and to go into
the land of Canaan, where God promises to make of him a great nation to bless
him and to make his name great. "And Abram took Sarah his wife and Lot his
brother's son, and all their substance * * * and they went forth to go into the
land of Canaan: and into the land of Canaan they came" (Gen. 12: 5). Upon
his arrival in the promised land we are informed of the nature of the promised
covenant which was repeated to Isaac and to Jacob:
Gen 13: 14-17 - The Lord said unto Abram after that Lot was
seperated 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 forever. And I will make thy
seed as the dust of the earth so that if a man can number the dust of the
earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. Arise, walk through the land in
the length of it, and in the breadth of it, for l will give it unto thee.
Gen 15: 5-8 - And he bought him forth abroad, and said Look
now toward heaven and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them; and he
said unto him. So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the Lord: and he
counted it to him for righteousness. And he said unto him I am the Lord that
bought thee out Ur of the Chaldees to give thee this land to inherit it. And he
said Lord God, where by shall l know that I shall inherit it?
Verse 18 - In the same day the Lord made a covenant with
Abram, saying Unto thy seed have I given this land from the river of Egypt unto
the great river the river Euphrates.
Gen. 17: 1-8 - And when Abram was ninety years old and nine
the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God: walk
before me and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee,
and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face: and God talked
with him saying, As for me behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be
a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name be called Abram, but thy name
shall he Abraham: for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will
make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall
come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy
seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God
unto thee, and to seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed
after thee the land wherein thou art a stranger all the land of Canaan, for an
everlasting possession: and I will be their God.
Gen 22: 15-18 - And the angel of the Lord called unto
Abraham out of heaven the second time. and said, 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 26: 1-5 - And there was a famine in the land, besides
the first famine that was in the days of Abraham And Isaac went unto Abimelech
king of the Philistines unto Gerar And the Lord appeared unto him and said Go
not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which l shall tell thee of sojourn in
this land, and I will he with thee and will bless thee for unto thee and unto
thy seed l will give all these couniries and l will perform the oath which l
made unto Abraham thy father; and l will make thy seed to multiply as the stars
of heavn, and I will give unto thy seed all these countries and in thy seed
shall all the nations of the earth be blessed because that Abraham obeyed my
voice.and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes and my laws.
Gen 28: 13, 14 - And, behold, the Lord stood above it, and
said, 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 thy seed shall
be as the dust of the earth; and thou shalt spread abroad to the west and to
the east, and to the north and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall
all the families of the earth be blessed.
Those who have departed from the Abrahamic faith and
subverted the covenants of promise will claim that these Scriptures found their
fulfillment in the history of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; at any rate in that of
their descendants, the twelve tribes of Israel They are astonished when we
quote these testimonies and apply them to ourselves. They have no idea that the
gospel the only true and saving gospel is found in these very promises Perhaps
you, dear reader have taken this ground but let us reason together a little.
You will notice that in making the promise to Abraham it is said, not simply
that I will give this land including the blessings promised, to thy seed but I
will give it to thee and to thy seed. Therefore it was intended that Abraham
himself and Isaac, and Jacob should personally receive the inheritance and
enjoy the blessings contained in the covenant That Abraham did not understand
that he was then to receive the inheritance is clearly shown from the anxious
inquiry he makes when he says, "Lord God, whereby shall I know that l
shall inherit it?" What could make him ask such a question as this if when
the promise was made the inheritance was given to him and he already inherited
it? There was no reason why he should ask for evidence that at a future time he
would come into the possession of the inheritance if it was then given into his
possession. It is evident that he saw how far-reaching the promises were, that
they reached away beyond the time of his natural life; and may we not conclude
that it was in this that he saw the day of Christ, of which our Saviour speaks
when he says, "Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was
glad." The manner in which Abraham asked for assurance show's that this
was the case. He was not answered in so many words, but he was commanded to
take an heifer of three years old and with it and other things make an offering
which shows that the realization of the promises depended upon sacrifice. All
sacrifices, especially those in which there was the shedding of blood, pointed
to Christ. If we view this typically we may safely conclude that the answer
points out that the inheritance could not be realized except through Christ,
and that he would be the covenant sacrifice, whose blood would be shed to bring
the covenant into force.
There is another reason why we may conclude that this
promise reached down the ages beyond the time of the resurrection. The matters
recorded in the fifteenth chapter seem to follow each other in natural
sequence. The first command given to Abraham in answer to his inquiry whereby
he should know that he should inherit the land, is to offer sacrifice. This
takes us back to the sin of our first parents which necessitated sacrifice in
order that men might escape the curse which Adam brought upon the race. Had God
never interposed in mans behalf, man must have died under the condemnation and
gone into the perpetual darkness of the grave. But sacrifice having been
provided, pointing to Christ hope is given of escape from the power of death
and the bondage of the grave through resurrection Hence the next step in the
answer to Abraham's inquiry was one that removed the grievous difficulty which,
no doubt, stood in his way. He felt and confessed that he was "but dust
and ashes": realizing that in a few years; his life must end, and he would
be ''gathered to his fathers and see corruption.'' How then could he inherit
such wonderful worldwide endless blessings as had been promised? How could he
pass over the dark chasm of death and the grave and reach the time when all the
nations of the earth would be blessed in him and in his seed and he would
receive the everlasting inheritance promised? He exclaims in the earnestness of
his soul, "Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?"
In answer after commanding that offerings be made the sun is going down and
Abraham is caused to pass into a ''deep sleep and a horror of great darkness fell
upon him. . . What can this be but death and the grave that perplexing obstacle
which Abraham saw between him and the realization of the grand promises? Why is
he thus caused to symbolically die, to pass into the darkness of the grave? Is
it not that God might awaken him out of this sleep, and thus show him by symbol
that the obstacle standing in his way would be removed, and that by him
ultimately being awakened from the sleep of death and brought victoriously
forth from the power of the grave he would realize the promises?
If this is the gospel involved in the Abrahamic promises it
surely concerns us as much as it did him. The same gospel that suited his
condition and his future prospects suits ours. Therefore these promises
seriously concern us, and let us not be persuaded that they are out of date and
pertain to the ages of the past, having no reference whatever to our salvation.
Previous to the Lord appearing to Abraham the second time to
amplify the covenant, he was subjected to the severe test of offering his son
his only heir, as a sacrifice to God. We have only to imagine ourselves in
Abraham's place to realize what a trying ordeal it was for him to be the
recipient of such momentous promises. Had he not been the right man in the
right place, he certainly would have faltered and fallen under the weight of
such responsibilities as he must have felt devolving upon him, by reason of
being the one upon whom in the hands of God, depended such wonderful
eventualities. God's goodness however always provides for the weakness of
fallen men and "the word of the Lord" came unto Abraham in a vision,
saying, "Fear not Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great
reward" ( Gen l5 : 1). Still the question pressed itself, How could such
great things be accomplished through his seed when he was a childless man
advanced in years? He exclaims "Behold to me thou hast given no seed: and
lo, one born in my house is mine heir" (verse 3). All through the trying
ordeal Abraham is in anxious and intelligent inquirer doubting not the power
and veracity of God but seeking "the substance of things hoped for and
evidence of things not seen which is always well pleasing to God who even
condescends to say to the intelligent creatures of his creation, "Come let
us reason together". As Abraham's anxiety grew in intensity, one by one
the obstacles were removed and the light increased, shining ''brighter and
brighter unto the perfect day" He is assured and strengthened by the
words, "This (Ishmael) shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come
forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir" (verse 4 ). When
Abraham was ninety years old and nine the Lord appeared unto him to renew the
covenant and said. ''As for Sarai thy wife thou shalt not call her name Sarai
but Sarah shall her name be. And l will bless her, and give these a son also of
her: yea I will bless her and she shall be a mother of nations: kings of people
shall be of her. Then Abraham fell upon his face and laughed and said in his
his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and
shall Sarah, that is ninety years old bear? And Abraham said unto God, O that
Ishmael might live before thee! And God said, Sarah thy wife shall hear thee a
son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant
with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him" (Gen.
17: 1-5 19). In due time Isaac was born; and after a while, when the mocking of
Ishmael sorely displeased Sarah, she said to Abraham, "Cast out this
bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bond-woman shall not be heir with my
son, even with Isaac. And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight
because of his son. And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy
sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath
said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be
called" (Gen. 21: 10-12).
Thus far all obstacles have been removed, everything made
clear and Abraham could more fully trust in God, and wait in faith the fulfillment
of the covenants of promise. But still a more trying ordeal awaited him, one
that without the faith developed by irresistible evidence and by intelligence
concerning the power and purpose of God, he could never have endured. The
indignant scoffer flushes his cheeks and cries out against God's demand of
Abraham to "Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and
get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon
one of the mountains which I will tell thee of" (Gen. 22: 2). To the mere
natural man it appears cruel; but to one who knows God's power, authority and
wisdom it is quite intelligible. Had Abraham reasoned from the standpoint of
the mere natural man, to slay his son and heir would be to frustrate the
purpose of God and defeat the plan the covenants of promise provided for. But
was not Isaac's existence a token of God's power? Had not God in various ways
shown His power and faithfulness? Even if I slay my son, cannot the God, who
supernaturally gave him to me, prevent the pangs and pains of death, even
though he die by the knife, and then restore him to life again? This was a
faith based upon the power and veracity of God, and one that required reason
and intelligence concerning His plan of a character too high for the
unenlightened mere natural man to reach. It was, however, the faith that
strengthened Abraham for the trying test; for the Apostle Paul says, "By
faith, Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received
the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, that in
Isaac shall thy seed be called: accounting that God was able to raise him up,
even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure" (Heb
11:17-19). Here we have a representation of God's love in giving His Son, and
of Christ's resurrection to life through sacrifice, which is the real and final
confirmation of the covenants of promise. As the sacrifice of the victim
brought Isaac from the dead in "a figure" so the "God of peace
brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep,
through the blood of the everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13: 20). And thus was
Christ "a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm
the promises made unto the fathers" (Rom. 15: 8)
Should you, dear reader, not feel disposed to accept what
seems to be the unmistakable meaning of the types or symbols we have called
attention to, we are pleased to assure you that the futurity of the Abrahamic
promises is not dependent upon these alone. The Scriptures positively declare
it in words that cannot be mis-understood. Coming down to the first century of
the Christian era, over two thousand years from Abraham's time, we have the
words of the Apostle Paul declaring, "By faith Abraham when he was called
to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, * * *
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" (Heb. 11: 8, 9). There can be no
question that the apostle here refers to the very land promised to Abraham for
an inheritance, including also, of course, all the blessings involved I must again
remind you that there is not one word indicating a promise to Abraham of an
inheritance in heaven. It all has to do with the earth. He is told to
"look northward, southward, eastward and westward, and all the land which
thou seest," it says, "to thee will I give it." When he is
commanded to arise and walk through the land, in the length of it, and in the
breadth of it, and he is assured that to him God would give it - the land.
Abraham believed this and it was accounted to him for righteousness, Had he
changed this and believed in "reading his title clear to mansions in the
skies," he would not have believed the promise, but something else, not
promised; and that would not have been accounted to him for righteousness, for
"he that believeth not God hath made him a liar;" and surely God
cannot be well pleased with those who, by refusing to believe His promises as
they are given, without perversion, make Him a liar. In this very land he
sojourned; and in this very land he was a stranger; of this very land he was
heir, not yet in possession; of this very covenant, of these very promises made
to Abraham and others, the apostle says, "These all died in faith, not
having received the promises, hut having seen them afar oft, and were persuaded
of them and embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims
on earth" (Heb. 11: 13). At that time they were strangers and pilgrims,
but when they come to the realization of the promises they will no longer be
strangers and pilgrims, for then they will be of those spoken of by our
Saviour, in His promise, "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the
earth," and they will join in that grand song of redemption, "Thou
hast made us unto our God kings and priests and we shall reign on the earth."
Some base the claim of a past fulfillment of the promises to
Abraham upon the words from Neh. 9: 7, 8 - "Thou art the Lord the God, who
didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and
gavest him the name of Abraham: and foundest his heart faithful before thee,
and madest a covenant with him, to give the land of the Canaanites, the
Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the
Girgashites, to give it, I say, to his Seed, and hast performed thy
words."
A moment's thought will show the fallacy of such a claim,
and those who make it forget that if they succeeded in proving that Nehemiah
meant the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham, the passage would be a flat
contradiction to what is said in the New Testament. The Apostle Paul declares
that the possession of the promised land under the Mosaic law, or the added
covenant, did not disannual to make the Abrahamic covenant of none effect (Gal.
3: 17, 18). Supposing we were to make the words of Nehemiah read as some would
have them read, "And madest a covenant with him to give the land of the
Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorties, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites,
and the Girgashites, to give it, I say (to thee and) to thy seed, and hast
performed thy words." Then we should be met with the words of Stephen in
Acts 7: 5 where he declares, "And he 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, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child."
No one who has any regard for the Scriptures would force a claim that
necessitates the admission that the Bible contradicts itself. There is no
disputing the words of Stephen, and if the words of Nehemiah say the very
opposite a contradiction necessarily must be admitted. Numerous testimonies
show clearly that the promise has not been fulfilled to Abraham and to his
seed; for it centered in Christ, and cannot be fulfilled until Christ takes
possession of the promised inheritance. But how would we harmonize the apparent
contradiction? Very easily if we pay strict attention to what Nehemiah says. He
does not say, "to give it, I say, to him and to his seed." He simply
Says, "to give it, I say, to his seed, and hast performed thy words."
The seed here referred to were the descendants of Abraham according to the
flesh; and the possession of the land by them was under the Mosaic covenant,
which was added to the Abrahamic "till the seed should come to whom the
promise (the great Abrahamic covenant, to which the Mosaic covenant was added)
was made." The possession of the land under the Mosaic covenant was a
small matter compared with the promise to Abraham in its amplitude and was
simply an added affair to illustrate a greater and grander constitution, that
to which it pointed and of which it was a type. It was the lesser involved in
the greater, and when it had served its purpose was abolished and Abraham's
natural seed driven out of the land and scattered among all nations of the
earth. Hence Paul says of the two covenants represented by Sarah and Isaac, and
Hagar and Ishmael, "which things are an allegory for these are the two
covenants the one from the Mount Sinai which gendereth to bondage which* * *is
Agar and answereth to Jerusalem which now is and is in bondage with her
children But Jerusalem which is above" or as some translate it,
"Jerusalem the exalted" the one that will be higher and more glorious
than the one that was is free This one is represented by Sarah and Isaac Hence
he adds " Now we, brethren as Isaac was are the children of promise."
The Abrahamic promise is therefore still a promise and not a thing fulfilled.
Upon the principle of the greater involving the lesser, which is characteristic
of the Scriptures in many cases, there is a double fulfillment provided for.
The possession of the land under the Mosaic law was involved in the promise
made to Abraham, but it was not the fulfillment of it. As an illustration of
this principle we may refer to the words, "Out of Egypt have I called my son",
which were originally applied to Israel coming out of Egypt but they are
applied also to Christ and it is a question if they are not still applicable to
the future and larger fulfillment God knowing the end from the beginning, can
give expression in the same words to events wide apart that will repeat
themselves in the future history of the world, and thus clothe divine thoughts
in few words It would be difficult for any one to divide the promises made to
Abraham, and say on the one hand, This applies to the possession of the land
under the Mosaic law, and on the other hand, This applies to the everlasting
inheritance under Christ. But if it be kept in mind that the Mosaic possession,
the lesser, is involved in the promise of the everlasting inheritance through
Christ, the greater, the difficulty will be removed, and then we can apply the
words of Nehemiah to the lesser, in which he only says that the land was given
"to his seed." It yet remains for the absolute fulfillment required
by the promise which declares, "To thee will I give it and to thy seed for
an everlasting inheritance;' and when this is fulfilled, "all families of
the earth shall be blessed," a thing that has found no fulfillment as yet
in the history of the world.
Since the covenants of promise are really the gospel and
since salvation is to be realized by all the saved of Adam's race at the same
time, it is evident that the actual inheritance could not be realized until all
the redeemed should enter upon it together, and this is exactly what this same
apostle declares: "And 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. 11: 39, 40). Should
you still be in doubt, dear reader, on this, let me invite your attention to
what is recorded in Acts 7: 2 "And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers,
hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in
Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran, and said unto him, Get thee out of thy
country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show 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. And he 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, and to
his seed after him, when as yet he had no child Here we have a portion of the
Scriptures made much of by infidelity. The infidel asks the popular theorist
some very awkward questions here, as follows: Did God promise to give Abraham
the land of Canaan for in everlasting inheritance? To this only one answer can
be given -Yes, he did. It would not do to say that He promised him a spiritual
Canaan in the skies, for that would be adding to God's word, the language is
too clear to allow of such perversion. Abraham was not commanded to look to the
skies, nor to heaven; he was taken into the land itself, saw it and walked
through it, and all this land was promised to him. The infidel then puts the
question God having promised this land to Abraham, did He give it to him? It
will not for us to say yes, for Inspiration has just told us that "He gave
him not so much as to set his foot on, yet He promised that He would give it to
him Then says the infidel, it is recorded in the book of Genesis that God
promised to give Abraham the land, and it is recorded in the Acts of the
apostles that He did not give him so much as to set his foot upon, therefore
you have a contradictory Bible and an unfaithful God. What shall we do about
this? Shall we leave the God of the Bible open to the charge of unfaithfulness,
and admit that the Bible is a contradictory book? Shall we surrender to
infidelity, or shall we take the sword of the Spirit and use it manfully in
defense of God and His book? Your Bible, says the infidel, says that God
promised the land to Abraham and your Bible, says the infidel, declares that he
did not fulfill this promise, and then he asks the leaders of
"orthodoxy," Will God ever give that land which He promised to
Abraham to him for his inheritance? and the answer is, and must, from the very
nature of the creeds, be no, for they have sent Abraham beyond the bounds of
time and space, and claim that heaven is to be his everlasting abode and
therefore have no provision in their creed for him ever to come into possession
of the real promise. Then, says the infidel, God has promised what He never has
performed, and what you say He never will perform. What shall we do? There is
only one way of saving the Bible from impeachment and there is only one way of
vindicating the veracity of God in this case. The facts and the truths allow us
but one way. they force us to but one answer, and that one answer will bring us
to the truth in relation to the covenants of promise. We must admit that God
made the promise. We must admit that the same Bible tells us that He did not
fulfill it, but shall we admit that He never will fulfill it? Perish the
thought. And yet when we admit that He will fulfill it we must necessarily'
face the frowns of the religious world. For to admit that God will yet give the
very land He promised, that the very land He did not give-shall yet be given is
to admit the future inheritance of faithful Abraham and all of his like
precious faith on the earth, not in heaven, in the skies, nor beyond the bounds
of time and space and this necessarily' comes into collision with and entirely
breaks up the theories upon which is built the whole structure of popular
theology.
When these truths are presented to the advocates of popular
religious theories they readily see that they undermine the whole
superstructure upon which the creeds are built. They endeavor to escape the
force of these testimonies by the process of spiritualizing Canaan and making
it mean heaven. Hence we have been taught in our youthful days to sing, "I
have a father in the promised land; I have a mother in the promised land,"
meaning by "promised land' heaven, to which all the good are supposed to
go at death. Surely if any body is in this promised land, Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, to whom the real promise was made, ought to be there. But mere assertion
is not always truth. Paul positively says of the fathers, that "these all,
having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise;"
and they are not to realize it until the redeemed are all perfected together
(Heb. 11: 39, 40). "These" he says, all "died in the
faith." They saw afar off by the eye of faith the realization of the
promises and they died in the faith. How could it be said that they died in
this faith if they did not die, but simply "shuffled off this mortal coil
to mount to realms of bliss beyond the stars"? This would not be dying in
faith. It would be commencing to live and to realize the very hope which the
apostle declares they died in. No believer in the theory of heaven-going at
death as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise would ever think of speaking
of Abraham coming into possession of the inheritance in the future. To them it
is a thing of the past and the present, the actual inheritance of the spiritual
Canaan commencing with the hour and article of death. But the prophet Micah,
giving expression to the Abrahamic faith and hope, declares, about ten hundred
years after Abraham's death. "Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and
the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of
old" (Micah 7: 20). What had God sworn unto our fathers? That He would
give them the land of Canaan for an everlasting inheritance, that in Abraham
and his seed He would bless all nations of the earth. These promises, as we
have seen, involve the resurrection to life and immortality, the realization of
salvation. These were the things that were promised, and the performance of the
truth to Jacob and the mercy to Abraham was, in the days of the prophet Micah,
still in the distant future - a matter of hope and expectation. If it is still
said that the intention of the promise to Abraham was to give him a spiritual
Canaan in the sky, then, according to Acts 7, he had not received so much as to
set his foot on when Stephen uttered these words. Whether the Canaan promised
was above or below, in the sky or on the earth, Abraham had not received so
much of it as to set his foot on about two thousand years after his death.
There is only one way left open for us, and that is the way of truth.
While the promise describes a certain land to Abraham, the
bounds of which are given as "from the river of Egypt unto the great
river, the river Euphrates," which it would seem applies in a special
sense, that is to say, this particular land is to be allotted for a particular
purpose, a center, as it were around which the future workings of God, in
blessing all nations of the earth, wilh revolve. yet the Apostle Paul seems to
widen out the Abrahamic promises into a "world." He says, "For
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" (Rom.
4:13). As all nations of the earth are to be blessed, it follows, as a matter
of course, that the promise included within its scope the entire earth, a grand
truth more clearly revealed as we come further down in the course of
revelation. In the second Psalm the promise to Christ is, "I shall give
thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth
for thy possession (Psa. 2: 8). The "world" of which Abraham was made
heir by the promise will be as wide as the "uttermost parts of the
earth" promised to Christ, for otherwise the cure of the Adamic curse
would not be as wide as the disease. The world's redemption is therefore fully
comprehended in the Abrahamic covenant.
Some will possibly ask, How about the children of Abraham
going into the promised land under Joshua? Was not that a fulfillment of the
Abrahamic promise? This, indeed, is the position generally taken by those who
have subverted the covenant and substituted in its place the theory of
heaven-going. But this question is settled as clearly as it is possible for any
question to be settled if we take the word of God as our authority, and what
else can we take? There is no other authority worth considering. Take all the
help you please from frail, mortal fallible man, the court of final appeal in
all these cases must be the unerring word of the living and true God. The
Apostle Paul seems to anticipate the very theories of our time and head them
off, as it were, by argument and facts irresistible. He says, "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" (Gal. 3: 17). The covenant that was confirmed
before of God in Christ is undoubtedly the Abrahamic covenant, which was made
four hundred and thirty years before Israel came out of Egypt under the Mosaic
covenant. Its confirmation was in Christ, typically, for, as we have seen, all
sacrifices point to Christ, and the covenant made with Abraham was confirmed by
the offering of sacrifices. This covenant, which was made with Abraham four
hundred and thirty years before the children of Israel came out of Egypt, was
not, the apostle says, disannulled and made of none effect by the descendants
of Abraham being delivered from Egypt and given possession of the land of
Canaan. "If," he adds, "the inheritance" that is, of
course, the inheritance promised to Abraham, "be of the law."' that
is, if it was realized in its fullness by the law of Moses, "it is no more
of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise" (Gal. 3: 18). Then he
anticipates the question, "Wherefore then serveth the law?" Or what
was the Mosaic covenant for? And his answer is, "It was added" -
added to the Abrahamic covenant - "because of transgression." Till
when? For how long? To whom did it lead? And his answer is, "Till the seed
should come to whom the promise was made." This shows us clearly that the
Abrahamic promise or the covenant reached down to Christ, and that in and
through him it would finally be realized; and that the law of Moses was simply
added as a sort of parenthesis, thrown in, as it were, for the time being, to
deal with certain evils, and leading up to the grand ultimatum centering in Him
the pith and the pivot of the whole matter. "Till the seed should come to
whom the promise was made." Mark this. While the promise was made to
Abraham, there was a greater than he who was the chief one - the one to whom
the promise was made, in whom it centered, and upon whom it depended for its
fulfillment.
If in making the covenant with Abraham the gospel of
salvation was made known to him, or in other words, if the Abrahainic covenant
and the gospel are synonymous, then, since the gospel wherever it is found and
by whatever name we give it, must have Christ in it, we ought to find Christ
clearly and distinctly revealed in the Abrahamic covenant. Some may object to
what we have set forth in relation to Christ being typified by the offerings
Abraham made, although we can scarcely imagine how the truth thus shadowed
forth could be evaded, but even allowing such objection, there is unmistakable
and indisputable evidence that Christ is in the Abrahamic promises. For
instance, we read, "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" (Gen. 22: 17). Here, no doubt, we have first a promise
of the great nation which should come forth from Abraham according to the
flesh, but from other testimonies we may be safe in concluding that there is a
higher meaning still, and that the promises involved a multitude of Abraham's
seed according to the spirit, as we shall presently see from other testimonies.
Then it is added, "Thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies. Here we
have an individual seed. It is not, Thy seed shall possess the gate of their
enemies, but thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies, "and
in thy seed," this particular individual seed, in or through him "all
nations of the earth shall be blessed." Who is this? If it is Christ, then
we have here the second Adam that is to undo the evil of the first Adam. If it
is Christ, then we have here the one that shall "possess the gate of his
enemies;" have power over all enemies; rule as king of all the earth; the
one to whom it is said, "Ask of me and I shall give thee the heathen
(nations) for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy
possession" (Psa. 2: 8). If it is not Christ who is it? Who can it be? Can
the question be settled beyond the shadow of a doubt? We have frequently called
this promise the gospel. Should our right to do so be questioned, we would
refer to the Apostle Paul for our authority. He says, "And the Scripture,
foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before
(before visiting the Gentiles) the gospel unto Abraham, saying, "In
thee shall all nations be blessed" (Gal. 3: 8). The gospel then promises a
blessing for all nations of the earth. This gospel was preached to Abraham.
There is no other gospel vevhich will save. In this very same letter to the
Galatians he says, "Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other
gospel 'unto you than that which we have preached unto you let him be
accursed" (chap. 1: 8). There being but one gospel and that gospel having
been preached to Abraham, we are safe in saying that in the Abrahamic covenant
we have the gospel of our salvation In this gospel we are to find Christ. Have
we found Him? Again the words ring with the force of truth, "Thy seed
shall possess the gate of his enemies." We claim these words can apply to
no one except Christ. Are we right? Let us be sure. Let us be safe. The subject
is important. It has many enemies. Popular sentiment m the world is against it.
Nothing will settle this but Inspiration. Again we ask, Is this seed, this
individual seed, Christ? The Apostle Paul has declared the oneness of the gospel,
and then directing us back to the book of Genesis, where we should have an
account of that one gospel preached to Abraham, by which all the nations of the
earth are to be blessed, he removes all possibility of doubt and shows us that
Christ is the very heart of the gospel. "To Abraham and to his seed"
he says, "were the promises made." Yes, Paul, we have seen that, for
we have read in the book of Genesis that God promised the land of Canaan to
Abraham and his seed for an everlasting inheritance; but there is much dispute
in the modern religious world about this question, and popular theology says
that the "seed" there is simply the Jews, who dwelt in the land for a
time and on account of their wickedness have been scattered and destroyed as a
nation and that is the end of the matter. We would like therefore to know who
this seed is. He answers, "He saith not and to seeds as to many; but as OF
ONE, And to thy seed WHICH IS CHRIST" (Gal. 3: 16).
The question is safely settled, and we go back to Genesis
and read the promises again, with the assurance that they are made to Abraham
and to Christ. The chief, the head, the Alpha and the Omega is Christ, and yet
the seed through him is to be multitudinous. The promise to him is that he,
Christ, shall have the land. the world, the "uttermost parts of the earth
for his possession That He is to bless all nations of the earth. There is no
promise to any one not of the seed of Abraham. Therefore the apostle says,
"Know ye therefore that they which are of faith"-the Abrahamic faith,
of course, the same faith that was accounted to him for
righteousness-"know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same
are the children of Abraham" (Gal. 3: 5-7). How may we become the children
of Abraham? Hear what the apostle says in writing to the Ephesians, '"For
this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles if ye have
heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to youward: how
that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery as I wrote afore in few
words Whereby, when ye read, 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" (Eph. 3:
1-5). What is this that is revealed to Paul that concerns the Gentiles, that
which we may safely presume will concern the greater part of Our readers?
Unless we become the seed of Abraham we cannot hope to share in the promises
made to Abraham and his seed. As Gentiles we are not the seed of Abraham;
therefore have no right to the promise. But the apostle has already told us,
that ""they which are of the faith * * * are the children of
Abraham." And now he is going to tell us clearly what had been revealed to
him specially in behalf of the Gentiles, and it is this: "That the
Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body and
partakers of his promise, in Christ by the gospel" (Eph. 3: 6).
While we are Gentiles, and in no sense the seed of Abraham we are, he says,
"by nature the children of wrath" (Eph. 2: 3): and he tells us to
"remember that when we were Gentiles in the flesh we were without Christ, being
aliens from the comonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of
promise, having no hope and without God in the world (Eph. 2: 12). If the
Gentiles are to be made fellow-heirs and of the same body, and partakers of the
same promise in Christ by the gospel, and if before this takes place they are
aliens, strangers, having no hope and without God in the world, is it not, dear
reader, a vital question, the most important question to us, how may we change
our relationship so as to become the seed of Abraham, and not to be aliens and
strangers, hopeless and helpless, but come into such a relationship that we
shall have a hope, the hope of the gospel, that our God may be the God of
Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, that we may be heirs of the commonwealth of
Israel? The apostle's answer is, "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes
were afar off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who
hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between
us" (Eph. 2: 13, 14). "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and
foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of
God" (verse 19). Still the question remains, How is the change brought
about? And in answer to this, we have the words of the same apostle, '"For
we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." That is to say, they
had all been made the children of God by the one faith which centers in Christ,
in whom they were now by the one faith. How shall we pass or come into Christ?
By what means does the one faith put us in Christ and constitute us the
children of God? His answer is, ""For as many of you as have been
baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek there
is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female for ye are all one
in Christ Jesus." Now what follows? Mark the words, "And if ye be
Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
Heirs of what? Heirs of heaven? Heirs of the skies? Heirs of a spiritual Canaan
beyond the stars? Let us not pervert the Word of God. Let us receive it with
meekness as the engrafted word which is able to save our souls Here it is
"And if we be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to
the promise" (Gal. 3: 26 29). What promise? He is speaking of the promise
made to Abraham. We know what that is shall we accept it or reject it? Why
should we reject it? Why should we not receive with open hearts such grand
promises which provide for Christ's rulership universal in all the earth which
provide for the blessing of all families of the earth we which provide for the
elimination of every vestige of the Adamic curse and for filling "the
earth with the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea"?
Now it is quite clear that the covenants of promise so far
as we have gone, were made for the purpose of effecting human redemption
through Christ: that Christ is the very essence of the promises made to Adam,
to Noah and to Abraham Isaac and to Jacob From experience and observation we
have learned that in dealing with these grand truths it is quite difficult to
keep the religious people of the world from soaring into the heavens and
imagining that the Bible has more to do with other worlds than with ours. There
is a reason for this. The oracles of God were committed to the Jews, not to the
nations who were in a state of idolatry throughout "times of
ignorance" as the Apostle Paul terms them. The human family had
apostatized almost completely from God in the days of Abraham and in him there
is a beginning of taking out from among them a people for Yahweh's name Abraham
becomes the nucleus of this people, we might say both according to the flesh
and according to the spirit, for the Jews, according to the flesh, are the
children of Abraham by nature; while the "holy nation;" as Peter
calls it, consists of the children of Abraham or Israel according to the
spirit, made so by the one faith.
When the time came that Israel too had departed from God's
statutes and laws and filled up the cup of iniquity by crucifying the Messiah,
the time had arrived for the "other sheep" not of that Israelitish
fold to be brought. "These," says the Saviour, "I must also
bring and there shall be one shepherd and one fold." Commissioning His
apostles to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature is
the beginning of this work. In pursuance of this, Peter goes to the house of
Cornelius, in Caesarea a Gentile, and preaches the gospel to him and to his
household, removing the prejudice of the Jews by saying. "Can any man
forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy
Spirit as well as we"? (Acts 10: 47). The Apostle Paul says to the Jews
"Seeing ye put it from you and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting
life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles" (Acts 13: 46), and in turning to the
Gentiles they turned to a people who had for ages been worshippers of idols,
deluded by the so-called philosophy of the Greeks and Romans the Platonic
philosophy of disembodied existence in particular. These pagans had filled the
heavens with dead men's ghosts, and multiplied spiritual worlds without number,
to which it was supposed that all liberated spirits departed at the hour of
death, Thus the world had been alienated from the realities, of the truth of
the Bible, and their minds carried away into the realms of fancy and fiction.
The rapid strides which Christianity made in the first
century of the Christian era caused it to become popular to a large extent.
Pagan worshippers saw that it was destined to sweep everything before it, and
unless some compromises were made Paganism would utterly cease and go into ruin
before the powerful advent of Christianity. The headers, therefore, hastened to
make a compromise Christianity so called, but corrupted and perverted, was soon
constituted the religion of the state, exalted to the throne of the civilized
world which was named Christendom. This was the establishment of the spurious
kingdom of antichrist. This system of antichrist sought to forestall the true
kingdom of Christ and of Christ Himself, by becoming enthroned. The truth in
its simplicity and in its work of "taking out of the Gentiles a people for
His name", was not intended to be enthroned or in any sense incorporated
with the powers of the state. Its followers while they were to be in the world
were not to be of the world. They were to come out from the world and be
separated from it in all its ways, a "peculiar people," regarded by
popular sentiment as the off-scouring of all things, as their Master had been
before them. But the enthronement of the truth, genuine Christianity, was not
to be until the return of Christ who appeared the first time as a "Lamb to
be led to the slaughter", but who will appear the second time as the Lion
of tribe of Judah, to be king over all the earth. Then true Christianity- will
be enthroned in the person of Christ with those who are His faithful ones, and
He will reign on the earth in fulfillment of the covenants of promise.
We must, therefore eradicate from our minds the
superstitious spiritualism of Paganism and come to realize that the Bible is a
book that deals with things here on earth, here now and hereafter, but here all
the time. Herein is the difference between truth and error. Bible truth teaches
a hereafter. Antichristian systems teach a thereafter as the Pagans did of old.
Let us not then imagine the covenants of promise to be an astronomical matter,
but a geographical, for there is a geography to the question. Abraham is not
told to hook into the heavens, let me remind you again, dear reader but to the
four quarters of the earth, and his promise is of the hand which he saw and
which he walked through, in the length of it and in the breadth of it. This
land was described as from the river of Egypt to the great river the river
Euphrates. While in this great Abrahamic covenant we have the future everlasting
inheritance of the land so described upon the principle of the greater
containing the lesser no doubt the promise of the possession of the land of
Canaan by the natural descendants of Abraham was involved. But their possession
fell far short of the extent of the full promise made to Abraham Considering
this question geographically the promise to Abraham has never been fulfilled
for his descendants to say nothing about Abraham himself who as we have seen
did not receive so much as to set his foot upon did not inherit the land to the
extent described in the Abrahamic covenant. Here again we may stop and ask
ourselves the question, Has God promised what He has not fulfilled and never
intends to fulfill? Far be it from us to reach any such conclusion. The land to
the extent described has never been possessed by Abraham's seed: the land
promised lo Abraham has never been inherited not a foot of it by Abraham
himself God has made oath that His promise shall be fulfilled Therefore the
land to the fullest extent described in the boundary lines given must yet be
inherited by- Abraham and his seed This is a simple matter, one that can be
decided and has been decided geographically and mathematically In proof of this
we here quote from an able writer. the author of "The Gospel
Treasury" an extract giving time difference in extent between the land
possessed by Israel and the land promised to Abraham or in other words the
extent of the land of ancient possession and the land of future inheritance.
The LAND OF ISRAEL - PALESTINE OR JUDEA - Was given in an
everlasting covenant to Abraham and his seed for ever. See Gen 12: 6, 7, 13,
14,- 17. It was washed on the W. by the Mediterranean or Great sea as it is
called in the Bible ( Num 34:6), "And as for the western border we shall
even have the great sea for a border this shall be your west border." Josh
1:4, "From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river the
river Euphrates all the land of the Hittites and unto the great, sea toward the
going down of the sun shall be your coast." NORTHWARD it reached along the
Mediterranean sea to Mount Cassius at rise mouth of the Orontes, which is the
entrance into Hamath. Numb 34: 7-9, "This shall be your north
border; from the great sea ye shalt point out for you Mount Hor (Heb. Hor
ha-hor - a very high mountain). From Mount Hor ye shall point out unto the
entrance into Hamath," etc. Its SOUTH border is the "River of
Egypt" - see Gen. 15: 18, "Unto thy seed have I given this land, from
the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates."
And the EAST border - see Deut. 11: 24, "Every place whereon the soles of
your feet shall tread shall be yours: * * * From the river, the river
Euphrates, even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be".
The difference of latitude and longitude in the land
actually occupied by Israel and that which was promised in the everlasting
covenant, and still remains to be fulfilled, is as follows: - See I. Kings 4:
25, "Judah and Israel dwelt safely from Dan even to Beersheha, all the
days of Solomon." (But Solomon like his father David, exercised a nominal
or real sovereignty over all the regions which the Lord had given to the seed
of Jacob - See I. Kings 4: 21).
The latitude of Beersheba is 31 deg. 15 min.; of Dan 33 deg.
15 min.; the south point of the Dead sea, the ancient border of Israel, is 31
deg. 7 min. in the same longitude with Dan, the intervening distance, in a line
from north to south, being 128 geographical, or about 150 English miles. The
latitude of the north point of the Elanitic gulf or the Red sea, On
which Eziongeber, a port of Solomon's, stood, is 29 deg. 31 min. This is
the south border promised to Abraham. The mouth of the Orontes, or the
entrance into Hamath from the Mediterranean, is 36 deg., and that of Beer, or
Berothah on the Euphrates, 37 deg. But the range of Amanus lies beyond it, and
the medium longitude of the north boundary is more than 36 deg. 31 min. N.; or
in an ideal line, from south to north, the length of th land is upwards of seven
degrees, or 500 miles, instead of 150 as of old.
The breadth of Immanuel's land, instead of its
anciently contracted span, from the Mediterranean sea on the west, to a few
miles on the east of Jordan, stops not short of a navigable frontier
everywhere, and on every side. The longitude of the river Nile is 30 deg. 2
min.; that of the Euphrates, as it flows through the Persian Gulf, 48 deg. 26
min.; or a difference of nearly 18 deg. and a half, or more than 1,100 miles.
On the northern extremity of the land the range of Amanus
mountains from the river Euphrates, to the uttermost sea, or extremity of the
Mediterranean, scarcely exceeds 100 miles. In round numbers the average breadth
of the Promised Land is 600 miles, which, multiplied by its length 500 miles, gives
an area of 300,000 square miles, or more than that of any kingdom or empire in
Europe, Russia alone excepted.
Separated as Israel is from other lands, such are its
borders, that it has unequaled freedom of access to all * * * and is
well-fitted for becoming "the glory of all lands," the heritage of a
people blessed of the LORD.-See Keith's "Land of Israel."
THE LAND OF PROMISE was so called from God's having given it
by promise to the seed of Abraham, - Gen. 12: 7; see also Gen. 13: 14-17,
"And the Lord said unto Abraham, 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 forever. And I will make thy seed as the
dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then
shall thy seed also be numbered. Arise, walk through the hand, in the length of
it, and the breadth of it: for I will give it unto thee (17: 8). And I will
give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the hand wherein thou art a
stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be
their God" - Gospel Treasury, p. 10.
We do not read in so many words that the Abrahamic promises
contain the establishment of a kingdom, but there is enough to show that what
in subsequent times is revealed as the kingdom of God is involved in those
promises. One testimony quoted shows this phase of the subject: "And when
Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto
him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will
make my covenant between me and thee, and I will multiply thee exceedingly. And
Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold, my
covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither
shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham, for a
father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding
fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in
their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to
thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the
land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting
possession; and I will be their God" (Gen. 17: 1-8). The promise,
"kings shall come out of thee," shows that a kingdom is involved.
Christ will be the king and the redeemed saints will be the kings in the
ultimate fulfillment of the covenant. Hence when Mary contemplated the birth of
her royal son, Christ, she saw through this the fulfillment of the Abrahamic
promises and exclaimed, "My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath
rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he hath regarded the low estate of his
hand-maiden: For, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me
blessed. For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his
name. And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. He
hath showed 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 hath 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 forever" (Luke 1: 46-55). All this she declares is in
remembrance of God's mercy, as he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his
seed forever." What is it that Mary so exults over? Is it not the prospect
of Christ, her royal son, the seed of Abraham, becoming king over all the earth,
showing strength with his arm, scattering the proud, putting down the mighty,
exalting the poor, filling the hungry with good things, sending the rich empty
away-all of this in remembrance of what God had spoken to Abraham? These things
can never be accomplished without kingly power and heavenly authority, and this
will be the fulfillment of the great promise to bless all nations of the earth
in and through Abraham's seed, which is Christ.
The Spirit speaking through the prophet Malachi declares,
"Behold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before
me" (Mal. 3: 1). This found partial fulfillment in the work of John the
Baptist, preparatory to Christ who, he said, should "'be mightier than he,
the latchet of whose shoes he was not worthy to unloose." His father,
Zaacharias, saw in John the forerunner of the promised Son of Abraham and,
filled with the Holy Spirit. bore testimony to the truth contained in the
covenants of promise, saying,
Blessed he 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; that we should he 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 Ahraham, that he would grant onto us, that we, being delivered out
of the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and
righteousness before him all the days of our life. And thou, child, shalt he
called the Prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the
Lord to prepare his way : to give knowledge of salvation unto his people, by
the remission of their sins, through the tender mercies of our God, whereby the
dayspring from on high bath visited us, to give light to them that sit in
darkness, and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of
peace" (Luke 1: 68-79).
Here again it will be observed that all this is to
"perform the mercy promised to the fathers, and to remember his holy
covenant, the oath which he sware to our father Abraham."
It would seem that while God was making these promises, he
was also exemplifying them by causing Abraham and his descendants to pass
through an experience, the history of which would be prophecy, the past
foretelling the future-type pointing to antitype. In the literal immigration of
Abraham out of his own native country and his separation from his idolatrous
relatives, we have a representation of the Abrahamic faith taking out from
among the Gentiles a people for Yahweh's name. His literal going into that
land, a type of our coming out, as it were of darkness to the light of the
truth, and in mind going into that land by faith: and ultimately of Abraham's
descendants, according to the flesh, and his children by faith taking full
possession of the land, when the former would constitute the subjects and the
latter the rulers of the greatest kingdom that has ever adorned the earth.
Coming further down we have what the Apostle Paul says ""had happened
for types" in the history of Israel's deliverance from Egypt, their
wanderings in the wilderness and their final entrance into the land of promise
under Joshua's remarkable leadership, that is at once history and prophecy; for
out of the wilderness of sin and desolation, as it were, Abraham's seed by
faith are called. They pass through the waters of baptism, as Israel did when
they were "baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." In that
wonderful event a nation was born in a day, Israel becoming the national son of
God, as the words, "out of Egypt have I called my son" imply - words
applicable to the national son, Israel, and the individual Son, Christ, and the
multitudinous Christ, composed of him as the head and of those that will
constitute the one great Christ body that shall rule the world in
righteousness. After crossing the waters of the Red Sea and washing away, as it
were, Egypt's bondage and sin, they had to pass through "much
tribulation" before they could enter under Joshua, their saviour, into the
kingdom of God, which was known in the past as the kingdom of Israel. So now it
is with Israel by faith, they pass through the waters of baptism and become the
children of God. They wash away their sins and become redeemed, but have to
pass through much tribulation before they can enter the kingdom of God. Then
Joshua, their Saviour, shall say to them, '"Come, ye blessed of my father,
inherit the kingdom." It required a Joshua to expel and exterminate the
Amorites; so it requires a greater Joshua to bring down the mighty from their
seats; to redeem the world from its iniquitous rulers and to fit it for the
establishment of a heavenly kingdom. When the "way of the kings from the
sun's rising shall be prepared" the Sun of righteousness will arise with
healing in his beams and shall burst forth upon a benighted world to spread
blessings, peace and prosperity, where cursings, war and desolation have for
many long ages blighted this beautiful habitable. Again we may go back to the
history of Israel in their deliverance from Egypt; their crossing the sea and
going through the much tribulation of the wilderness, and their final conquest
of the land, and we have the history of a nation that will repeat itself upon a
grander scale. That same Israel is now scattered among all nations of the
earth, "which spiritually are called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord
was crucified" (Rev. 11: 8) - the Roman habitable, and what is Christendom
to-day but Rome divided? Israel has indeed been scattered among these nations,
but a mighty deliverance awaits them. As Abraham left his idolatrous kindred
and came from the "other side of the flood" and went into the land of
promise; as Israel was delivered from Egypt and crossed the sea, passing
through the wilderness and finally into the land of promise, so shall the
nation of Israel again be brought from Egypt, front the "other side of the
flood," pass through the depths of the sea and become a nation born in a
day. This time it will not be the wilderness of Sinai, but "the wilderness
of the people, where God will plead with them face to face, like as he pleaded
with their 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 I 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: and ye shall know that I am the Lord" (Ezek. 20: 35-38). These
grand truths will more fully develop as we proceed with the investigation of
the covenants of promise as made to David, which will be the next subject for
our consideration.
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
In the words of the Apostle Paul, as found in his letter to
the Ephesians, we have the term, "covenants of promise" - plural.
While there is but one great covenant involving the world's redemption, as
there is but one gospel, on account of this having been made in various forms
in various times, it is spoken of in the plural. We have already seen that the
covenant was initiated with Adam, made known to Noah, and still more fully
brought to light to Abraham. Now in the covenant with David, it assumes a more
complete form with respect to its aspect as a kingdom. The kingdom of Israel
had become a fact, and was called the kingdom of God. Being a type of the
everlasting kingdom of God, the time had come when by it those to whom the
oracles of God were committed would be better qualified to understand the
meaning of the gospel of the kingdom of God as embodied in the covenants of
promise, so that the covenant with David deals especially with a kingdom.
Following are some of the testimonies setting forth this aspect of the
covenants of promise:
II Sam. 7:12-16 - 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 an
house for my name; and I 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.
II Sam. 23:1-5 - Now these be the last words of David. David
the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of
the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel said, 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 he hath made
with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure; for
this is all my salvation and all my desire, although he make it not to
grow.
Psa 89:4, 19-29, 34-37 - Thy seed will I establish for ever,
and build up thy throne to all generations. Then thou spaketh in vision to thy
Holy One, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted
one chosen out of the people. I have found David my servant: with my holy oil
have I anointed him: with whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also
shall strengthen him. The enemy shall not exact upon him: nor the son of
wickedness afflict him. And I will beat down his foes before his face, and
plague them that hate him. But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him:
and in my name shall his horn be exalted. I will set his hand also in the sea,
and his right hand in the rivers. He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father, my
God, and the rock of my salvation. Also I will make him my firstborn, higher
than the kings of the earth. My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my
covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure for
ever, and his throne as the days of heaven. 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 I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne
as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a
faithful witness in heaven.
Psa. 110 - 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. Thy people
shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the
womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. The Lord hath sworn, and
will not repent. Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. 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 the dead bodies:
he shall wound the heads over many countries. He shall drink of the brook in
the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.
Psa. 132:11-18 - 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. If
thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them,
their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore. For 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. I will abundantly bless her
provision: I will satisfy her poor with bread. I will also clothe her priests
with salvation: and her saints shall shout aloud for joy. There will I make the
horn of David to bud: I have ordained a lamp for mine anointed. His enemies
will I clothe with shame: but upon himself shall his crown flourish.
Isa. 9:6, 7 - 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 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. 16:5 - And in mercy shall the throne be established:
and he shall sit upon it in truth in the tabernacle of David, judging, and
seeking judgment and hasting righteousness.
Isa. 55:1, 3 - Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the
waters, and he that hath no money: come ye, buy and eat: yea, come, buy wine
and milk without money and without price. * * * Incline your ear, and come unto
me: hear, and your soul shall live: and I will make an everlasting covenant
with you, even the sure mercies of David.
Jer. 23:5, 6 - 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: and this is his name whereby he shall be
called The Lord Our Righteousness.
Luke 1:30-33 - And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary:
for thou hast found favor with God. 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.
Acts 2:29-35 - 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. 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 would raise up Christ to sit on his throne: he seeing this before
spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell,
neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we
all are witnesses. 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. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he
saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand until I
make thy foes my footstool.
Acts 15:16, 17 - 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: that the residue of men might seek after
the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who
doeth all these things.
Rev. 3:7 - And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia
write: These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key
of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth: and shutteth and no man
openeth.
Rev. 5:5 - And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not:
behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath
prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
Rev 22:16 - I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you
these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David,
and the bright and morning star.
Here we have what we may call the Davidian covenant. It will
be seen from these testimonies that this, like the Abrahamic covenant, leads
down to Christ and pertains to the world's redemption. The kingdom of God, as
it had existed under David and was now about to be transferred to Solomon,
consisted of all the elements necessary to constitute a kingdom. It was not
what is popularly known as a spiritual kingdom. It was real. It was on the earth,
a literal constitution of things. It had territory, subjects, rulers, laws and
a capital. It was complete so far as it was possible for there to be a complete
kingdom in that evil age in which it existed. Now that a covenant was made with
David concerning a future kingdom, the question is, Will it also be real,
literal, having the same elements in its composition as that of the kingdom of
Israel of the past? That this covenant was understood by David to refer to the
future is clear from what he says in II Sam 7:19, "And this was yet a
small thing in thy sight, O Lord God; but thou hast spoken also of thy
servant's house for a great while to come." Many people suppose
that this covenant related to Solomon only. While Solomon, no doubt, was a type
of Christ, this covenant reached beyond him. Its realization was not expected
by David in the time of Solomon. It was "for a great while to come."
What does it involve? In the tenth verse it is said, "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 beforetime." Here we have the place
in which Israel is to be planted when the covenant is fully realized; hence we
may safely conclude that the kingdom will have literal territory. Next we find
that He promised to David that His mercy shall not depart from him, the person
who is the subject of the covenant, as it did from Saul, and his house, David's
royal house, and kingdom should be established for ever in his hands; his
throne should be established for ever (verses 15, 16). Hence we have here a
royal house, a king, a territory, a kingdom; and as Israel's laws were
heavenly, or laws from heaven, so we may conclude the laws of this kingdom will
be heavenly.
At the time that this covenant was made, the days of David's
natural career were about ended. He could not hope to live much longer, and did
not, and therefore to make such promises to him would seem like mockery unless
they involved for him a future life. "Thine house and thy kingdom shall be
established for ever before thee" (verse 16). What can the words
"before thee" mean but in thy presence? As in the case of Abraham it
is a matter personally to be realized. Therefore resurrection is here provided
for though not expressed in so many words; it is clearly implied, David was to
die, yet his house and his kingdom were to be established for ever in his
presence. How could this be unless David were to be raised from the dead? for
it was to be "for a great while to come."
This covenant is made the subject of David's last words,
which shows that he viewed it as a matter of the future: "Now these be the
last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up
on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel
said, * * * 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 he hath made with me an
everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my
salvation and all my desire, although he make it not to grow" (II Sam.
23:1-5). This covenant with David involved "all his salvation and all his
desire," his only hope in the hour of death. It was the hope in which he
lived and the hope in which he died. Like all other ancient worthies, he
"died in faith, not having received the promises but seeing them afar
off," or as he terms it, in a "great while to come."
That this refers to the kingdom of God in the hands of
Christ there can be no question, for we have the words of the Apostle Peter
who, by inspiration, declares that the covenant with David reached down to the
days of Christ's glorious reign on the earth. Not only so, but he assures us
that this was David's understanding of the matter, for he 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. 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 would raise up Christ to sit
on his throne; he, seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ,
that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption" (Acts
2: 29-31). David being a prophet, then, foresaw that Christ would be raised up
to sit upon his throne. Hence we may safely conclude that the seed which was
promised to David, who should establish his house and his kingdom for ever, is
Christ and that David so understood it, and in this saw by faith, and died in
the faith, that the fulfillment of the covenant through Christ would bring to
him the realization of "all his salvation and all his desire."
It is impossible for any one having the least regard for the
truth and consistency of the Bible to say that the promises of the covenant
with David have been fulfilled, except so far as the mission of Christ in his
first coming is embraced in the covenant. Without "rightly dividing the
word of truth" in this case, as in that of the Abrahamic covenant, the
Bible will be made to appear as a contradictory book, and advantage given the
infidel. Let us look at the facts in the case. One of the promises is that God
would "appoint a place for his people Israel, and plant them that they may
dwell in a place of their own, and move no more" (II Sam. 7:10). Israel
scattered in all the world to day is sufficient to show that this promise has
not yet been fulfilled. If their immovable "planting" in the place
appointed had become a fact, they would be there now, but they are not there,
they are not in a "place of their own." In Lev 26:31,33 the present
scattered condition of Israel is foretold in the following words, "And I
will make your cities waste, and bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, and I
will not smell the savour of your sweet odors. 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." In Deut. 28:49-50
Moses predicted the same scattering in the following words: "The Lord
shall bring a nation against thee from afar, from the end of the earth, as
swift as the eagle flieth: a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand: a
nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor
show favor to the young." In verses 64 and 65 he adds, "And the Lord
shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto
the other: and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy
fathers have known, even wood and stone. And among these nations shalt thou
find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the Lord shall
give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of
mind." Now with these prophecies on record, God promised David that He
would appoint Israel a place of their own, and they shall never be moved:
neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime.
What shall we do with these apparently contradictory testimonies? We cannot
mistake what they say. We know that the prophecy of Moses in regard to this
scattering has been fulfilled since Christ was on the earth nineteen hundred
years ago. He testified to the truth of what Moses wrote, for He said,
"Moses wrote of me," and "if ye had believed Moses, ye would
have believed me." Moses declared that Israel should be scattered, that
their city should be besieged and that their land should go into desolation.
Jesus confirms this by saying, "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed
with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh" (Luke 21: 20).
And then He adds, speaking of Israel, "and they shall fall by the edge of
the sword and shall be led away captive into all nations" (Luke 21: 24).
And yet in the covenant with David promise is made that they shall cease to be
scattered, and that they shall be planted in their land, and be no more moved,
neither shall they be afflicted. Have we a contradictory Bible? There is only
one way to escape the difficulty before us. When God spoke through Moses of
scattering Israel He made no mistake. Neither had He forgotten what He had said
to Moses when He promised David that Israel should be planted in the land never
again to be scattered. Notwithstanding the fact that the Saviour predicted
their scattering, and that they are scattered today, there is no difficulty if
we accept the truth. The only solution which the truth will admit of is that
the "planting" spoken of in the covenant with David is yet in the
future. If this is in the future, then the promise concerning David's seed, or
his royal son who is to sit upon his throne, in whose hands David's house and
kingdom will be established for ever in David's presence, is also in the
future. And if all this centers in Christ, then you can see that the world's
redemption is provided for in the covenant with David.
Again, here we have God's oath to David that this seed which
should be raised up to sit upon his throne should be David's "salvation
and his desire:" that God's mercy should never depart from him as it did
from Saul; that his house and his kingdom should be established for ever: his,
David's seed, it is said, he will "make to endure for ever, and his throne
as the days of heaven" (Psa. 89:29). My covenant will I not break,"
He adds, "nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn
by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever,
and his throne as the sun before me" (verses 34-36). Let us compare with
these promises what we read in Ezek 21:25-27: "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 I will give it him." Here is the overturn of David's
throne, and again there is seemingly a contradiction, and it is contradictory
if there is no future fulfillment of the covenant with David. Suppose we were
to read verse 27 thus, "I will overturn, overturn, overturn it and it
shall be no more." Then we would surely have contradiction, for we have
just read in the eighty-ninth Psalm that his throne is to continue for ever,
and here it is said that it is overturned in the days of Zedekiah and it shall
be no more. But this, while it would be in strict accordance with popular
theology, which finds no room for the re-establishment of David's throne and
kingdom, would he perverting the testimony. We must read the entire verse in
order to escape the contradiction, in order to save the Bible from
contradiction, in order to vindicate the veracity of God. This verse reads when
we read it all, "I will overturn, overturn, overturn it: and it shall be
no more until He come whose right it is, and I will give it him."
Who is this? Can we be as sure that the "him" here is Christ as we
were that the "his" in the Abrahamic covenant was Christ? You will
remember, dear reader, that the Apostle Paul assures us that the promise to
Abraham, "Thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies"
refers to Christ, by saying, "He saith not, And to seeds as of many, but
as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." We may be sure that the seed
promised to David, the "he" who is to come, and whose right David's
throne is, is the Christ. Christ is in the Davidian covenant as well as in the
Abrahamic, and the world's redemption will also be thus seen to be involved in
the covenant with David. Can we be sure that Christ is involved in this
covenant? Is the seed here Christ? Let the law and the testimony settle the
question. One passage we have given is Isa. 9: 6-7, where we have the words,
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given." No one will
dispute the application of this to Christ. We know that this is Christ. And now
what else is promised in this passage in relation to Christ? Mark the words,
"and the government shall be upon his shoulder." What else? Mark the
words again. "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be
no end." Has this anything to do with the covenant with David? Has this
anything to do with the throne of David? Mark the words again, "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." This ought to settle the question. But let us
proceed further. Again let me remind you that we have read in Ezek. 21: 25-27
of the overthrow of David's throne, and that it would be no more, until he come
whose right it is, "and I will give it him." Can we again connect
this with Christ? Here is what angelic testimony declares as an answer,
"And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with
God. 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." Connect with this the inquiry of the
wise men, who came from the East to Jerusalem on the occasion of Christ's
birth, asking, "Where is he that is born King of the Jews"
(Matt. 2: 1, 2); and again the answer given to Herod's question, "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" (Matt. 2: 6), and now that Christ is the very heart of the
covenant made with David is beyond question.
Yes but, some will say, while we are bound to admit that
Christ is the subject of the covenant with David, we claim that the covenant
was fulfilled at His first coming. Now, dear reader, ask yourself the question,
Did the Lord God give Christ the throne of His Father David while He was here
as a "man of sorrow and acquainted with grief?" He declared,
"The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests: but the Son of
man hath not where to lay his head" (Luke 9: 58). "Did He then reign
over the house of Jacob, as the angel declared to Mary He should? Is it not a
fact that the Jews denied Him, and for doing so, He said they should be
"led away captive among all nations." Hear the words which came from
Him when He wept over the City of Jerusalem, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,
which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee: how often
would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood
under her wings and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate:
and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come, when ye
shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Luke
13: 34-35). In His second appearing we have the solution of the whole problem
He did not fulfill the covenant with David at His first coming. The covenant
requires the re-establishment of David's throne and kingdom, with Christ
reigning over the house of Jacob. This did not take place. But after He had
been rejected by the house of Israel, God said to Him, "Sit thou at my
right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool." Christ now is in heaven.
Israel is scattered, and her land is in desolation: David's throne is in ruins:
Jerusalem is trodden down by the Gentiles. When and by what means will the
covenant with David be fulfilled? Remember the words are, "He shall build
an house for my name and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for
ever." Remember the words of the angel to Mary are, "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." We are
compelled by the force of facts and truth to conclude that such promises never
having been fulfilled, will find their fulfillment in the future. Not having
been fulfilled at Christ's first coming, will they find their fulfillment at
His second coming? Are we left to doubt or uncertainty in the case, or shall we
find words of Inspiration that will assure us of the truth beyond the shadow of
doubt? Listen to the words of Divine testimony, "And after they had held
their peace James answered saying, Men and brethren hearken unto me: Simeon
hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles to take out of them a
people for his name. 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: that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all
the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord who doeth all
these things" (Acts 15: 13-17). What was the first thing that James
said was to be done? Visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his
name. When does this occur? The visiting of the Gentiles commenced after
Christ's death and resurrection. We may safely say that it began when Peter
went to the house of Cornelius in Caesarea. The work of taking out of the Gentiles
still goes on through the instrumentality of the gospel. We know that we are
now in the times of the Gentiles. When will Christ come and build the
tabernacle of David? Let Him answer. "After this," that is,
after visiting the Gentiles, "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." The question is settled. There is no room
for dispute. Ah! but says the one who spiritualizes God's words to suit popular
creeds, you are too literal. You are looking for a literal kingdom with Christ
as its personal ruler on the earth. Yes indeed we are. What else can we look
for? When it was said of David's throne, "I will overturn, overturn,
overturn it" was that literal? or was it a spiritual throne in the skies,
in the heavens, or beyond the bounds of time and space? What was overturned to
be no more till he come whose right it is"? That it was the throne,
kingdom and dominion of David which was overthrown everybody knows. The same
testimony that says "it shall be no more, until he come whose right it
is," says also, "And I will give it him." Give what to
him? a spiritual throne in heaven? We know nothing of David ever having a
spiritual throne in heaven, and if there was one there, it surely was never
"overturned." The throne that was overturned was the one that was to
be given to him whose right it is. If David's throne and kingdom were real and
literal, then it will be a literal throne and kingdom that will be given to
Christ. Ah! some will say with a sneer, that reduces the thing to an absurdity.
You are talking about the literal chair in which David sat. No, we are not
talking about the literal chair, but we are talking about the power and
dominion of David. We don't mean the literal chair in which Queen Victoria sits
when we talk about the throne of England, but in using the term we, of course,
mean a real kingdom, the kingdom of Great Britain, that has territory, a
throne, subjects, laws and rulers; and we mean the very same when we speak of
the throne and kingdom of David which had all and will again have all these
elements. We mean the very same when we speak of giving it, the throne
that was overturned, to him whose right it is. The angel declares to Mary,
"He shall be great, and the Lord God shall give him the throne of his
father David. He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever and of his
kingdom there shall be no end" these words are too clear to be
spiritualized and made meaningless; for James adds, "After this I will
return and will build again." Mark the word, "again,"
something that was built before, that had been overturned and needed building
again. Surely the supposed spiritual throne of David in heaven was never
overthrown and needed to be built again. The testimony continues still more
clearly, " I will return and will build again the tabernacle of David, which
is fallen down: and I will build again the ruins thereof." What
folly it is to try to spiritualize this and make it mean anything but what it
declares. Inspiration has anticipated and forestalled all these vain attempts
at making the Word of God of none effect by tradition.
How often do we hear quoted the beautiful words of the
Prophet Isaiah, "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and
he that hath no money: come, buy and eat: yea, come, buy wine and milk without
money and without price" (Isa. 55: 1). These are words to a thirsty
perishing world. They are a call to fallen man, inviting him to partake of the
blessings of salvation. Salvation is what is offered here. And now the question
is, Does this stand related in any way to the covenant made with David? The
words are frequently quoted without any regard to that which is offered in them
and to which they invite lost men and women. What does God say He will do with
those who respond to this beneficent call, this invitation to salvation?
"Incline your ear," He says, "and come unto me. Hear and your
soul shall live: and I will make an everlasting covenant with you." (Isa.
55: 3) Surely here is the place to settle the nature of this covenant. If it is
that God invites us to a covenant providing for our flight to realms beyond the
stars, we ought to find it here. If on the contrary it is an invitation to the
covenant made with David, involving an inheritance in the earth, when David's
throne and kingdom will be restored and given to His royal Son Christ, King
David the second, then certainly we shall find in it the gospel which provides
for the world's redemption. What is the invitation to? What are we called to?
Mark the words carefully. Receive them as truth and reject everything that
conflicts with them. Here they are, "and I will make an everlasting
covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." Now, dear
reader, did you ever find any where in the Scriptures "sure mercies of
David" providing for an inheritance in heaven, or a kingdom in the sky?
David never was in heaven. How then could he have a kingdom there? David died
in faith, not having received the promise, but seeing its fulfillment "in
a great while to come" declares it to be his salvation. Has he gone to
heaven? Has he gone any where except to the dust to await a glorious
resurrection to the realization of these promises? "David, after he had
served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto
his fathers, and saw corruption" (Acts 13: 36). "David is not
ascended into the heavens, but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord,
Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool." Christ is
gone to heaven, but not David. And when we reach the end of the time indicated
by the word "until" "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" (Acts 3: 20-21).
If the invitation to come into covenant relationship with
God, is to every one that thirsteth, in which covenant are "the sure
mercies of David," then the covenant and the gospel must be one and the
same thing, because every invitation that is sent out to fallen man from God is
for him to come to a belief and obedience of the gospel whereby he may obtain
salvation. To invite men, then, to believe and obey the gospel is the same
thing as to invite him to the everlasting covenant, in which are the sure
mercies of David, and it is this covenant with David and with others that the
Apostle Paul alludes to in addressing the Church of Ephesus, saying
"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, * *
* at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commnonwealth of
Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without
God in the world" (Eph. 2:11, 12). To be a Gentile is to be an alien from
the commonwealth of Israel, and a stranger from the covenants of promise. To be
this is to be without hope and without God in the world. Was heaven ever spoken
of as the commonwealth of Israel? Is the promise of an everlasting abode beyond
the stars ever found in any of the covenants of promise? If not, why believe
it? Why accept another gospel, when the apostle says to do so will bring a
curse instead of a blessing? What can the words "commonwealth of
Israel" mean? Commonwealth means a wealth to be enjoyed in common, and
since it is the commonwealth of Israel, this must be a wealth to be enjoyed by
Israel in common. Israel means he that hath prevailed and become a prince with
God. Who pre-eminently is entitled to this name, Israel? Who has prevailed
where all others of the Adamic race failed? Who by reason of overcoming has
become a prince with God. That this is Christ there can be no question. He is
therefore pre-eminently an Israelite, yes, the Israelite, in whom was found no
guile and in whom centers the commonwealth of Israel because in him is the
power to fulfill the covenants of promise, and give the promised wealth of
salvation and everlasting inheritance to the Israel of God (Gal. 6: 16). In
this, as we shall see further along, the commonwealth will be enjoyed by the
Israel of God, first according to the spirit, and secondly the nation of Israel
restored to the land of their fathersľ the former, which constitute the one
great body politic, of which Christ is the head, will be the rulers those who
will have overcome, prevailed and become princes with God, kings of whom Christ
is King; "King of kings, and Lord of lords," will be the rulers,
while the twelve tribes of Israel restored to the land promised to Abraham will
be the subjects to be "planted in a land of their own and never be moved;
neither shall the children of wickedness any more afflict them as before
time." Then the sure mercies of David will find their fulfillment. But
what I wish to impress here is that the apostle says that while we were
Gentiles, before we became part of the Israel of God, we were aliens from this
commonwealth, strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and
without God in the world. Therefore it is essential, it is a vital question,
that we see to it that we come to believe in the commonwealth of Israel, in the
covenants of promise, not in promises that were never made, but, like Abraham,
in the very promises made, to believe which will be accounted to us for
righteousness as it was in Abraham's case. Salvation is predicated upon this,
and it is the same matter as is involved in the gospel of which our Saviour
says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark 16: 16). The apostle shows us here
that he that believeth in the commonwealth of Israel and the covenants of
promise and is there upon baptized into Christ shall be saved; while he that
believeth not in the commonwealth of Israel and in the covenants of promise can
no more be saved than he who believeth not the gospel. Hence he adds, "But
now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were afar off are made nigh by the
blood of Christ" (Eph 2:13). When ye were afar off ye were aliens and
strangers, hopeless and helpless, but now having believed the gospel, which
involves the commonwealth of Israel and covenants of promise, and having been
baptized into Christ, you are therefore not afar off, but made nigh by the
blood of Christ. "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners,
but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being
the chief corner-stone; in whom all the building, fitly framed together,
groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together
for an habitation of God through the Spirit" (verses 19-22). Of the
covenant with David then we may say the same as we did of the covenant with
Abraham. All the blessings through Christ are promised to David's seed, and to
Abraham's seed, and therefore we must become adopted into the family of Abraham
to become part of the "seed" to whom the promise is made. Christ is
the mediator. "He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken
down the middle wall of partition between" the Jews and the Gentiles.
Belief in the covenants of promise, or the gospel, and baptism into Christ
inducts us into the only saving "name* * * given among men whereby we must
be saved." Hence the apostle says, "As many of you as have been
baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal. 3: 27). And now in this
relationship or condition expressed by the phrase "in Christ,"
"there is no difference" between Jew and Greek, that is to say, it
makes no difference whether you are of Jewish descent according to the flesh,
or Gentiles by nature. There is therefore no salvation out of Christ. There is
no way into Christ but by believing the covenants of promise and being
baptized, and when these are complied with we are Christ's. "And if ye be
Christ's" says the apostle, "then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs
according to the promise." That is, heirs of this Israelitish
commonwealth, these covenants of promise made to Abraham and to David. We thus
see that Christ is the pith and pivot of it all, the heart, the life of the
whole matter. All these things were arranged on account of Him and for Him, and
therefore He "is the root and the offspring of David." He was the
Word of God in the beginning and that word, or logos, was the Father's
purpose centered in Christ. That was the root of this great plan of salvation
involved in the covenants of promise. When "the Word was made flesh,"
the logos, as it were, assumed personal form and Christ was personally
the exemplification of God's great purpose to bring about the world's
redemption. Hence He says, "I am the way, the truth and the life." He
is called the Word of God. A word is a sign or symbol of thought. Christ was a
sign or symbol, a manifestation of God's purpose in the earth. He was the
kingdom of Israel in its germ form when here upon the earth. According to the
flesh he was the offspring of David; viewing the word David as a representation
of God's plan, He is the outcome, the offspring of that plan. Everything
pertaining to the covenants of promise and the world's redemption centers in
Him. He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. He holds "the
key of David," in that He holds the key that shall unlock the bars of the
grave, which for the time being holds David in corruption. "I am He that
liveth and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore, amen; and have the
keys of hades and of death" (Rev. 1: 18). He has the "key of David;
He openeth and no man shutteth; and shutteth and no man openeth" (Rev.
3:7). Not only will he use the keys to unlock the grave for David and all the
ancient worthies who "died in the faith, not having received the
promise," but the key of David will open the royal house of David, the
kingdom of Israel, and again bring to the earth a Divine administration of
affairs that will fulfill the Abrahamic covenant, blessing all families of the
earth. Of Him David says, "He that ruleth over men shall be a just one
that shall rule according to the righteous precepts of Jehovah"; and when
David looked down the dark ages that would intervene, he pierced the future
horizon of his hope, and exclaimed, "He shall be like the sun of an
unclouded dawn," or as our translation has it, "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," that is, at the time that he
spoke, "Yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all
things and sure," and with this hope he closed his eves to await the time
contemplated in the words, "I shall be satisfied, when I awake with thy
likeness." Then shall he with all those who are now in the sleep of death
awaiting the realization of the faith in which they died, behold the uprising
of the "Sun of righteousness," which shall arise with healing in his
wings, and burst forth in all his splendor and beauty to "fill the earth
with the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea."
In all this we are not asked to take visionary flights to
worlds unknown, nor need we dream of the impossible task of reading our
"title clear to mansions in the sky;" for fitting immortal souls for
the sky is no part of the world's redemption. There is a grander and more noble
work for the redeemed in the age to come than playing upon golden streets and
revelling in idleness. There is a lost paradise to be regained, a thousand
wrongs to be righted, a crooked world to be straightened, a lost world to be
redeemed, the profaned name of Yahweh to be honored where it has been despised
and rejected, a mocked and crucified King to be enthroned and glorified, and
the sky is no place for these things to be done. They are needed where social
vice is corrupting and eating out the very life of society; where a false and
deceptive religious system is trafficking for worldly gain in the bodies and
souls of men and women who are ignorant of God's Word and are carried away
under high pressure of excitement and animal magnetism by the cunning tricks of
experts; they are needed where famishing millions are slaves to tyrannical
monopolies, and where the cruel heel of the oppressor is crushing into the
earth its helpless victims: they are needed here, and nothing will
effect these grand results but the King from heaven who will shortly appear in
His mighty power and majestic glory to associate with himself all His worthy
ones of the ages of the past in the great work of restitution of all things,
when there shall be "glory to God in the highest, on earth peace and good
will among men," and the world's redemption become a glorious fact.
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
The fall of our first parents incurred the penalty of death,
upon the principle that "the wages of sin is death." God in his
goodness extended mercy, yet there must be a vindication, as it were, of His
own justice before He could grant the world's redemption. Sin had caused all
the trouble. God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. His
justice requires the death of the sinner, while His mercy provides means of
remission of sin and purification of the sinner in a way to spare the sinner
and yet not defeat justice. Only Divine wisdom can blend together mercy and
justice. If the penalty on our first parents had been inflicted without any
merciful provision, all would have forever been lost, but redemption from under
the penalty of the law by sacrifice was arranged for, and in it we have Christ
"as a lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13: 8), and
it was shown in the beginning that through Him redemption would take place of
what had been lost by Adam the first. God therefore, predicated His covenant
with man upon the sacrifice for sin, by which alone man's restoration to favor
could be effected. In the very nature of the case, then, a covenant provided by
God for fallen man demands a sacrifice which will admit of reconciliation and
atonement between God who is pure and man who is sinful, and this must take
place before the covenants of promise could be realized. Hence the Apostle Paul
shows that all that pertained to the covenant depended on Christ as the
covenant sacrifice. In the Authorized Version we have a very unhappy
translation of Heb. 9: 16-18; but the Diaglott and other translations remove
the difficulty. The Emphatic Diaglott renders the passage as follows: "For
where a covenant exists, the death of that which has ratified it is necessary
to be produced; because a covenant is firm over dead victims, since it is never
valid when that which ratifies it is alive. Hence not even the first has been
instituted without blood" (Heb. 9: 16-18). Here we see that a covenant is
of no force while the covenant sacrifice, that which ratifies it, is alive,
which means that the covenants of promise were of no force without the death of
Christ, the real covenant sacrifice.
The Hebrew word for covenant (berith) means to purify
or cleanse. It implies a purification or a purifier, because in all God's
covenants with man, sin and sinfulness exist on man's side. Since covenants are
intended to bring man into reconciliation with God and fit him for the
everlasting inheritance promised, and since this cannot be done without
purification through sacrifice, berith is used not only for the covenant
itself, but for the sacrifice which confirms the covenant. When Moses said,
"Behold, the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you"
(Ex. 24: 8), he meant the blood of the victim slain as a covenant sacrifice.
The prophet Isaiah says, "Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time have
I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve
thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the
earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages" (chap. 49: 8). This is
a prophecy of Christ, and to give Him for a covenant was to give Him as a
sacrifice, or a covenant sacrifice. By the words, "By the blood of the
covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no
water" (Zech. 9: 11) is meant the blood of the victim whose death must
take place to bring the covenant into force.
It will be remembered that when Abraham was commanded to
offer sacrifices he was to divide some of the victims in the midst. This manner
of making a covenant is referred to by the prophet Jeremiah thus, "And I
will give the men that have transgressed my covenant, which have not performed
the words of the covenant, which they had made before me, when they cut the
calf in twain and passed between the parts thereof" (Jer. 34:18). The
ancient custom among the Persians, and other nations, no doubt, had their
origin in God's manner of allowing man to enter into covenant relation with
him. The custom was, as indicated by Jeremiah, to divide the victim and the
covenanting parties "passed between the parts." In this way, in
covenants between God and men, man, who is a sinner and under justice without
mercy, deserves death, may be said to have passed into the death of the victim,
or to have died sacrificially or representatively, admitting of atonement.
Now Christ being "a minister of the circumcision * * *
to confirm the promises made unto the fathers" (Rom. 15: 8), must provide
a victim or covenant sacrifice; to have offered an animal would have been no
better than had been offered in shadow or type arrangements of the past. The
time had come when the substance the real offering must be made. Who would be
the victim? "Wherefore, when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice
and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: in
burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I,
Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O
God. Above when be said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and
offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein, which are
offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh
away the first that he may establish the second, by which will we are
sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all"
(Heb. 10:5-10).
By typical sacrifices covenant relationship between God and
man was made possible as soon as man fell and redemption became a necessity.
Had no provision been made till the real covenant sacrifice Christ was offered
upon the cross, all who died from Adam to Christ would have hopelessly gone down
into death and the grave under the sentence, "Dust thou art and unto dust
thou shalt return." God's plan had made all provision for what seems to us
to be an emergency in the fall of man. Christ had been provided in that plan as
a sacrifice. It was not that God made provision after the emergency arose, as
if He must wait developments and meet them as they came; for He says,
"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else;
I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and
from ancient times the things that are not yet done saying, My counsel shall
stand, and I will do all my pleasure" (Isa. 46: 9, 10).
Not only was Christ's sacrificial offering prearranged for
before sin actually made it a necessity, but there was a "due time"
when it should take place. "When we were without strength, in due time
Christ died for the ungodly" (Rom. 5:6). It was when "the fullness
of the time was come, that God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made
under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive
the adoption" (Gal. 4: 4, 5). About four thousand years were to elapse
from Adam's fall to this "due time," and therefore a provisional
arrangement must serve during that period.
Human customs must always fall short of fully illustrating
God's wonderful and wise works, as the finite cannot reach the heights of the
infinite; but they may help to a deeper understanding of things divine. There
is a breach between two men on account of one having incurred a debt to the
other and is not able to pay it. They are estranged from each other and
something must be done to bring about reconciliation. The debtor is promised by
a friend that in one year from a given date he will discharge the debt for him;
and on the strength of this the debtor offers the creditor his note, which is a
legal covenant, promising to pay the debt when the "due time"
arrives. His offer is accepted and the estrangement is removed and they are at
one with each other under this provisional arrangement. When the "due
time" comes the note is honored and the debt thereby discharged, and the
atonement continues between the two.
Now this in measure illustrates the provisional sacrificial arrangement
which God provided for fallen man between the time of his becoming a sinner and
the "due time" when "Christ would die for the ungodly." Man
was estranged from God, having no right to approach Him, being under His just
condemnation. On the strength of a promise that Christ would meet all the
requirements of divine justice, man is permitted by sacrificial offerings to
draw in advance, as it were, and the efficacy of the blood of the atonement the
covenant sacrifice reaches back through the typical offerings and effects
reconciliation and atonement between God and men. Hence those who "died in
faith" died in a state of reconciliation, their realization of the
promised blessings, however, depending upon the fulfillment of the promise at the
"due time" that Christ would meet all the requirements of the case.
Had it been possible for Him to fail and, like the first Adam, prove
unfaithful, all provisional arrangements would have gone for nothing, those who
"died in faith" would have remained dead. "If Christ be not
raised your faith is vain * * * then they also which are fallen asleep in
Christ are perished" (I Cor. 15:17, 18).
Looking back over the ages of the past and realizing what
depended upon Him what a great responsibility He must have felt resting upon
Him, as he grew to manhood and faced the mighty mission entrusted in His hands.
Even at the youthful age of twelve he exclaims, "Wist ye not that I must
be about my Father's business"; but when the last and terrible ordeal confronted
Him He seemed almost about to fall and fail, crying out, "Father, if it be
possible, let this cup pass from me." Why could it not pass? Because
thousands of ancient worthies had by faith reached down to Him and put all
their trust in His faithfulness unto the death of the cross. They had gone into
the cold embrace of death and the dark chambers of the grave with the only hope
that He would go there with a power, the power of perfect obedience, to break
the jaws of death and the barriers of the grave and thus become Captain of
salvation to set the captives free. Realizing that all this depended upon His
faithfulness and courage in this dreadful hour, He braved the pain of an
ignominious death and exclaimed, "Not my will, but thine be done,"
and
"He drank the dreadful cup of pain,
Then rose to life and joy again,"
and sent ringing back through the centuries of the past and
down through the ages to follow the triumphant words, "I am the
resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet
shall he live." The covenants of promise are now confirmed and their
realization in due time made certain.
Since the fall of our first parents all mankind has been in
what the Scriptures term a state of alienation from God afar off; and the apostle,
in speaking of those who have been inducted into Christ, says, "If any man
be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all
things are become new" (II Cor. 5: 17). This implies that before they
became "new creatures" in Christ they may be said to have been by
nature old creatures in the old man Adam, hopeless and helpless. Hence the
Saviour tells Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again." This new birth
takes man out of the old creature state and puts him in a new creature state, brings
him from "afar off" and makes him "nigh." In order that
this might be accomplished, God provides a means and in this we have
sacrifices, but as we have seen, all center in the one offering, Christ.
"When they," as Jeremiah says, "cut the calf in twain and passed
between the parts" the death of the victim represented the penalty of sin,
a penalty which hangs over the whole human race, for "by one man sin
entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men for
that all have sinned" (Rom. 5: 12). When they passed between the parts,
they were considered as having passed into the death, as it were, of the
victim. Having died to sin, and put off the alienation, they were now in a
state of reconciliation, a reconciliation admitted by a covenant relationship
between them and God. They had passed into the covenant sacrifice which had
made for them an atonement, and so at-one-ment took place. Now all this finds
its fulfillment in Christ. Christ's death has met Divine justice and blended it
with Divine mercy, so that in Christ God can be just and yet justify sinners.
By nature, however, we are not in Christ. A natural birth gives us nothing but
alienation. "Marvel not," says the Saviour, "that I say ye must
be born again." Speaking of which the apostle says, using another figure
of speech, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus
Christ, were baptized into his death" (Rom. 6: 3). As much as to say,
Christ the victim or covenant sacrifice has been slain, and as in ancient covenants
they passed between the parts, and, as it were, into the death of the victim,
so in baptism we are baptized into, or pass into the death of the slain victim,
Christ, the covenant sacrifice, and are therefore new creatures in Christ Jesus
in the bond of the covenant, and are now the children of the covenant, brought
into such relationship to the covenants of promise as to be constituted
"heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ." The confirmation of
the covenants, which took place by the death of Christ, and made their
fulfillment a certainty, is now applied to us. We have made a covenant with
God, and that covenant is confirmed by the death of Christ; into whose death we
are baptized. We have entered therefore into "the only name given among men
whereby we must be saved," and we are now no more strangers and foreigners
to the covenants of promise, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the
household of God, waiting the time of the realization of these covenants, which
will take place when all the ancient worthies, with us, shall be made perfect
together to rejoice in the blessings which shall fill the earth as declared in
the promise, "in thee and in thy seed shall all families of the earth be
blessed."
If this scriptural view of covenant relation with God is
understood it will correct the mistake which many religious people make. It is
generally supposed that we are children of God by natural birth, and that
repentance and return to God through Christ are necessitated by our personal
sins committed when we become old enough to refuse the evil and choose the
good. But we must remember that we are all born in a lost state, according to
this Scriptures, having been sold, as it were, to sin and death by our first
parents who entailed upon the whole Adamic family the results of sin. They left
us with a lost paradise, victims to the dread monster death, hopeless and
helpless. Hence the Apostle Paul says, "Wherefore as by one man sin
entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for
that all have sinned," or as the margin gives it, "in whom all have
sinned" (Rom. 5: 12). Then the apostle continues in verse 18, omitting the
parenthetic clause of verses 14-17, "Therefore as by the offence of one
judgment came upon all men to condemnation." Here we have the cause and
effect of the world's evils, which are ultimately to be removed by the second
Adam. From this lost, condemned state into which we came by natural birth, we
must sever our relation by being "born again." It is by the new birth
that we become the children of God, not by natural birth. We are not born into
covenant relationship with God by natural birth, but when we are "born
again," then we enter into that covenant relation which makes us one with
God, the children of the covenant; because we are then in Him who is the
covenant sacrifice and are reconciled to God in Christ where alone
reconciliation can take place from that alienation imposed by Adam upon all the
race. Thus "God was in Christ (not in Adam) reconciling the world unto
himself;" and baptism, or birth of water, puts us in Christ and thereby in
at-one-ment, "heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ." We are now
on probation, and upon our walk in this favored, exalted and responsible relation
to God and to Christ depends our eternal destiny. Realize this, dear reader,
enter the bond of the everlasting covenant, honor it to the end of your
probationary career and the coronal wreath will adorn your brow throughout the
untold ages of indescribable glory and happiness. God grant that our Judge may
say to us, "Well done, good and faithful servants, enter ye into the joy
of your Lord."
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
Abraham is the father of the Hebrew nation. As we have seen
in the covenants of promise, God promised Abraham that He would make of him a
great nation. Upon the principle laid down by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 15.
--First the natural, afterward the spiritual--the great nation which was to
come from Abraham was to be his descendants according to the flesh, the
natural, out of whom and through whom, as the medium of Divine revelation,
would be evolved the spiritual, the holy nation and royal priesthood. The
nation of Israel was favored of God above all nations of the earth in the past,
to say nothing of what awaits it in the ages to come. The esteem in which
Israel was held by God is shown by the following testimonies:
Deut. 7: 6--For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy
God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself,
above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
Deut. 14:2--For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy
God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above
all the nations that are upon the earth.
Deut. 26:17, 18--Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be
thy God, and walk in his ways and to keep his statutes, and his commandments,
and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice: and 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.
Deut. 32:9--For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is
the lot of his inheritance.
Psa. 105:6--O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of
Jacob his chosen.
Psa. 135:4--For the Lord hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and
Israel for his peculiar treasure.
Psa. 41:8--But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I
have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.
The reason given for Israel being a favored nation with God
will be found in the following testimonies:
Deut. 7: 7, 8--The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor
choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the
fewest of all people; but because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep
the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out
with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand
of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
Deut. 10: 15--Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to
love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it
is this day.
Deut. 26: 19--And to make thee high above all nations which
he hath made in praise, and in name, and in honor; and that thou mayest be an
holy people unto the Lord thy God, as he hath spoken.
After Israel's deliverance from the bondage of Egypt, they
were by God's direction and under His laws organized and became the most
remarkable nation that has ever existed upon the face of the earth. It is
generally admitted that their laws were the most perfect, and that so long as
they were obedient they were the healthiest and happiest nation that could
possibly exist in the evil days of mortality. They were taken into the land of
Canaan, which is called "the land of milk and honey," where they were
blessed in their basket and in their store. So highly favored were they that
they became the repository of Divine revelation, and to them we are indebted in
the hands of God for the entire Bible. "What advantage then hath the
Jew?" asks the Apostle Paul. "Much every way," he answers,
"because unto them were committed the oracles of God" (Rom. 3: 2).
And the Saviour speaking of them says, "Salvation is of the Jews"
(Jno. 4: 22). The wonderful miracles which were performed in Israel made them a
dread and fear among all other nations, and on that account Israel's God was
recognized as a great God even by the nations, who were worshippers of idols.
But their history is a checkered one. They did not continue
long blessed in their basket and in their store with things temporal and
spiritual, for they departed from the laws and the statutes, obedience to which
had vouchsafed them health, longevity, and happiness in this life, and the use
of the present life as a stepping-stone to that which is to come. Stiffnecked
and stubborn, they continually rebelled against God and His laws and terrible
were the results from time to time as we come along down through their troubled
history. In the days of Jeroboam and Rehoboam the ten tribes revolted against
the lawful king and were carried away under rebellious Jeroboam, who it is said
"made Israel to sin." Subsequently they were taken captive by
Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, and after awhile were lost sight of, and they
remain to this day "the lost ten tribes of Israel." The other two
tribes who remained under Rehoboam also became rebellious and disobedient and
were taken captive to Babylon, where for seventy years they were subjected to
the tyranny of that proud and despotic empire. Restored from that captivity,
they endured under great hardships a temporary occupation of their land, the
land of their fathers; but a future and wider scattering had been foretold.
Moses had declared it in language which leaves no doubt as to its application
to a scattering subsequent to the Babylonish captivity. He says:
Deut. 28: 25--The Lord shall cause thee to be smitten before
thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways
before them; and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.
Verses 36, 37--The Lord shall bring thee, and thy king which
thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have
known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone. And thou shalt
become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the
Lord shall lead thee.
Verses 49-53--The Lord shall bring a nation against thee
from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth--a nation
whose tongue thou shalt not understand; a nation of fierce countenance, which
shall not regard the person of the old, nor show favour to the young: and he
shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land, until thou be
destroyed, which also shall not leave thee either corn, or wine, or oil, or the
increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have destroyed thee. And
he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come
down, wherein thou trustedest, throughout all thy land; and he shall besiege
thee in all thy gates, throughout all thy land, which the Lord thy God hath
given thee. And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy
sons and of thy daughters which the Lord thy God hath given thee, in the siege,
and in the straitness, wherewith thy enemies shall distress thee.
Verses 62-65--And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye
were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou wouldest not obey the
voice of the Lord thy God. And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced
over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you
to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off
the land whither thou goest to possess it. And the Lord shall scatter thee
among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto thee other; and there
thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known,
even wood and stone. And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither
shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the Lord shall give thee there a
trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind.
That this scattering did not refer to their captivity in
Babylon is clear from verses 49 and 50, "as swift as the eagle
flieth" the nation should come, and "of fierce countenance"
should be the nation that should "besiege them in their gates" and
cause them to devour their own offspring. This is evidently the Roman nation,
and it is generally understood that this terrible prophecy found its dreadful
fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem seventy years after the birth of
Christ and in what has since then been their history. That the prophecy
referred to the fate of Israel subsequent to the Saviour's time will be seen by
the following:
Luke 19: 41-44--And when he was come near, he beheld the
city, and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in
this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace, but now they are hid from
thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a
trench about thee, and keep thee on every side, and shall lay thee even with
the ground, and thy children within thee: and they shall not leave in thee one
stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
Luke 21: 19, 20--In your patience possess ye your souls. And
when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the
desolation thereof is nigh.
Verse 24--And they 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 shall be fulfilled.
Now in this we have a key that will serve us well in
unlocking the real meaning of the Scriptures in their application to Israel in
the future as well as in the past. The prophecies quoted are not to be taken in
a spiritual sense, that is, spiritual in the sense which is claimed for certain
prophecies of the Scriptures by popular teachings. Israel's sad experience in
fulfillment of these prophecies has been really and bitterly literal. They were
literally in the land of promise. They were literally taken into captivity in
Babylon, and were literally delivered. They were literally scattered by the
Romans, driven into captivity among all nations of the earth. The prophecies
apply to a real nation, having a real existence, and their existence in the
scattered state foretold is a reality to-day. There is no need for seeking a
"spiritual" meaning. There is no room for any misunderstanding.
Now if we find that there are testimonies which speak of the
future restoration of the twelve tribes, should we not also look for these
testimonies to have a fulfillment, just as literal as those have had which
speak of their history and present scattered and trodden down condition?
Fifteen hundred years before Jerusalem was taken by the Romans, Moses had
declared minutely how it would be done and what would be the result, that
Israel would be scattered among all people, from one end of the earth even to
the other (Deut. 28: 4). Notwithstanding this Moses also declared their future
acceptance by God. "Rejoice," he says, "O ye nations with his
people; for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance
to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people"
(Deut. 32: 43). And he also declares, "The Lord thy God will raise up unto
thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him
ye shall hearken" (Deut. 18: 15). "I will raise them up a prophet
from among their brethren, like unto thee," says God to Moses, "and
will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall
command him. And it shall come to pass that whosoever will not hearken unto my
words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him" (Verses
18, 19).
The prophet here is Christ. He was "raised up" to
Israel, and appeared among them declaring himself to be king of the Jews, but
they rejected Him. "He came to his own and his own received him not."
It was in crucifying their Messiah that Israel "filled up the measure of their
fathers" and finished the national iniquity which was to be the cause of
the captivity and scattering foretold by Moses. While these truths are
generally admitted, we deem it necessary to emphasize them here by way of
fixing the time of this final captivity in relation to the subsequent and final
gathering. A gathering that would restore Israel from this scattering at the
hands of the Romans must necessarily be yet future. Does Moses, who so clearly
foretold the scattering, also foretell a gathering which reached beyond the
scattering? If so, the future restoration is established beyond a doubt, and
not only so, but since the prophecy has been proven true--literally true-- by
history in relation to the scattering, if he foretells a subsequent gathering it
must have a literal fulfillment. After foretelling the scattering of Israel,
Moses declares,
Deut. 30: 1-6--And it shall come to pass, when all these
things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before
thee, and thou shalt call them to mind, among all nations whither the Lord thy
God hath driven thee, and shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and shalt obey
his voice, according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy
children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; that then the Lord thy
God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and
gather thee from all the nations, whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee.
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: and the
Lord thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and
thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy
fathers. And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy
seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul,
that thou mayest live.
Verse 8, 9--And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the
Lord, and do all his commandments, which I command thee this day. And the Lord
thy God will make thee plenteous in every work of thine hand, in the fruit of
thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for
good: for the Lord again will rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over
thy fathers.
Some try to evade this by saying that the restoration is
hypothetical--"If thou wilt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy
God" (verse 10). But Moses also says, "The Lord thy God will
circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God
with all thine heart" (verse 6). It is therefore a certainty; and so he
declares, and thou shalt return and obey the voice of the Lord"
(verse 8).
Here then is a restoration which must find its fulfillment
after the final scattering at the hands of the Romans, and that this will be a
real and literal gathering will be shown fully presently. Meanwhile we submit
the following testimonies:
II Sam. 7: 10, 24--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 beforetime. For thou hast confirmed to thyself thy people Israel
to be a people unto thee for ever: and thou, Lord, art become their God.
I Chron. 17: 9, 10--Also I will obtain a place for my people
Israel, and will plant them, and they shall dwell in their place and shall be
moved no more; neither shall the children of wickedness waste them any more, as
at the beginning, and since the time that I commanded judges to be over my
people Israel. Moreover I will subdue all thine enemies. Furthermore I will
tell thee that the Lord will build thee an house.
Isa. 30:20, 21--And though the Lord give you the bread of
adversity, and the water of affliction, yet shall not thy teachers be removed
into a corner any more, but thine eyes shall see thy teachers: and thine ears
shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye
turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.
Chap. 60:15--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.
Verse 21--Thy people shall be all righteous: they shall
inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands,
that I may be glorified.
Chap. 66: 22--For as the new heavens, and the new earth,
which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed
and your name remain.
Ezek. 20:33-44--As I live, saith the Lord God, surely with a
mighty hand, and with a stretched-out arm, and with fury poured out, will I
rule over you: and I will bring you out from the people, and will gather you
out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with a
stretched-out arm, and with fury poured out. And I will bring 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 I 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: and ye shall know that I am the Lord. As for you, O house of
Israel, thus saith the Lord God; Go ye, serve ye every one his idols, and
hereafter also, if ye will not hearken unto me: but pollute ye my holy name no
more with your gifts, and with your idols. For in mine holy mountain, in the
mountain of the height of Israel, saith the Lord God, there shall all the house
of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me: there will I accept them, and
there will I require your offerings, and the firstfruits of your oblations,
with all your holy things. I will accept you with your sweet savour, when I
bring you out from the people, and gather you out of the countries wherein ye
have been scattered; and I will be sanctified in you before the heathen. And ye
shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall bring you into the land of Israel,
into the country for the which I lifted up mine hand to give it to your
fathers. And there shall ye remember your ways, and all your doings, wherein ye
have been defiled; and ye shall loathe yourselves in your own sight for all
your evils that ye have committed. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I
have wrought with you for my name's sake, not according to your wicked ways,
nor according to your corrupt doings, O ye house of Israel, saith the Lord God.
There is no nation in the history of mankind that has had such
a bearing on the world at large as the Jewish nation. There is no nation that
can trace its history and pedigree back to the remotest antiquity as the Jewish
nation can. In this and in many other ways it has been a wonderful people, so
much so that their history and present status in the world are unaccountable
when compared with other nations. During the long history of this people they
have enjoyed peace and prosperity comparatively for only a very short time.
About three-fourths of their history has been one of trouble, exile and
persecution. The great Gentile nations, Babylon, Greece and Rome in the zenith
of their power and glory were famous so long as they maintained their power and
prestige in the world, but as soon as the tide turned, down they went. Their
downfall to them meant their obliteration, as nations, from the earth. Where is
Assyria? Where is proud Babylon? Where is the much boasted greatness of classic
Greece? What has become of the mighty empire of Rome? What has defeat done for
these nations? They are gone. Their identity has been lost and their subjects
and citizens have been absorbed among the multitudes of the past and present
divided world. Not so, however, with Israel. It might be said that Israel's
fame and greatness are not so much in their past prosperity and power as it is
in their persecution, exile and trouble in all parts of the world. Where other
nations have sunk out of sight, by the hardships of human history, Israel has
thriven upon persecution and trouble of all kinds imposed upon them in the
worst ways imaginable. Every nation has raised its hand to smite Israel, and
endeavored to crush it into the earth; but in spite of all this the people are
here to-day. They are in every land and in every clime. They are in every city,
in every street, marked out distinctly from every other people, hated and
despised and yet they are the victors in every conflict in which they engage,
except in the conflict for national existence and power as a kingdom. By
analogy of human history this is impossible to account for. It is unique in the
history of human affairs. Upon the principle of the laws of nations it is
without comparison. And here we might say that there is nothing in the world
that is a more powerful proof of the divinity of the Bible than Israel's
history and present existence. The Bible is a book of miracles. Israel is a
nation of miracles. Its history is a standing miracle before an astonished
world. Its survival of all the persecutions and oppressions which have been
heaped upon it is a greater miracle still. No great statesman or philosopher
will ever attempt to account for Israel's history and present existence by
ordinary natural laws anymore than it is possible to account for the Bible by
such laws. Divinity is written upon every page of Israel's Book; and it is also
written upon every page of Israel's history, whether we consider it in the
Bible or out of the Bible. Indeed they cannot be separated. What has been the
history of the Bible has been the history of the nation, and we might add that,
to some extent, it has been the history of Israel's King, the man of the Bible,
the essence of the Bible, the subject of it from Alpha to Omega, the beginning
and end--Christ. The nation has suffered at the hands of every nation, and
every attempt possible has been put forth to destroy it, yet it has been
providentially preserved. The Bible, the nation's book, has suffered in the
same way, and yet here it is to-day, a burning and shining light in a dark and
benighted world. The nation's king, the book's subject and the nation's future
Deliverer suffered at the hands of Israel, and the only great nation that
existed at the time He was here, and in this sense all the world, as it were,
was in array against Him, and endeavored to destroy Him and rid the world of
His presence. When from a natural standpoint, it seemed that they had succeeded
was when Divine success was most certain. While these things have been
characteristic of the history of the nation, the Book and the Man, the wide world
against the three, the miraculous character of their history assures us of the
certainty of miraculous events in relation to their future. Israel is yet to
arise and prosper as a nation, and their book is yet to be vindicated to the
ends of the earth, to an extent that not even its professed friends have ever
dreamed of. The man who suffered at the hands of the Gentile and Jewish powers
has for a time disappeared from the earth behind a frowning Providence, but He
is yet to succeed to an extent that the world little dreams of at present. The
purpose of God, therefore, in relation to the world's redemption is centered in
Israel, in Israel's book and in Israel's king. Just as sure as Israel exists,
so sure is there a wonderful future for the nation; just as sure as the book
has survived the hostility of a dark and cruel history, so sure will it be
vindicated before the eyes of a subdued and astonished world; just as sure as
the nation's king has suffered at the hands of cruel and hateful rulers so sure
will He yet "fill the earth with the glory of the Lord as the waters cover
the sea." These things cannot be separated. They are the Divine fiat, and
no human opposition can defeat the purpose of Him, who holds the world in His
hands. Keep the God of the universe out of sight, and Israel's history cannot
be accounted for. Recognize Him not, and the Bible's existence and survival
become a greater mystery and a greater miracle than it is now. Ignore the Great
Creator's existence and interposition in human affairs, and He who was
crucified to save a lost world was, in His history, in His character, in His
death, to say nothing of His resurrection to life again, an unaccountable
mystery. Keep God in view, the God of heaven and earth, as the God of Israel,
the God of the Bible, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and then all is
clear as the noonday sun. Israel's birth as a nation, its preservation, and the
wonderful good effects of obedience to its laws, then can be accounted for. The
preservation of the nation throughout an experience that no other nation has
ever been able to endure and survive, can then be understood. The miraculous
works that Christ, the king of the nation, did are then clear and intelligible.
But what is the history of Christ compared with His future?
What is the history of the Bible compared with its future? What is the history
of the nation compared with what awaits it? The Gentile world persuaded itself
that Israel had for ever forfeited all rights to Divine favor and that it was
to be destroyed never to exist again as a nation. Through the dark ages that
have intervened between the crucifixion of Israel's King on Cavalry, the
destruction of their city, Jerusalem, and the present time the idea of Israel's
future existence has been laughed to scorn by professed believers in the Bible.
But even apart from prophecy, for the religious world pays little regard to
prophecy, as it bears literally upon the nation of Israel; I say apart from
such prophecy, force of circumstances has compelled many people to admit that a
great mistake has been made in relation to Israel; that there is something
unaccountable about this people from the fact that now as we near the end of
Gentile times they are becoming more and more remarkable and powerful in the
world, and raising problems that puzzle the wisest statesmen and the most
profound philosophers. Here is what Prof. Gratz says in relation to this
wonderful survival of the fittest: "Can a nation be born in a day? or can
a nation be born again? * * * Yet in one nation a new birth appears--a
resurrection out of a state of death and apparent corruption--and that in a
race which is long past the vigor of youth, whose history numbers thousands of
years. Such a miracle deserves the closest attention of every man who does not
overlook all wonderful phenomena. Mendelssohn had said at the beginning of this
period, 'My nation is kept at such a distance from all culture, that one might
well doubt the possibility of any improvement.' And yet she arose with such
marvelous quickness out of her abasement, as if she had heard a prophet calling
unto her, Arise! arise! Shake off the dust! Loose the bonds of thy chains, O
captive daughter of Zion!"
It is well known that the Jews hold the purse-strings of the
world to-day, and they can by their financial and executive powers sway the
mightiest empires upon the face of the earth; they can dictate terms to the
strongest monarchs that tyrannize over the masses. Prof. Christliebs bears
testimony thus, In Modern Doubt and Christian Belief: "We would
point (them) to the people of Israel as a perennial, living historical miracle.
The continued existence of this nation up to the present day, the preservation
of its national peculiarities throughout thousands of years, in spite of all
dispersion and oppression, remains so unparalleled a phenomenon, that without
the special providential preparation of God, and His constant interference and
protection, it would be impossible for us to explain it. For where else is
there a people over which such judgments have passed, and yet not ended in
destruction?"
This miracle must be admitted by the force of facts, for all
this is true in spite of every kind of opposition. The wealth of the Jews has
been proverbial in the phrase, "rich as a Jew," but the most
remarkable thing is the great power and influence they wield over nations by
means of their wealth. The money of the Rothschilds is used to help the great
nations of Europe, and thus to command power behind the press and the throne. The
British and Foreign Evangelical Review, October, 1881, says, "During
the ten years, 1853-64, the Rothschilds furnished in loans, $200,000,000 to
England, $50,000,000 to Austria, $10, 000,000 to Prussia, $130,000,000 to
France, $50,000,000 to Russia, $12,000,000 to Brazil, in all, $482,000,000,
besides many millions to smaller States."
How is it to be accounted for that a people without a king
or prince, all that pertains to their national and ecclesiastical life gone and
yet they maintain a marked identity throughout the world? Universally the
history of the nations has shown that when their kings have been dethroned and
their lands become the spoils of enemies they have disappeared from the face of
the earth. Why is it that the same fate has not befallen Israel?--left without
a king, without a prince, without a capital, even its ritualistic laws
abolished, scattered everywhere without a home, why did they not cease to
exist? the only answer is the Scriptural answer, "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 without an ephod, and without
teraphim" (Hosea 3: 4). Here is the reason why they should abide;
where other nations under such circumstances have not been able to abide.
How could it be otherwise when God has said,
Jer. 31: 36-37--If those ordinances depart from before me,
saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation
before me for ever. Thus saith the Lord, If heaven above can be measured, and
the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the
seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord.
Jer. 33: 17-26--For thus saith the Lord, David shall never
want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; neither shall the
priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to
kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. And the word of the
Lord came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith the Lord, If ye can break my
covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be
day and night in their season; then may also my covenant be broken with David
my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with
the Levites, the priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be
numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured; so will I multiply the seed of
David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me. Moreover the word of
the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, 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 I have not appointed the ordinance of heaven and earth; then will
I cast away the seed of Jacob, 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.
Now we may ask, What is this jealous preservation of Israel
for? Does it not suggest that God has a purpose in the future of this people, a
future greater and grander than the past? There must be some reason, and a
Divine reason. The prophet Isaiah in speaking of Israel says, "Go, ye
swift messengers, to a nation scattered and peeled, to a people terrible from
their beginning, hitherto; a nation meted out and trodden down, whose land the
rivers have spoiled. * * * In that time shall the present be brought unto the
Lord of hosts of a people scattered and peeled, and from a people terrible from
their beginning hitherto; a nation meted out and trodden under foot, whose land
the rivers have spoiled, to the place of the name of the Lord of hosts the
mount Zion" (Isa. 18: 2, 7). In Lesser's translation of these verses we
have "a nation scattered and peeled, to a people terrible from their
beginning and forward." There is therefore a future, and this
future is the reason, the only reason, for the past and the present.
Who can mistake, or who can deny the future of Israel as
foretold in the following testimonies:
Isa. 11:11,12--And it shall come to pass in that day, that
the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his
people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros,
and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the
islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall
assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah
from the four corners of the earth.
Isa. 43:5-7--Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy
seed from the east and gather thee from the west: I will say to the north, Give
up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters
from the ends of the earth; even every one that is called by my name: for I
have created him for my glory, I have formed him, yea, I have made him.
Jer. 3:18--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 I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.
Jer. 12:15--And it shalt come to pass, after that I have
plucked them out I will return, and have compassion on them, and will bring
them again, every man to his heritage, and every man to his land.
Jer. 16:14,15--Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the
Lord, that it shall no more be said, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children
of Israel out of the land of Egypt; but, The Lord liveth, that brought up the
children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither
he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave
unto their fathers.
Jer. 29: 14--And I will be found of you, saith the Lord, and
I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations,
and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the Lord; and I will
bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.
Jer.30: 3--For, lo, the days come, saith the Lord, that I
will bring again the captivity of my people, Israel and Judah, saith the Lord;
and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they
shall possess it.
Verse 10--Therefore fear thou not, O my servant Jacob, saith
the Lord; neither be dismayed, O Israel: for, lo, I will save thee from afar,
and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and
shall be in rest, and be quiet, and none shall make him afraid.
Jer. 32: 37--Behold, I will gather them out of all
countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in
great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them
to dwell safely.
Jer. 33: 7--And I will cause the captivity of Judah and the
captivity of Israel to return, and will build them, as at the first.
Jer. 46: 27, 28--But fear not thou, O my servant Jacob, and
be not dismayed, O Israel: for behold, I will save thee from afar off, and thy
seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and be in rest
and at ease, and none shall make him afraid. Fear thou not, O Jacob my servant,
saith the Lord: for I am with thee; for I will make a full end of all the
nations whither I have driven thee: but I will not make a full end of thee, but
correct thee in measure; yet will I not leave thee wholly unpunished.
Ezek. 11:15-19--Son of man, thy brethren, even thy brethren,
the men of thy kindred, and all the house of Israel wholly, are they unto whom
the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, Get you far from the Lord: unto us is
this land given in possession. Therefore say, saith the Lord God; Although I
have cast them far off among the heathen, and although I have scattered them
among the countries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary in the
countries where they shall come. Therefore say, saith the Lord God, I will even
gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries, where ye
have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel. And they shall
come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and
all the abominations thereof from thence. And I will give them one heart, and I
will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their
flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh.
Ezek. 37: 21--And say unto them, 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.
Zech. 8:7,8--Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Behold, I will
save my people from the east country, and from the west country; and I will
bring them, and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem, and they shall be
my people, and I will be their God, in truth and righteousness.
Zech. 10: 6--And I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I
will save the house of Joseph, and will bring them again to place them; for I
have mercy upon them: and they shall be as though I had not cast them off: for
I am the Lord their God, and will hear them.
Verse 10--I will bring them again also out of the land of
Egypt, and gather them out of Assyria; and I will bring them into the land of
Gilead and Lebanon; and place shall not be found for them.
Is it not astonishing that there should be an attempt made
by professed friends of the Bible to evade the force of such plain testimonies
as these? There are two ways by which it is sought to get rid of these testimonies.
One is to claim that they all found their fulfillment in the restoration from
Babylon; the second is that they are to be understood in a spiritual sense and
applied to the Church. The first one is an inexcusable presumption; the second
is really ludicrous and exhibits a folly that were it not for the solemnity of
the question, would provoke a smile. In the restoration from Babylonish
captivity only two tribes were concerned and the ten tribes have remained in
exile ever since they were taken by the king of Assyria. They became then and
still are the "lost ten tribes." Even supposing that we should grant
the foolish claim of Anglo-Israelites that the Anglo-Saxons are the lost ten
tribes, still the prophecies would remain unfulfilled, for the Anglo-Saxons
have never enjoyed the blessings of these prophecies. The restoration from
Babylon being temporary and confined to two tribes, and the ten tribes never
having been restored to the land of their fathers as these predictions declare
they will be, it follows, as a matter of course, that there must be a future
restoration of the twelve tribes. It will have been noticed that frequently in
these passages given, Judah and Israel are referred to; for instance,
Isa. 11: 12--"And shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather
together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the
earth"; Jer. 3: 18--"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," etc.; Jer. 30: 3--"For, lo, the days will come,
saith the Lord, that I will bring again the captivity of my people, Israel
and Judah, saith the Lord;" 33: 7--"And I will cause the
captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return;"
46: 27--"But fear not thou, O my servant Jacob, and be not
dismayed, O Israel: for behold, I will save thee from afar." Here
we have the whole house of Israel provided for. How in the face of these
declarations can any man dare say that such prophecies found fulfillment in the
restoration from Babylon? God has pledged Himself that this restoration shall
take place. It has not taken place in the past. What shall we do? Shall we hand
the Bible over to the infidel and admit that God has promised what He has not
and never will perform? This is what must be done if we submit to popular
theories. But what is the duty of every fearless honest-minded person in the
case? Is it not to vindicate God and His word above all things and let
"God be true, though all men be liars." There is no alternative. The
man who has the courage of his convictions will cry aloud and spare not against
apostate Christendom in vindication of the veracity of God and the truthfulness
of the Bible.
The famous prophecy of Ezek. 37 is so clear upon this
subject that it would seem impossible for any one to mistake it. There is a
vision of a valley of dry bones and the question is asked, "Can these
bones live?" Then there is a "shaking among the bones, bone coming to
his bone"; there is flesh upon the bones and then they are covered with
skin; and breath is breathed into them and they live and stand upon their feet
and know that God is the Lord. What is this a vision of? What does it
represent? The answer is given. "Then he said unto me, son of man, These
bones are the whole house of Israel" (verse 11). Not part of the house, as
in the case of the restoration from Babylon, which restoration, as we have
seen, was only a temporary affair; but it is the whole house of Israel,
the twelve tribes, the house of Jacob, the descendants of his twelve sons. The
prophet is then commanded to take two sticks in his hands, the two sticks
representing ancient books or parchments rolled on sticks. Then it is said,
"Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For
Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick,
and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of
Israel his companions: and join them one to another into one stick; and they
shall become one in thine hand" (verses 16, 17). Label one stick, Israel,
the ten tribes, and label the other, Judah, the two tribes, in recognition of
the fact that the house of Israel is divided, one faction of which is called
Israel, and the other Judah. Here is a fact of history that the world knows of,
and now when these two sticks become one in thine hand, let this be known to
the coming world, that these divided factions shall be united and become one.
If there were nothing more said, this would be sufficient to
show that divided Israel is yet to be united, that Israel and Judah are to
become one, but we are not left to conjecture. It was anticipated that it would
be asked, "Wilt thou not show us what thou meanest by these?" And the
answer is given, yes, it is given, preceded by a "Thus saith the Lord
God." Here it is, who can mistake it?--"Behold, I will take the stick
of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his
fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make
them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand. And the sticks whereon thou
writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes. And say unto them, 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 will
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" (verses 19-22). Surely this settles the matter, and no
comment can make it clearer.
Now a few words on the claim that all the prophecies in
relation to Israel's restoration in the Old Testament were written previous to
the Babylonish captivity, and for that reason had their fulfillment in that
deliverance. The wording of the prophesies prevents any such conclusion, and
were we to admit of their application to the restoration from Babylon, we would
still be met with the undeniable fact that Scripture words frequently have a
double application, the lesser being involved in the greater, and therefore the
fulfillment of the lesser does not disannul the fulfillment of the greater. As
we have seen in the covenants of promise, the possession of the land under
Moses did not disannul the Abrahamic promise, which reached down to a future
everlasting inheritance under Christ. While it was involved in the same
promise, it was only a parenthesis, as it were, thrown in for the time being,
explanatory and to emphasize the great book of the covenant which is yet to be
realized in its fullness. As history repeats itself, and prophecy is history in
advance, prophecy also must necessarily repeat itself. Many instances of this
kind will readily be recalled by those familiar with the Scriptures. But all
the prophecies were not written previous to the Babylonish captivity. According
to good authority, the prophecy of Zechariah was written afterwards, and this
prophecy declares a restoration future from his time in words that far
over-reach anything history records, He says:
Zech. 1: 16, 17--Therefore thus saith the Lord; I am
returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith the
Lord of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem. Cry yet
saying, Thus saith the Lord of hosts; My cities through prosperity shall yet be
spread abroad; and the Lord shall yet comfort Zion, and shall yet choose
Jerusalem.
Zech. 2:10-13--Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for,
lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord. And many
nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and shall be my people: and I
will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the Lord of hosts
hath sent me unto thee. And the Lord shall inherit Judah his portion in the
holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again. Be silent, O all flesh, before the
Lord: for he is raised up out of his holy habitation.
Zech. 8: 2-4--Thus saith the Lord of hosts; I was jealous
for Zion with great jealousy, and I was jealous for her with great fury. Thus
saith the Lord; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of
Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called, A city of truth; and the mountain of
the Lord of hosts, The holy mountain. Thus saith the Lord of hosts; There shall
yet old men and women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his
staff in his hand for very age.
Verses 7, 8--Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Behold, I will
save my people from the east country, and from the west country; and I will
bring them and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; and they shall be my
people, and I will be their God, in truth and in righteousness.
Verses 13-15--And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a
curse among the heathen, O house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save
you, and ye shall be a blessing: fear not, but let your hands be strong. For
thus saith the Lord of hosts; as I thought to punish you, when your fathers
provoked me to wrath, saith the Lord of hosts, and I repented not; so again
have I thought in these days to do well unto Jerusalem, and to the house of
Judah: fear ye not.
Verse 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.
Zech. 9: 10, 11--And I will cut off the chariot from
Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and 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. As for thee also, by
the blood, of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit
wherein is no water. Read also chapters 12: 10-14; 13: 7-8.
Since in the restoration from the Babylonish captivity, only
a small part of the house of Israel was concerned, that event is very seldom
considered in speaking of Israel's deliverance. The future restoration,
involving the twelve tribes is compared with their deliverance from Egypt which
also included the twelve. These two deliverances being spoken of, the one
compared with the other, it follows that since only one of them has taken
place, the other remains to be fulfilled. One is spoken of as the "second
time," the first of course, being implied. The first we know to be a fact,
the second we know has not become a fact. And yet the prophet Isaiah says,
"And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again
the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left,
from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam,
and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall
set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel,
and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the
earth. The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah
shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex
Ephraim" (Isa. 11: 11-13).
Some so-called scholars will compass land and sea to try to
prove that all the prophecies were written before the Babylonish captivity in
order to make out their case. We might for the sake of argument even grant that
they were, and ignore the fact that they provide for the restoration of the
whole house of Israel. Indeed we might close the Old Testament and take the New
and there would be sufficient evidence to show that there is a future
restoration for the twelve tribes of Israel. Take for instance angelic
testimony in promising to Mary the birth of Christ, "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 1: 32,
33). What is the house of Jacob composed of? Is it not of the twelve tribes of
Israel? How can Christ reign over the house of Jacob, the twelve tribes of
Israel, unless He gather them and restore them to the land of their fathers?
This was the very thing that Zacharias, filled with the Holy Spirit,
prophesied, saying, "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; that we would 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, that he would grant unto us, that we, being
delivered out of the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in
holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life" (verses
67-75). To raise up an "horn of salvation" means the raising up of a
King to bring national salvation. When Peter asked the question, Behold, we
have forsaken all and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? The answer
is, "Verily 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. 19: 27-28). How can they judge (rule) the twelve tribes of Israel unless
the twelve tribes of Israel are restored? The past fulfillment theories impeach
Moses as a prophet. It is necessary to say to them as the Saviour said to the
Scribes and Pharisees, "If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed
me." They persist in making the word of God spoken through Moses of none
effect by their tradition. What did he as a prophet say? "The Lord thy God
will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like
unto me; unto him ye shall hearken" (Deut. 18: 15). The prophet to
be raised up is Christ. When John appeared, they asked him, "Art thou that
Prophet?" And John's answer was, that he was not that prophet, but he was
the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord.
"That prophet" that Moses said would be raised up to Israel was
raised up. Moses prophesied the truth, and He was like him in that He was
refused by Israel; they asked Him as they did Moses of old, "Who made thee
a ruler over us?" "He came to his own and his own received him
not." Before Moses delivered Israel he had to forsake them for a time, and
leave them till the bondage and tyranny of Egypt became so heavy that they would
cry out for deliverance, and be willing to go under the direction of their
leader and deliverer into the promised land.
"The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet * *
* like unto me," He came to Israel, and they would not have Him.
"Away with him! crucify him!" they cried out, and the Father snatched
Him from them and said to Him, "Sit thou at my right hand until I make thy
foes thy footstool." So far, Moses has truly spoken, his words have come
to pass; but he does not stop here. He put himself upon record about
thirty-three hundred years ago, that not only would this prophet be raised up
to Israel but that they should hear him in all things. It was not that
God would only raise up a prophet to a spiritual Israel, but to the very Israel
whom Moses addressed. He was to be raised up from among them, "unto
them," and that nation unto whom He was to be raised up, were to hear
Him in all things. Ah! says the infidel, there you are again with your
contradictory Bible. One of the most famous of your prophets said that the
prophet that would be raised up to Israel would be heard of them in all things.
According to your Scriptures they refused to hear Him, and they crucified Him;
and according to popular theology that nation is never to hear Him in all
things, and you are face to face with an unfulfilled prophecy, and the God of
the Bible stands impeached. Scoffingly he cries out, Away with your
contradictory, fabulous, foolish Bible. What shall we say to the scoffing
skeptic and profane infidel? What shall we say? If we hold to popular
theology, it will forbid us saying that Christ will come again and restore
Israel, and that then they will hear Him. Popular teachers will frown upon us
and tell us that this is not strictly according to "orthodoxy." They
are more tenacious of so-called orthodoxy than they are concerned about the
harmony of the Bible and the veracity of God. Under the influence of such
teachers we cannot answer the infidel. He will tie us hand and foot; he will
look us straight and sternly in the face and say, You cannot deny that Moses
said Israel should hear that prophet in all things. You cannot deny that it is
said in the same book that they did not hear him; you cannot deny that they
have not yet heard Him. What are you going to do about it? The answer is easy,
and the weapon of truth, the sword of the Spirit, is powerful if we are
permitted to use it unhampered and free from the bondage of a corrupt theology.
To the representatives of that nation who did crucify the Messiah, the inspired
apostle says, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may
be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of
the Lord and 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. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, a Prophet shall the Lord your God
raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all
things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every
soul which will not hear that prophet will be destroyed from among the
people" (Acts 3: 19-23). Here we have the key to the solution of the problem.
The nation had filled up the measure of their fathers; the cup of their
iniquity in crucifying their Messiah was full. But their national repentance is
yet to take place, and their sins are to be blotted out; times of refreshing
are to come. "He shall send Jesus Christ, 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," when He shall
"appear the second time without sin unto salvation." But in their impatience
they sought a king who would bring immediate deliverance without complying with
the means leading up to that great end. This was their national mistake
resulting in their national crime. They refused the Prince of life, and desired
a murderer to be granted unto them. All this had been prophesied in the Divine
plan of the ages, and everything will come out right and in harmony with the
wonderful plan. For the present, there is a pierced Messiah, and a scattered
captive nation, with its cities in ruins and its land in desolation, but when
the "times of refreshing shall come" and God "shall send Jesus
Christ," that which Moses truly spake shall come to pass, and they shall
hear Him in all things. Gathered from every land, where for long and dreary
ages they have been held captive, "with a mighty hand, and a stretched-out
arm, and with fury poured out," they shall yet be delivered.
"I will," says Jehovah, "bring you out from
the people, and will gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered,
with a mighty hand, and with a stretched-out arm, and with fury poured out. And
I will bring 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 I 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; and ye shall know that I am the
Lord" (Ezek. 20: 34-38). This will bring them to their senses, as the
prodigal son "came to himself." This prodigal son, who once was
"called out of Egypt," will again come home crying, "Father, I
have sinned against heaven and before thee." Then will be "poured
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 his only son, and shall be in
bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born"
(Zech. 12: 10). "And one shall say unto Him, What are these wounds in thy
hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my
friends." Israel will then realize that the prophet like unto Moses has
come. They will hear Him in all things, and He will prove to be their great deliverer,
the one king that shall be king over all; and they shall never be divided into
two nations any more at all.
The Apostle Paul deals with the question of spiritual and
literal Israel, and it is by confounding the one with the other that popular
teachers confine Israel's restoration to the Spiritual seed, ignoring the
national and literal restoration of the twelve tribes. An easy way to settle
the question of the literality of the Israelitish restoration is to ask, Of
what nation did Moses and the prophets speak when they said it should be
scattered? This was not spiritual Israel, but literal, national Israel. This
was the nation that was to be scattered; and to this very same nation, and of
this very same nation, the gathering is foretold. "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. 31: 28, 29). But let us examine closely the argument of the
Apostle Paul, first in Romans 9: 1-3--"I say the truth in Christ, I lie
not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have a
great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself
were accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the
flesh." These are not spiritual Israel. There was no reason why he should
wish to be accursed from Christ (or, perhaps he meant accursed as Christ was
accursed) for spiritual Israel; they needed not such concern, but their
kinsmen, according to the flesh, did. These are the Israelites "to whom
pertain the national adoption, to whom and through whom the covenants were
spoken, the law and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the
fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came." But what the
apostle is here showing is that the promise of everlasting inheritance of the
kingdom, or what we might call the royalty or rulership of the kingdom is not
to be theirs because they were Jews according to the flesh. Hence their
restoration would be a national restoration, when they again will be multiplied
in the land. But the "Israel of God" or Israel according to the
Spirit, are the seed to whom the promise of the inheritance of the kingdom or
rulership was made. Isaac being the representative of faith, it is said,
"in Isaac shall thy seed be called." In Rom. 11 he discriminates more
clearly between the two Israels, verse 7--"What then? Israel hath not
obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the
rest were blinded." Here are two Israels---one that hath not
obtained and that is blinded, and the other that hath obtained and that
is not blinded. In other words, one that has accepted Christ as the hope of
Israel, and the other that through blindness hath rejected Him. Now in speaking
of the Israel that did not obtain it, they were blinded, which was the reason
they crucified Christ, he says, "For I would not, brethren, that ye shall
be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits, that
blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be
come in" (Rom. 11: 25). This blindness had happened in part to literal,
national Israel, and the part in which they were blind was that they did not see
that Christ was to be a sacrifice first, ascend to the Father and return before
He could become their great deliverer and king. The blindness in part, then,
which happened to them is only "until the fullness of the Gentiles be come
in." "And so shall all Israel be saved, as it is written, there shall
come to Zion, a deliverer that shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob."
Jacob here stands for the whole house of Israel. When the fullness of the
Gentiles is come in, this Deliverer shall come, and remove the nation's sin, as
we have seen in the prophecy of Zechariah, and bring Israel into the bond of
the covenant. Their salvation as a nation will be their restoration and
re-establishment in the land of their fathers, when He that was born in
Bethlehem shall "rule His people Israel," and He who was crucified,
because He said He was the king of the Jews, will be the King of the Jews in
deed and in truth. They shall then be made "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. 37: 22).
The objection which many offer to the restoration of the
Jews to Palestine, and to their being thus favored of God, is that they are, as
they are seen mingling among the Gentiles of the present times, dishonest and
tricky in their commercial dealings. Why, they ask, should God favor such men
as we see on our streets-- these hated Jews? The fact that they are hated is
only another proof of the truth of prophecy in relation to them. But the
objection raised against their being favored because of what some of them
appear to be is without foundation. From a mere natural standpoint it would be
difficult to say why they should ever have been favored. What appears
objectionable in the characters of some with whom we come in contact in
commercial life existed, perhaps, to a greater extent when they were in Egypt,
and the same objection could be raised to the favor shown them in their
deliverance from Egypt and in their subsequent history. The Scriptures show
that they were a very stiff-necked, stubborn and faithless people, and the
question might well have been asked, judging from what they were when their
deliverance commenced, Why should these people be gathered and taken into a
favored land; for by comparison there were others, possibly, that seemed more
deserving of such favor. The objection is removed, however, when we remember
that the stubborn and faithless ones, who gave Moses and Aaron so much trouble,
did not enter into the land. Being depraved and fleshly in their minds, they
were unfit for the purpose which God had in view in their national deliverance
and planting in the land of Canaan. In all these things the glory of God is the
end and object and no room is left for the glory of men. Commencing, then, with
a people depraved, stubborn and faithless, fit only that their carcasses should
fall in the wilderness, out of them God developed a people suitable for his
purpose, leaving the purged-out ones strewn along the crooked and rugged
pathway of the wilderness. After a thorough sifting, the survivors were fitted
for the possession of the land of promise.
So it is to be in the future great deliverance, and in this
the objection raised against the hateful Jew, as he is regarded, who is seen so
cunning in the commercial world, will be removed. Clearly is this explained by
the prophet Ezekiel, who says that it is with a mighty hand, and a
stretched-out arm, and with fury poured out that God will first deal with
Israel in their deliverance. As Moses led them through the wilderness of Sinai,
so will they be led into "the wilderness of the people, and there he will
plead with them face to face" (Ezek. 20: 35). And he adds, "I will
cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the
covenant: and will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that
transgress against me." These, he says, "I will bring forth out of
the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land
of Israel" (verse 38). In the sifting process, these rebels, faithless,
stubborn and stiff-necked, will be left, as it were, in the wilderness of the
people, where their carcasses will fall under the fury of Jehovah then poured
out. When the purging process has been sufficiently carried out, and the rod of
correction and chastisement has been effectually used, the survivors will be
fitted, because they will be humbled and instructed and brought to their
senses; and these will all become the subjects of the restored kingdom of
Israel under Christ, as their fathers did under Joshua, the typical national
saviour. We may, therefore, say that God is no respecter of persons, as
persons. It was not because He respected Abraham as a person above all others
that He selected him, but it was because Abraham was possessed of certain
characteristics that would be responsive to the Divine purpose, though he may
first have to be tried and tested severely, and gradually elevated to that
standard and status of faith which should be accounted to him for
righteousness. So with Abraham's descendants, God will "sift them as
wheat," blowing away the chaff, and will gradually elevate the survivors
till fitted as the nucleus of the subjects of the coming kingdom, to be planted
in the land of God's appointment, never to be moved, and where the children of
wickedness shall no more afflict them. "I do not this for your sakes, O
house of Israel, but for my own name's sake, which ye have profaned among the
heathen wither ye went" (Ezek. 36: 22). To honor God's holy name and to
maintain the truth of His revealed purpose, Israel's restoration must take
place, and when it does take place, God will be justified and sanctified in the
eyes of all the world. No one will be able to ask, Why are these men favored?
because those who will enter the land will be of a different character from
their brethren whom we now see throughout the various parts of the world. They
will have hearts of flesh instead of hearts of stone. They will be elevated in
the scale of intellectuality and morality, and therefore in the highest sense
be fitted for the great purpose that God has designed to work out in and
through their great deliverance under their own Messiah.
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
Inasmuch as the twelve tribes of Israel are to be restored
to the land of Canaan, and to regain their nationality, the question arises,
Under what arrangement or constitution of things is this to be effected? We
have seen that God is to establish His kingdom in all the earth, and the
question now naturally arises, What is to be the dynasty of the Kingdom? Who is
to be the King?--in short, what are the elements of this great and universal
constitution of things which is to effect the world's redemption? We will here
venture to state what we propose to prove in this chapter in the form of
propositions:
1.--In the universality of God's kingdom, the whole earth
and its inhabitants are embraced.
2.--The subjects of the kingdom, proper, or in a special
sense, will be the twelve tribes of Israel, the subjects of the dominion in
general being all other nations.
3.--The dynasty of the kingdom will be of Israel, more
particularly stated, of the tribe of Judah, still more particularly of the
Royal house of David.
4.--The king of the kingdom will be Christ returned to the
earth to reign on David's throne, to rule the house of Jacob, specially, and
the whole world generally.
5.--The Royal house or associates of the King will be (a)
the twelve apostles raised from the dead and immortalized, who will rule the
twelve tribes of Israel; and (b) the immortal saints redeemed from the human
race from the time when Paradise was lost by Adam the first till Paradise will
be regained by Adam the second, who will be kings and priests with Christ over
all nations.
6.--The territory of the kingdom, proper, will consist the
land of Canaan as promised to Abraham, while the territorial dominion will
extend to the "uttermost parts of the earth."
7.--The capital of the kingdom will be the City of
Jerusalem, rebuilt in unsurpassed beauty and splendor.
8.--The laws of the kingdom will be heavenly, righteous and
of a character suited to the requirements necessary to finally effect
absolutely the world's redemption, to the ultimate eternal well-being of man
and the honor and glory of God.
The first proposition concerning the universality of the
kingdom has been dealt with in a previous chapter under the heading of
"The Kingdom of God to be Universal in the Earth." The reader will
only have to recall some of the testimonies cited to see how unquestionable
this is. The promise to Abraham was, "In thee and in thy seed shall all
nations be blessed." Through Moses God declared, "As truly as I
live the whole earth shall be filled with my glory." To Christ He
says, "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,
and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." The
prophet Zechariah declares, "The Lord in that day shall be king over all
the earth." The prayer of our Lord to His disciples involved this in the
words, "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is done in
heaven" (Matt. 6: 10). This shows that the re-establishment of the kingdom
would cause God's will to be done in the earth as it is done in heaven, which
necessarily will require that it reach to the uttermost parts of the earth.
While this kingdom in the universal sense is called the kingdom of God, there
is a special sense in which the kingdom of Israel is called God's kingdom. In
the history of Israel we have the establishment of the kingdom of God upon the
earth, but it was not universal. It was confined to Israel and to Israel's
land. Some of its blessings, no doubt, spread out, and the world at large, to
some extent, has been benefited by them, but there never has been a time when
that kingdom of God has spread out in all the earth, resulting in blessing all
nations, as the covenants of promise require. That the kingdom of Israel in the
past was called the kingdom of God will be seen from the words of David, who
says, "Of all my sons, (for the Lord hath given me many sons), he hath
chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over
Israel" (I. Chron. 28:5). This kingdom of the Lord, or kingdom of Israel,
on account of the apostasy and wickedness of the nation, ceased to be and the
subjects are scattered over the earth to-day. But this kingdom of God, or
kingdom of Israel, is to be restored. Its restoration was what the Jews were
looking for when Christ appeared, over nineteen hundred years ago, and even the
disciples of our Lord did not fully know the time when this hope and desire of
Israel would be realized. It was their mistake in relation to the question of
the time when this kingdom would be restored that caused the parable of the
nobleman to be spoken to them. It is said, "And as they heard these
things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because
they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear" (Luke
19: 11). They thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear and the
kingdom of God which they looked for was the restoration of the kingdom of
Israel. Jesus did not deny that this kingdom was to appear, but by the parable
corrected the mistake they made in relation to the time when it would appear,
showing that before it could be restored He must go as a nobleman to a
"far country," or to heaven, to receive for Himself the kingdom and
to return. And it is when He returns that He is to say to the worthy ones,
"Come, ye blessed to my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from
the foundation of the world" (Matt. 25: 34). Even this parable did not
remove the deep-seated hope and belief that Christ would restore again the
kingdom of Israel at that time. After His crucifixion some of them said,
"We trusted that it had been he that should have redeemed Israel"
(Luke 24: 21), and their mistake is here again corrected by His words, "O
fools 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?" (Luke
24: 25, 26). Then he expounded the matter more clearly to them. Still the
nation's longing desire had taken such hold upon them that they seemed
impatient to wait God's time to restore again the kingdom to Israel. Hence
after Christ's resurrection, and just previous to His ascension, they asked,
"Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he
said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the
Father hath put in his own power" (Acts 1: 6, 7). At all times then the
burning question with our Lord's disciples was the restoration of the kingdom
of Israel. That they were not mistaken in this is clearly shown from the fact
that, instead of reproving them for believing in it, He only corrects their
belief so far as it affected the question of time. In His last answer to this
last question put to Him He says, "It is not for you to know the times or
the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power." As much as to
say that God will restore the kingdom of Israel, as you hope. He hath put it in
His own power and purpose to do so, but the time when He will do it is not for
you to know.
The Apostle Paul, when he was called and sent out to preach
the gospel, preached this very same hope of Israel, and for declaring that it
could only be realized in and through Christ the Jews caused him to be bound
with a chain. Appearing before Agrippa he said, "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
26: 6, 7). And later, as a prisoner in Rome, he says, "For this cause
therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because
that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain" (Acts 28: 20).
That this hope of Israel was the hope of the restoration of the kingdom of
Israel in the hands of Christ is clear from the fact that it is said, "And
when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodgings; to
whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning
Jesus, both out of the Law of Moses and out of the prophets, from morning
till evening" (Acts 28: 23). Then again, it is said, "And Paul dwelt
two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came unto him, preaching
the kingdom of God, and teaching those things, which concern the Lord Jesus
Christ with all confidence, no man forbidding him" (Acts 28: 30, 31). The
hope of Israel and its realization through Christ was the subject matter of
Paul's preaching and the offensive part of it to the Jews was that it was
associated with and made dependent upon Christ. Had Paul preached the hope of
Israel independently of Christ, it would have been no offence to them, but
Christ was to be the "stone of stumbling and rock of offence," and
therefore they could not endure the thought that the realization of their
long-cherished hope was dependent upon the despised Nazarene, whom they had
with wicked hands crucified.
This very hope of Israel, then, is called the kingdom of
God, which will be clearly seen by putting the matter in the following
syllogistic form:
The burden of Paul's preaching was the hope of Israel.
The burden of Paul's preaching was the kingdom of God.
Therefore the hope of Israel and the kingdom of God are one
and the same thing.
When the hope of Israel is realized, it will be realized in
and through the establishment of the kingdom of God in the hands of Christ.
Now our proposition says that the subjects of the kingdom
proper, or in a special sense, will be the twelve tribes of Israel. To
illustrate what we mean by the kingdom proper, we would refer to the kingdom of
Great Britain. Here we have a kingdom, and what some would call an empire, or
dominion. The kingdom proper is confined to the British Isles, while its empire
or dominion extends far and wide, and upon it, it is said, the sun never sets.
Hence Queen Victoria is called Queen of England and Empress of India. It is
through the kingdom proper that advantage or disadvantage must accrue to the
empire. If it can be said that India has been blessed by England--and indeed it
has to a certain extent--then we have a parallel case. Supposing a prophet had
said, before the conquest of India by England, In England shall all your tribes
be blessed, that would mean that England, being possessed of power and dominion,
involving blessings, would confer these on the wilds of India, by civilization,
education and other blessings derived from that nation. It is in this sense
that in speaking of the nation of Israel as Abraham's seed we apply the words
in the promise to Abraham, "In thy seed, or through thy seed, shall all
families of the earth be blessed." But, as we have seen before, these
words have a higher meaning, and reach farther and center in Christ. Going to
the fountain head of these blessings, we should say that they flow from God
Himself, as the source and giver of all good. In His kingdom, however, we shall
have, first, Christ; second, His apostles, who under Him are to rule the twelve
tribes of Israel; and then through the nation of Israel the blessings of the
kingdom will spread out to the uttermost parts of the earth. All nations of the
earth will then be blessed in Abraham's seed, as the medium of Divine blessing.
That the kingdom of God when established upon the earth is
spoken of in the sense of a kingdom and dominion, we learn from Dan. 7:
27--"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,
whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey
him." Here we have a kingdom and dominion. What is the kingdom
proper here? Let the prophet Micah answer the question, "And thou, O 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" (Micah 4: 8). This shows us its Israelitish character, and that
the nation that should be most highly favored when the kingdom is established
is that nation which has descended from Abraham and, as regards the subjects,
are the "seed in whom all nations of the earth shall be blessed."
Hence the prophet Isaiah in contemplating the glorious time of the
establishment of this kingdom addresses his words to Israel, to her land and to
her capital city:
Isa. 52: 1-10--Awake! awake! put on thy strength, O Zion;
put on thy beautiful garments O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there
shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean. Shake thyself
from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem: loose thyself from the bands
of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion. For thus saith the Lord, Ye have sold
yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money. How beautiful
upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that
publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth
salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth! Thy watchmen shall lift up
the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to
eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion. Break forth into joy, sing together,
ye waste places of Jerusalem: for the Lord hath comforted his people, he hath
redeemed Jerusalem. The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the
nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.
Isa. 60: 1-5--Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the
glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. For, behold the darkness shall cover the
earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and
his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light,
and kings to the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thine eyes round about, and
see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall
come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side. Then thou shalt
see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because
the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the
Gentiles shall come unto thee.
Isa. 60: 9-15--Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the
ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their
gold with them, unto the name of the Lord thy God, and to the Holy One of
Israel, because he hath glorified thee. 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 favor have I had mercy on thee. Therefore thy gates shall be
open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto
thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought. For the
nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations
shall be utterly wasted. The glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir
tree, the pine tree, and the box together, to beautify the place of my
sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feet glorious. 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.
The reason why this blessing is to come to Israel first, is
shown by the words, "Thy people also shall be all righteous; they shall
inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands,
that I may be glorified. A little one shall become a thousand and a small one a
strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time" (verses 21, 22).
Following this we have a case of "rightly dividing the
word of truth." You will remember that the Saviour in the synagogue read
from the sixty-first chapter of Isaiah's prophecy, the first verse and part of
the second, when He closed the book and said, "This day is this Scripture
fulfilled in your ears." The next word that follows what He read is a
conjunction, and what follows remains to be read, as it were, or exemplified in
what is yet to come to pass in the restoration of Israel's kingdom. It is,
"And the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; to
appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the
oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness;
that they might be called Trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord,
that he might be glorified." Seeming to anticipate modern methods of
applying these Scriptures to spiritual Israel and Jerusalem to the church, he
adds, "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 of the
alien shall be your plowmen, and your vinedressers. But ye shall be named the
Priests of the Lord: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat
the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves. For
your shame ye shall have double, and for confusion they shall rejoice in their
portion: therefore in their land they shall possess the double; everlasting joy
shall be unto them. For I the Lord love judgment, I hate robbery for
burnt-offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an
everlasting covenant with them. And their seed shall be known among the
Gentiles, and their offspring among the people, all that see them shall
acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed"
(Isa. 61: 2-9).
That this kingdom will be Israel restored under Christ is
clear from numerous testimonies, a few of which are as follows: "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; and
this is the name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS"
(Jer. 23: 5, 6). "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" (Jer. 33: 14, 15).
In addition to this we would again refer the reader to the
unmistakable prophecy of Ezek. 37, where it is said, "they shall become
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." And it is this favored nation
that is referred to by our Savior, when He says, In the regeneration, when the
Son of man shall sit upon the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon
twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
When Israel was brought into the bond of the Mosaic
covenant, there were to be certain curses in case of their disobedience, and
blessings to follow their obedience. When God makes a covenant, it can no more
return to Him void than His word can, of which He says, "So shall my word
be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it
shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto
I sent it" (Isa. 55: 11). In making the Mosaic covenant, God promised
Israel as follows: "The Lord shall cause thine enemies that rise up
against thee to be smitten before thy face: they shall come out against thee
one way, and flee before thee seven ways. The Lord shall command the blessing
upon thee in thy storehouses, and in all that thou settest thine hand unto; and
he shall bless thee in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. The Lord
shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee,
if thou shalt keep the commandments of the Lord thy God, and walk in his ways.
And all the people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of
the Lord; and they shall be afraid of thee. And the Lord shall make thee plenteous
in goods, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the
fruit of thy ground, in the land which the Lord sware unto the fathers to give
thee. The Lord shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give thee
rain unto thy land in its season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and
thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow. And the Lord
shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and
thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the
Lord thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them"
(Deut. 28: 7-13). Israel's headship over the nations is here predicated upon
their obedience. It is clear from the testimonies cited, that this
predetermined head-ship shall be exemplified in Israel's future restoration.
Were it not so, God's promise would fail, and His words, so far as the covenant
is concerned, would have returned to Him void, and failed to have accomplished
that which He pleased and prospered in the thing whereto He sent it. The fact
of the generations of Israel in the past failing to live up to the requirements
of the covenant can no more frustrate the purpose of God than the fall of Adam
could prevent the carrying out of that eternal plan, which God had arranged
from the beginning, centering in Christ. In that plan Christ was before Adam.
He was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. He was the Alpha of the
purpose of God to bless the earth. Hence we may say, that Christ, as a
sacrifice, had been provided in the plan before sin made the sacrifice
necessary. This shows the wisdom and fore-knowledge of God in providing for
every eventuality that might transpire in the history of the world. To us they
seem like happenings or occurrences by chance, but to God, who knows the end
from the beginning, they were certainties, and what to us seem emergencies were
provided for in every particular.
So the failure of the generations of Israel, from Moses down
to the present, to live up to the requirements of the covenant, cannot
frustrate God's plan as expressed to Abraham in the covenants of promise to
bless all nations of the earth through his seed. The broken covenant must be
repaired. The nation has broken loose, as it were, and departed from the bond
of the covenant, but the prophet Jeremiah says: "The word that came to
Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Hear ye the word of this covenant, and speak
unto the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and say unto them,
Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words
of this covenant, which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them
forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice,
and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people,
and I will be your God: that I may perform the oath which I have sworn unto
your fathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey, as it is this
day. Then answered I, and said, So be it, Lord" (Jer. 11: 1-5). The reader
is asked to read to verse 17. Is this broken covenant to remain broken? Is
Israel never to be brought into its bonds to render that faithful obedience
which will entitle them to the promise made by Moses that they shall be the head
of all nations? God's purpose cannot fail. Therefore he says, "For I am
with thee, saith the Lord, to save thee: 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" (Jer. 30: 11). Then he cries out, "Hear the word of the
Lord, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that
scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock"
(Jer. 31: 10). Speaking of the scattering and gathering, and breaking of the
covenant, and being brought back into its bonds, he says, "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. 31: 27, 28). "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. And fields shall
be bought in this land, whereof ye say, It is desolate without man or beast; it
is given into the hand of the Chaldeans. Men shall buy fields for money, and
subscribe evidences, and seal them, and take witnesses in the land of Benjamin,
and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, and in the
cities of the valley, and in the cities of the south: for I will cause their
captivity to return, saith the Lord" (Jer. 32: 42-44). Notwithstanding
they have been many days without a king, and without a prince, he declares that
a time is to come when "David shall never want a man to sit upon the
throne of the house of Israel; neither shall the priests the Levites want a man
to offer burnt-offerings and to kindle meat-offerings, and to sacrifice
continually." When this is fulfilled the prophecy we have before quoted
from Ezek. 20: 33-38 will find its exemplification. Verse 37 of that prophecy
reads, "I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into
the bond of the covenant." Then God's Word will accomplish that for which
it went forth, and prosper in the thing whereto it is sent.
Some offer objections to the future fulfillment of these
promises because a renewal of the sacrifices is predicted, as for instance in
the verse just quoted (Jer. 33: 18) it says, "Neither shall the Levites
want a man before me, to offer burnt-offerings, and to kindle meat-offerings,
and to do sacrifice continually." The objection here raised is that Christ
being made the one great offering, "once for all," no sacrifices can
be offered in the age to come. But Israel's laws in the past required offerings
to be made pointing to Christ, and those offerings were intended as a
schoolmaster to bring them to Christ. While this was fulfilled to a limited
extent, it fell short of absolute fulfillment, for Israel, as a nation, did not
receive the instructions of the schoolmaster, and were, therefore, not led to
Christ, and therefore did not recognize Him. When they are brought into the
bond of the broken covenant they will be willing to do God's commandments, for
He says, "My people shall be willing in the day of my wrath," and
what they failed to do in the offerings under the law prospectively, under
Christ in the age to come they will do retrospectively. What a grand sequel
this is. The very nation which crucified Christ, notwithstanding that all their
sacrifices pointed to Him, shall yet look unto Him whom they have pierced, and
mourn for Him. Therefore those sacrifices which by their wickedness they had
wrested out of their true meaning, shall yet be offered in the real and true
sense in which they were intended to be offered, pointing to, centering and
focalizing, as it were, in Christ. They will then, repenting of their sins,
heartily acknowledge and memorialize Him who was the type and the substance of
the shadow of the broken law.
For a more elaborate and clearer prophecy of this memorial
system of offerings, in the rebuilt and beautiful temple which is to adorn the
land of Israel, the reader is referred to the prophecy of Ezekiel, where a
description of the temple and the Divine Service is given, which has never yet
found its fulfillment in the history of the world. The description is there by
inspiration. It is there to be fulfilled. And fulfilled it will be as surely as
it has been written. Then Israel, as a nation, in relation to the civil and the
ecclesiastical government of the world, will be, as Moses declared, the head
and not the tail, the highest of all nations; the forces of the Gentiles shall
be brought unto them, and the dark night which has obtained since Israel's sun
went down will be dispelled by the morning of an unclouded dawn when the
"sun of righteousness" will illuminate and bless the world, and
"fill the earth with the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the
sea."
That the dynasty of the kingdom will be of the house of
David is clearly shown throughout the Scriptures. In the covenant made with
David, it is said, "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 an house
for my name: and I 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. 7:12-16). The
king here promised us is to be a descendant of David according to the flesh,
and it was to him David looked for the realization of his salvation; for He
says, speaking of this promised seed, "He shall be a just one, ruling
according to the righteous precepts of Jehovah, 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" (II. Sam.
23: 3, 4). Speaking of this same covenant, the Palmist says, "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. 132: 11). That David understood
this to refer to Christ, we need have no doubt whatever, because the matter is
settled positively by Inspiration. Why try to get rid of the Messianic
application of such prophecies by saying that they found their fulfillment in
the history of Solomon? But how can one satisfy himself with such a claim, when
David says of the matter, "Thou hast spoken of thy servant's house for a
great while to come." And according to his dying words he saw in the
promise "all his salvation." He must have looked beyond Solomon and
seen the greater than Solomon, the Saviour, who would be His salvation and His
desire, and upon whom he depended for resurrection from death and the grave.
Right here, however, the popular theorist steps in and claims that David
entered upon the realization of his salvation the moment he died. Now, we may ask
him, And where did David then realize his salvation? Oh, the universal answer
will be from popular pulpits, the moment he died, angels were ready to carry
him to the realms of bliss in heaven above, and David has been there realizing
his salvation ever since he died. Well, if he did go to heaven the moment he
died, he was realizing his salvation before Christ worked it out for him;
before Christ died to save him and all others who are lost in Adam. But did he
go to heaven? Has he received his salvation, or is he one of those spoken of by
Paul, who "died in the faith not having received the promise? God having
provided some better thing for us that they without us should not be made
perfect"? To settle this question is to settle the great and popular religious
question of the age. For whatever is true of David, a man after God's own
heart, is certainly true of all the ancient worthies, and if David did not go
to heaven, but still lies in the dust awaiting his salvation and his desire,
surely we have no right to expect to go there or to enter upon our salvation
before David does. This is what Inspiration says in regard to David, "For
David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on
sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption" (Acts 13: 36).
Here we see, by comparing verses 33 and 34, that Christ is the one who has gone
to heaven, and that David has not, and the reason given is that David
"fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption." Christ
did not see corruption, but was raised from the dead and went to heaven, but
David having gone to corruption, had not gone to heaven and there is no promise
that he will ever go there. What! asks the astonished inquirer, David not gone
to heaven? We have always been taught, some will say, that every good man goes
to heaven when he dies, and surely David was a good man and would go there.
Well, listen to another testimony on the same subject: "Men and brethren,
let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and
buried, and that his sepulchre is with us unto this day" * * * (Acts 2:
29-32). David is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre was with them until
that day; Christ only had been raised and gone to heaven. Then it is added, "For
David is not ascended into the heavens, but he saith himself, The Lord
said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy
footstool" (verses 34, 35). Now then we can see clearly how it was that
David looked down the ages by faith and saw Christ as the one who would rule
over men righteously, and in this foresaw his salvation and all his desire.
Salvation would be realized when Christ would come and raise David from his
long sleep in the dust of the earth, and become in very deed his Lord and Saviour.
Moreover, that David understood the covenant which was made with him to refer
to Christ there can be no question whatever, from the fact that in the verse
just quoted it is said that David being a prophet knew that God would of the
fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, raise up Christ to sit on his
throne. Of course he knew that Solomon would succeed him; in fact he had taken
his throne before his death, but that was not the subject of the covenant. The
covenant reached farther than that and was of vastly more importance to David
than the mere matter of Solomon succeeding him on the throne. So, by the eye of
prophecy he was enabled to look through the dark intervening ages, and beyond
to the time when God would raise up Christ to sit upon His throne, and seeing
this he could rejoice in hope of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul
would not be left in Hades, neither shall his flesh see corruption.
In the famous passage of Isaiah's prophecy, chap. 9: 6, we
have the words, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and
the government shall be upon his shoulders." Here we have words which are
universally admitted by "orthodox" people to apply to Christ the
child that was to be born and the son that was to be given, and the government
was to be upon his shoulders. He was born; He appeared among men and He
disappeared. He has not yet exercised the authority with the government upon
His shoulders, and the question arises here, What government is this? Upon what
throne will He sit when the government is upon His shoulders and He is
administering the affairs of that government? We have only to read on,
"and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The
everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Ah! the Prince of Peace. Where
is a Prince of Peace needed? It was not necessary that Christ should go to
heaven to be Prince of Peace, to establish peace there, for surely there was no
war, no trouble there. If there was, it was useless for Him to teach His
disciples to pray that God's will might be done in the earth, as it is done in
heaven. God's will being done to perfection in heaven, peace and happiness
prevail, and it was quite to the point that He should teach His disciples to
pray that God's will be done here as in heaven. Where is a prince of peace
needed? Here surely, and here only, so far as the Bible and facts reveal to us
what is needed. The Bible is not a revelation to us of war and peace upon other
planets. Whether other planets are inhabited or not is only a matter of
curiosity so far as we are concerned. It is our own planet that we are
concerned about, and it is to our planet that the Bible has come to reveal to
us what is God's purpose here now and hereafter. Therefore for Christ to be
called the Prince of Peace is to give us hope of the time to come when He will
bring peace to a world which has passed through long ages of war and turmoil of
every kind. The government, then, is to be upon His shoulders, and He is to be
the Prince of Peace here, and, continues the prophet, "Of the increase of
his government and peace there shall be no end." And now let us ask, Upon
whose throne? And the answer is, "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. 9: 6, 7).
Still more fully is established the truth, that Christ will
reign on David's throne, and that, therefore, the dynasty of the kingdom will
be of the house of David. We submit the following testimonies:
Isa. 11: 10--And in that day there shall be a root of
Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the
Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
Jer. 23: 5, 6--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: and this is the name whereby he shall be
called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Jer. 33: 14-17--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. * * * For thus saith the Lord, David
shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.
David took the stronghold of Zion and there established his
throne; upon his death he was succeeded by Solomon and he by others till the
days of Zedekiah, who was the last king to sit upon the throne. It is declared
to that last king, "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 I will give it him"
(Ezek. 21: 25-27). In this we find that David's throne is not overturned for
ever, and the reader must pardon me for again calling attention to the fact
that we are not dealing with a throne which is in heaven, a spiritual throne,
but it is the throne and dominion of the house of David that is overturned, and
of this overturned throne it is said, it shall be no more, until he come
whose right it is, and I will give it him. There are three overturns here, and
whether this repetition is to make this declaration more impressive, or to be
regarded as having a threefold fulfillment it matters not for our present
purpose. The overturn was real, and that overturn was to continue and the
throne be no more until it was given into the hands of the one whose right it
is. Still, if the repetition of the word overturn was intended to reach to the
utter overturn of the nation and its city, at the hands of the Romans, the
complete overturn of the last vestige of David's kingdom would in that case
take place in A. D. 70. If this is the last overturn of the three, beginning
with Babylon on the Euphrates and ending with Babylon on the Tiber, we can date
the duration of time represented by the word "until" from the last
overturn A. D. 70. The kingdom of Israel, as it then existed in its declined
form, was to be completely overturned and be no more until he come whose right
it is, and I will give it him. This time, then, refers to the second coming of
Christ, whose right the throne is, and then He will claim it as His own. We may
be sure that He is the one, for the angel declared to Mary, "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 1: 31-33). Now there can be no question that the one whose
"right it is" is Christ. And now we may ask the question, Was the
throne of David given to Christ when He was here upon the earth, or was it
true, as He declared, "that the foxes have holes, and the birds of the air
have nests, but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head"? Was He not
"despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrow and acquainted with
grief," smitten, stricken and afflicted? After the resurrection Peter
declared, "This same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, hath God made both
Lord and Christ," or king. Since the throne of David, which was
overturned, belonged by right to Christ, and since Christ hath not yet
re-established that throne, and reigned over the house of Jacob, as the angel
declared to Mary that He should, it follows that He must come again to fulfill
these words. It is not a temporary arrangement; it is positively declared that
when He shall reign over the house of Jacob, "of his kingdom there should
be no end"; and, as we have read in the prophecy of Isaiah of the increase
of his government and peace there shall be no end, and it shall be established
with judgment and with justice, from henceforth even for ever. When, we ask
again, will this find its fulfillment? The answer comes as clear as the noonday
sun, "Men and brethren, hearken unto me," says James, "Simeon
hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them
a people for his name" (Acts 15: 13, 14). Now let us ask James, What is to
take place after this visiting of the Gentiles? His answer is, "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" (verse 16). When will the tabernacle of David be built again? When
Christ returns is the answer. What tabernacle of David is this that is to be
built again, a spiritual one, or one in heaven? The tabernacle of David, which
is fallen down is the answer, the one which went into ruins, in other words,
the one of which it was said, "I will overturn, overturn, overturn it: and
it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is, and I will give it
him." This was not done at the first coming, when He was as a lamb led to
the slaughter, but when He shall come as the Lion of the tribe of Judah, a
coming which is to take place, as James declares, "after God hath visited
the Gentiles and taken out of them a people for his name." In the meantime
"blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the
Gentiles be come in." And then, may we ask Paul, what will take place? And
his answer is, "And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There
shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from
Jacob" (Rom. 11: 25, 26).
The reader will now see that Christ's descent from David
according to the flesh is given great prominence in the Scriptures. There must
be a special reason for this. "Of this man's (David's) seed hath God,
according to his promise, raised up unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus" (Acts
13: 23). "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the
seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1: 3).
God's plan has made careful selection of the particular line
of descent from which the Messiah should come. In antediluvian times a
distinction is drawn between the "sons of God and the daughters of
men" which shows where God's special favor was bestowed; but coming
further down this becomes more manifest. The singular incident of a struggle
between babes in the womb is a forecast of God's purpose in this matter of
divine selection. "And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy
womb, and two manners of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one
people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the
younger" (Gen. 25: 23). Here is an expressed determination to select a
nation in which the right of rulership should be vested; and to bring this
about the course of customs was reversed in transferring the right of rulership
from the older to the younger son. Therefore, in blessing his sons, Isaac said
to Jacob, "Let people serve thee; be lord over thy brethren, and let thy
mother's son bow down to thee; cursed be every one that curseth thee, and
blessed be he that blesseth thee" (Gen. 27: 29). Here is the father of the
twelve tribal nation given that power and prestige that should descend upon the
nation. So that to begin with we have a royal nation with a divine right to
rule all others.
For a nation to rule the world of nations there must be a
focalization of its kingly power in order that its rulership might be practicable.
So from this on we find that focalization developing. In the next step in this
direction one son is selected from the other sons of Jacob, and in him is
vested royal rights that were to pass from and through him to the tribe that
should descend from him. Hence it is said, "Judah, thou art he whom thy
brethren shall praise; thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy
father's children shall bow down before thee. Judah is a lion's whelp; from the
prey, my son, thou art gone up. * * * The sceptre shall not depart from Judah,
nor a law-giver from between his feet, for Shiloh shall come; and unto him
shall the gathering of the people be" (Gen. 49: 8-10).
A tribe could not well rule without focalizing its royal
power in a man or men of its selection, and subsequent developments show that
this was the purpose the Divine plan had in view, for, as we shall see, a
single family out of this tribe is selected and then a single man as the head
from whom all legal rulers must descend.
Men are very apt to stretch out their hands to fill up what
seems to their shortsightedness deficiencies in God's workings. Abraham and
Sarah seem to have thought that God had failed to provide for carrying out the
fulfillment of his promise to raise up from them a seed that would bless all
nations; and their feeble and fleshly attempt to fill the vacancy results in
the birth of Ishmael. A little patience in waiting God's time would have shown
them that their ways were not His ways, nor, in this matter, their thoughts His
thoughts. The offspring of their thoughts in the case is one born out of due
time, and though he as a son had certain favors, he did not suit God's purpose,
for "In Isaac shall thy seed be called," and Isaac is produced out of
due time according to the flesh, but in due time according to the spirit and by
the interposition of the Spirit.
So with Israel. They had come in contact with Hagar nations
and conceived the thought of appointing a King according to their custom--out
of God's due time. The result was a man of the tribe of Benjamin was their
temporary king till God's due time gave them one from the tribe of his
selection, in which the right of rulership had been vested. The royalty
therefore departs from the house of Saul and is conferred upon him from whose
house it should never depart. Hence David says, "Howbeit the Lord God of
Israel chose me before all the house of my father to be king over Israel for
ever: for he hath chosen Judah to be the ruler, and of the house of my father;
and among the sons of my father he liked me to make me king over all
Israel" (I. Chron. 28: 4). Here is the focalization so far as the
historical phase up to this time is concerned.
Out of all nations one nation is first selected; out of this
nation, one tribe; out of this tribe, one family; out of this family, one
man-David. Now from him, according to the flesh, must all kings descend till
the one who is the pith and pivot of all God's workings is reached. Hence David
recognizes the proper line of descent when he says, "And of all my sons
(for the Lord hath given me many sons) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit
upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel."
Running down through this line and stretching to the
farthest end David is brought to the Anointed One who must be "of the seed
of David according to the flesh," as recorded in II. Sam. 7:12--"I
will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I
will establish his kingdom." In David's line the royalty was for ever
established never to "depart." "My mercy shall not depart away
from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee" (II. Sam.
7: 15). From the house of Benjamin the dynasty was taken away--it
"departed;" but from the house of David, never. "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" (Ps. 132: 11). "Thy seed will I establish
for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations." "Then thou
spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that
is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people. I have found David my
servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him. * * * But my faithfulness and
mercy shall be with him; and in my name shall his horn (royal power in Christ)
be exalted * * * and I will make him my first-born, higher than the kings of
the earth. My mercy will I keep for him for evermore and my covenant shall
stand fast in him" (Ps. 89: 4, 19-28).
It might appear that since the crown was taken from
Zedekiah, the mercy, sceptre or dynasty, had departed from the house of David.
But when it was taken from Saul it was transferred to another. If when it was
withdrawn from Zedekiah it "departed," upon whom was it conferred? To
what house was it transferred? It did not in that sense "depart." God
withdrew it, as it were--snatched it out of the hands of wickedness and "will
keep it for him (Christ) for evermore."
In the days of the restoration from Babylon there were
certain of the priests who sought but could not find their "register among
those that were reckoned by genealogy; therefore were they as polluted put from
the priesthood" (Ezra 2: 62). Thus we see that God has had regard to the
law of heredity, and by Him such legal rights have been maintained. After abiding
many days without a king one of the prerequisites to Israel in case of a
claimant to the Messiahship and throne of David was a clear record of descent
according to the flesh; and of no one have we information of having such record
except Christ. He could plead His claims to His nation upon the most
substantial grounds and upon the most technical. Wise men announced him as
"King of the Jews." He was born of a virgin espoused to a man whose
name is Joseph, of the house of David (Luke 1: 27). This man was
"of the house and lineage of David" (chap. 2: 4). Mary's genealogy
was open to be read of all men to show her direct descent from David; and the
enemies of Christ confessed their intimate acquaintance with them when they
wonderingly exclaimed, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father
and mother we know?" (John 6. 42). In view of these admitted facts--real
facts and a mistaken notion--He could take them at their word and fasten his
genealogical right in every conceivable way. Do you regard me as the natural
son of Joseph? Then by your mistake you are silenced in any claim you may set
up against my legal right to the throne. Do you admit that Joseph is only my
legal father? Then legally I press my claim, since Joseph and my mother Mary
both are of the house and lineage of David. Produce a man with a better claim
if you can. They could not, and they knew better than to dispute His right to
the throne by the law of heredity; for that he was the seed of David according
to the flesh could not be denied.
But was there a break and a possible drop of a link in the
chain when, by wicked hands, they slew the Prince of life? He was dead, with a
heavy stone upon His tomb, A Roman guard around it. Has the sceptre--the
"mercy"--departed away from Him? Yes, say the wicked, cruel men, who
imbrued their hands in His blood. We have Him now; we have proven that He is
not the Son of David from whom the sceptre should not depart. But how vain
man's thoughts! The question, "Who shall roll away the stone?" was
answered by Heaven's power; guards are scattered, the seal is broken and an
empty tomb proclaims to an astonished world, "He is risen."
But, his enemies may ask, How is a man that was dead going
to face all the facts of his burial and precautions against fraud and prove his
identity? Ah, "murder will out;" they had made the very marks in His
body that should identify Him to a doubting Thomas, to the twelve, and to the
five hundred, as well as to a representative of Jewish bigotry and zealous
persecution--Paul.
But a dead and buried man who would go to corruption would
lose those bodily marks of identification. Yes, but an exception made here for
that very purpose leaves those marks where they were made--in David's flesh,
the very flesh in which was vested the royal right divine. "Thou wilt not
suffer thine holy one to see corruption" are words that ring and re-echo
the sound of an empty tomb and bid defiance to a sinful nation to produce the
body they took such precautions to keep in the tomb till corruption should wipe
out every evidence of descent from the royal house of David. With the eloquence
and logic of an inspired tongue the Apostle Peter faces the hardened
stiff-necked crowd and heaps coals of fire upon their heads by the far-reaching
and far-seeing words of Israel's sweetest Psalmist. "Men and
brethren," he cries out, "let me freely speak unto you of the
patriarch David that he is both dead and buried (not risen), and his sepulchre
is with us unto this day. 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 would raise up Christ to sit upon his throne, he seeing this
before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hades,
neither did his flesh see corruption." That Christ's claim to
David's throne might yet be made to Israel and yet enforced upon Israel upon
the ground of His flesh being of David's loins David foresaw that his flesh
should not see corruption and thus lose its identity and proof of heredity.
In that flesh of David's loins the marks were made; Thomas,
in the most real manner possible, witnessed them; five hundred in a mountain in
Galilee saw them and knew that Jesus was the risen Son of David, with the very
flesh of David, notwithstanding its immortalization, and to keep complete every
link of the chain that would reach from God's footstool to His throne, angels
stand between heaven and earth and proclaim, as the immortal son of David, with
the death-dealt marks of His enemies in that very David's flesh of which he is
"made" and in which He is now immortalized--as this Son of David and
now Son of God in the fullest sense is carried majestically upon the wings of
the clouds, right there and then angels' voices sound out, and they have been
resounding down the ages since: "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." The curtain drops for a time, and when next it goes up there
appears upon the stage "he that hath the key of David" (Rev. 3: 7)
with "the key of the house of David upon his shoulder" (Isa. 22: 22);
and "every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him" (Rev.
1: 7). In David's very flesh, in the person of David's royal Son glorified and
immortalized, shall stubborn Israel see the marks of identification made by
their own cruel and sinful hands, and exclaim, "What are these wounds in
thine hands?" The piercing and heart-rending answer to which shall be, "These
are they that I received in the house of my friends." "And they shall
mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for
him as one that is in bitterness for his first born." Then shall repentant
Israel accept their Messiah--the Son of David according to the flesh, and call
on the name of the Lord, and he will hear them, and say, "It is my people;
and they shall say, The Lord is my God."
Our fourth proposition, that the King of the kingdom will be
Christ returned to the earth to reign on David's throne, is really established
by what we have already said, and since it is our intention to deal with the
second coming of Christ in a chapter specially devoted to that important
subject, it is necessary to say but little under this heading. We would,
however, remind the reader that unless Christ's return is kept in view it will
be impossible to understand many passages of the New Testament. The wise men
who came from the East on the occasion of Christ's birth inquired, "Where
is he that is born king of the Jews?" (Matt. 2:2). And when Herod inquired
where he should be born, it was answered by prophecy from the book of Micah,
which declared, "And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the
least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come a Governor that
shall rule my people Israel" (verse 6). He was born king of the Jews, and
it was He that was to rule Israel. He did not rule Israel; for when He was here
they said, "We will not have this man to reign over us." Of
Jerusalem, the capital of the kingdom, Jesus said, "Swear not by Jerusalem
for it is the city of the great king" (Matt. 5: 34, 35). The great king is
Christ, Jerusalem is His city, and of this city He says, "Jerusalem shall
be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be
fulfilled" (Luke 21: 24). Jerusalem is still trodden down of the Gentiles.
The great king who is to be king of the Jews and to rule Israel has not yet
taken possession of His city. The time has not come for "the Lord to
inherit Judah his portion in the Holy Land, and to choose Jerusalem
again." When that time does come, the Lord will cry out to Israel,
"Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for lo, I come, and I will dwell in
the midst of thee, saith the Lord" (Zech. 2: 10). Then "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. 51: 3). At Christ's first coming, He was scoffed at and mocked at; a reed
was put in his hand for a sceptre; and thorns on His brow for a crown. But when
He comes the second time, He will hold in His hand the sceptre of righteousness,
and wear upon his brow a crown of glory and honor. When he marched into the
city and they cried out, Hosanna, He declared that if they ceased, the very
stones themselves would cry out, and that event is a foretaste, as it were, or
an earnest of the grand and glorious event of His future triumphant march as
the great King into the city of the great King, when He shall come again. Then
will be realized the full meaning of the words, "Blessed is he that cometh
in the name of the Lord, Hosanna in the Highest!" (Matt. 21: 9). At the
time that He entered into Jerusalem there was cause for him to weep, but when
he enters it again it will be a day of rejoicing. "He beheld the city, and
wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day,
the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about
thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay
thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not
leave thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy
visitation" (Luke 19: 42-44). Not knowing the day of their visitation, and
failing to recognize their Messiah when He came, they refused Him and crucified
Him, and so He, as Moses of old, left them in their bondage, crying out,
"Behold your house is left unto you desolate," and "Verily I say
unto you, Ye shall not see me until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is
he that cometh in the name of the Lord." This will be the time spoken of
by the prophet Zechariah when "they shall look upon him whom they have
pierced," and realize that he is the one at whom they mocked and scoffed.
When He was nailed to the cross the superscription placed
over Him was, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews," and finding
fault with this the Jews said, "Put not that he is the king of the Jews,
but that he said he was the king of the Jews." And that He was the King
was the good confession that He witnessed before Pilate. When Pilate asked Him
if he was a King, His answer was, "To this end was I born." The end
has not been reached yet, but the time will come when He will be in deed and
truth the King of the Jews, as His father David was. Having ascended to heaven
and been exalted to His Father's throne there He said, "To him that
overcometh will I grant to sit with me on my throne, even as I also overcame,
and am set down with my Father in his throne" (Rev. 3: 21). For the
present He is on His Father's throne in heaven, but God has promised Him a
throne of His own, which is the throne of the Lord over Israel; and since He
has promised to share this with those who shall overcome, the question might be
asked here, When will He sit upon that throne? a question which is clearly
answered in the following words, "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 glory" (Matt. 25: 31).
To this throne He has a right in a twofold sense. The throne
was David's, but it was also called the Lord's throne. It was "the throne
of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel" given to David. Christ, being the
Son of God through begettal by the Holy Spirit, is the rightful heir to that throne
as the throne of the Lord. Being of the "seed of David according to the
flesh" (Rom 1: 3), the royal son of David, he has a right by inheritance
to the same throne, and therefore no one can show the rightful claim to the
throne of the Lord over Israel, the throne of David, except Christ. He is the
one "whose right it is" and when Jerusalem shall become "the
city of the great king" and fulfill what its name signifies, the city of
peace, made so by the Prince of Peace, there shall issue from that city laws
that shall bring "Peace on earth, good-will among men and glory to God in
the Highest"; for then "The mountain of the Lord's house shall be
established in the top of the mountain, and shall be exalted above the hills;
and all nations shall flow unto it. 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,"
that is the Zion in Jerusalem, where David's throne was, and of which Christ
says He will build up its ruins; out of this 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 plowshares
and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against
nation, neither shall they learn war any more" (Isa. 2: 2-4). All this is
said concerning Judah and Jerusalem (verse 1). Thus will Christ be the King of
the kingdom of Israel on David's throne to rule over the house of Jacob
specially and the whole world generally.
On the question of the territory of the kingdom proper,
sufficient has been said to show that it will be the land promised to Abraham,
and that the dominion will extend to the uttermost parts of the earth; that
Jerusalem, in the promised land or territory of the kingdom, will be the center
of this great government is shown from numerous testimonies. And when we say
Jerusalem, we mean that wonderful city of antiquity, rebuilt and beautified to
become the great center city of the world, religiously, politically and
commercially. The prophetic words of Isaiah will then cry out, "Awake!
awake! put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem,
the holy city. * * * Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O
Jerusalem: loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of
Zion" (Isa. 52: 1, 2). "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet
of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good
tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God
reigneth! Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice: with the voice together shall
they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again
Zion" (verses 7, 8). Mark the words, "bring again Zion."
"Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem."
Mark the words again, "ye waste places of Jerusalem." The time
will come when there will be no waste places as there have been through the
dark ages and as at present. "The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the
eyes of all the nations." And now for the extent of the domination to
which the blessings shall flow forth from this great city: "and all the
ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God" (Isa. 52: 9, 10).
Then the words will be exemplified, "Arise, shine; for thy light is come,
and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to
thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising" (Isa. 60: 1, 3). Who
can read the following beautiful words without seeing the grand future of
Jerusalem? "For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's
sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness,
and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth. And the Gentiles shall see
thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new
name which the mouth of the Lord shall name. Thou shalt also be a crown of
glory in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God. 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" (chap.
62: 1-4). "Go through, go through the gates; prepare ye the way of the
people; cast up, cast up the highway; gather out the stones; lift up a standard
for the people. Behold, the Lord hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say
ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his reward is
with him, and his work before him. And they shall call them, The Holy people.
The redeemed of the Lord: and thou shalt be called, Sought out, A city not
forsaken" (verses 10-12).
This all centers in Christ, and establishes His power and
glory in the once desolate land now to be no more desolate, the land from the
river of Egypt to the great river Euphrates, as promised and described to
Abraham; and His dominion to extend to the uttermost parts of the earth.
"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, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve
and obey him" (Dan. 7: 27). Shall serve and obey him. Whom? "I
beheld," says Daniel, "and 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). "I saw," he declares, "in the
night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of
heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before him.
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" (verses 13, 14). It is then that the "kingdoms of this
world shall become the kingdom of our Lord, and of his Christ, and he shall
reign for ever and ever" (Rev. 11: 15).
That the royal house or associates of the King will be (a)
the twelve apostles raised from the dead and immortalized, who will rule the
twelve tribes of Israel; and (b) the immortal saints redeemed from the human
race from the time when Paradise was lost by Adam the first till Paradise will
be regained by Adam the second literally to reign with Christ, present to us a
reality of things that is not found in the spiritualizing ideas of those who
"try to read their title clear to mansions in the skies." Who that
looks out over this sin-cursed earth, and sees its masses burdened with sin,
sickness, sorrow, pain and death, oppressed and trampled down by tyranny and
despotism, might triumphing over right, the rich against the poor, crushing
them down into the very earth--who can view this spectacle and not yearn for
the time when the government shall be put into the hands of a righteous King of
kings and priests to administer to the wants of the people, whose work, first
of all, is to "bring down the mighty from their seats and exalt those of
low degree; to fill the hungry with good things, and to send the rich empty
away" (Luke 1: 52, 53). To do this a great crisis must come, a time of
trouble, as Daniel describes it, "such as never was since there was a
nation," for "the nations will rage and the people will imagine a
vain thing, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords
from us." It is then that "God will speak to them in His wrath and
vex them in his sore displeasure." Then it is that "He will set His
King upon His holy hill of Zion." Then it is that He will give to that
King "the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession, and the heathen
for his inheritance." Then it is that "He will break them with a rod
of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel" (Psa. 2: 1-9).
Associated with Him in this work of destroying the world's oppressors will be
the saints, for it is written, "Praise ye the Lord, Sing unto the Lord a
new song, and his praise in the congregation of the saints. Let Israel rejoice
in him that made him: let the children of Zion be joyful in their king. Let
them praise his name in the dance: let them sing praises unto him with the
timbrel and harp. For the Lord taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify
the meek with salvation. 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 honor have all his
saints. Praise ye the Lord!" (Psa. 149). Here is an honor that is to be
given to the saints; here is the realization of the promise, "In thee and
in thy seed shall all families of the earth be blessed." That the
apostles, however, are the associates of Christ, in reigning over the twelve
tribes is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Note the promise made to them by
Christ when here on the earth to the question asked by Peter, "Behold, we
have left all and followed thee, What shall we have therefore?" What is
the answer given? May I ask what would be the answer given to such a question,
if it were put to the religious leaders of this day? Ask them what we should
have for forsaking all and following Christ, and the answer is, When you die
you shall go to heaven, and there you shall bask in bliss for a time. For how
long? Ah! they will say, until the day of judgment. Until the day of judgment,
what then? Then you must leave your place of happiness, go back into your
resurrected bodies to be judged and have your destiny again thrown into the
balance, as it were. What for? To see if a mistake had been made in sending
them to heaven to enjoy felicity for, say six thousand years, as in the case of
Abel, while others, as in the case of Cain, have been sent to a burning hell to
be tortured for six thousand years? Are they then to be brought back to be
judged? Ah! yes, the answer will be, they must be judged, for Paul says,
"We must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." It is said
that "He will judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his
kingdom," so we must be judged. If we are judged at Christ's second
appearing, at the end of the world, what is the judgment for if the majority of
the human family have been some of them enjoying happiness, and others in hell
enduring torture, some of them for six thousand years?
Here we see how the word of God is made to appear confusing
by those who are supposed to be its friends and supporters. The imaginary
rewards held out by so-called orthodox religion of going to heaven at death
finds no support in the Scriptures; and the answer to Peter's question is so
different from popular tradition that there ought not to be the least
difficulty in discriminating between truth and error on the question. Here is
the Savior's answer: "Verily 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. 19: 28). The fulfillment of this promise necessitates the
restoration of the twelve tribes; and not the return of the apostles from
heaven, but their resurrection to receive all the honor and blessings it
involves at the hands of Christ as their "righteous Judge." When the
song of redemption is sung by all the redeemed at the return of Christ, all who
participate will be "kings and priests" to reign with Christ. In that
song there will be no discord. No one will be permitted to join who would
attempt to sing a "title clear to mansions in the sky." The song will
he "Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for
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. 5: 9, 10). As kings and
priests, associates of the King supreme, they will reign with Christ a thousand
years (Rev. 20: 4).
Thus in the Messianic restoration of the kingdom of Israel
and throne of David the constitution of things will be:
1. A universal government that shall reach to the
"uttermost parts of the earth" and bless all nations with a reign of
"peace on earth, good will toward men and glory to God in the
highest."
2. In a special sense, as constituting the subjects of the
kingdom proper, the twelve tribes of Israel will be blessed by the reign of
their once rejected but then accepted Messiah, whose righteous and beneficent
laws shall be administered by the twelve apostles.
3. The dynasty of the kingdom will be Israelitish, through
the tribe of Judah, in the Royal line of David, which by Divine right belongs
to Christ, and which through Him will be shared by all the true "Israel of
God" or Israel after the spirit.
4. The King supreme will be Christ returned personally to
the earth to rule on David's restored throne, and to be Lord and King over all
the earth.
5. The Royal house will consist of the twelve apostles in
particular, and of the redeemed, immortal saints who shall be made "kings
and priests to reign on the earth."
6. The territory of the kingdom proper will consist of the
Holy Land, or the land of Canaan promised to the fathers, Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob, as described in the words, "From the river of Egypt, unto the Great
River, the river Euphrates." But the territorial dominion of the kingdom
will be co-extensive with the utmost bounds of the earth.
7. The capital of the kingdom will be the "City of the
great King,"--Jerusalem to be restored and rebuilt in splendor to be the
center from which shall issue laws that shall make her indeed what she is in
name--the city of peace.
8. The laws of the kingdom will be from God, and will
therefore be wise and good, for the greatest welfare of mankind and the glory
and honor of Him by whom the world's redemption is planned and unfolded.
Through this grand consummation will be fulfilled the
never-failing promise of God, "As truly as I live all the earth shall be
filled with my glory," and our prayer will be realized, "Thy kingdom
come; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
Many profess to believe in the return of Christ, who make
what the word of God says on the subject of none effect by holding popular
traditions. THE TRUTH is such a perfect system that it will not admit of the
introduction of one error without making confusion. The return of Christ is a
burning and shining light throughout the Scriptures, and upon it depends the
resurrection of the dead, the reward of the righteous, the fulfillment of the
covenants of promise--in short the world's redemption. This important truth is
nullified by the belief that all good men go to heaven when they die, and that
heaven, not the earth, is the everlasting abode of the righteous, and that all
the good have gone there and are saved. Why should Christ return to the earth,
if, "at the end of the world," all the good of Adam's race are to be
taken to heaven, and all the wicked are to be plunged into a hell of torment
and the earth burned up? Where is there room left for a belief in the personal
return and reign of Christ on the earth? Belief in the second coming of Christ
by those who are wedded to the theory of heaven-going at death is very
inconsistent. The false theory will not harmonize with the truth. It is more
consistent to hold the radical "orthodox" theory of heaven-going and deny
entirely the personal coming of Christ. But the only safe way is to accept the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. What has every reader of
Scripture a right to expect from the prophecies and promises we find, in the
Old Testament especially? The very first promise we have, that the seed of the
woman should bruise the serpent's head, would surely give us to understand that
Christ, who is the seed of the woman referred to, will accomplish what is
implied by bruising the serpent's head. What evil had the serpent introduced
into the world? It had really been the cause of all evil, in whatever form it
might appear and to bruise the serpent's head could mean nothing else than to
remove all the evils of which the serpent's lie was the first cause. We come
along down the ages until the time when the seed of the woman appears. Does He
bruise the serpent's head to the extent that the promise would imply? Does He
remove the evils, with which the world had then become full? The only sense in
which it can be said that he bruised the serpent's head is, so far as it
applied to Himself, He gained the victory over death and the grave, in Himself
and for Himself, but death still held in the tomb all those who had died in the
faith and it was declared by the apostle it was heresy to teach that the
resurrection was past already. Hence so long as death held in its grasp those
who had died in the Abrahamic faith, the serpent's head had not been bruised.
Look at the world at the time Christ was here and trace its history to the
present; view it as it is today and who can say that the serpent's head has
been bruised? Who can say that sin with all its resultant evils has been
eliminated from the earth? Here is a work that Christ as the seed of the woman
was to do. He came; he went, but he did not do it. Shall we say that He has
failed to do the work allotted to Him? Nay, verily.
Again we go back and read that the whole earth was to be
filled with the glory of the Lord. From numerous testimonies we may be sure
that this wonderful work was to be performed in and through Christ, for whom
and on account of whom all things are created. Did he, when he was here
eighteen hundred years ago, fill the earth with the glory of the Lord? Nay verily.
We have seen from the covenants of promise that the world was to be given into
His hands and that He would bless all nations of the earth. He came, but all
nations of the earth are not blessed. The covenant with David was that God
would give to Christ his throne, and that He would reign over the house of
Jacob for ever. The house of Jacob is still scattered among the nations of the
earth; the throne of David is in ruins; Christ has been here, and has gone. The
covenant is not fulfilled. Will it never be fulfilled? Who would dare say that
God's promises will fail? We go back again to Moses, and hear him declare,
"A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you like unto me; him
shall ye hear in all things." The prophet came, and appeared unto Israel.
Did they hear Him? No, they did not. They have not heard Him yet.
"Blindness in part has happened to Israel" and Christ has become a
"stone of stumbling and rock of offense" to them, and yet Moses truly
declared that they should hear Him in all things--He was to be a prophet like
unto Moses, to do what Moses did. As Moses appeared to Israel and was refused
for a time, so Christ appeared to Israel and was refused for a time. Will He
yet do as Moses did, deliver Israel? Will He yet be a prophet whom they will hear
in all things? He must be or the Scriptures of truth are broken, and the word
of God has failed, which is impossible. From the prophecy of Isaiah we have
learned that there was a son to be born, and a child was to be given, and he
was to be the Prince of Peace, and of the increase of his government and peace
there was to 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. When He came, those whose hearts had burned in contemplation of
the fulfillment of these promises believed that He would fulfill them. They had
a right to expect a fulfillment of what God had sworn to, and they had a right
to expect that Christ would be the one who would fulfill them, for they could
not be mistaken in regard to His identity. They could feel sure that He was the
seed of the woman, that He was the seed of Abraham, to whom the promise was
made, that He was the prophet like unto Moses, that He was the seed of David,
who would build up the ruins of David's throne, and reign over the house of
Jacob. They could be sure that He was the very person, all the marks of
identity necessary were in Him. I say again, that they had a right to expect
from these promises and prophecies that He would accomplish the things
predicted. Had they been challenged, had some one said to them, You have no
right to expect such things, they could have readily pointed them to, Thus
saith the Lord, "The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's
head." "To thee and to thy seed will I give the land for an
everlasting inheritance, and in thy seed shall all families of the earth be
blessed." "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you; him
shall ye hear in all things"; "As truly as I live the whole earth
shall be filled with the glory of the Lord"; "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," and David says of this that it is "all his
salvation and all his desire." To Isaiah's prophecy they could point, and
ask, Who is this child that was to be born, and the son that was to be given?
The only answer that could be given is that He was the one who was born in
Bethlehem. Very well, then they could say, to that son, that child, was the
throne of David to be given; and that He was to reign over the house of Jacob,
for in the very same passage it says that the government was to be upon His
shoulders, that He was to be the Prince of Peace, and of the increase of his
government and peace there should 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. What else could they expect but that He would be
the one to fulfill these glorious promises? Where is the mistake? He did not
fulfill them. Did he fail? No, indeed. There is a mistake somewhere. Where is
it? It is a mistake that never can be corrected if Christ does not return to
the earth again and fulfill all these burning words of Scripture. A Prince of
Peace is what He is called. A king that shall reign in righteousness and rule
with equity, and when contemplating His birth, Mary cries out prophetically,
"He hath showed 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 hath 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 1: 51-55). Zacharias saw that through Him would be fulfilled these
prophecies and declared, "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; 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" (verses 68-73). At His birth angels appeared and
identified Him as the promised Prince of Peace, and a multitude of the heavenly
host cried out in praise to God saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and
on earth peace, good-will toward men." Here is the Prince of Peace; here
are angels' voices proclaiming Him the one that was to bring peace on earth and
good-will toward men. We accompany them; we see that the child is born, and
that the son is given; we watch Him as He grows in stature and in wisdom; we
listen to Him at twelve years of age, confounding the doctors in the temple; we
hear Him even at this youthful age saying, "Wist ye not that I must be about
my Father's business," showing what an exalted idea He had of the great
mission entrusted in His hands. At thirty years of age He is heralded into
public life by His forerunner, John, crying out, "Behold, the Lamb of God
that taketh away the sin of the world." Never man spake as this man spake;
never man did what this man could do. He is wonderful in all that pertains to
the great work of His life. Surely this is the Prince of Peace; surely this is
the one that will bring peace on earth and good-will among men. We have only to
wait but a short time to realize these inspiring prophecies which made the
hearts of ancient seers burn with joyful expectation. We continue to accompany
Him, filled with joy in the hope of the ecstacy with which such a fulfillment
shall thrill the world. We are upon tip-toe looking and listening for peace,
sweet peace, for a troubled world, and at last we hear Him saying, "Think
not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace but
a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household" (Matt. 10: 34-36).
Here is a blow that strikes all our hopes and expectations down to the ground.
What shall we do? We step up and ask Him, Are you not come to bring peace on
earth and good-will among men? Are you not the prince of peace who is to bless
all nations of the earth, and fill the earth with the glory of the Lord as the
waters cover the sea? Is God's word a failure? Here is Israel crying out under
the bondage and oppression of the Roman galling yoke; they are looking to you
for deliverance; the prophets of old have told us that you are to be their
deliverer. Is all this a failure? Again He answers us in words that overcome us
with discouragement and despair; instead of words of peace He speaks words of
war; instead of words of consolation and comfort for a suffering world, He
predicts times of greater trouble yet to come, declaring, "There shall be
signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth
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 on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken" (Luke 21:
25, 26). Now what shall we do? I ask the question, I press the question, what
shall we do? Christ has appeared and these promises and prophecies have not
been fulfilled. Instead of bringing peace, He says He has sent a sword; instead
of blessing the world of nations, He says there shall be distress of nations
with perplexity; instead of filling the earth with the glory of the Lord, the
world has passed through the darkest ages of its history since that time;
instead of executing judgment, justice and righteousness upon the throne of
David, David's throne is still in ruins; instead of being a prophet like unto
Moses, whom Israel should hear, they cry out, "Away with him, we will not
have this man to reign over us"; instead of receiving the land promised to
Abraham for an everlasting inheritance, and blessing all nations of the earth,
the land is still in desolation, and all nations are groaning underneath the
burdens of a cruel oppression. Christ has been here; He appeared, He has
disappeared, and that behind dark and dismal clouds that hang over the earth
like the pall of death. Behind a frowning providence He has hid His face. Is
all a failure? Is all a failure, I ask? Is the Bible a falsehood and a fraud?
Must we hand it over to the infidel and admit that it is what he claims? Nay,
verily, a thousand times nay. But if Christ has gone away to remain away; if
there is no second coming of Christ to really and literally fulfill these
promises then God's word has failed. Where lies the trouble? In the word of
God? In a failure on the part of His beloved Son, the man at His right hand?
No, indeed, a thousand times no. "As truly as I live all the earth shall
be filled with my glory"; "my word shall not return to me void, it
shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto
I sent it." Where is the trouble? The trouble is in the apostate religious
world. It has departed from the truth and given heed to fables which have fixed
upon the minds of the people a tradition which has sent Christ and all his
redeemed ones to heaven as their eternal abode, and predicted the destruction
of this fair earth of ours, and thus the word of God in all these grand
promises is made of none effect. But, dear reader, are you not willing to come
to the rescue to snatch the Bible as a brand from the burning, vindicate its
truth and the veracity of its Author, and spare not, cry out; echo and re-echo
that He is yet to come. He who was led as a lamb to the slaughter will yet
personally, literally and substantially appear again, the next time as the Lion
of the tribe of Judah, and that then He shall finally and for ever bruise the
serpent's head, and ultimately eliminate from the earth the last vestige of evil;
that He will then be the seed of Abraham who will possess the gate of His
enemies, and bless all nations of the earth; that He will then be a prophet
like unto Moses, whom Israel shall hear in all things; that He will then be all
David's salvation and desire, the one whom David, as a prophet, knew would be
raised up to sit upon his throne; of the increase of whose government and peace
there should be no end, upon the throne of David; that He shall then be the
Prince of peace; then the words of the heavenly host shall find gladsome
fulfillment, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will
toward men," and then shall be realized the words so imperatively declared
by Jehovah, "As truly as I live the whole earth shall be filled with my
glory." He shall then put all enemies under His feet, destroying the last
enemy, death; and thus the world's redemption shall be a glorious fact through
Him who, having become a multitude, will be a habitation of God through the
Spirit, when God shall be all and in all, and a redeemed world will cry out,
"Hosanna! Hosanna! to Him that cometh in the name of the Lord."
It is not necessary to quote further from the numerous
testimonies of the Old Testament Scriptures to prove the second coming of
Christ. The fact that the larger part of the Old Testament prophecies remain
unfulfilled, and their fulfillment depends on His second coming, is sufficient
of itself to show that, since the word of God cannot fail, Christ must return
again to accomplish all that the law and the prophets require in and through
Him. As to the New Testament it really ought not to be necessary to cite the
numerous testimonies in proof of such clearly revealed truth. The truth upon
this and upon all other subjects would be very easily understood were it not
for the speculations and perverseness of the religious world, which cloud and
obstruct the way to a clear understanding. The following are some of the
passages which declare in unmistakable language Christ's return to the earth;
and when we say Christ's return, we mean His return in a real, tangible,
personal sense, with no mystic or so-called spiritual meaning attached. We mean
His coming as real as His going was, and let the reader keep this in view in
examining these passages, and it will be seen no other conclusion can be
reached.
Matt. 25: 31--When the Son of man shall come in his
glory, and all his holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of
his glory.
Luke 19: 12-15--He said therefore, 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 when he was returned, having
received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto
him.
John 13: 33--Little children, yet a little while I am with
you. Ye shall seek me; and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go ye cannot
come.
John 14: 3--And if I go and prepare a place for you, I
will come again and receive you, (here, not there) unto myself, that where
I am there ye may be also.
Acts 1: 9--And when he had spoken these things, while they
beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while
they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, 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.
I. Cor. 1: 7--So that ye come behind in no gift, waiting
for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall confirm you (at his
coming; not at their going) unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day
of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I. Cor. 15: 23--But every man in his own order; Christ the
first-fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
Phil. 3: 20--For our conversation is in heaven, from
whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Col. 3: 4--When Christ who is our life shall appear, then
shall ye also appear with him in glory.
I. Thess. 1: 9, 10--Ye turned to God from idols to serve the
living and true God; and to wait for his Son from heaven.
II. Thess. 2: 1--Now we beseech you, brethren, by the
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him.
Verse 8--And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the
Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth and shall destroy with the
brightness of his coming.
II. Tim. 6: 1--I charge thee therefore before God, and the
Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing
and his kingdom, preach the word.
Verses 7, 8--I have fought a good fight, I have finished my
course, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me a
crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that
(not this) day; and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his
appearing.
Tit. 2: 12, 13--Teaching us that denying all ungodliness and
worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present
world, looking for that blessed hope and the glorious APPEARING of the
great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.
Heb. 9: 28--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
I. Peter 1: 7--That the trial of your faith, being much more
precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be
found unto praise and honor and glory, at the appearing of Jesus Christ.
1. John 3: 2--Beloved now are we the sons of God, and 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.
Rev. 1: 7--Behold he cometh with clouds; and every
eye shall see him, and they also that pierced him; and all kindreds of the
earth shalt wail because of him
Rev. 16: 15--Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he
that watcheth.
Rev. 22: 7--Behold, I come quickly; blessed is he
that keepeth the sayings of this book.
Verse 12--And behold, I come quickly, and my
reward is with me, to give to every man according as his work shall be.
Verse 20--He that testifieth these things saith, Surely,
I come quickly. Amen. Even so, Come, Lord Jesus.
Yes, many will say, no doubt the Scriptures teach the second
coming of Christ, and everybody believes in it. But how is it believed in, in
what sense? Some will say that He comes in a sort of an unexplained,
inexplicable spiritual sense at the death of every believer to take the soul to
heaven; others will say that He is coming at what is called the "end of
the world," simply to raise the dead and take all the residue of the
redeemed to heaven, when the earth is to be burnt up; but neither of these
speculations is in harmony with the testimony cited. When the angels declared
His coming again, they did so in words which cannot be misconstrued or
perverted to make them suit human speculations. "This same Jesus whom ye
have seen go into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him
go" is what the angels say. He went bodily, literally, and they saw Him
go. He will come in like manner, and "every eye shall see him, and they
that pierced him shall behold him." There can, therefore, be no question
about the literality of His coming.
Not only so, but what I wish to impress upon the reader's
mind here is that salvation depends upon His coming. It is in "the
regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory"
that the twelve apostles are to receive their reward. For Peter's question was,
"What shall we have for following thee?" What shall be our reward?
And the Savior's answer is that they shall be rewarded "in the
regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory,"
that it is then that they shall "sit upon twelve thrones, judging the
twelve tribes of Israel" (Matt. 19: 27, 28). That which Peter and the
apostles are to have for leaving all and following Him is not to be had until
"the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his
glory." When shall the Son of man sit in the throne of His glory? He
answers, "When the Son of man shall come in his glory and all the holy
angels with him, then shall he sit in the throne of his glory"
(Matt. 25: 31). Let the reader examine further along in the chapter and it will
be seen that it is at this time that Christ will call before Him those who are
to be judged, separating them one from another, the good from the bad; and
punishment is inflicted upon the bad and rewards are meted out to the good. To
those on the right hand He says, "Come ye blessed of my Father inherit the
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;" and it is then
that the wicked go away into the punishment of the age, and the righteous into
the life of the age (verse 46) . Hence the reward of the righteous and
punishment of the wicked depend upon the second coming of Christ. He does not
reward the righteous first and then judge them. He does not judge them until He
comes the second time. He does not reward them until after He has judged them
at His second coming. Therefore the salvation of every follower of Christ
depends upon His second coming.
In the parable of the nobleman He shows them that before the
establishment of His kingdom can take place, and therefore before we can enter
the kingdom, He must go to heaven and return. During His absence there is a
command for faithful followers to obey, a commandment which unfaithful men have
perverted and disobeyed. What is that command? It might be as well here to emphasize
what it is not. He does not command them to occupy till they shall go to him in
heaven, the very thing that popular religious teachers tell the people they
must do. Were we to ask them what our duty is, and what our hope is, the answer
would be, Occupy, to use the word the Saviour used, as long as you live in this
life, until you die, and then you will go to heaven. But what is the command of
the Saviour in the case? Here it is in words unmistakable, "Occupy till I
come." (Luke 19: 12-27.) It is further said that "when he was
returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants
to be called unto him." Now let us suppose him calling his servants
when he was here on earth, and just upon the eve of his departure telling them,
"Occupy till I come." I am going away to heaven and I am coming back.
I want you and all your successors, or whoever would faithfully follow me, to
occupy, that is, believe me, and obey me during my absence; be faithful to me
till I return, for I will return, and when I do, I will call you into my
presence to give an account of how you have conducted yourselves during my
absence, and your reward and punishment shall be accordingly. Can anything be
plainer than this? Can anything be more directly opposed to popular theories
than this? If the servants to whom he addressed himself went to heaven to him
as soon as they died, they have been with him ever since. How then shall we
understand him saying that when he would return he would call them together. If
they have been called together to him in heaven two thousand years before, how
can He call them together here when he returns to this earth? And let it be
observed that the calling together is to judge them before they are rewarded,
whereas, if they had been in heaven and had been rewarded for two thousand
years, and then called back here to earth, we should have a reversal of the
order of things, in such a manner that if an ordinary judge were guilty of such
an absurdity, he would be declared unfit for his office.
John 14: 1-3, is quoted by some to prove that Christ
intended that his disciples should go to heaven to him. We shall give special
attention to this passage of Scripture further on, but will simply say here
that there is not a word in the text about their going to heaven. What the text
teaches is that Christ was going there, and that Christ was coming back. For he
declares, "If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come
again." Come again for what? Mark the next words, "and
receive you unto myself." After Christ should have received them in heaven
two thousand years before, how could he come again to receive them? The
receiving here is when he comes again, and not when they go to him. This
receiving when he comes again is that, "where I am," that is, where I
am when I come again, or, if you like, where I am now when I am uttering these
words, "there ye may be also." That he did not mean
that they were to go to heaven to him is clear from the fact that He told them,
"Whither I go ye cannot come," and the apostle Paul declares of God
in heaven, that "no man hath seen Him, nor can see Him, whom no man can
approach unto." The Saviour also declares that "no man hath seen God
at any time." In the declaration of the angels upon the occasion of Christ's
ascension to heaven, when they assure us that his coming will be in like manner
to his going, let it be observed that this was given as a consolation to our
Lord's anxious disciples. If ever a little company of people were anxious they
were at that time, and they had reasons to be so. When we take into
consideration the state of things in the world at that time, the trials and
hardships through which the disciples had passed in company with their Lord and
Master; the cruelty which he had suffered at the hands of the Jews and Gentiles,
when his faithful followers were terror-stricken and amazed, so much so that
Peter was dazed and so staggered that he hardly knew what he was saying when he
denied his Master in that trying hour when Jews and Gentiles sought his
destruction. I say, when we consider what they had passed through, and the
threatenings which seemed to confront them on every hand, and then to think
that their only hope, the one in whom they had placed their implicit trust and
confidence, the Shepherd of the sheep, was about to be snatched away and leave
them in a dark and cruel world, as sheep without a shepherd, we can get a faint
idea of the anxiety of the little company in that trying hour. If ever men
needed consolation, real consolation, not flattery, not mere poetic words, but
a consolation full of reality, they needed it at that time. Not only so, but
they needed such consolation as would bring them as nearly as possible to its
realization. Whatever promise the angels had for those men it should be such as
would be nearest to them, the first blessing they would realize as a
deliverance from the troubles and trials through which they were passing.
According to the popular world, that which was nearest to them in the way of
deliverance was death, and the consolation which would have been given to them
by the leaders of religious theories of our times would have been, Why stand ye
gazing up into heaven? Why are you so anxious? It will only be a few short
years till you die, and then you shall be wafted away on angel's wings to
heaven, to Christ, to bask in bliss eternal. I ask you, dear reader, would this
not have been the consolation given by popular pulpiteers? Is not this the
consolation they give now to men and women who are distressed? But how
different the consolation given by angelic messengers who came with heavenly
authority; who came with consolation which had its foundation, not in
flattering, foolish poetic flights, more noted for their poetry than their
truth; but in words of living truth they declare the deliverance which awaited
those anxious people was not to be at death. It was not to be until Christ,
whom they had seen going into heaven, would so come in like manner as they had
seen him go. This was their consolation. Hence upon the second coming of Christ
depended the salvation of those who had faithfully followed him.
We can understand now why the apostle Paul, writing to the
Corinthians says, "So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming
of our Lord Jesus Christ." Why it was that he said, "Christ the
first-fruits; afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming;" why
he declared to the Philippians, "Our conversation is in heaven, from
whence also we look for the Saviour;" why he said to the Colossians,
"When Christ who is our life shall appear, then shall we also
appear with him in glory;" why he said to the Thessalonians, "Ye
turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his
Son from heaven;" why he declared to the same church, "Now we
beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by
our gathering together unto him," showing that it is when the Lord
comes that we are to be gathered together unto him, and it is not that we are
gathered together in heaven before he comes. And in harmony with all this he
declares, in writing to Timothy, "I charge thee therefore before God, and
the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his
appearing and his kingdom." Whom is he to judge? The quick and the
dead. When is he to judge them? At his appearing and His Kingdom. When will he
reward them?--before he judges them? No. Therefore not before he appears. Whom
is he to judge, again I ask? The quick. Who are they? Those who are alive when
Christ comes; and those who are dead, not alive,--two classes--He will raise
the dead, and they with the quick, the living, will be gathered together unto
him, and he will judge them, and this will be at his appearing and his kingdom.
It cannot be made plainer. Is it not a wonder that the world has gone astray
from such clear teaching? The apostle, himself, when he came to face death,
declared that he had fought the good fight, and kept the faith, and that
henceforth there was laid up for him a crown of righteousness. Henceforth, that
is from the time I die forward until a certain time, there is laid up, or
reserved for me a crown of righteousness. If popular theories are true, Paul
was mistaken, for that was not the time when the crown of righteousness would
be laid up, that was the time when he would receive it. The moment he died he
would mount triumphant to heaven, and there would be crowned with his crown of
righteousness. But Paul did not understand it so. His faith, the good fight for
which he had fought, was a faith that believed that from the time he died
forward his crown of righteousness would be laid up for him. And now let us ask
him when he expects to receive that crown of righteousness. And he answers,
"which the Lord, the righteous judge shall give me;" here we have
really the answer, for he had just said to Timothy that the righteous judge
would judge the quick and the dead at His appearing, and it was as a righteous
judge that he would give Paul his crown of righteousness. Inasmuch as His
appearing as a righteous judge would not take place until His second coming,
how could Paul receive his laid-up crown of righteousness at the hands of the
righteous judge until the righteous judge had come to judge the quick and the
dead, among whom the apostle Paul was numbered? But he does not stop there, he
proceeds further, "which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that
day"--not this day. Mark you, not now, the day of my death, but
at that day, the day at the end of the time during which my crown of
righteousness shall be laid up, then the righteous judge shall give it to me at
that day. What day, Paul? "And not to me only, but unto all them
also that love his appearing." No wonder then, that Paul said
"that we, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, should live soberly, and
righteously, and godly in this present world, looking for that blessed hope and
glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ."
In writing to the Hebrews the apostle shows us that this
coming, of which he is speaking, and in which centers his hope and the hope of
every follower of Christ, is the second coming. It is not a spiritual coming
that is taking place all the time, at the time of every believers death; in
fact, that would not be a coming at all, that would be a staying here, for
every moment of time, according to popular theories, believers are dying, and
it is not imaginable that Christ would be going and coming as rapidly as every
individual believer dies. It would be Christ here all the time to receive the
soul of every one as it leaves the body, and Christ in heaven all the time
receiving them there, and that would be no coming in any sense. But the apostle
says, "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." Note the words. They are full of meaning. They not only tell
us that He will appear, but that this appearing of which he is speaking is
Christ's second appearing. Our relation to that appearing is also set
forth, for it is said, to them that look for Him, that is to them that
look for His second coming, He shall appear to their salvation, which
surely would imply that He will not appear to the salvation of those who do not
look for His second coming, who do not "occupy" till the nobleman
returns. Yet they change and pervert His word and persist in going to Him,
instead of His coming to them.
These words of the apostle find a type in the High Priest
under Moses. In this same chapter he has given a detailed account of the Holy
places of the tabernacle, and of the High Priest going into the Most Holy place
on the day of atonement, which he shows was typical of Christ going into
heaven. As the High Priest appeared in the Most Holy in behalf of Israel in
order that atonement might be effected between the nation and their God, so
Christ has gone into heaven as the high priest of the Israel of God there and
now to appear on their behalf, where "He ever liveth to make intercession
for us." He is now within the veil. And here we might ask, What were the
children of Israel to do while their priest went into the Most Holy to make the
atonement? Were they not to remain outside and await his return, when he would
confer upon them the blessings? Supposing some of them should have invented a
new theory, and declared that it was the duty of the congregation not to wait
till the priest should come out, but go to the priest in the Most Holy, and
supposing they should have attempted to carry this new invention into effect,
what would have been the result? They would have been stricken with death in a
moment. The moment one put a foot upon the threshold of that Most Holy place he
would have been stricken down. Hence, then, they must remain outside waiting
and watching, listening to the ringing of the bells upon the priest's garments
as to whether even he was acceptable in the Most Holy, and whether his offering
in their behalf would be accepted of God. To them that faithfully waited his
return, looking for him, he appeared to their salvation, or rather to their
atonement, which meant, really, the saving of the nation, and their being
permitted to continue in national life. Some of them became impatient and
refused to wait in the proper attitude for the return of the High Priest, and
Paul says they sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play, and with many
of them God was not well-pleased. Now apply this type to the antitype; the true
church of Christ is the congregation, and the High Priest has gone into the
Most Holy place to appear in the presence of God in their behalf. What are we
waiting for? Waiting His return, and those who have apostatized are sitting
down to eat and to drink, and rising up to play, and speculate with theories of
men, with new inventions; instead of waiting the return of the High Priest,
they are to enter and go right into His presence. How can they be said to be
looking for Him and waiting His return? They are unfaithful, they are
apostates, with whom God is not well-pleased. They are like the Israelites of
old, and to them the High Priest will not appear the second time without sin to
their salvation. He will only appear to the salvation of those who have
occupied till He comes, who have turned from idols to serve the living and true
God, and to wait for His son from heaven. Therefore, says Christ, "Behold,
I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth and keepest his garments, lest
he walk naked and they see his shame" (Rev. 16: 15). Behold I come
quickly, that is, quickly or suddenly, He meant, after the things previously
shown had come to pass. John is taken down symbolically through the history of
the world, from his day to the time of Christ's coming. The program of human
events is caused to pass before him in panoramic view, and when he comes down
to the time when the angel's words are to be fulfilled. Christ is to come again
in like manner as He went into heaven, he hears Christ calling out from heaven,
"Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the
prophecy of this book" (Rev. 22 : 7). And again he adds, "Behold, I
come quickly; and my reward is with me to give every man according as his work
shall be" (verse 12). "He that testifieth these things saith, Surely
I come quickly," and the response of every true and faithful follower is,
"Even so, come Lord Jesus." But mark the words, "Behold, I come
quickly, and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work
shall be." Too late! Too late! cries the popular theorist, Abel, Noah,
Abraham, all went to their reward as soon as they died. Too late now to come to
them to give them the reward according as their work shall be. Their reward has
been a matter of experience for long ages before this coming. Too late! Too
late! To the moles and to the bats let us cast these traditions of men, and let
the words of Christ go down deep into our hearts; let us believe them; let us
obey them; let us faithfully watch and wait his coming. To them that look for
him, shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Even so, come,
Lord Jesus.
Dear reader, we beseech you to hear the voice which
speaks from heaven, "Surely I come quickly," for we are in the
days when "quickly" means more than it ever did before. It is for you
to place yourself in such relation to God as to be able to respond, "Even
so, come, Lord Jesus." If you are an alien from the commonwealth of Israel
this promise cannot cheer you. Only by the faithful believers of the true
gospel can it be welcomed in these days when men's hearts are failing them for
fear. Its contemplation quickens and stimulates such. It intensifies their
earnestness, separates them from the world, with all its vanity, frivolity and
selfishness; it gives solemnity to their deportment, attaches vital importance
to their words and actions, and guides and guards them through a life of trials
and affliction, with perils on the right hand and on the left. Think not that
the task is too hard and the trials of faith too rigid. Faithful service brings
its own reward even now, in a "peace of mind which passeth all
understanding," and it makes sure an "inheritance incorruptible, and
undefiled and that fadeth not away." With this blessing within reach why
will you die? Give not yourself away, for that which is not bread nor for that
which satisfieth not. The yoke is easy and the burden is light, and at the end
there is a joy unspeakable and full of glory.
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
Frequently people say when the views set forth herein are
presented to them "Then you do not believe in a heaven." Of course
for a person to say he does not believe in a heaven is to deny the greater part
of the Scriptures. That there is a place called heaven, no one who believes the
Bible can doubt, and that heaven in its highest sense is God's holy and
glorious habitation is abundantly shown. "Hear thou in heaven, thy
dwelling place," says Solomon, and the prayer which our Lord taught
his disciples begins with these words: "Our Father which art in
heaven." The apostle Paul speaks of God as "dwelling in light,
whom no man hath seen, nor can see, whom no man can approach unto." These
testimonies show that heaven is a place, location, and can be thought of and
spoken of separately from the earth and other parts of the universe. Heaven is
generally spoken of from our standpoint as being up or above. The literal
meaning of the word is "that which is heaved up," that which is
above, which is high. "Heaven is my throne and earth is my
footstool," it is said, in which figure of speech it is represented as
above the earth. That it is a place to which persons can go and from whence
they can come is clear from the fact that of Christ's second coming it is said:
"The Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all his holy angels
with him." Since the Scriptures teach that before this coming takes place,
he is at the right hand of the Father in heaven, and since Peter says that God
"shall send Jesus Christ, whom the heaven must receive until the times of
restitution," it follows that Christ, in coming from heaven to the earth,
leaves one place and comes to another. Heaven is, therefore, a reality, a real
place, God's dwelling place. For Christ to leave the earth and go to heaven he
had to ascend; he was taken up into heaven before the gaze of his anxious
disciples, upon which occasion the angels said: "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." Here
we have him going and coming. All these and many other testimonies which might
be given, go to show that heaven exists as a place, a locality.
There is but little revealed to us of the greatness and grandeur
of the vast expanse above and about us, the Bible not being a revelation for
that purpose, but is fitted to the needs and necessities of only our own
planet, which is as a mere speck in the great and marvelous universe. When
heaven is spoken of in the Scriptures, its greatness is always either directly
expressed or implied as if it were a matter of course; and the higher
scientific achievements can ascend in the realms of the starry heavens the more
marvelous appears the greatness thereof, and the more awfully real become the
words of the Psalmist: "The heavens declare the glory of God and the
firmament showeth his handiwork." God "sitteth upon the circle of the
earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers." It is "he
that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent
to dwell in."
Within the great circle of the heavens, the earth, revolving
upon its axis and gliding along its orbit, is but as a very small wheel in the
great machinery of the fathomless and limitless universe, while to our short
range of view it appears great and wonderful above all others of the worlds
which float in the immensity of space. Small as it is, however, compared with
Creation's mighty works, it fits its place and performs its part in maintaining
the perfect equilibrium which the wonderful laws of the Creator so accurately
govern. Scientists tell us that the slight unbalancing of this perfect
equipoise would cause the crash of the universe. This might be true were it
possible to conceive of the occurrence of such unbalancing with the Creator and
upholder off His guard. No power but His could disturb the perfect equilibrium
nor cause the smallest cog to slip in the machinery; but were he to see fit to
remove or to destroy one or any number of the planets, surely a power and
wisdom which could conceive and create such a marvelous system could also, if
it were necessary, rearrange it, or see that the slightest change would not
cause a crash. It is in the vain attempt to undermine the Bible in its account
of Joshua's long day and of miracles generally, that this supposed crashing
result is assumed, and in this attempt the wisdom and power of the Creator are
admitted and declared, it never seeming to occur to those scientists that laws
so perfect and arrangements and adjustments so complete that the slightest
disturbance would be attended with such tremendous results must have emanated
from One whose wisdom and power answer exactly to the Bible description of God.
But will God ever destroy the earth? We may reasonably ask,
why should he ever do so? Is it because evil has come upon it and unfitted it
for perpetual existence? If so, has evil frustrated his purpose and made it
necessary to blot out of existence a part and then rearrange and readjust the
rest of the universe? This cannot be; for he has promised that the earth shall
be filled with his glory as the waters cover the sea; and that its perpetuity
is assured is declared in unmistakable language.
THE PERPETUITY OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH
Eccl. 1: 4--One generation passeth away, and another
generation cometh; but the earth abideth forever.
Psa. 104: 1-5--Blessed be the Lord * * * who laid the
foundation of the earth that it should not be removed forever.
Psa. 119: 90--Thy faithfulness is unto all generations; thou
hast established the earth, and it abideth.
The perpetuity and stability of the ordinances of the earth
are compared with the certainty of the fulfillment of God's promises; the one
can no more cease than the other can fail.
To show the certainty of the fulfillment of God's covenant
with Israel the prophet Jeremiah says:
Jer. 31: 35-36--Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun
for a light by day and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light
by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar: the Lord is his
name: If those ordinances depart from me, saith the Lord, then the seed of
Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me forever.
Jer. 33: 20-21--Thus saith the Lord: If ye can break my
covenant of the day and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be
day or night in their season; then may also my covenant be broken with David my
servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne and with the
Levites, the priests my ministers.
Nothing, therefore, can ever change the ordinances of the
heavens and the earth, and we need have no fear of scientists who guess that
some time in the distant future the supposed internal fires of the earth will
break out and our abode go off in smoke; nor need there be an alarm at the
delusions of some preachers who declare that the earth is to become a great
bonfire and consume away.
When it is shown that God has promised the earth, not
heaven, to the righteous as their everlasting inheritance we are often told
that such is impossible because the Scriptures declare that the earth shall be
burned up. It cannot be that God has lost sight of this final catastrophe which
is supposed to await this terrestrial sphere and predicated the certainty of
the fulfillment of his promises upon the perpetuity of the earth and its
ordinances when, instead of its existence being perpetual, it is to explode and
pass away in fire and smoke.
The mistake is with the theory of the world burners who
refuse to receive the promises that "the earth shall be filled with the
glory of the Lord," "The meek shall inherit the earth and dwell
therein forever." "The righteous shall be recompensed in the
earth." If the earth is to be the habitation for a few short years of a
few good people who are to be taken to another world, and of many wicked who
are to be taken to still another one, much worse than this, and then to be
burned up, it would not seem far from right to say that it has been created in
vain; and with such a view no room whatever would be found for the promises
cited above to which many more might be added. But the prophet Isaiah declares,
"For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed
the earth and made it; he created it not in vain, he formed it to be
inhabited." (chap. 45: 18). Surely his purpose in creating the earth to be
inhabited was not limited to the dark and sinful past and present. The purpose
must reach farther and higher than this. It must have in view a state of
habitation that will be to the glory of God; and is this not what is
contemplated by the words of the heavenly host who cried out: "Glory to
God in the highest; on earth peace and good will toward men." (Luke
2: 14)?
Those who believe that heaven is to be their everlasting
abode and who quote Scripture to prove the destruction of the earth forget that
the same Scripture also declares the destruction of the heavens; and the fact
that the Scriptures do declare the future destruction of the heavens and earth
seems, when superficially viewed, to make God's word contradictory. No one
surely can persuade himself that God will destroy his own glorious habitation.
Why should he do so? To entertain such a thought for a moment is both
unreasonable and unscriptural; and since, as we have seen, the heavens and the
earth with all the ordinances thereof, are used to represent stability,
permanence and perpetuity the question is no more a doubtful or uncertain one.
The eternal existence of the literal or physical heavens and earth, the
marvelous and stupendous work of the Creator, is assured.
It is by failing to discriminate between symbolic and
literal language that the Scriptures are made to appear contradictory on this
question.
If we hold the unscriptural and unreasonable theory that the
physical heavens and earth are to be destroyed we shall be in the same plight
that Wesley found himself when he wrote the poem:
"When heaven and earth are fled and gone, O, where
shall I appear?"
A comparison of Scripture with Scripture will remove any
seeming contradiction, dispel all doubt and bring to view the poetic and
symbolic beauty of Scripture language, language which is often borrowed by
secular writers to great advantage in embellishing their literary work. The
following quotation from Dr. Keith is an illustration of this, in which the
reader will readily see with what forcefulness the words sky, tempest,
convulsion, cloud, electricity, thunderbolt, atmosphere, storm, lightning,
heavens, etc., are figuratively used.
Never, perhaps, in the history of man were the times more
ominous or pregnant with greater events than at present. The signs of them are,
in many respects, set before the eyes of men and need not be told; and they
strike the senses so forcibly and come so closely to the apprehension of all
that they may be said to be felt as well as to be seen. The face of the sky
never indicated more clearly an approaching tempest than the signs of the times
betoken an approaching convulsion--not partial but universal. It is not a
single cloud, surcharged with electricity, on the rending of which a momentary
flash might appear and the thunderbolt shiver a pine or scathe a few lovely
shrubs, that is now rising into view; but the whole atmosphere is lowering. A gathering
storm is accummulating fearfully in every region, the lightning is already seen
gleaming in the heavens and passing in quick succession from one distant cloud
to another as if every tree in the forest would be enkindled, and the
devastating tempest before purifying the atmosphere would spread ruin on every
side.
No sensible person reading the foregoing would look up at
the sky and expect to see signs of a literal storm portending great convulsions
in the physical heavens and earth. With ordinary common sense He would know
that the writer was vividly describing the condition of the political heavens
and threatening destruction of the evils of the world, socially and
politically, as the same writer further says: "Such is the aspect of the political
horizon. The whole world is in agitation."
Now, let us take a passage of Scripture to illustrate the
same figurative use of language, and with ordinary common sense, which the
Scriptures always presume its reader to possess, we shall find it quite easy to
"rightly divide the word of truth" in a proper discrimination between
literal and figurative language, and thus escape the evil of making the Bible
appear a contradictory book.
Isa. 34:--Come near ye nations to hear; and hearken, ye
people: let the earth hear and all that is therein, the world and all things
that come forth of it * * * And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved and
the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll; and all the host shall fall
down as the leaf falling off from the vine and a falling fig from the fig tree,
For my sword shall be bathed in heaven; behold it shalt come down upon Idumea,
and upon the people of my curse to judgment. The sword of the Lord is filled
with blood; it is made fat with fatness and with the blood of lambs and
goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams; for the Lord hath a sacrifice in
Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea. And the unicorn shall come
down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked
with blood and their dust made fat with fatness, For it is the day of the
Lord's vengeance, and the year of recompense for the controversy of
Zion. And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch and the dust thereof
into brimstone and the land thereof shall become burning pitch, It shall not be
quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up forever; from generation
to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.
Here is a striking illustration of the poetry and symbolism
of the Bible in which, as Bishop Lowth says of prophecy generally, "A set
of images is taken from things natural, artificial, religious, and historical;
in the way of metaphor or allegory." Indeed, to deprive the prophets of this
poetic and symbolical use of language would be to quench the fire of their
tongues; for it is in this that the strength and beauty of the Hebrew, inspired
by the Divine Spirit, consist; and as a means of forewarning of the
terribleness of the punishments to be inflicted upon sinful nations and of the
intensity of God's indignation against such sinfulness the tone of the language
used must necessarily be raised to the highest pitch in order that there might
be a full realization of the importance of the matter described and foretold.
Happily, the descriptive power of such language is not
confined to the dreadful and terrible, but is beautifully employed in the
painting of pictures of the grandest and most glorious blessings in store for
the righteous. While almost the entire chapter from which the foregoing passage
is quoted (Isa. 34) is a vivid description of the fearful and dreadful, the
next chapter takes wings, as it were, and soars aloft into heights of glory and
blessings, in which even the poetic pen of the prophet seems unable to do full
justice; and in this, too, we have the highly wrought figures of speech. As if
to present a strong and striking contrast with what he had already said the
prophet exclaims: "The wilderness and the solitary places shall be glad
for them; and the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose. It shall
blossom abundantly and rejoice even with joy and singing; the glory of Lebanon
shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the
glory of the Lord and the excellency of our God."
With these facts before us we shall be prepared for the
figurative use of language in relation to the heavens and the earth, and by it be
able to understand that when the destruction of the world is spoken of it does
not mean the crash of the universe, and that the passing away of the heavens
and the dissolving of the earth is not affirmed of the literal heaven and
earth, which cannot be moved for ever, and of which the Spirit through Israel's
Psalmist declares, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the
firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech and night unto
night giveth knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is
not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to
the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun."
Dr. Adam Clarke, in his "Introduction to the Book of
Isaiah," quotes largely from the writings of Dr. John Smith, of Cambleton,
from which we extract the following to illustrate the Bible use of terms
concerning the political "heavens and earth."
By images borrowed from the world natural the prophets
frequently understand something analogous in the world politic. Thus, the sun,
moon and stars and heavenly bodies denote kings, queens, rulers, and
persons in great power; their increase of splendor denotes increase of prosperity;
their darkening, setting, or falling denotes a reverse of fortune, or the
entire ceasing of that power or kingdom to which they refer. Great
earthquakes and the shaking of heaven and earth denote the commotion and
overthrow of kingdoms; and the beginning or end of the world their rise
or ruin.
The cedars of Lebanon, oaks of Bashan, fir trees and other
stately trees of the forest denote kings, princes, potentates, and persons of
the highest rank. Briers and thorns, the common people, or those of the meanest
order. High mountains and lofty hills in like manner denote kingdoms,
republics, states and cities; towns and fortresses signify defenders and
protectors; ships of Tarshish, merchants or commercial people; and the daughter
of any capital or mother city, the lesser cities or suburbs around it. Cities
never conquered are further styled virgins.
SIR ISAAC NEWTON ALSO SAYS:
In attempting to understand the prophecies we are in the
first place to acquaint ourselves with the figurative language of the prophets.
This language is taken from analogy between the world natural and an empire or
kingdom as a world politic. Accordingly, the whole world natural,
consisting of heavens and earth, signifies the whole world politic, consisting
of thrones and people, or so much of it as is considered in the prophecy. Great
earthquakes and the shaking of heaven and earth are put for the shaking of
kingdoms, so as to distract and overthrow them; creating a new heaven and earth
and the passing away of the old one, or the beginning and end of the world for
the rise and wane of the body politic signified thereby. The sun and moon are
by the interpreters of dreams put for the persons of kings and queens; but in
sacred prophecy, which regards not single persons, the sun is put for the whole
series and race of kings in the kingdoms of the world politic, shining with
regal power and glory; the moon considered as the king's wife, the stars for
subordinate princes and great men.
Now the Scripture which is generally quoted to prove the
destruction of heaven and earth is II. Peter 3: 7-11. It requires only ordinary
care in reading this chapter to see that the apostle is not predicting the
destruction of God's dwelling place nor of man's habitation. The heavens and
the earth which are now, of which destruction is affirmed, are the second of
the heavens and earth of which the apostle is speaking. In verses 5 and
6 he says:
"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the
word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth, standing out of the water
and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water,
perished." Then in verse 7 he speaks of "The heavens and the earth which
are now," which clearly implies that the "heavens which were of old
and the earth" are not the same as "the heavens and the earth which
are now." Those "of old," being "overflowed with water,
perished," but those "which are now" still exist and are
"reserved unto fire." May we not safely say of this that we have here
the first heavens and earth, and the second heavens and earth--the former
antedeluvian and the latter postdeluvian? There is no other meaning can
possibly, with reason, be drawn from the apostle's words. Now, all we have to
do is to ask, Have we different physical heavens and earth now from those of
antedeluvian times? and we shall be compelled to see that, while a change did
take place in the heavens and earth of Peter's discourse, the dwelling place of
God and the broad star-spangled heavens above us have remained in all their
beauty and majestic splendor, and our fair earth has continued whirling around
upon its axis and gliding along gracefully and unerringly in its orbit, and
they still exist unchanged and unchangeable to "declare the glory of God
and to show forth his handiwork."
That which in verse 5 is called "heavens and earth of
old," is in verse 6 termed "the world that then was." The word
world here is in the Greek, kosmos, meaning order or arrangement of
things. The ruling and ruled system of antedeluvian times constituted the
heavens and the earth or the world, political and social, of those times. This kosmos
or world became wicked and corrupt in the hands of its rulers and ruled.
Hence God spared not the old world, but saved Noah, the eighth person, a
preacher of righteousness, bringing the flood upon the world of the
ungodly (I. Peter 2: 5.) Their political and social corruption was swept off
the earth and in this great catastrophe the heavens and the earth which were
then, being overflowed with water, perished.
The "heavens and the earth which now are"
consisted of the rulers and ruled in the Jewish and Gentile world or kosmos.
The Jewish was about to come to its end then, while the Gentile must
continue till the "times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."
Of the former, which was a kosmos of God's arranging, the apostle Paul,
quoting from the prophets, says, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast
laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thine hands;
they shall perish, but thou remainest; and they shall wax old as doth a
garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up and they shall be changed;
but thou art the same and thy years shall not fail" (Heb. 1: 10, 12). The
Jewish heavens and earth constituted a kosmos or world, and it was near
its end when Peter and Paul wrote. This end is termed the "last days"
by Paul when he says, "God, who in sundry times and diverse manners spake
in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken
unto us by his Son" (Heb. 1: 1-2); and of the same times the same apostle,
using another word, aion--age, says that the ends of the world (the
Mosaic age in which obtained the Mosaic kosmos) are come (I. Cor. 10:
11). In the end of this world Christ "appeared and put away sin by the
sacrifice of himself" (Heb. 9: 26).
Describing the destruction of the Jewish heavens and earth,
which caused the end of its ecclesiastical (represented by the moon) as well as
that of its political system the apostle Peter quotes from the prophet Joel:
"The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before
that great and notable day of the Lord come" (Acts 2: 20). It was then
that Israel's sun went down and her moon withdrew her shining and left her in
the political and religious darkness which has covered her with gloom ever
since, and will continue till the "Sun of righteousness arise," when
the words of the prophet Isaiah will find sweet fulfillment: "Thy sun
shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the Lord
shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be
ended" (Isa. 60: 20).
But "the heavens and the earth which are now" of
II. Pet. 3: 7 are evidently not confined to those of Judaism; for they are
carried along by the apostle till they give place to the third or
"new heavens and earth" (verses 12, 13). The light of Israel's sun
was extinguished, under God, by the Romans, who were Gentiles; and the heavens
and earth of Rome still continue, having undergone many changes. Of these the
apostle says, "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night;
in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements
shall melt with fervent heat: the earth (the civil and social system as a
whole), and the works that are therein shall be burned up" (the varied and
numerous details which constitute the whole). These shall be dissolved.
Nevertheless, another is to follow. We have now seen that:
1. There were heavens and earth before the flood, which
passed away.
2. The heavens and earth of Judaism, the Jewish kosmos, reached
the end of its age and then it passed away; and what remains of "the
heavens and the earth which are now" are to be dissolved in the day when
the Lord shall come as a thief in the night.
3. "We look for new heavens and new earth wherein
dwelleth righteousness" (verse 13).
In those which were then and these which are now
righteousness did not dwell; and this is the reason why the former perished and
why the latter is to be dissolved and pass away. Surely unrighteousness cannot
be affirmed of the literal heavens and earth, which declare the glory of God
and show forth his handiwork. But of the political heavens and earth of all
ages, in the kingdoms of men, there has been unrighteousness, and now the whole
creation is groaning while it waits, it knows not for what; but it is for the
dawning of that glorious morning when the sun of righteousness shall arise with
healing in his beams and shine forth in the new heavens to give health and
blessing to the new earth.
A comparison will show that what is declared of the
condition and end of the kingdoms of the world is declared of the heavens and
the earth which are to be destroyed; and what is shown to be the character of
the coming kingdom of God is precisely that of the new heavens and new earth
which are to follow the destruction of "the heavens and the earth which
are now."
The only conclusion these facts will admit of is that the
words "new heavens and new earth" are figuratively used to represent
the ruling power and the ruled in the kingdom of God. The kingdoms of men are
unrighteous and are, therefore, to be destroyed. The heavens and the earth of
Peter's letter are also unrighteous and therefore to be destroyed. When the
unrighteous kingdoms of men are destroyed the righteous kingdom of God is to
take their place. So when the unrighteous heavens and earth of Peter's
discourse pass away, then will come the new heavens and new earth which the
apostle says "we look for." It is then that "the kingdoms of
this world shall become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ!" (Rev.
11: 15)--Peter and the angel, through John, expressing the same grand truth in
different language. The same truth is expressed also by the prophet Daniel,
when literally giving expression to what had been symbolized to Nebuchadnezzer:
"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
forever" (Dan. 2: 44).
We have now the heavens and the earth which were of old (II.
Pet. 3: 5), which we may call the first heaven; then we have the heaven and the
earth which are now (verse 7), which we may call the second heaven; and last we
have the new heavens and new earth (verse 13), which we may call the third
heaven. This third, the apostle is particular to say we look for "according
to his promise," as if it were a matter specially promised. That which
is the subject of special promise--indeed that which is the subject matter of
the gospel--is the kingdom of God. We can safely use the apostle's language in
saying we, according to his promise, look for the kingdom of God, wherein
dwelleth righteousness. This was what they were looking for and what we are
looking for, when we pray, "Thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth,
as it is done in heaven." It was this third heaven that Paul was caught up
or away to in vision; and as John on Patmos saw in vision things which would
come to pass hereafter, so Paul saw in the third heaven a paradise, the
paradise Jesus will be in when "he cometh into his kingdom" (Luke 23:
42, 43). In this the apostle saw the glories of the age to come in such
transcendent beauty and effulgence that it was impossible (see margin) to give
expression to them; they were "unspeakable" (II. Cor. 12: 4), and
beyond the realization of mortal man in his finite state. Eye hath not seen nor
ear heard the glory of this paradise, kingdom, or new heaven: it has only been
revealed as fully as frail and finite man can comprehend it.
In the natural world we have heaven and earth, sun, moon and
stars. God created the sun to rule by day and the moon to rule by
night. The Bible being a revelation to this planet, our range of view is
limited to the relation of the heavens, sun, moon, and stars to this earth.
Here is the earth beneath, or under the heaven, as we are compelled to speak of
it; under "that which is heaved up"--above. Heaven rules and the
earth is ruled. In speaking of the "two great lights" we always speak
of the greater--the sun--in the masculine gender and the lesser--the moon--in
the feminine gender. The prophet Isaiah says, "The sun shall be darkened
in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to
shine" (Chap. 13: 10). Gender belongs literally and primarily to the
sexes. The man is given first dominion and, therefore, the dominion of woman is
subordinate to and derived from the man. As Christ is the head of the church so
man is head of the woman. She is the "weaker vessel." Since the moon
receives its light from the sun, it is the "lesser light," and after
the analogy of the sexes we naturally use the feminine gender when
speaking of it, while of the "greater light"--the sun--we use the
masculine gender. It is natural to speak of things optically. As they appear to
us, the sun is the greater ruler of our earth and the moon the lesser, while
their family, as it were, is seen in the stars which sparkle in the firmament.
Here is a natural kosmos, a grand arrangement, a physical world,
consisting of heaven and earth.
In the natural order of things, when man increased in the
earth and families became divided off, the husband leaving father and mother
and cleaving to his wife, each family would necessarily become a little kosmos,
world or kingdom, in which there would be rulers and ruled. The father was
the first, the mother the second in ruling and governing their children. Then,
when it became so that servants formed part of these little kingdoms, there was
another element introduced and there were three grades of rulership--Father,
Mother, and Children, in the order named. The father's law was supreme; the
mother's subordinate, and the children's (over the large retinue of servants
many of them had) subordinate to both; but all filling their proper places in
these little kingdoms.
Now, with these facts in view, we can draw the analogy which
runs through the Scriptures between the heavens and the earth and kingdoms.
The father answers to the sun, the mother to the moon, and
the children to the stars, constituting the heavens; while the servants answer
to the earth, under or ruled by the heaven. Looking at the sun as that in the
physical heavens which answers to the fathers in the heavens of these kingdoms,
it naturally became spoken of in the masculine gender, while the moon,
answering to the mother, was spoken of in the feminine gender, and so we find
it among us now.
In Gen. 37: 5-10 we have an illustration of this in Joseph's
dreams. Joseph says of his second dream, "Behold, I have dreamed a dream
more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made
obeisance to me; and he told it to his father and to his brothers; and his
father rebuked him and said unto him, What is this dream that thou dreamest?
Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren come to bow down to thee to the earth?
And his brethren envied him, and his father observed the saying" (verses
8-11). On this Dr. Adam Clarke says:
"Why eleven stars? Was it merely to signify that his
brothers might be represented by eleven stars? Or does he not there rather
allude to the Zodiac, his eleven brethren answering to the eleven celestial
signs, and himself to the twelfth? This certainly is not an unnatural thought,
as it is very likely that the heavens were measured in the days of Joseph; for
Zodiacal constellations have been distinguished among the eastern nations from
time immemorial."
Be this as it may, the interpretation Jacob put upon the
dream regarded himself as the sun, the mother (whoever might fill the place at
that time, for Rachel was dead) the moon and the eleven brothers the stars. In
Jacob's household, which was such a little kingdom as we have before described,
there were many servants. Therefore, the family proper would be the heaven, in
which were the sun, moon and stars, while the servants and all possessions
would be the earth.
As time went on and might assumed the place of right,
ambitious men, not satisfied with the rulership of their own little
kingdoms, forced others into subjection, and thus the spirit of rivalry became
rampant and the increase of the kingdoms of men, with all their wickedness and
pride, more and more burdened the world of mankind. Many petty kingdoms were in
Canaan when Joshua entered the land.
Now with this view of the Bible's use of heavens and earth,
we can understand many Scriptures which would otherwise be confusing. When
Moses cried out, "Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O
earth, the words of my mouth" (Deut. 32:1), he was not addressing things
which cannot hear; but to the rulers and the ruled of men his words were
uttered; and the same is true of the words of Jeremiah-"O earth, earth,
earth, hear the word of the Lord" (chap. 22: 29). In Isa. 1: 1, 2, the
prophet is addressing Israel concerning the wickedness of Judah and Jerusalem
and to the rulers and ruled of that wicked nation he cries, "Hear, O
heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord has spoken." These are the
heavens which, as we have before shown, were in apostolic times to be folded up
and pass away, a destiny which awaits all Gentile heavens with all their
corruption, when the Sun of righteousness shall chase away their darkness and
flood the earth with light and goodness.
Speaking of the destruction of Babylon the prophet Isaiah
says, "For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not
give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon
shall not cause her light to shine" (chap. 13: 10). Then he adds,
"Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her
place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce
anger" (verse 13). The result of this was to be (and is yet to be with
modern Babylon) that "Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the
Chaldee's excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah"
(verse 19). This destruction of the heavens of Babylon necessarily caused the
fall of its king or "day star." Hence the prophet says, "Thou
shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon and say "How hath
the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! * * *How art thou fallen from
heaven, O day star (margin), son of the morning! how art thou cut down to
the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart,
I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I
will sit upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north; I will
ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most high"
(verse 14). Verse 12 is the passage upon which popular religionists base their
fable of the devil being once an angel in heaven who, when subjected to
discipline for being unruly, declared that he would "rather rule in hell
than serve in heaven," whereupon he fell from heaven into hell, where he
is supposed to have full sway over the greater part of those who at death have
left this earth. A glance at this chapter in Isaiah will show how far it is
from supporting such heathen fables.
When the king of Babylon fell from his throne he is said to
have fallen from heaven; and in the indictment recorded against him he is
charged with being ambitious to "ascend into heaven," "above the
stars of God." In this ascension the king's ambition was that he might
"sit upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north"
(verse 13). Now this is Mount Zion; for the Psalmist says, "Beautiful
for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is Mount Zion, on the sides of
the north, the city of the great king" (Psa. 48: 2). It was there that
the throne of the Lord over Israel was (and will be) set up; and, therefore, it
was there that the "stars of God" were, in the heaven of Israel, the
heaven which in Paul's day had "waxed old and was ready to vanish
away." The greatest of the king's ambition was to vanquish Israel, and
thus ascend into Israel's heaven; but it cannot be supposed that his ambition
was so insane as to aspire to set his throne above the throne of God in His
dwelling-place. Hence, in this chapter we have Israel's heaven and Babylon's
heaven.
The Satan, or adversary of Christ and his disciples was
pagan Rome. In the Roman heaven there were "principalities and
powers," "rulers of darkness of this world"--the Roman world or kosmos
(Eph. 6: 12). The Diaglott renders this and the previous verse thus:
"Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the
crafty ways of the enemy; because our conflict is not with blood and flesh, but
with the governments, with the authorities, with the potentates of this
darkness, with the spiritual wickedness in the Heavenlies." In the
authorized version, where in the text we have "high places," the
margin gives "heavenly." The wickedness of this Roman heaven was what
caused the conflict between paganism and the new-born and rapidly growing child
of Christianity.
The latter in its perverted and apostate form was destined
to ascend the throne, receiving, at first, in its purity, its power from the
sword of the Spirit--the word; but afterwards, in its corrupt form, from the
literal sword. In full view of the persecution of the Christians by pagan Rome,
and of the sufferings he and his disciples would receive at the hands of that
heathen despotic and cruel power, the Saviour sees its end at the hands of
Christianity in the ascension of the so-called first Christian emperor to the
throne, Constantine, and he exclaims, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall
from heaven." Not that this was the complete fulfillment of these words;
for, no doubt, they reach to the end of all the powers of all adversaries. When
the fall of paganism and the enthronement of Christianity (in its corrupted
form) were shown in vision to John, "there appeared a wonder in heaven; a
woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet and upon her head a
crown of twelve stars" (Rev. 12: 1). This woman gives birth to a man
child, who is caught up to God and to His throne; God being on the side of
Christianity and against paganism. Then there is war in heaven and the dragon
(pagan Rome) is cast out of heaven. Thus the pagan Roman Satan fell from heaven
in the dethronement of the dragon power of paganism and the enthronement of the
political child of the woman who is clothed with the sun (civil power) and the
moon (ecclesiastical power) under her feet, with the twelve stars of the
Ceasars upon her head.
Some erroneously apply this chapter to the downfall of
Judaism and the ascension of Christ to heaven, failing to observe that the war
is in the same heaven to which the man child is "caught up," and
ignoring the fact that John was not being shown what had taken place, but
"things which shall be hereafter" (chap. 4: 1). It was an event
future from John's time and serves to illustrate the symbolic use of heaven as
representing political and ecclesiastical power. This is not the place to give
a full exposition of this passage: we have referred to it to show the symbolic
use of heaven in relation to human governments. It is simply foolish to make
"the war in heaven" apply to a war in the holy habitation of God,
where we may be sure war is impossible. If there could be war there why should
we pray that God's will may be done in earth as it is in heaven. We have plenty
of war on earth, and if such is possible in heaven the answer to our prayer
would not improve our situation.
While Revelation 12 found partial fulfillment in the
enthronement of Constantine, it yet remains for it to reach its amplitude, in
the great war of God Almighty, when Christ shall become the king of all the
earth. Upon the creation of the new heavens and the new earth wherein dwelleth
righteousness God will again establish His throne upon Mount Zion, this time
never to be moved; when, as the prophet Isaiah says, "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"
(chap. 24: 23). We may well ask, Why should the splendid lights of heaven above
be confounded and ashamed because the Lord reigns in Mount Zion? Why should the
king upon his throne confound the beautiful works of God's creation which
declare His glory and show forth His wisdom and power? But if our minds be
fixed upon the moon of Gentile heavens answering to the corrupt religious
systems, and to the sun of those heavens, answering to the civil governments,
then we can understand why all these shall be confounded and put to shame by
the Lord of hosts reigning on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, whence His law shall
go forth to rebuke strong nations and to compel them to "beat their swords
into plowshares and their spears into scythes, and learn war no more." In
the new heavens, which will chase away the darkness of all others, Christ will
shine as the "Sun of righteousness" (Mal. 4: 2). His redeemed bride
shall be the moon, and the saints, individually and severally, will be the
stars. "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the
kingdom of their Father" (Matt. 13: 43); "they that be wise shall
shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many to
righteousness as the stars forever" (Dan. 12: 3). There will then be one
glory of the sun and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars;
for one star will differ from another star in glory. So will it be at the
resurrection of the dead (I. Cor. 15: 41, 42), when the new heavens shall smile
upon the new earth and paradise that was lost shall be restored and the poetic
words of Isaiah find sweet realization:
The desert and the waste shall be glad:
And the wilderness shall rejoice and flourish:
Like the rose shall it beautifully flourish:
And the well-watered plain of Jordan shall also rejoice:
The glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it,
The beauty of Carmel and Sharon:
These shall behold the glory of Jehovah,
The majesty of our God.
Strengthen ye the feeble hands,
And confirm ye the tottering knees,
Say ye to the faint-hearted: Be ye strong;
Fear ye not; behold your God!
Vengeance will come, the retribution of God:
He himself will come and will deliver you.
Then shall be unclosed the eyes of the blind;
And the ears of the deaf shall be opened;
Then shall the lame bound like the hart,
And the tongue of the dumb shalt sing:
For in the wilderness shall burst forth waters,
And torrents in the desert:
And the glowing sand shall become a pool,
And the thirsty soil bubbling springs;
And in the haunts of dragons shall spring forth
The grass with the reed and the bulrush.
And a highway shall be there;
And it shall be called the way of holiness;
No unclean person shall pass through it;
But he, himself shall be with them, walking in the way.
And the foolish shall not err therein.
No lion shall be there;
Nor shall the tyrant of beasts come up thither;
Neither shall he be found there;
But the redeemed shall walk in it.
Yea the ransomed of Jehovah shall return:
They shall come to Zion with triumph;
And perpetual gladness shall crown their heads.
Joy and gladness shall they obtain;
And sorrow and sighing shall flee away.
It is frequently the case that the change of heavens and
earth is spoken of in the Scriptures in connection with Mount Zion. In Psa.
102: 13-28 is a remarkable instance of this kind. The Lord is to "arise,
and have mercy upon Zion" when "the time to favor her, yea, the set
time is come." When this occurs the "Lord is to appear in his
glory," and "declare his name in Zion and his praise in
Jerusalem." This is to be "when the people are gathered together, and
the kingdoms to serve the Lord." Before this, Christ appears in the flesh
saying, "He weakened my strength in the way; he shortened my days. I said,
O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days; thy years are throughout
all generations." From this the psalmist at once glides into the
foundations of the earth and the heavens, which were to wax old, perish, and be
changed as a vesture. This is quoted by the writer to the Hebrews and applied
to the Jewish heavens and earth, or the world which was to pass away soon after
Israel's Messiah was "taken away in the midst of his days."
Then again in Isa. 51: 3-6 we have the promise that
"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." Israel is then called upon to hearken to their God, and it is
promised that "a law shall proceed from me (Jehovah) and I will make my
judgment to rest for a light of the people." Glad tidings are then
heralded that God's "strength is near; his salvation is gone forth, his
arms shall judge the people; and the isles shall wait upon him." Then
attention is called to the heavens and the earth which are to vanish away; yet
there is assurance given in the words, "My salvation shall be forever, and
my righteousness shall not be abolished." The arm of the Lord is to awake;
the redeemed of the Lord are to return to Zion; the captive exile is to hasten;
and then God will "put his words in Israel's mouth and cover her in the
shadow of His hand, and plant the (new) heavens and lay the foundations of the
(new) earth and say unto Zion, Thou art my people" (verse 16).
This beautiful verse is both historic and prophetic. When
God on Mount Sinai was laying the foundation of the Jewish earth and planting
the heavens, the glory of His presence was too great and dazzling for the eyes
of Israel to behold; and they beseeched that he speak to them no more. It was
then that He, as it were, "covered them in the shadow of His
hand," while he, through Moses, "put His words in their mouths, and
laid the foundations of the earth and planted the heavens." This will be
repeated upon a grander scale when the greater than Moses shall appear, and the
Lord shall comfort Zion, the redeemed of the Lord return thither--to her children
God shall say, "Thou art my people."
Viewing the abomination of Israel (Jer. 4), her land as
fallow ground, desolate and forsaken, the prophet Jeremiah cries out, "I
am pained to my very heart; my heart maketh a noise in me; I cannot hold my
peace" (verse 19). The desolations which have come upon Israel and her
land are so great that it can be said of her heavens and earth, "I beheld
the earth, and lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had
no light. I beheld the mountains and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills
moved lightly. I beheld and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of heaven
were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the
cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce
anger. For thus the Lord saith, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I
not make a full end" (verses 23-27). Their name is now left for a curse,
and they have suffered and are still suffering from "sorrow of heart"
and "howling for vexation of spirit," with their heavens and earth
vanished, no sun to shine upon them, and no moon to give them light in the
darkness of the night through which they are passing. But there is a change
soon. Israel's God has declared, "For, behold, I create new heavens and a
new earth; and the former shall not be remembered nor come into mind. But be ye
glad and rejoice in that which I create; for, behold, I create Jerusalem a
rejoicing and her people a joy and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard
in her, nor the voice of crying" (Isa. 65: 15-19). Israel's "sun
shall then no more go down; neither shall her moon withdraw itself; for the
Lord shall be her everlasting light and the days of her mourning shall be
ended" (Isa. 60: 20). Then the moon of the Gentile heavens or the
"heavens and the earth which are now" (II. Pet.: 3) "shall be
confounded and the sun shall be ashamed, when (and because) the Lord of hosts
shall reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients
gloriously" (Isa. 24: 23).
In this beautiful symbolical way of expressing the great
change that shall take place when the world's redemption becomes a fact, the
analogy between the world natural and the world political is seen in its
sublime fitness; and the wisdom of God shines out in wonderful light and
splendor. A volume of thought is condensed into a few words. The words abound
in a way to carry the mind on into heavenly ideas far beyond the mere letter.
In some instances the mind instructed in the fundamental principles of the
Scriptures will be able to see more than one event prophesied in one passage;
in others it will be able to see an application of the same words to both
natural and spiritual things; and thus the divinity of the Bible will become
more and more a matter of irresistible truth that will force conviction and
call forth admiration.
We have frequently quoted the nineteenth Psalm in speaking
of the physical heavens and earth, and this is the first lesson to be
learned from those beautiful words. Look up into the vast heavens above and out
over this beautiful earth and who is he that can be called a man and yet will
not, yea is not compelled by a throbbing heart and admiring eyes to, burst out
in words of praise.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament
showeth His handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night
showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not
heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end
of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a
bridegroom coming out of his chambers, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a
race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the
ends of it and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
Is it not astonishing that there are men possessed of eyes
to see the wisdom, the power and the grandeur of the universe, and who can yet
deny that there is a God? As we have said, these beautiful words give vent to the
hearts and minds of those who with the natural eyes behold the literal heavens
and earth; but the mind is also enlightened in and the heart thrilled with the
contemplation of the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus
Christ; the new heavens and the new earth which will bring the long-looked-for
blessing to our groaning world stand out in all their resplendent glory and it
is then that the passage becomes doubly charming, because while the natural eye
can feast upon the abounding glories of the natural world, the eyes of the
mind, or of faith, can behold with ecstacy a kosmos or world which will
indeed declare the glory of God and show forth His handiwork in the highest
sense conceivable. Then "day unto day will utter speech and night unto
night will give knowledge," so that "all shall know the Lord, from
the least to the greatest," and there will be no language where their
voice shall not be heard. The "line" or rule of those new heavens,
consisting of Christ and his redeemed saints, shall run through all the
earth--to its "uttermost parts"--and "their words to the end of
the world." In these new heavens God has provided a tabernacle for His Son
who will be the Sun thereof and who will in very deed be the "strong man
to run the race," when he comes forth as a bridegroom from behind the
veil.
That we can safely apply the passage to this spiritual and
higher aspect of things is clear from verse 7; for here we have the law which
now prepares stars for the new heaven and which will "convert,"
"make wise," "rejoice the heart" and "enlighten the
eyes" of those who shall be blessed in the new earth in which will dwell
righteousness. Then "the fear of the Lord will be clean" in very
deed, "enduring forever" and "the judgments of the Lord will be
righteous altogether." While now the laws of the Lord are not sought for,
then they will be "desired more than gold, yea than much fine gold;
sweeter also (will they be) than honey and the dropping of the honey
comb."
The sound of the gospel pertaining to this grand time is
what is heralded to the world in the covenants of promise. This
"sound" or "line" is also termed "their words"
(verse 4), which are the words of the truth of the gospel of the kingdom of
God, which when established will be the planting of the new heavens and laying
the foundation of the new earth. Hence the apostle Paul in preaching the gospel
quotes from this Psalm, saying, "So faith cometh by hearing, and hearing
by the word of God. But, I say, have they not heard? Yea, verily, their sound
went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world"
(Rom.10: 17, 18).
Now, with this twofold aspect of truth before our minds we
may view the creation of the natural world as described by Moses and at the
same time keep our minds upon the new creation of which Christ is the
first-born. The two great lights of the new heaven will be Christ the Sun--the
greater--and his bride, the moon--the lesser--and the stars which will
"shine for ever and ever" will be the individual saints.
Man was created and when in a deep sleep woman was taken out
of man. These two became one, and of them it was said, "Let them
have dominion." In the new creation the new man, Christ, was made or
formed in the image of the Elohim, first in character and afterwards in nature.
By the deep sleep of death into which he passed his bride is formed, and when
these two become one in nature, as they are now one in mind, which will be at
the marriage of the Lamb to his bride, who shall have "made herself
ready," then the words, "Let them have dominion," will find a
grand fulfillment. This dominion shall be "from sea to sea and from the
river unto the ends of the earth;" "the kingdom is an everlasting
kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him;" the new heavens and
the new earth shall then make ashamed, confound and chase away the present
corrupt governments of men--while they "shall never be moved," but
"abide for ever," having ordinances which can no more be changed than
can those of the literal heavens and earth, nor than God's covenant can be
broken. "Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun shall be ashamed,
when the Lord of hosts shall reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before
his ancients gloriously;" and favored Mount Zion and restored Jerusalem
shall realize the fulfillment of the words, "For behold, I create new
heavens and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into
mind. But be ye glad and rejoice forever in that which I create; for behold I
create Jerusalem a rejoicing and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in
Jerusalem, and joy in my people and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard
in her, nor the voice of crying" (Isa. 65: 17, 19).
"And who is He? the vast, the awful form (Rev. 10: 1, 2),
Girt with the whirlwind, sandall'd with the storm!
A western cloud around his limbs is spread,
His crown a rainbow, and the sun his head.
To highest heaven he lifts his kingly hand,
And treads at once the ocean and the land:
And hark! His voice amidst the thunders roar,
His dreadful voice, that time shall be no more.
Lo! thrones are set, and every saint is there (Rev. 20: 4-6).
Earth's utmost bounds confess their awful sway,
The mountains worship, and the isles obey;
Nor sun, nor moon they need--nor day, nor night;--
God is their temple, and the Lamb their light (Rev. 21: 22);
And shall not Israel's sons exulting come,
Hail the glad beam and claim their ancient home?
On David's throne shall David's offspring reign,
And the dry bones be warm with life again (Ezek. 37).
Hark! white-robed crowds their deep hosannas raise.
And the hoarse flood resounds the sound of praise;
Ten thousand harps attune the mystic song,
Ten thousand thousand saints the strain prolong!
Worthy the Lamb, omnipotent to save,
Who died, who lives triumphant o'er the grave."
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
While there may be convulsions in the literal heavens and
earth attending the coming crisis among nations, which will transform the
kingdoms of this world into the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, it is
not in the literal sun, moon, and stars that we are to look for the signs
portending the end of the present order of things. When Moses foretold the end
of the Jewish commonwealth he described the great nation that should come into
existence, as well as the status of Israel which should provoke the downfall of
that ancient and favored people. One watching the signs of the times in the
first century would carefully compare the apostate condition of Israel with
Moses' prediction of what should be the reason for the punishment awaiting
them. He would also compare the Roman empire in its relation to Israel and
weigh well the probabilities which would suggest themselves in the natural
order of cause and effect. He would see that Israel was ripe for the
destruction of the last vestige of its national existence and that the
"nation of fierce countenance" was the great dominating power which
was ready to follow its heraldic eagles in fulfillment of the prophecy,
"The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the ends of the
earth, as swift as the eagle flieth" (Deut. 28: 49). Notwithstanding
that Israel had passed through experiences that no other people had been able
to endure and survive, true to the words of Moses there was that nation
actually in existence after the lapse of fifteen hundred years. While when
Moses wrote the prophecy they were a new-born nation, not yet in their land,
having no "gates" to besiege nor "fenced walls to come
down" (Deut. 28:52), here they were with a city whose checkered history
surpassed that of any other, in which stood a temple which had commanded the
admiration and astonishment of the world, and around which had been built
massive walls which challenged attack. These were realities, not in the clouds,
the sun and the moon, but realities on the earth among nations. And the careful
watcher would finally see that these signs would really culminate in the exact
fulfillment of the dreadful words of the prophet, in the downfall of Jerusalem
at the hands of the Romans, and the captivity and scattering of her children to
the four winds.
It is in this way that we must watch the signs of our times.
We have now a broader world of nations to look out over, and in proportion to
the magnitude of the coming revolution so is the number of unmistakable signs
portending the near approach of the greatest event the world has ever
witnessed.
It is not our purpose here to deal with the many smaller
details which point in the direction indicated, but to call attention to the
great facts which must strike the most careless reader as sure and certain
signs of the times. These facts are to be seen in
1. Israel, its providential existence, and its wonderful
development and progress in these latter times, notwithstanding its persecution
in times past in all the world and at present in some parts. This is a sign,
because Israel is to be ready for deliverance at the return of their Messiah as
they were about thirty-five hundred years ago at the hands of Moses.
2. The Holy Land, its desolation of the past and the present
attraction which is turning the eyes of the world thither; colonization and
railroad enterprises which the nineteenth century has been remarkable for; the
fact that it is the desire of all nations and that many movements, great and
small, are on foot, looking to the return of her people upon a large scale, a
return which even now has become an accomplished fact to a considerable extent.
This is a sign because it leads to the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham
that all the land should be given to his seed, which Paul says is Christ, and
"the Lord is to inherit Judah, his portion in the holy land, and shall
choose Jerusalem again."
3. The Turkish Power, its phenomenal and rapid rise, and its
gradual decline. This is a sign because the desolator of the Holy Land is
losing his grasp and is ready for the destructive whirlwind from the north
which will bring the great war of God Almighty when the words, "Behold I
come quickly," will find their fulfillment.
4. The Papacy, its uprise upon the wave of a great apostasy;
the cruel and desolating days of its ascendancy and its present decrepit and
declining condition. This is a sign because before the coming of Christ the man
of sin was to "wear out" the saints and then experience a
"consuming" process ending in destruction by the brightness of the
Lord's coming.
5. France, the disturbing power of Europe, as the
"three unclean spirits like frogs" which will gather the nations to
the great war of God Almighty. This is a sign because it leads to the war of
God Almighty at the coming of the Lord, to finally make wars to cease to the
ends of the earth.
6. Britain, in relation to the Holy Land, Egypt, and the
partial return of the Jews to Palestine; her now threatening final conflict
with Russia, which will end in the destruction of the king of the north at the
hands of Christ returned to claim the whole earth as his own.
7. Russia, its gradual development and present ascendancy
among the nations, looking towards its ultimate victory, when it will
drive out the Turks and take possession of the land of Israel. This is a sign
because it indicates the readiness to form that situation which will hasten the
great war of Armageddon, wherein Christ will appear as the victor over and
vanquisher of all kings and rulers, sweeping every form of human government off
the earth and inaugurating the heavenly reign of peace on earth, good will
toward men and glory to God in the highest.
The providential preservation of Israel through a trying history
such as no other nation could outlive has been dealt with in a previous
chapter. The fact that Israel still exists is proof that the Bible is true, as
is to be seen in the hitherto fulfillment of its prophecies concerning that
people. Great and wonderful things are promised for this people, the
fulfillment of which depended upon their preservation throughout the
vicissitudes of their fickle and fearful history. Had they sunk out of sight in
the waves of war which carried down the great nations of antiquity, nations of
greater power than they possessed, the skeptic's scorn would have found free
vent in the taunting and unanswerable questions, Where are these people that
your Bible says were to be "terrible from their beginning and forward?"
Where is Israel whom Christ is to rule? The Jews of whom he is to be king? What
becomes of your prophecy that Israel and Judah were to become one nation and
never to be divided? But Israel is here; and as her situation in the first
century was what Moses declared would and did bring the Roman eagles against
her for her downfall and world-wide scattering, so is she now shaping herself
preparatory to fulfillment of the prediction of the same prophet:
"Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of
his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be
merciful unto his land and to his people" (Deut. 32: 43); "The Lord
will gather thee from all nations whither the Lord thy God hath scattered
thee" (Deut. 30: 3).
In Ezek. 37, "The whole house of Israel" is
likened to a valley of dry bones, a fitting representation of the dissolution
of their national existence. The question, "Can these bones live?"
was one not many years ago that would have been answered in the negative. The
general public sentiment was that Israel was gone never to become a people of
any note again. But within the latter part of the nineteenth century they have
forced themselves to the front in every department of life. This is as it
should be according to prophecy of the latter days; and it is what is
prophetically called the noise and shaking of the bones, and the bones coming
together, bone to his bone, sinews and flesh being formed, preparatory to the
breath of resurrected national life being breathed into them, when as a nation
Israel shall "live and stand upon their feet, an exceeding great
army" (Ezek. 37: 10). As showing the extent to which public attention was
centered upon Israel in 1883 the author of "The Jews, or Prediction and
Fulfillment," says that "public attention has of late years been
called to the Jews in a degree quite unusual, if not, indeed, without
precedent;" in proof of which he gives the following as a foot-note:
This is well illustrated by the prominence given of late to
Jewish topics in the periodical literature of the day. These, e.g., to
mention only a few of many instances, the Contemporary Review has had
articles on various phases of Jewish affairs in the numbers for July, 1878,
January and March, 1881, September and November, 1882; the Nineteenth
Century in numbers for April and July 1878, February, 1881, August and
November, 1882. In the last-named month, besides the Contemporary and
the Nineteenth Century, Macmillan's and Blockwood's Magazines also
had articles dealing with Jewish questions. It is not without some reason that
the leading Jewish paper, commenting on this last circumstance, remarks that
"it is a very marked sign of the times that editors, who can gauge
so well the interests of the public, are so ready to admit articles dealing
with Jewish topics."
Following along to chap. 38, Gog, of the land of Magog, is
introduced and the part he is to play in the final drama of this world is
vividly described; and it is all to take place in the "latter years"
and "latter days" (verses 8, 16). That which tempts the cupidity of
Gog to overflow the Holy Land is the fact that part of Israel has returned
there--to the "land that is brought back from the sword,"
"gathered out of many people," "dwelling without walls and
having neither bars nor gates." They "have gotten cattle and goods
and dwell in the midst of the land."
Now that this is partially fulfilled, and is rapidly
fulfilling nothing is clearer; and the more enlightened among the Jews see that
the tide is swiftly turning in the direction of the preadventual return of the
Jews as the prophecies require. They have the influence; they have the talent;
they have the burning desire and quenchless patriotism. The exodus has
commenced and assumed proportions that will not stop short of forming the
situation that will yet explode the magazines of the nations and start the wild
rush of the dogs of war to the great day of slaughter that will settle the
perplexing Eastern question. Of this partial and preliminary exodus the Jewish Chronicle
said some time ago,
The Russian and Roumanian Jews are bent on going to
Palestine. Whatever we may think or say as to the practicability of the new
exodus, it is evidently to take place. To all the objections to Palestine
colonization that can be pointed out, the Jews of Russia and Roumania have one
all-sufficient reply: We cannot be worse off there than here. The movement is
irresistible."
As far back as 1882 the movement had assumed proportions
that attracted the eyes of the world, and how it has been accelerated since by
Russian persecution and Zionism is too well known to need stating. In February,
1882, a writer in the Jewish Chronicle said:
Once more are we on the eve of the Exodus. . . . It wants no
prophetic eye to see that the Russian empire is on the eve of one of the
greatest revolutions that the world has ever seen. The time has arrived for
Israel to depart thence, and for the exodus, greater even than the original
one, to commence. . . .But whitherward shall the steps of the millions of
Israel be bound? Shall he again, as in the exodus from Spain, betake to other
and more friendly lands, to be again, perchance, in the course of time, driven
from them? No! a thousand times no! For the sake of our unborn posterity let
this, with God's help, be the final exodus of our race. The land of promise is
now subject to a power who can barely struggle against financial difficulties.
That power is not unfriendly to Israel; his sovereign rights should be
purchased with no niggard hand, and the independence of Israel established
under international guarantee. What Israelite worthy of the name would hesitate
in giving his quota towards the redemption of the land? Once under a stable and
just government the land would again flow with milk and honey, and Jewish
enterprise, capital and industry combined with the geographical situation of
the country, would cause prosperity once more to shine upon it. Rome, Greece,
and Egypt are once more numbered among the nations and the shaphar (trumpet)
which announces the resurrection of Israel, the eldest born of the nations,
should soon wake the echoes in the mountains of Judah. To Israel this
restoration should prove an unmixed blessing; for possessing a political
centre, the dread of persecution would no longer haunt her sons."--Quoted
from Prediction and Fulfillment.
This tide of public sentiment is still flowing and now it is
not at all averse to the settlement of the Jews in Palestine as an independent
State. Zionism is now a prominent topic, and it has gathered sufficient
strength to bring about a congress of two hundred delegates from various
countries of Europe in Basle, in September (1897). One of the acts of this
congress was to unanimously adopt the programme for the re-establishing of the
Jews in Palestine. The plan is to "send out an exploring expedition
equipped with all the resources of modern science to make a careful survey of
the land and its possibilities, and also to establish telephonic and
telegraphic communications before actual work of colonization begins." By
the aid of many societies colonization has been going on for many years to a
great extent; but this is scarcely noticed in comparison with that now
proposed.
Now according to prophecy a preadventual colonization should
take place of Jews in Palestine. It is partially done, and is being carried on
with great success, even to the extent of having the money ready to offer and
tempt the bankrupt Sultan to sell his sovereign right to that part of his
domain. The sign to be seen in this is that the very situation which the
prophet Ezekiel says is to bring the king of the north to the mountains of
Israel is forming, and almost formed. The time is then here for the fulfillment
of the words, "Prophecy against Gog, thus saith the Lord God; in that day
when my people of Israel shall dwell confidently, shalt thou not know it? And
thou shalt come from thy place out of the north parts, thou and many people
with thee, * * * And thou shalt come up against my people of Israel as a
cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee
against my land, that the nations may know me, when I shall be sanctified in
thee, O Gog, before their eyes." Then he says, "My fury shall come up
in my face," and He "pleads with Gog" till he is left upon the
open field to be buried in the valley of Hamon-Gog. The victor in this great
battle is Christ; for it is when the king of the north "plants the
tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain,"
that Michael, the great prince, is to stand up for the children of Daniel's
people, Israel, and a time of trouble is to follow such as never was; and
"many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake" (Dan.
11: 45; 12: 1, 2). First, then, Israel partially returned to the Holy
Land. Second, Russia's for-a-time successful assault upon them. Third, the
sudden and powerful appearance of Christ to destroy the great Philistinian
giant with the sling and stone of divine accuracy of aim and force of defeat
and destruction. What is the sequel of the Israelitish sign then?--Christ in
the earth again.(1)
(1) The Zionist movement launched in 1897 under the
leadership of Dr. Theodore Herzl, has constantly gathered headway. Today it has
become like a river of many tributaries. Where, in 1898, there were only a few
thousands of Jews dwelling in feeble colonies, now there is a flourishing
Jewish State--the nation of Israel--recognized by other great States of the
world. The Jewish population of Palestine has now passed the million mark.
Over thirty-eight hundred years ago God made selection of
the Holy Land as the center around which His plans and purposes in relation to
the world's redemption should revolve. We have, in a previous chapter, shown
how this land is involved in the covenants of promise, and made clear that the
extent as described in the promises is far greater than was that possessed by
the descendants of Abraham. Since this land was promised to Abraham, all signs
of God's dealings with nations and all fulfillment of such signs, so far, have
been closely connected therewith. In a special sense it is God's land; it is
Israel's land; it is the land of the Bible, and the birthplace, home, and
future inheritance of the Son of God, the world's Redeemer. To see the signs
that the "iniquity of the Amorites was full" (Gen. 15: 16), and to
prepare for Israel's deliverance from Egypt to take the promised land of milk
and honey, the eyes of the watchers of those times of the far distant past must
have been fixed upon the Holy Land. From the Exodus to the Babylonish
captivity, there is no reliable history which is not closely associated with
this land. It is the center of the world's history. Signs of Judah's
deliverance from Babylon at the expiration of the allotted seventy years of
Jeremiah's prophecy had all to do with the turn of things in this land and the
attitude of Babylon's king towards it and its people. From this great historic
landmark down to the time for the complete desolation which still curses that
forsaken country, history is as nothing considered apart from the Holy Land.
Upon the arrival of that dreadful time of trouble for the land and the people,
the eyes of the world were forcibly attracted thither; and from then till now
the changing scenes upon the stage of national dramas have all, in a direct or
remote sense, had the Holy Land as their background.
Notwithstanding the fame and renown of this wonderful land,
its commanding geographical position, its fertile soil, and its healthful
climate, no nation, except Israel while obedient, has ever been able to prosper
there. The usurper and conqueror might take possession of it and punish its
people for their wickedness; but to appropriate it to its profitable use for
any considerable length of time has not been permitted. The Holy Land in the
hands of usurpers, and Israel in the hands of enemies are like the ark in the
hands of the Philistines (I. Sam. 5), and the time will soon come when Dagon
will fall and dreadful scourges will make all Philistinian foes quite anxious
to return the land and the people to their rightful owner, when "The Lord
shall comfort Zion, he will comfort all her waste places; make her wilderness
like Eden and her desert like the garden of the Lord."
In the strongest language the prophet Jeremiah speaks of the
desolation of the land, and at the same time foretells its restoration. The
desolation is a fact which needs no proof; it is known of all. Thus far the
prophecy has been literally fulfilled; and in view of this who can deny its
future restoration? And since its desolation gradually came with the decline
and fall of the nation to which it belongs, is it not reasonable to expect that
as Israel's restoration is now to some extent taking place, simultaneously the
resources and returning fertility of the land will become again recognized and
the attraction of public attention become a sign of the times?
The desolation and restoration are clearly set forth in the
following words:
Thus saith the Lord: Again there shall be heard in this
place, which ye say shall be desolate without man and without beast, even in
the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, that are desolate,
without man, and without inhabitant, and without beast; the voice of joy, and
the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride,
the voice of them that shall say, Praise the Lord of hosts; for the Lord is
good; for his mercy endureth forever; and of them that shall bring the
sacrifice of praise into the house of the Lord. For I will cause to return the
captivity of the land, as at the first, saith the Lord. Thus saith the Lord of
hosts; again in this place, which is desolate without man and without beast,
and in all the cities thereof, shall be a habitation of shepherds causing their
flocks to lie down. In the cities of the mountains, in the cities of the vale,
and in the cities of the south, and in the land of Benjamin, and in the places
about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, shall the flocks pass again under
the hands of him that telleth them, saith the Lord. 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 (Jer. 33).
Now that it is a fact that public sentiment has been turning
favorably to the land as it has to its people is witnessed in the popular
literature of our time; and the adaptability of the country for what prophecy
has laid out for it in the future is recognized. Nearly twenty years ago the Hebrew
Observer bore the following testimony:
Is there no other destiny for Palestine but to remain a
desert, or to become the appendage of an ambitious foreign power? Syria will
ere long be the entrepot between the East and the West. On the Euphrates
and along the coast old cities will revive and new ones will be built; the old
times will come back on a scale of greater vastness and splendor, and the steam
cars will run in the tract of the caravan.
Since the foregoing was written the whistle of the
locomotive has become a familiar sound in parts of Palestine and a general
enhancement in the value of land has taken place. And now some of the leading
Jews of the world are vigorously advocating the establishment there of an
independent Jewish State.
George Eliot, in Deronda, represents a Jew as giving
eloquent expression to present prospects for Palestine. In this the Jew voices
the growing sentiment which must soon be realized in the rising of Israel's sun
to shine upon that favored but long-desolate land. He says:
Looking towards a land and a polity, our dispersed people in
all the ends of the earth may share the dignity of a national life, which has a
voice among the peoples of the East and the West--which will plant the wisdom
and skill of our race so that it may be, as of old, a medium of transmission
and understanding. Let that come to pass, and the living warmth will spread to
the weak extremities of Israel, and superstition will vanish, not in the
lawlessness of the renegade, but in the illumination of great facts which widen
feeling, and make knowledge alive as the young offspring of beloved memories.
What is it to me that the ten tribes are lost untraceably,
or that multitudes of the children of Judah have mixed themselves with Gentile
populations as a river with rivers? Behold our people still! Their skirts
spread afar; they are torn and soiled and trodden on; but there is a jeweled
breast-plate. Let the wealthy men, the monarchs of commerce, the learned in all
knowledge, the skillful in all arts, the political councillors, who carry in
their veins the Hebrew blood which has maintained its vigor in all climates,
and the pliancy of the Hebrew genius for which difficulty means new device--let
them say, "We will lift up a standard, we will unite in a labor hard and
glorious, like that of Moses and Ezra, a labor which shall be a worthy fruit of
the long anguish whereby our father's maintained their separateness, refusing
the ease of falsehood." They have wealth enough to redeem the soil from
debauched and paupered conquerors; they have the skill of the statesman to
devise, the tongue of the orator to persuade.
This was written about twenty years since, and goes to show
how sensitively in touch with the heart of the times was that able,
heart-reaching writer. The "land and a polity," a restoration of the
land and the people that shall "redeem the soil," and again
establish a nationality of a people who have the "skill of the statesman
to devise, the tongue of the orator to persuade," are the objects seen. Is
it not remarkable that the spirit breathed in these words is now clothed with a
reality which manifests itself in the form of definite organization for the
establishment of a Jewish State in the Holy Land?
Among the promoters of the project to establish the Jews in
the Holy Land as a free State is Dr. Pereira Mendes, who recently found welcome
to the advocacy of his claims in the North American Review. He says
among many other things favorable to this favored spot, that the land once in
the hands of its people--the Jews--would cause
The opening up of a vast commerce, for which the Hebrews are
peculiarly qualified by commercial genius, and for which they are prepared by
their commercial establishment in all countries, which would be maintained and
continued (See Isa. 61: 9). In this commerce all nations would advantageously participate,
for Palestine geographically is the natural converging point of the trade
routes between two continents, Europe and Africa on one side, Asia and
Australia, on the other. Tyre, Sidon, Elath, Ezion-Geber, Beyroot (Beyrout),
Haifa, and Acre among her ports would speedily become the London, Marseilles,
New York, or Hamburg of the East. And while to them the ships of the world
would "fly as a cloud and as doves to their windows" (Isa. 60: 8),
the hum of industry's pauseless fingers would be the psalm of life of myriads
in a land once the granary of the world, the successors of the myriads of whose
existence the countless ruins of to-day are the dumb but heart-moving
witnesses.
It would mean the solution of the so-called Jewish question,
whether it is Russian Pan-Slav policy or Franco-German anti-Semitism which
propounds it. And the Hebrew nation of to-day by its eminence in finance,
letters, science and trade, deserves attention, for reasons that need not here
be noted.
It is well known that large tracts of land in Palestine have
been purchased by rich Jews during this year, and that colonization there is
quite a success, proving that the fertility of the soil is abundantly
sufficient to sustain a great population. The return of the "early and
latter rains," too, is another sign of the providential dawn of
prosperity. "Westward ho!" has been the cry for ages; but now it is
"Eastward ho!" The East is the attraction which draws the attention of
men and nations. Railroads are built and more are projected; the rise in real
estate has been what in the West would be called a "boom," and the
products of the field and the garden have, during this year, been shipped as
far west as the city of Chicago.
The newspapers of the world have just been saying to their
readers that
The Jewish conference at Basle which closed August 31, marks
an important epoch in the history of that prophetic people. The interest
manifested and the work accomplished were fully as great as had been expected.
To establish a Jewish kingdom in Palestine and colonize there under an autonomy
the world's millions of wandering Jews, "from the land of the north
(Russia) and from all the lands whither he has driven them," thus bringing
to its climax the mystery and miracle of the ages, is no small project, and to
its contemplation there gathered at Basle the chief thinkers of the Jewish race
from Europe, America, Asia, and Africa. It is reported that there were present
beside the leaders of the movement--Drs. Herzl, Nordau and Ernst--W. Bainbus;
Dr. Hirsch Hildesheimer, of Berlin; D. Bodenheimer, of Cologne; Oscar Strauss,
New York, late United States minister to the Ottoman Empire; Simon Wolff, of
Washington, D. C.; Jacob Schiff, of New York; Julius Bien, President of the
order B'nai B'rith, New York, and many other well-known Hebrews.
The topics discussed were: Position of the Jews in different
countries; reports from Jewish colonies; the chaluka, or funds collected for
Jerusalem; emigration question as it affects the United States; subscription
funds, agitation plans, etc., the Jewish question as it will be presented
before the approaching diplomatic congress of the great powers, and the
feasibility of acquiring a fee simple title to Palestine and part of Syria.
A central committee consisting of twenty-three members, to
be located at Vienna, was elected, with the exception of the English and
American delegates. All Jews are asked to contribute to the central fund, their
subscriptions being made the basis of franchise for the election of delegates
to future congresses.
A resolution was passed authorizing the committee to raise a
fund of fifty million dollars. This, taken in connection with the rumor
recently current that the Paris house under Baron Edmond de Rothschild's direction,
has already offered this exact sum (fifty millions) to the Sultan of Turkey for
the Province of Palestine, not only tends to confirm that report, but would
also indicate that negotiations were progressing favorably along that line.
Baron de Rothschild is already the owner of large tracts in
Galilee and the mountains of Judea, where he has established twenty-one Jewish
colonies, having expended thus far over a million dollars in aiding these
colonies, until they become self-supporting.
Fifty thousand Jews from Russia, Austria, Germany and the
Balkan Provinces are now settled in Palestine, and these various colonies were
reported at the congress to be in a flourishing condition.
The Alliance Israelite Universelle of France has established
and is maintaining extensive schools and colleges in Palestine, and a
commission was appointed at Basle to report on the subject of the proposed
university at Jerusalem.
The congress closed after a week's session amid scenes of
great enthusiasm, and the next meeting was appointed to be held at Jerusalem in
1898.
Now, while we do not believe that Israel's hope and
consolation will be realized by these projects, yet they are providential means
towards that end. The natural means generally precede the supernatural, leading
events up to that climax when the visible hand of God is stretched out
for his glory and the final well-being of His creatures.
So it must be evident to all that "the time to favor
Zion" is close at hand, and that the various remarkable trains in modern events
are making, as railroad men would say, "close connections." All these
things, without recognizing the hand of God, would be co-incidental beyond
possibility; but viewed as the developments of a Guiding Hand toward the grand
fulfillment of the covenants of promise they are as beacons of light in the
darkness of a dismal night.
When the Macedonian empire passed into the hands of
Alexander's four generals in accordance with what had been revealed through the
prophet Daniel, that empire became divided into four parts. "Four kingdoms
stood up for it (Alexander's), but not in his power" (Dan. 8: 22). These
were to be "toward the four winds of heaven" (Dan. 8: 8; 11: 4), or
east, west, north and south. After a while the four merged into two--the king
of the north and the king of the south. These are the subjects of Daniel 11,
and are Egypt, the king of the south, and Syria, the king of the north. Under
the symbol of fiery horsemen the inrush of the Turks into Europe is represented
in Rev. 9. In verse 12 we read, "One woe is past; and, behold, there came
two woes more hereafter. And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from
the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, saying to the sixth
angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great
river Euphrates." In this the terrible conquests of the Turks would seem
to be fitly represented by the overflow of the river Euphrates, its waters
inundating a large part of Europe and at one time threatening to deluge the
entire civilized world.
The prophecy further says, "And the four angels were
loosed which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for
to slay the third part of men. And the number of the army of horsemen were two
hundred thousand thousand." There is then a description of the war horses
which many able writers have identified with the Turkish forces. History is
prophecy fulfilled; and in strict harmony with the foregoing prophecy the pen
of the historian says, "Six centuries ago a pastoral band of four hundred
Turkish families was journeying westward, from the upper streams of the
river Euphrates. Their armed forces consisted of four hundred and
forty-four horsemen, and their leader's name was Ertoghrul." Commenting
upon this Grattan Guinness says, "This little band of Euphratean horsemen
were the ancestors of that terrible host or army of horsemen two hundred
thousand thousand strong, whom the Seer of Patmos beheld loosed from the
Euphrates and overflowing the Roman earth, carrying distress and death wherever
they went."
Thus the Turkish power became a terror to all nations and
grew to such proportions in a territorial and military sense that writers who
saw from prophecy that the empire was destined to decline and fall and who
could apply the prophecy to no other power, were at a loss to see how such a
thing could come to pass.
The same inspired writer, however, who had foreseen its
triumph saw also and declared, in spite of all appearances otherwise, that the
great political river would be dried up. He says, "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 (kings from the sun's rising)
might be prepared" (chap. 16: 12). These kings from the sun's rising are
the saints redeemed and made "Kings and priests to reign on the
earth" (Chap. 5: 10). The Sun, by whose rising they are made kings, is the
"Sun of righteousness" who is to arise "with healing in his
beams" to those "who fear Jehovah's name" (Mal. 4: 2). This will
find its glorious fulfillment at the return of Christ, and therefore, since the
drying up of the political Euphrates is to prepare for this, and since the
drying up is a symbol of the decline of the Turkish power, it follows that in
this we have a sign of the approaching advent of the Messiah.
The next thing which follows the account of the drying up of
the Euphrates is the issue of the three frog-spirits (verse 13) to gather the
kings of the earth and of the whole world to the great war of God Almighty
which in the Hebrew tongue is called Armageddon (verses 14-16); and right in
connection with the drying up and the issuing of the frog-spirits we have the
declaration, "Behold I come as a thief; blessed is he that watcheth and
keepeth his garments" (verse 15).
Against all human probabilities, the decline of the Turkish
power came, and came, too, just as the sign of the evaporation of a river would
indicate. The gradual disintegration has been going on till now the Sultan is
invariably spoken of as "the sick man of the East," and the so-called
"integrity of the Ottoman power" is a theory with which all the great
nations are playing, and about which their constant quarrels are hastening the
great day of the war of God Almighty, when all nations shall be brought against
Jerusalem to the battle which will bring upon the scene the World's Great
Conqueror who will finally make wars to cease to the ends of the earth.
As showing to what a remarkable degree prophecy has been
fulfilled concerning the drying up of the political Euphrates, we quote from
Mr. Guinness in his Approaching End of the Age, page 367.
The "drying up" of this flood, that is to say the
liberation from Turkish oppression, of the Christian nations and lands overwhelmed
by it began with the Greek rebellion in 1820. But fatal blows to the power and
prestige of the Ottoman Empire had previously been dealt by Russia. In the war
of 1768 between the two kingdoms, the Turkish armies were beaten and destroyed,
and ruin and disgrace attended each succeeding campaign. In 1770 the Russian
admiral annihilated the Turkish fleet in the Aegean sea. In 1774 a large
Turkish army was again most disgracefully beaten, and the humiliating peace of
Kainarge, showed that the conqueror was in a position to dictate terms. Three
years later war again broke out between the two powers, and again the Russians
had the mastery both by sea and by land, and obtained the session of important
towns and districts before concluding peace. In 1806 Russia occupied Moldavia
and Wallachia and the old hostility broke out afresh, the weakness of the
Ottoman Empire becoming more apparent than ever. A new fleet, which had been
created, was destroyed by the Russians at Lemos. Mahmoud II had to buy a peace
by the cession of all his territory north of the Pruth, of a number of
fortresses on the Danube, and of a principal mouth of the Danube itself. In
1820 began a formidable insurrection in Greece, the finest province of the
Turkish Empire, which quickly spread to Wallachia, Moldavia and the Aegean
Isles.
In 1826 the Porte surrendered to the Russians all the
fortresses it retained in Asia; in the same year civil commotions distracted
Constantinople; and the awful slaughter of the Janissaries took place, four
thousand soldiers being shot or burned to death in their own barracks in the
city, and many thousands more all over the empire, by the Sultan's own command.
The Greek rebellion continued till 1827, when, after a
severe and prolonged struggle, Turkey was obliged to acknowledge the
independence of Greece. The sympathies of Western Christendom had been aroused
by the horrible cruelties perpetrated by the Turkish admiral in the conquest of
Scio: and England, France and Russia intervened between the Porte and its Greek
Christian subjects. At the great naval battle of Navarino the fleet of Turkey
was once more destroyed, and Greece became independent.
In 1829 the freedom of Servia was similarly secured by a
treaty which forbade a single Turk to reside north of the Danube; and in the
same year the Turkish province of Algeria in Africa became a French colony.
Mehemet Ali, the powerful Pacha of Egypt, who had long been
aiming at an hereditary kingdom for himself, rebelled against his master, and
asserted his independence in 1832. He attacked and conquered Syria, and
defeated the Turkish armies in three great battles. Nothing but the
interference of Christendom at that time prevented his marching on
Constantinople, and overthrowing the Sultan altogether. He was forced back into
his own province, and made again nominally dependent on the Sultan by payment
of an annual tribute, and the furnishing certain military aid when asked. But
Egypt is virtually independent of the Porte, and her present ruler has assumed
the title of Khedive, or king, in recognition of the fact.
In 1844 the Porte was compelled, under threat of European
interference, to issue an edict of religious toleration, abolishing forever its
characteristic and sanguinary practice of execution for apostasy (i. e., for
the adoption of Christianity). This compulsory sheathing of its persecuting
sword was a patent proof that its independence was gone, and a marked era in
its overthrow.
The same able writer, in dealing with the predicted
cleansing of the sanctuary, which depends upon the removal of the desolator of
the East says:
Every step in the downfall of Turkey is a step in the
direction of the cleaning of the sanctuary, and these steps are in our day
succeeding each other rapidly. Since 1821 Turkey has lost Greece and Servia,
Moldavia and Walachia, Morocco, Algeria, and Egypt; and now in the recent war,
Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Bulgaria. The once mighty Ottoman Empire is in Europe
practically extinct. Its power in Asia is also seriously diminished, and
notably so in Syria. Aliens, or non-Mussulmans, are now allowed to hold landed
property in Palestine, and the number of Jews resident in their own land is
every year on the increase. Thousands of intelligent Christians visit its
shores annually, and the Palestine Exploration has completed a survey of its
every square mile. "Thy servants take pleasure in her stones, and favour
the dust thereof." There is every sign, when the present is contrasted
with the past, that the time for the complete liberation of Palestine from
tyranny is at hand.
Returning to Dan. 11, where the Turkish power is spoken of
as the king of the north, we shall find the prophecy leading on to the final
destruction of this abominable desolator of the Holy Land and the appearance upon
the scene of Christ as the deliverer of Daniel's people, Israel. It must not be
supposed that the Turkish power is the king of the north spoken of all through
this chapter. While Rome held the East in its grasp it would be denominated by
this title. Indeed, the title seems to apply territorially. That is, under its
heading the history of that country is given, without specifying the powers in
possession, except so far as the parts they play help to identify them. Hence
the "taking away of the daily sacrifice" (verse 31) and honoring the
god of forces mauzzim--gods, protectors, or guardian saints (verse 38),
point to the Roman power, while at "the time of the end" there
is to be a power in possession of the land under the same title who is to be
removed by another power north of it, which in its turn is to be removed by
Michael the great prince, when the resurrection is to take place (chap. 12: 1,
2). Now we shall show, in its proper place, that Russia is this last usurper of
the Holy Land, and nothing is clearer among the facts of to-day than that
Turkey is to fall at her hands; and since Turkey is the one now in possession,
a comparison of the facts with the prophecy leaves no room for doubt that she
is the "king of the north" of verse 39. (2)
(2) There is a tendency with interpreters of unfulfilled
prophecy to telescope events, making one event of what time
proves to be several events. It was clearly seen that prophecy required the
removal of the desolating Turk, so that the preliminary re-settlement of the
Jews might take place, but events have shown that--not by Russia--but by the
Arabs under Lawrence and the British under Allenby, the Turks would be forced
to withdraw from Palestine.
We feel impelled to point out also, that there are many who
hold that the latter port of Dan. 11, and Ezek. chs. 38 and 39, are prophecies
applying to different world powers. That Daniel's "King of the
North," and what is predicted concerning that power, is now historical,
and relates to the uprise and dominion of the Saracen amid the Turk.
Whereas Ezekiel's prophecy is still unfulfilled, and is correctly applied to an
invasion of the Holy Land by Russia (Gog), at Armageddon.
It may also be worthy of suggestion, that Armageddon is not
one event or one crisis, but a number of events and of world crises--not one
war, but a series of wars. If one man may, in the Apocalypse, represent a
multitude; and one year, many years; and a city, ten nations; so Armageddon may
consistently embrace a number of terrible wars near the end, preparatory to the
establishment of the Kingdom of God. World War I, in its eastern phase,
culminated at Armageddon--the ancient battleground of nations. Thus it was that
Lord Allenby came by his title, Field-Marshal Viscount Allenby of Megiddo and
Felixstowe.
Now the question is, Wherein is the sign of Christ's coming
to be seen in these things? We are distinctly told that the causes of the
decline and fall of this "king of the north" are events of the
"time of the end" (verse 40) and that within this time the king of
the south is to "push at him," the king of the north. This
"push" cannot mean its destruction; for that is reserved for the
"king of the north" which is still north of him. The very phraseology
indicates the character of the conflict.
A push is not a death-blow. Nothing seems to so well fit
this "time-of-the-end" event as the assault of Mehemet Ali, of Egypt,
in 1831. The history of this "push" is thus given by McCabe, and I
see it is partly quoted in a book recently published, entitled Armenian Massacres
and Turkish Tyranny:
Mehemet Ali was given the sovereignty of Crete by the Sultan
for his services in the Greek revolution. Not satisfied with this acquisition,
he sent Ibrahim Pasha, an able commander, in 1831, to conquer Syria. That
country was overrun by the Egyptian forces, who also advanced to Asia Minor.
Their progress was at length stayed by the intervention of Russia, England and
France, whose forces defeated Ibrahim at Nisibis on the Euphrates. A few days
after this battle Sultan Mahmoud died, France was anxious that Mehemet Ali
should succeed him, but England and Russia drove him out of Acre and Syria, and
secured the Turkish throne for Abdul Medjid, the young son of Mahmoud. In 1840
the treaty of London was signed. Crete and Syria were restored to the Porte,
and Mehemet Ali was limited to Egypt.
Here is the "push" from the king of the south,
answering clearly to the prophecy, and nothing else can be found that will
answer to it. Some recently have applied this prophecy to the late war between
Turkey and Greece; but Greece cannot be called the "king of the
south" within the meaning of that term in Dan. 11.
Subsequent to this, against the same power at which the king
of the south was to push, the king of the north was to come like a whirlwind.
Here is a new "king of the north" introduced, and still north of the
Syrian king of the north. The words are, "And at the time of the end shall
the king of the south push at him; and the king of the north shall come
against him [the same him] 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" (verse 40). That this is a new king of the north
is clear from the fact that he is to "enter into the glorious land"
(verse 41), while the old king of the north is already there and is the object
of attack.
Several attempts have been made by the czar of Russia, the
new and latter-day dominant king of the north, to carry out this, but the fact
that hitherto he has not succeeded is also provided for by prophecy. He was to
have hooks put in his jaws and be "turned back" (Ezek. 38: 4), and
afterward be "brought forth and all his army," etc., to finally
"enter the glorious holy mountain." It is at this juncture that the
end is reached, when as the prophet Daniel declares, "At that time shall
Michael stand up," the unequaled "time of trouble" ensues,
"Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth awake" and they
shine as the brightness of the firmament in the new heaven, or the kingdom of
the stone which is to "fill the whole earth." This, then, is how the
Turkish power is a sign of our times indicating the near approach of Christ.
She is declining; she is ready to fall. Her conqueror has the will and is
rapidly getting the power to "overflow and pass over," when he will
gloat in his universal triumph. Christ, meanwhile, is hidden behind the dark
clouds, waiting for the climax of human pride and pomp to be reached, when he
will break through with lightning flash and thunder peal which shall clear the
foul atmosphere and give health and happiness to a troubled, priest-ridden and
oppressed world. (3)
(3) There is written evidence (see Eureka, vol. iii,
p. 546) that the prophecy in the 16th of Rev. concerning the drying up of the
river Euphrates has been understood to apply to the decline of the Ottoman
Empire, for nearly three hundred years--which would take us back to a time when
it was at the supreme height of its power. A series of wars and adversities,
beginning about 1820, have caused a steady decline in strength and area of
sovereignty, aptly comparable to the receding of the water of a river, after
having reached flood-stage. Perhaps no prophecy has ever had more striking and
unmistakable fulfillment.
What was a reason in apostolic times for not expecting the
immediate coming of the Lord was that the "man of sin" and "son
of perdition" had not yet appeared. It follows, therefore, that
when he had appeared and performed his wicked part in the worlds drama, it is
safe to look for the Lord soon to return.
The apostle Paul says:
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 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, and
that man of sin be revealed, 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, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not,
that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what
withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity
doth already work; only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of
the way. And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord, shall consume
with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his
coming; even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and
signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them
that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might
be saved.
This description of the man of sin whose ambitious, corrupt
and abominable career was to precede the coming of Christ is evidently
identical with the little horn of Dan. 7, as a comparison will show:
1. Daniel says, "The same horn made war against
them," and shall wear out the saints.
Paul says "there shall be a falling away, and that man
of sin shall be revealed.
2. Daniel says the little horn has eyes and a mouth and
speaks great swelling words against the Most High.
Paul says the man of sin shall oppose and exalt himself
above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.
3. Daniel says he shall think to change times and laws and
the saints shall be given into his hand.
Paul says he shall be revealed as a wicked one giving heed
to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons.
4. Daniel says he shall not regard the God of his fathers
nor the desire of women.
Paul says he shall forbid to marry and command to abstain
from meats, which God hath ordained to be received with thanksgiving.
5. Daniel says his dominion shall be taken away to consume
it and to destroy it unto the end.
Paul says the Lord shall consume him with the spirit of his
mouth and destroy him with the brightness of his coming.
Now before the Reformation, when Rome was supreme and could
dictate what men should believe and teach, it was not to be expected that the
papacy would be clearly pointed out as answering to these prophecies. The
"consuming" process must first commence so that the hands of the
tyrant may be held from torturing and killing those who had the courage of
their conviction. The consuming process of which the apostle speaks commenced
with the Reformation, for that event resulted in infusing the "spirit of
the Lord's mouth" as it breathed in the Scriptures of Truth into the minds
of the common people; and they learned enough from it to become Protestants.
Previous to this a Bible was not allowed in the hands of a layman.
In the development of the papacy, the religious element
worked first, and afterward the civil power. The former worked upon the
ignorance and superstition of the people till it had them awed into submission,
and then all was ready for a union of church and state, and temporal power as
well as spiritual became the possession of the pope.
In the decline of the papacy, also, the religious element
did the first work, and receiving an impetus from the Reformation it gained
power till the claims of the pope to temporal dominion were denied him, and the
power wrested from his blood-stained hands.
During the dark ages the papacy thrived, for then it was in
its native element; but, as prophecy had ages before declared, men began to
"run to and fro and knowledge increased," and Protestantism became a
welcome fact which allowed men to read the Bible wrested from the monopolizing
priestcraft of Rome and opened to be read and studied by old and young, rich
and poor. In this "the earth again helped the woman," and made it
possible for her return, in her doctrinal purity, after twelve hundred and
sixty long years exile in the wilderness (Rev. 12: 6). Had not this great
revolution taken place, the production of this book we are writing would cost
the writer his life and itself would soon end its existence, as thousands of
men and women have who dared to believe what it sets forth, by the torch of
Roman bigotry and tyranny. We may therefore thank God that the consuming power
has largely done its work and that, while we wait and watch, the day is
hastening when the last vestige of the abominable system will be destroyed by
the brightness of the Lord's coming. We may also thank God for the Reformation;
we may thank Him for Protestantism; we may thank Him for such men as Luther,
Tyndale, and for Newton and those of his class, who have boldly and
masterly pointed out from the facts of history that in the sorceries and
cruelties of the papacy, prophecy concerning the latter days finds its
unmistakable fulfillment.
Years ago there was published a pamphlet by Canon Wordsworth
of Westminster, in which Rome was fully shown to answer in every particular to
prophecy concerning "Babylon the great the mother of harlots,"
Daniel's blasphemous horn with eyes and mouth, and Paul's man of sin; and that
there was no other power or system which could possibly be made to fit these prophecies.
The pamphlet was entitled Babylon; or the Question Examined. Is the Church
of Rome the Babylon of the Apocalypse? Mr. Guinness quotes largely from
this book and says:
In 1859 the author challenged the Church of Rome to answer
his argument in the following words; "If any minister or member of the
Church of Rome can disprove this conclusion he is invited to do so. If he can
doubtless he will; and if none attempt it, it may be presumed that
they cannot; and if they cannot, then, as they love their salvation,
they ought to embrace the truth which is preached unto them by St. John, and by
the voice of Christ." Sixteen years ago, when the above was published, the
author reiterated the challenge, and no reply has as yet been made to it by any
member of the Church of Rome! "Speechless!" "Guilty before
God!"
According to Daniel's prophecy this power was to wear out
the saints. According to Paul's, it was to cause a falling away from the truth.
According to the revelation to John the woman was to be drunken with the blood
of the saints and of the martyrs of Jesus. That this was all to commence in
apostolic times, and is not a matter of the future is clear from the fact that
Paul says, "The mystery doth already work" (II. Thess. 2: 7); and
that as soon as that which "hindered" were removed, the system would
be revealed. Paganism was the hindering religion and power, and as soon as the
pagan dragon was cast out of the Roman heaven and a so-called Christian emperor
was enthroned the way was open for the full development of the mystery which in
Paul's time was secretly at work to become finally boldly and openly and
boastfully the "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND THE
ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH" (Rev. 17: 5).
This is the title emblazoned upon the brow of the woman whom
John was shown riding upon a scarlet colored beast "full of names of
blasphemy" (verse 3). At this woman John was astonished and wondered, and
to him she represented a system which God's people must shun as they would the
most foul and fatal disease. The spirit cries, "Come out of her, my
people, that ye be not partaker of her sins, that ye receive not of her
plagues." Persecuted as the early Christians were by pagan Rome, they
would naturally expect exemption from the cruel hand of the persecutor when
"Christian emperors" seized the throne. John's astonishment is not to
be wondered at when it is remembered that he beheld "Christianity"
enthroned and become a greater persecutor of God's people than was the pagan
Satan, which it had displaced.
The Scriptures speak of Israel under the symbol of a woman,
first in marriage relation with God and afterwards, when it apostatized, as a
woman divorced. In the former state the woman would be pure and chaste; in the
latter, lewd and impure. In the New Testament the pure church of Christ, before
the "falling away" of Paul's letter and the "wearing out"
of Daniel's prophecy, is given under the symbol of a chaste and pure virgin.
"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave
himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water
by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having
spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without
blemish. For we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones"
(Eph. 5: 25-27, 30). "For I have espoused you to one husband, that
I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ" (II. Cor. 11: 2).
With this key to the understanding of the symbolic meaning
of woman in the symbolic book of Revelation, we may safely conclude that in one
case the bride, the Lamb's wife, is the true church, while the "mother of
harlots" who has spiritually cohabited with the kings of the earth and is
intoxicated with the blood of saints, is the church of the apostasy--developed
from the "falling away" and the Laodecean lukewarmness which was so
nauseating to God as to be spewed out of His mouth.
These two women are held in contrast throughout the book,
and they are also represented by two cities--Rome and Jerusalem, the one hated
of God and the other loved. On account of the idolatry of Rome and its likeness
to ancient Babylon it is fitly given that ancient synonym for confusion as a
title. These two systems are thus spoken of in the book of Revelation:
There came unto me one of the seven angels which had the
seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come
hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife (Rev. 21: 9).
And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high
mountain, and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem (Rev. 21:10).
To her it was granted that she should be arrayed in fine
linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints
(Rev. 19: 8).
And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down
from God out of heaven as a bride adorned for her husband (Rev. 21: 2).
And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he
persecuted the woman. * * * And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went
to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God,
and have the testimony of Jesus Christ (Rev.12: 13-17).
There came one of the seven angels which had the seven
vials, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will show unto thee the
judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters (Rev. 17: 1).
So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and
I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet colored beast, full of names of blasphemy,
having seven heads and ten horns (Rev. 17:3). And the woman which thou sawest
is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth (verse 18).
And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and
decked with gold and precious stones and pearls. . . . And upon her
forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS
AND THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH (Rev. 17: 4, 5).
And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints
(Rev. 17: 1-6). And I heard another voice from heaven saying, Come out of her,
my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins (Rev. 18: 4).
Now Rev. 17 is self-explanatory. It leaves no room for doubt
as to the meaning of the symbols. The first that John sees is the apostate
woman. Let us ask,
1. What does the woman represent?
ANS.--"And the woman which thou sawest is that great
city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth" (verse 18).
2. What do the waters which the woman sitteth upon
represent?
ANS.--"The waters which thou sawest, where the harlot
sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues" (verse
15).
3. What do the seven heads of the beast represent?
ANS.--The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the
woman sitteth (verse 9).
4. What do the ten horns in the head of the beast represent?
ANS.--"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten
kings" (verse 12).
5. What does the beast represent?
ANS.--It was not necessary to give the answer to this in
this chapter, because it had been made clear by the prophet Daniel, and well
known as the fourth beast with ten horns or the Roman empire.
Here we have the seven-hilled city of Rome, representing the
headquarters of that apostate church, which should be headed up in the man of
sin, or little horn that was to come up among the ten horns of the Roman beast.
"The spirit speaketh expressly," says the apostle Paul, "that in
subsequent times" this power should arise "forbidding to marry and
commanding to abstain from meats," etc. Here is the prophecy which shows
the earmarks of this creature in forbidding its priests and nuns and
"Sisters of Mercy" to marry, and all its devotees to eat meat on
Fridays and at certain "times" of its own appointment.
Now wherein is the papacy a sign of our times in relation to
Christ's return? The antichrist is declining and ready to fall, and when we see
the Lord thus consuming him with the spirit of his mouth, Christ is due to
destroy him with the brightness of his coming. Before the little horn of
Daniel's prophecy, three of the horns of the Roman beast were to fall. The
pope's tiara is the answer to this. The arrogancy and impudent assumption of
his power in "exalting itself above all that is called god or that is
worshipped" is a well-known fact in its history and instances of
exemplification are too numerous to admit of collating and recording. Mr.
Guinness says:
"Fox, in his Acts and Monuments, gives extracts
from two hundred and twenty-three authentic documents, comprising decrees,
decretals, extravagants, pontificates, and bulls. Twenty pages of small type in
a large volume, are filled with the 'great words' of the popes, taken from
these two hundred and twenty-three documents alone."
We can hardly afford space for comparatively a few samples,
but here they are:
"Wherefore, seeing such power is given to Peter, and to
me in Peter, being his successor, who is he then in all the world that ought
not to be subject to my decrees, which have such power in heaven, in hell, in
earth, with the quick, and also the dead. . . . By the jurisdiction of
which key the fullness of my power is so great that, whereas all others are
subjects--yea, and emperors themselves, ought to subdue their executions to me:
only I am a subject to no creature, no, not to myself; so that my papal majesty
ever remaineth undiminished; superior to all men; whom all persons ought to
obey, and follow, whom no man must judge or accuse of any crime, no man depose
but I myself. No man can excommunicate me, yea though I commune with the
excommunicated, for no canon bindeth me: whom no man must lie to, for he that
lieth to me is a church robber, and who obeyeth not me is a heretic, and an
excommunicated person. . . . Thus, then, it appeareth, that the greatness of
priesthood began in Melchisedec, was solemnized in Aaron, continued in the
children of Aaron, perfectionated in Christ, represented in Peter, exalted in
the universal jurisdiction, and manifested in the Pope. So that through
this pre-eminence of my priesthood, having all things subject to me, it may
seem well verified in me, that was spoken of Christ, 'Thou hast subdued all
things under his feet, sheep and oxen, and all the cattle of the field, the
birds of heaven, and fish of the sea,' etc., where it is to be noted that by
oxen, Jews and heretics; by cattle of the field, Pagans be signified. . . . By
sheep and all cattle, are meant all Christian men, both great and less, whether
they be emperors, princes, prelates, or others. By birds of the air you may
understand angels; and potentates of heaven, who be all subject to me, in that
I am greater than the angels, and that in four things, as afore declared; and
have power to bind and loose in heaven, and to give heaven to them that fight
in my wars. Lastly, by the fishes of the sea, are signified the souls departed,
in pain or in purgatory. . . . For, as we read, 'The earth is the Lord's and
the fulness thereof;' and, as Christ saith, 'All power is given to Him, both in
heaven and in earth;' so it is to be affirmed, that the Vicar of Christ hath
power on things celestial, terrestrial, and infernal, which he took immediately
of Christ. . . . I owe to the emperor no due obedience that he can claim, but
they owe to me, as to their superior; and, therefore, for a diversity betwixt
their degree and mine, in their consecration they take the unction on their
arm, I on the head, And as I am superior to them, so am I superior to all laws,
and free from all constitutions; who am able of myself, and by my
interpretation, to prefer equity not being written, before the law written;
having all laws within the chest of my breast, as is aforesaid. . . . What
country soever, kingdom, or province, choosing to themselves bishops and ministers,
although they agree with all other Christ's favored people in the name of Jesu,
that is, in faith and charity, believing in the same God, and in Christ, His
true Son, and in the Holy Ghost, having also the same creed, the same
evangelists, and scriptures of the apostles; yet, notwithstanding, unless their
bishops and ministers take their origin and ordination from this apostolic
seat, they are to be counted not of the church, so that succession of faith
only is not sufficient to make a church, except the ministers take their
ordination from them who have their succession from the apostles. . . . And
likewise it is to be presumed that the bishop of that church is always good and
holy. Yea, though he fall into homicide or adultery, he may sin, but yet he cannot
be accused, but rather excused by the murders of Samson, the thefts of
the Hebrews, etc. All the earth is my diocese, and the ordinary of all men,
having the authority of the King of all kings upon subjects. I am all in all
and above all, so that God Himself, and I, the Vicar of God, have both one
consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do. In all things that
I list, my will is to stand for reason, for I am able by the law to dispense
above the law, and of wrong to make justice in correcting laws and changing
them. . . . Wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man,
but of God: WHAT CAN YOU MAKE ME BUT GOD? Again, if prelates of
the church be called and counted of Constantine for gods, I then, being above
all prelates, seem by this reason to be ABOVE ALL GODS. Wherefore no marvel if
it be in my power to change time and times, to alter and abrogate laws, to
dispense with all things, yea, with the precepts of Christ; for where
Christ biddeth Peter put up his sword, and admonishes his disciples not to use
any outward force in revenging themselves, do not I, Pope Nicholas, writing to
the bishops of France, exhort them to draw out their material swords? And,
whereas Christ was present himself at the marriage in Cana of Galilee, do not
I, Pope Martin, in my distinction, inhibit the spiritual clergy to be present
at marriage-feasts and also to marry? Moreover, where Christ biddeth us lend
without hope of gain, do not I, Pope Martin, give dispensation for the same?
What should I speak of murder, making it to be no murder or homicide to slay
them that be excommunicated? Likewise, against the law of nature, item against
the apostles, also against the canon of the apostles, I can and do dispense;
for where they, in their canon, command a priest for fornication to be deposed,
I, through the authority of Silvester, do alter the rigour of that
constitution, considering the minds and bodies also of men now to be weaker
than they were then. . . . If ye list briefly to hear the whole number of all
such cases as properly do appertain to my Papal dispensation, which come to the
number of one-and-fifty points, that no man may meddle with but only I
myself alone, I will recite them:
"The Pope doth canonize saints, and none else but he.
"His sentence maketh a law.
"He is able to abolish laws, both civil and canon.
"To erect new religions, to approve or reprove rules or
ordinances, and ceremonies in the church.
"He is able to dispense with all the precepts and
statutes of the Church.
"The same is also free from all laws, so that he cannot
incur any sentence of excommunication, suspension, irregularity, etc., etc.
"After that I have now sufficiently declared my power
in earth, in heaven, in purgatory, how great it is, and what is the fulness
thereof, in binding, loosing, commanding, permitting, electing, confirming,
disposing, dispensing, doing and undoing, etc., I will speak now a little of my
riches and of my great possessions, that every man may see by my wealth and
abundance of all things, rents, tithes, tributes, my silks, my purple mitres,
crowns, gold, silver, pearls and gems, lands and lordships, for to me
pertaineth first the imperial city of Rome; the palace of Lateran, the kingdom
of Sicily is proper to me, Apulia and Capua be mine. Also the kingdom of
England and Ireland, be they not, or ought they not to be, tributaries to me?
To these I adjoin also, besides other provinces and countries, both in the
Occident and Orient, from the north to the south, these dominions by name (here
follows a long list). What should I speak here of my daily revenues, of my
first-fruits, annates palls, indulgences, bulls, confessionals, indults, and
rescripts, testaments, dispensations, privileges, elections, prebends,
religious houses, and such like, which come to no small mass of money? . . .
But what should I speak of Germany, when the whole world is my diocese, as my
canonists do say, and all men are bound to believe; except they will imagine
(as the Manichees do) two beginnings, which is false and heretical? For Moses
saith, In the beginning God made heaven and earth: and not In the beginnings.
Wherefore, as I began, so I conclude, commanding, declaring and pronouncing, to
stand UPON NECESSITY OF SALVATION, FOR EVERY HUMAN CREATURE TO BE
SUBJECT TO ME."
There surely is no room to expect a greater fulfillment of
the prophecies than we have in this. What more can any being or institution
claim? In what can there be greater pretenses? Has not the climax of iniquity
been reached? And is not this enough to identify the antichrist beyond the
shadow of doubt? The counterfeit Christianity was to appear and play its
hypocritical, foul, and cruel part in the darkness of its own creating. It is
done. What next is due? Surely the Christ, true Christianity, the kingdom
of God. The "mystery of godliness," has been removed by the
"mystery of iniquity," and every sacred thing has been counterfeited.
As Mr. Guinness says, "The papacy has its counterfeit high priest, the
pope; its counterfeit sacrifice, the mass; its counterfeit Bible, tradition;
its counterfeit mediators, the Virgin, the saints and angels; the forms have
been copied, the realities set aside. Satan inaugurated and developed a system,
not (avowedly) antagonistic to Christianity, but a counterfeit of it; and as
Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses so (i. e. by imitation) he has
withstood Christ." Now there is another way by which we can follow the
history of the papacy as a sign of the times; and whether or not it is safe
thereby to fix definite dates, it serves approximately, which is near enough
for a sign to stir to readiness and cause to lift up the head--to point out our
whereabouts in relation to our Lord's return.
It is safe to say that, along with signs, prophecy
gives times by which the diligent student may determine approximately
how near we are to the realization of our hope. The length of time is not
always given in literal terms, for in this, as well as in other advanced phases
of revelation, the principle is followed, that it is "the glory of God to
conceal a thing and the honor of kings to search out a matter."
It is not wise to be dogmatic in dealing with prophetic
times, as the experience of many failures in the past go to show. Still, it is
an interesting branch of Divine revelation and the interest awakened in the
mind by its study is of a healthful nature to those aspiring to be spiritually
minded. If "variety is the spice of life" why should there not be
some "spice" in the most interesting study the mind can be engaged
in?
There are two sides to what is known as the "day for a
year" question. Some claim that this method of representing time is
employed in the Scriptures, while others deny it and claim that literal days
are meant always. We cannot here elaborately give the strong arguments in favor
of the day for a year theory; but must limit our remarks on this subject to
reference to the seventy weeks of Dan. 9. Here we have a period which would
seem to us to give a safe precedent. The events to transpire in the period
called "seventy weeks" can only be found inside of the period of four
hundred and ninety years beginning with the "going forth of the
commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem," and reaching to the
"cutting off of Messiah" (verses 25, 26). In this time Israel was to
"finish its transgression," which it did in the crucifixion of the
Messiah; sin offerings under the Mosaic law were to end, Christ's offering upon
the cross being the "end of the law"; "reconciliation for
iniquity" was to be made, which was effected by the death of Christ;
everlasting righteousness to be sealed up or confirmed, which Christ did in the
shedding of the "blood of the everlasting covenant" through which he
was raised from the dead (Heb. 13: 20); and the Most Holy was to be anointed,
which was fulfilled when Christ was made immortal and thus constituted the
antitypical Most Holy.
The beginning of this period is shown by history and by the
marginal note in our reference Bibles to be the twentieth year of Artaxerxes
which was 456 B. C. Seventy weeks are four hundred and ninety days, or on the
prophetic principle of a day for a year, four hundred and ninety years. Add the
year of Christ's death A. D. 34, to 456 B. C. and we have four hundred and
ninety years as the time in which all the events named were to take place. This
principle of using a day to represent a year is laid down in Ezek. 4: 4-6,
where the prophet is commanded to lie first upon his left side and then upon
his right three hundred and ninety days and forty days, of which it is said,
"For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity," and "I
have appointed thee each day for a year."
Now returning to the subject, the prophet Daniel is told
that the little horn of the Roman beast was to have power to dominate over the
saints for "a time, times, and the dividing of time" (chap. 7: 25).
In chap. 12: 6, 7, in answer to the question, "How long shall it be to the
end of these wonders?" the answer is, that "it shall be for a
time, times and a half." This was to reach towards the accomplishment of
the scattering of the holy (set apart) people (Israel). A Jewish time was
three hundred and sixty days. It is remarkable that the power of "swelling
words" is spoken of in Rev. 13: 5 of one to whom is given "a
mouth speaking great things and blasphemies" and "power is given unto
him to continue (in persecuting power) forty and two months." Counting the
Jewish month of thirty days this would be twelve hundred and sixty days.
Thus 42 x 30= 1,260 day-years.
And in the time, times and an half of Daniel we have
One time 360
Two times 720
One half time 180
1,260 day-years.
Taking the day for a year this would be twelve hundred and
sixty years that the papacy should have power to "wear out the
saints."
Now the development of political power in any form must
necessarily be more or less gradual. It is therefore difficult to fix upon one
definite time when we can say it commenced. Indeed, it would seem that some of
the prophetic times have gradations of beginning and of ending, each beginning
reaching the whole given length of time to its ending. The "seven
time" period, or twenty-five hundred and twenty years of Jewish
suppression and Gentile dominion, would seem to be presented in this form; and
in the Babylonish captivity there were several deportations, and the restoration
was on what we might term the installment plan. The seventy years of Jeremiah's
prophecy would therefore have several beginnings and several endings; but
seventy years would measure the time from each beginning to its own ending.
This is capable of elaboration at great length, but we cannot deal with it
here. Perhaps we shall in another part of this book. We have only referred to
it to show that seeming failures on the part of prophetic students in dealing
with this question have only been the result of expecting the last end of the
given time when the date was only one of the previous endings.
On the end of the twelve hundred and sixty years of papal
supremacy we have the same advantage as with the seventy weeks--we can begin at
the end and count backward to the beginning. That the end came in A. D. 1870
cannot be questioned. Cardinal Gibbons says that it was then that the pope lost
his temporal power, termed by him "temporalities." And what more
fitting than that he should, and that it should be at the hands of Victor
Immanuel--a victor in the hands of God for that purpose and therefore in that
sense "God with us?" In 1870 Pius IX reached the climax of
blasphemy by calling the famous Ecumenical council, at which sat "six
archbishop princes, forty-nine cardinals, eleven patriarchs, six hundred and
eighty-nine archbishops and bishops, twenty-eight abbots, twenty-nine generals
of orders, eight hundred and three spiritual rulers, representing the Church of
Rome"--all to decree the impudent claim of the infallibility of the pope.
It is said that "arrangements had been made to reflect a glory around the
person of the pope by means of mirrors at noon, when the decree was made (July
18, 1870). But the sun shone not that day. A violent storm broke over Rome, the
sky was darkened by tempest and the voices of the Council were lost in the
rolling thunder." Now the remarkable thing is that the very day following
this the Franco-German war was declared, which necessitated the withdrawal of
the French soldiers who had been stationed in Rome to protect the pope from
Garibaldi: and this opened the door for the king of Italy to make the pope a
"prisoner in the Vatican," which he confesses himself to be. It was
then that the last vestige of temporal power was wrested from the pope and the
"consuming" process was accelerated. On September 20, Rome was
proclaimed the capital of Italy and became the seat of government of King
Victor Immanuel. From this time it seems to have been a foregone conclusion
that the sick man of sin of the West was indeed a consumptive. The London Times,
commenting on the event, said:
"The most remarkable circumstance in the annexation of
Rome and its territory to the kingdom of Italy is the languid indifference with
which the transfer has been regarded by Catholic Christendom. A change which
would once have convulsed the world has failed to distract attention from the
more absorbing spectacle of the Franco-German war. Within the same year the
papacy has assumed the highest spiritual exaltation to which it could aspire, and
lost the temporal sovereignty which it had held for a thousand years."
Counting back from this complete overthrow of the temporal
power twelve hundred and sixty years and we are in A. D. 610, when the Phocan
decree, which is supposed to have been issued in A. D. 606 or 608, and which
made the pope a Supreme pontiff, might be said to be in full effect.
We can now safely conclude that the "consuming"
has been going on in our days, that the lease of temporal power of "forty
and two months," and of "time, times and an half" has expired
and the next thing due is the coming of the Christ to destroy the antichrist,
and what clearer signs can we ask for to prove that we are nearing the end of
Gentile times and the inauguration of the glorious reign of righteousness and
peace? (4)
(4) Later, the Author came to believe that there would be a
restoration of the temporal power, though of short duration. Prophecy requires
that the False Prophet take the leadership of the "ten kings" in
their militant opposition to Christ. (See Rev. 17: 12-14; 19: 11-20.) It is not
difficult to conceive as to how this may come to pass. The Pope has already
been accorded rule in the Vatican State, to which the envoys and ambassadors of
other countries are delegated. Statesmen have come to recognize the vital need
for religion as a basis for stability in world affairs. And in turning to
religion, we may be sure they will not adopt such doctrines as are proclaimed
in this book, however Scriptural, reasonable and wonderful. In the fight
against Communism, forces are being joined with Catholicism in both Church and
State.
A power represented by three frogs is to be a great
disturber among the nations under the sixth vial, and it is to play a prominent
part in gathering them to the "war of God Almighty." Rev. 16: 13, 14
read as follows:
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.
History well establishes the fact that France was once
represented by three frogs. Dr. Thomas, in his Eureka, an exposition of
the Apocalypse, quotes the following from Elliot's Hor. Apoc.:
In M. Court de Gebelin's work, styled "The primitive
world compared with the Modern world," he says, "The armoral bearings
of Guyenne are a leopard; those of the Celts (especially of the
Belgians) are a lion; and of the French a frog. The frog
represents the marshes whence the French originated." And again, "The
Cosmography of Munster has transmitted to us a very remarkable fact of this
kind. Mercamir, king of the French, having penetrated from Westphalia into
Tangres, saw in a dream a figure with three heads, the one of a lion, the
other of an eagle, and the third of a frog. He consulted there,
it is added, a celebrated Druid of the country, named Al Runus; who assured him
that this figure represented the three powers which had successively reigned
over the Gauls; the Celts whose symbol was a lion; the Romans designated by an
eagle, and the Franks by the frog because of their marshes."
The characteristic restlessness of the French people and the
uncertainty of their governmental movements are facts too well known to need
recording here. They are always croaking to the annoyance and disturbance of
the other nations, allowing of no political rest. According to the prophecy,
they are to breathe out their unclean spirits of disturbance and political
mischief through the mouth of the dragon, the beast and the false prophet.
These mouths are supposed by some to be Constantinople, Vienna and Rome, and
they give the history answering well to this view of the matter.
It is sufficient for our present purpose, however, to
identify the nation represented by the three frogs, and this will enable us to
see how France is playing the part allotted to it leading up to the final
crisis when the thief-like advent will take place. In our day France is
continually an uncertain element in the universal unrest among the nations. We
hear of "another crisis in Paris" time after time, and any morning
and any evening the world is prepared to read blazing headliners, "Another
crisis in Paris!" Russia and England are necessarily opposing powers
shaping their policies preparatory to the final struggle, which they know must
come, the jealousy and envy which will hasten it being for the present hidden
behind the thin netting of "diplomatic courtesy." Now it happens that
France, though a republic, has allied itself with despotic Russia--a strange
mixture. It is not for any love she has for Russia, but to show her
spitefulness towards England and Germany, the latter because of the galling
defeat she suffered in the Franco-German war; the former because she was
foolish enough to withdraw from Egypt and leave England in full control to
carry out her plans there as prophecy requires her to do. Ever since she did
this she has been croaking impudently at the British lion while that "king
of the forest" has looked down upon her with contempt and only answered
her croaks with an occasional growl, holding fast to Egypt and steadily and
persistently penetrating into the interior of that country. It is only recently
that a great ado has been made about a visit of the president of the French
republic to the Czar, in which France in her usual running-over excitement and
frenzy has done all that was possible to arouse the jealousy of England and to
intensify the hatred of Germany towards her. Smarting under the humiliating
defeat her impudence received at the hands of Germany, she never will be quiet
as long as Alsace and Lorraine are in the hands of her victor; and this, with
her mistake in leaving Egypt to British control, is the providential net in
which she has entangled herself as one of the last causes of her frog-like
disturbing spirit which is to be a great factor in "gathering all nations
to the war of that great day of God Almighty." Every month widens the
breach and intensifies the jealousy; and every action seems to be guarded to
effect the greatest insult possible in the faces of her foes. All the great
writers on the political situation see this danger as the outcome of the French
frog-like Spirits; and to the prophetic student it is evident from this sign
that the war is near, when that great end will be reached declared in the words
thrown into this passage in Rev. 16: 13-16, "Behold I come as a thief.
Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked and
his shame appear."(5)
(5) Some see the "three unclean spirits like
frogs" in Bolshevism, Naziism, and Fascism. A frog is a loud-mouthed
creature, and may appropriately symbolize these so-called ideologies,
characterized by noisy and lying propaganda. They have led and are leading the
world to Armageddon.
There is not much trouble in identifying Britain in
prophecy, a fact which might naturally be expected, for a nation of such power
and fame in all the world, and one whose subjects and rulers have a higher
regard for the Bible than any others upon the face of the earth, and have done
more to give the world an open Bible, free to poor and rich alike, than all
others combined--such a nation surely should be found distinctly marked out in
prophecy.
In view of these considerations, we should have no trouble
in discovering Britain as a prominent sign in the political heavens of the last
days of Gentile times; and since it is in the hostile movements of the nations
the signs are to be found, and since Britain must necessarily be one of the
chief actors in the final drama, it must be certain that prophecy has given her
part in the programme in a manner which cannot escape attention.
Now there are various scenes in which she is found playing
her parts. Here are the most remarkable ones and the easiest to understand:
1.--Woe (rather Ho!) to the land shadowing with wings, which
is beyond the rivers of Ethiopia: that sendeth ambassadors by the sea, even in vessels
of bulrushes upon the waters, saying, Go ye swift messengers, to a nation
scattered and peeled, to a nation terrible from their beginning hitherto (or
forward--Lesser); a nation meted out and trodden down, whose land the rivers
have spoiled (Isa. 18: 1, 2).
Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of
Tarshish first, to bring my sons from far, their silver and their gold with
them, unto the name of the Lord thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, because
he hath glorified thee (Isa. 60: 9).
The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents:
the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts (Ps. 72: 10).
Sheba and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the
young lions thereof, shall say unto thee (Gog), Art thou come to take a spoil?
(Ezek. 38: 13).
For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy
Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee (Isa. 43: 3).
Britain is the only nation that will fully answer to the description
of Isa. 18. Some have tried to apply it to the American continent, allowing
their imaginations to see the shape of two wings in the geographical form of
the country. There is no fitness in this theory. The wings are "shadowing
wings," which belong to the land; not that the wings are the land
and vice versa. It is strictly an island country whose ambassadors must
go to foreign nations "by the sea," and a land remarkable for
shadowing wings or protection beyond its own domain proper. The words, "Hide
me under the shadow of thy wings" imply protection, and this is the sense
in which the words, "shadowing with wings" are used in this chapter.
Now there is no nation upon earth who has wings
stretched out as Britain has. Her dependencies reach far and wide, and upon
them it is said the sun never sets. Not only is it true of her as it is
of no other nation in a geographical sense; but it is universally admitted that
Britain protects her subjects at home and abroad with a jealous care unequalled
in all the world. In regard to her "the land shadowing with wings" is
no empty phrase.
Another mark of identification is that the land of Isa. 18
is remarkable for the possession of "swift messengers upon the
waters;" this to such an extent as to point out the nation as distinct
from all others. With this consideration no room is left for the
faintest surmise of the prophecy applying to any power except the proud nation
of the song, "Britannia, the pride of the ocean, the home of the brave and
the free." That "Britain rules the waves" is a proverbial fact
which removes all doubt as to what nation is in these latter days to play such
an important part in the dreadful drama, whose last act is Armageddon.
There has been some difficulty with the chapter because of
the "vessels of bulrushes," students thinking Egypt must be meant by
this sign; but Dr. Thomas seems to have good grounds for translating this,
"vessels of turning or whirling things." If this is the correct
translation the question is still further removed from doubt; for the
fulfillment of the prophecy is clearly seen in Britain being foremost in the
possession of the great leviathans, which by the "whirling things" of
modern wonderful mechanical inventions become "swift messengers" to
plough the mountain waves of the mighty ocean. But even accepting the
translation of the A. V., there should be no difficulty. Let us grant that
Egypt is referred to, and that her ancient "vessels of bulrushes" are
alluded to, to whom does Egypt belong at the present time? Is not Britain the
dictator of its destiny? It is not unusual for the bows and arrows of ancient
warfare to be spoken of in prophecies relating to the latter times when such
weapons have been superceded by cannon and shell. Speaking of the time when God
will be known in Judah and His name be great in Israel, and when "in Salem
also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion," it is said,
"There brake he the arrows and the bow, the shield and the sword,
and the battle--Psa. 76: 1-3. And to Gog of the latter days the spirit through
the prophet Ezekiel says, "And I will smite thy bow out of thy left hand,
and will cause thine arrows to fall out of thy right hand" (Ezek. 39: 3).
Many other similar cases may be found by the diligent reader. Now when Gog is
destroyed in the latter days (Chap. 38: 16) there will be no literal bows and
arrows, but mightier weapons of destruction than these; but language familiar
to the times of the prophet is carried down to the latter days. So with the
vessels of bulrushes; the great merchant ships and warships of our times as far
exceed these as the cannon and shell do the bow and arrow. England therefore,
having control of Egypt, the land of papyrus vessels is in the chapter clearly
marked out as that nation that will respond to the Providential call
(unwittingly, no doubt) Ho! to the land shadowing with wings. Send your swift
messengers to bring the scattered nation of Israel to the Mount Zion.
There is a reason why Britain's possessions "beyond the
rivers of Ethiopia," and those of Egypt should be given more prominence
here than the British Isles, and that is that these countries in the hands of
England are the natural cause for her response to the call to bring Israel to
the Holy Land. Her Indian possessions, the Suez Canal, as the main artery of
her life, and her advantageous possession of Egypt combine to make it necessary
for her to have Israel as a friendly people in the East; and it is with a view
of helping to hold back the force of the great northern mountain that she is so
deeply interested in colonizing the Jews in Palestine. When the great conflict
takes place between England and Russia, British troops in India and Egypt will
necessarily be foremost in the battle, and this is why the land of bulrushes
and ancient Cush "beyond the rivers"--the Euphrates and the Tigris--a
country now in Britain's possession, are named in this latter day prophecy.
In Isa. 43: 3 we are told that preparatory to the divinely
bestowed favor upon Jacob and Israel (verse 1), in redeeming them, when Jehovah
will be "The Lord their God, the Holy One of Israel, their Saviour,"
Egypt is to be given to a nation as a reward for ransoming Israel. This is to
be at a time when it is declared "I will say to the north, Give up; and to
the south, Keep not back! bring my sons (Israel) from far, and my daughters
from the ends of the earth" (verse 6). When the time for the deliverance
of the twelve tribes from Egypt came, God gave the peremptory command to
Pharaoh, "Give up." For a time Pharaoh was not willing; but at last
Israel became a sore and a scourge to him to an extent that he was quite
willing to "give up" and to hasten them out of the land.
Now in the latter-day deliverance of Judah and Israel there
will be preliminary work, and circumstances should shape themselves so as to
make "the north give up." The nation north of the prophet's
standpoint is Russia, and only three years ago Providence said to the Russian
Pharaoh, "Give up!" and the Jews were hastily driven out by
thousands. Simultaneously with this, and previous to it, the call, which is
couched in milder words because addressed to a friendly nation instead of an
unfriendly one, "Keep not back," was being obeyed by a nation south
of the prophet's standpoint. What nation was and is helping Israel's return to
their land? Not Egypt, considered of itself in the hands of its nominal ruler;
but Britain, who is the real ruler of that country, and has done more towards
colonizing the Jews in Palestine than any other nation. To her God has given
Egypt, in spite of the discontent and threats of other powers, France in
particular.
It is a Britain, then, that the words of Isa. 18 are
addressed, and she is called upon to send her swift messengers upon the waters
to a "nation scattered," whose land the rivers (nations) have
spoiled; and she is to bring them as "a present unto the Lord of
hosts" "to the place of the name of the Lord of hosts, the mount
Zion" (verse 7). She has partly done this, and is doing it; and since this
is preparatory to the appearance of the "Lion of the tribe of Judah,"
in it we have a latter-day sign leading up to the grand sequel we are looking
for and hoping for. It is not, we presume, necessary to prove that England is
the real ruler of Egypt, for it is generally known and admitted. At this very
time the Chicago Record is giving a series of lessons on various useful
branches, one of which is "General History," and in the history of
Egypt it says,
"The Macedonians were succeeded in turn by the Romans, Saracens,
Mamelukes, and Turks, to the last mentioned of which Egypt still nominally owes
allegiance, though its policy is now controlled absolutely by England and it is
practically a part of the British empire, under whose protection it is
even now winning back the vast territories in the Soudan which were undoubtedly
under its sway in the days of the Pharaohs."
Not only is England addressed by the prophet as in
possession of Egypt, but as "beyond the rivers of Ethiopia" (verse
1). In this again we have the ancient name of a country brought down to our
times. For the Ethiopia of this chapter we must look back further in history
and farther east than Abyssinia. Looking east from the prophet's standpoint we
reach beyond the rivers Euphrates and Tigris to India. According to some
ancient descriptions, of Ethiopia it would embrace part of the country through
which these rivers run and include India. The American Cyclopedia has
the following:
Recent linguistic discoveries, says George Rawlinson
(Herodotus), book I, essay xi), tends to show that a Cushite or Ethiopian race
did in the earliest times extend itself along the shores of the southern ocean
from Abyssinia to India. The whole peninsula of India was peopled by a race of
this character before the influx of the Aryans; it extended from India along
the sea coast through the modern Baluchistan and Kerman, which was the proper
country of the Asiatic Ethiopians; the cities on the northern shores of the
Persian Gulf are shown by the brick inscriptions found among their ruins to
have belonged to the race; it was dominant in Susiana and Babylonia, until
overpowered in the one country by Aryan; in the other by Semitic intrusion. It
can be traced, both by dialect and tradition, throughout the whole south coast
of the Arabian peninsula; and it still exists in Abyssinia.
This again identifies England as the nation of Isa. 18. So
we have her as a land of shadowing wings; a land beyond the rivers of Ethiopia;
an island nation that "sendeth ambassadors by the sea"; a nation to
which Egypt is given as wages for helping Israel's return to its home; a nation
remarkable for the possession of "vessels of turning things;" the
nation sent to a people terrible from their beginning and forward, but who for
a time have been "scattered and peeled" and that takes them to the
land of Mount Zion.
In Isa. 60: 9 Britain is again spoken of as bringing God's
sons (Israel) from far, and here she is called the "isles," that are
to "wait for me" (Jehovah) as the "ships of Tarshish."
Again she is called "the kings of Tarshish and of the isles" (Psa.
72: 10); and the "merchants of Tarshish, with all the young
lions thereof" (Ezek. 38: 13). We have only to ask, Which is the great
merchant nation of the world? Which is the great maritime nation of the world?
What nation is represented by the lion, having many possessions as
"young lions?" To Britain and to Britain alone we must look for the
answers to these questions. Since it is this merchant, Tarshish, lion power
that is to defiantly meet the king of the north in defence of Israel colonized
in the Holy Land, according to Ezekiel's prophecy, and since the consequent
conflict is to bring upon the scene "Michael, the great prince," it
is important that we show that Britain is Tarshish. To this end we cannot do
better than quote a digest by R. Roberts, in Prophecy and the Eastern
Question of a book entitled, The Kings of the East, published in
1842. He says:
The first fact to be looked at is the one stated in Ezek.
27: 12, that Tarshish was a merchant of Tyre (ancient Phoenicia),
supplying the Tyrian market with "silver, iron, tin and lead." If the
source of the supply of these metals to the Tyrian market can be ascertained
the Scripture Tarshish is discovered.
It is a fact that tin was universally used by the ancients
as the alloy for the hardening of copper, in the making of swords and other
implements. It is another fact that none of the ancient civilized countries
possessed tin mines. It is another fact that till the destruction of Tyre by
Alexander, all countries were supplied by the markets of Tyre, and that the
source of the Tyrian supply was till that time a secret. The secret was
afterwards open to the Greeks and Romans, who went to the same source of
supply. What source was that? The answer derivable from Strabo, Herodotus, and
other ancient historians, is that the Greeks and Romans, like the Phoenicians
before them, went for tin to the islands known as the "Cassiterides."
What does "Cassiterides" mean? The tin islands,
from cassiieros--the name given by the Greeks to tin. Look on any
ancient map and Cassiterides will be found marked under the British Islands.
But originally the Greeks did not know the name by which the Cassiterides were
known to the original Phoenician traders. They only knew there were such
islands without knowing where, or what geographical phrase they were known by.
When they did know they found they were known as the Britannic Isles. Why Britannic
Isles?
Britannia is a Celtic name. The Celtic language is
Phoenician naturalized in these islands from the first settlers, the
descendants of the Tarshish, son of Javan, one of those by whom "the isles
of the Gentiles were divided in their lands" (Gen. 10: 5). In pure Celtic,
Britannia signifies the LAND OF METALS: in Syriac, from which it is
derived, Baratanac means the land of tin. The modern name, Britain, is
but a modification of the ancient Baratanac, or Britannia, consequently, The
British Isles literally mean the tin isles, and identify Britain as the
Cassiterides (tin islands) of the Greeks, and the Tarshish of the Scriptures
which supplied Tyre with "silver, iron, tin and lead."
In addition to the evidence of historians that Tyre drew her
mineral supplies from certain northern islands beyond the pillars of Hercules
(the straits of Gibralter) there is abundant evidence in Cornwall and the south
and west coasts of Ireland of the existence of ancient mineral mines worked by
Phoenician enterprise. Not only are numerous exhausted tin mines found in
various localities, whose history is totally unknown, but implements of
Phoenician workmanship are found abundantly. Messrs. Lysons, in their account
of Cornwall (page 204), say: "Cornwall has been celebrated for its tin
mines from very remote antiquity. We learn from Strabo, Herodotus and other ancient
writers that the Phoenicians, and after them the Greeks and Romans, traded for
tin to Cornwall, under the name of the Cassiterides, from a very early period,
Diodorus Siculus, who wrote in the reign of Augustus, gives a particular
description of the manner in which the valuable metal was dug and prepared by
the Britons." Fragments of ancient weapons are frequently discovered in
Cornwall, in streams and buried in the ground. Messrs. Lysons, in the book
already quoted, say, "They are instruments of mixed metal, commonly called
celts, apparently cast in imitation of the stone hatchets and chisels of the
early inhabitants. They are found in greater abundance in Cornwall than in any
other part of the kingdom. . . . Several were found on the side of Larnbri Hill
in the year 1844. In the parish of Halant, four miles north St. Michael's Mount
in the year 1802, a farmer discovered, about two feet below the surface of the
earth, a quantity of celts, weighing about fourteen to fifteen pounds, with
pieces of copper swords and heavy lumps of fine copper. . . . Another large
quantity of celts, with spearheads and broken pieces of copper swords, with
several lumps of metal, weighing altogether about eighty pounds, was discovered
in the parish of St. Hilary, about the year 1800." Other similar
discoveries have been made, and a comparison of these ancient relics, with the
armor described by Homer in the Iliad, as worn by the Greeks (who were
supplied by Tyre), shows that they are identical in metal and manufacture. As regards
Ireland, a report on the metallic mines of Leinster was presented to the Royal
Dublin Society in 1828, in which the following paragraph occurs: "If we
may judge from the number of ancient mine excavations, which are still visible
in almost every part of Ireland, it would appear that an ardent spirit
for mining adventure must have pervaded this country at some very remote
period. . . . Many of our mining excavations exhibit appearances similar to
the surface workings of the most ancient mines of Cornwall, which are generally
attributed to the Phoenicians." M. Moore, in his first volume of the History
of Ireland, says: "Numbers of swords made of brass have been found in
different parts of the country. . . . It has been thought not improbable that
all these weapons, the Irish as well as the others, were of the same Punic or
Phoenician origin, and may be traced to those colonies on the coast of Spain
which traded anciently with the British Isles." Dr. Vincent, in his
treatise on the commerce and navigation of the ancients in the Indian Ocean,
says: "Tin is mentioned as an import into Africa, Arabia, Scindi and the
coast of Malabar. It has continued an article of commerce, BROUGHT OUT OF
BRITAIN IN ALL AGES, and conveyed to all the countries in the Mediterranean
by the Phoenicians, Greeks and Romans, and carried into the Eastern Ocean,
from the origin of commerce."
Now in the latter days of Gentile times just previous and
preparatory to the coming of Christ, prophecy requires a colonization of Jews
in Palestine in which Britain is to be the chief helper. She is before us as an
unmistakable sign in this. Prophecy promises that she shall have possession of
Egypt as wages for this work; and this, too, is to place her in position ready
to meet the king of the north defiantly in the last act of the great war that
will bring Christ upon the scene as a man of war. She is in that position as
another sign of the end. England was also to be in position in India,
"beyond the rivers of Ethiopia" when her latter-day service would be
required. She is there. Her young lions are also to willingly assist her in the
great and final struggle as shown by the words, "The merchants of Tarshish
with all the young lions thereof shall say, Art thou come to take a
spoil?" It is a remarkable fact that in the late Queen's Diamond Jubilee
the British colonies have been brought into closer relations than ever; and
they voluntarily proposed to render assistance in increasing and upholding the
strength of the navy, a fact which shows their willingness to rush to the aid
of the old lion in fighting the bear from the north in his plundering of the
Jews who have "gotten cattle and goods, and dwell confidently in the midst
of the land."
When the nations are raging and imagining the vain thing of
breaking the bands assunder of Christ and his victorious hosts, the stubborn
ones will be broken to shivers and dashed in pieces like a potter's vessel; but
England will undoubtedly be the most willing to respond to the invitation to
"Kiss the Son lest he be angry and ye perish by the way, when his wrath is
kindled but a little" (Psa. 2). Should the good queen of England be alive
there is no doubt she would rather lay her crown at the feet of Christ as the
king of the whole earth than have it placed upon the head of the Prince of
Wales. While there is much pomp and aristocratic show in England, her people
are the most reverential and Bible-loving of all the earth. With all their
display of power and with all the excitement of the late Jubilee, it was
possible for the pen of the poet to arrest attention to a few words commencing
with "God" and ending with "Lord." It seemed as if bands of
martial music and the roar of cannon were hushed into silence, processions
seemed suddenly to stand still, when, from the throne to the humblest cot,
heads were bowed in reverence to hear the words, "Lest we forget--lest we
forget!" Mr. Kipling quietly sent his poem, "Recessional," to
the London Times, and, as McClure's Magazine says, "It was
at once recognized as the strongest and most searching word of all that the
Jubilee had called forth." A nation that can be so touched to the heart
with the words of this poem will not be slow to yield all the power, glory and
honor to the King of kings and Lord of lords.
God of our fathers, known of old--
Lord of our far-flung battle-line--
Beneath Whose awful Hand we hold
Dominion over palm and pine--
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget--lest we forget!
The tumult and the shouting dies--
The captains and the kings depart--
Still stands Thine ancient Sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart,
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget--lest we forget!
Far-called our navies melt away--
On dune and headland sinks the fire--
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget--lest we forget!
If drunk with sight of power we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe--
Such boasting as the Gentiles use
Or lesser breeds without the Law--
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget--lest we forget!
For heathen heart that puts her trust
In reeking tube and iron shard--
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
And guarding, calls not Thee to guard--
For frantic boast and foolish word,
Thy mercy on thy people, Lord! Amen.
The Jubilee was no sooner over than it was being published
in the papers that Queen Victoria was a believer in the Lord's return to reign
on earth.
An English journal reports that the Queen recently said to a
minister of the Church of England:
"I am looking for the coming of our Lord and I do not
think it impossible that I may not have to surrender my crown till I shall lay
it down at his feet."
"What a change! The Queen of Sheba came to behold the
splendor of Solomon, whose fame had filled the world, and whose wisdom was
known to the nations afar. But a greater than Solomon once appeared and is
coming again. Earth's greatest sovereign sees in the events now occurring
evidence of His coming who is the Desire of nations and the rightful heir to
the world's empire.
The Queen apparently passes by the Prince of Wales (who many
predict will never come to the throne) and longs to lay her crown at the feet
of the King of kings. Truly when Jerusalem shall be rebuilt in the light of the
new day, "kings shall come to the brightness of her rising." The
ships of Tarshish (England) shall bring her sons from far because the Lord hath
glorified her (Isa. 60: 9).
Whether the queen personally will have the honor of
repeating the historical drama of the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon or not,
it is evident that the time cannot be far distant when England as a nation will
have the honor of playing that noble part of the greatest drama that has ever
been acted upon the stage of the world of nations.(6)
(6)The Author comments upon this further, at the time of the
Queen's death in January of 1901. In an Editorial in the February Advocate, of
which he was editor and publisher, he says: "By the death of Queen
Victoria a pretty little romance which many of our brethren have indulged in
has been disappointed--that personally the Queen would literally repeat before
Christ the historic drama of the queen of Sheba before Solomon, and that the
present she would lay at his feet would be no less than the crown of the vast
empire of Great Britain." The failure of this speculation may well serve
to illustrate the difference between human imagination and Bible prediction--it
requires only the passage of time to discredit the one and to confirm the other.
The marks of identification of Russia are as clear as those
of Britain; and that, too, for the same reason--the prominent part she is to
play as a sign of the advent of Christ and in the final struggle. Under various
historic names she is spoken of by the prophets; but for our present purpose it
will be sufficient to note what is marked out by Ezekiel and Daniel. As with
other branches of the subject so with this--the relation of Russia's actions to
Israel--Ezekiel 37 deals with Israel's restoration, and chapter 38 presents
certain details leading up to the coming of the Messiah. All that is necessary
here is to show that "Gog of the land of Magog, the chief prince of
Meshech and Tubal," is the Russian power. This is best done by quoting
from Dissertations of Unaccomplished Prophecy, by W. Snell Chauncy, a
work written in the beginning of this century, and which is remarkable for its
clear insight into the fulfillment of prophecy. Commenting upon verse 2, he
says:
Rather Gog the prince of the land of Magog, the
Prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal. By Magog is most probably meant the
Scythians or Tartars, called so by Arabian and Syrian writers. Josephus is the
earliest Hebrew authority of weight and learning, to which we can address ourselves;
and he distinctly informs us, "that Japhet, the son of Noah, had seven
sons," whose names, as recorded in Gen. 10: 2, were Gomer, and Magog, and
Madai, and Javan, and Tubal and Meshech, and Tiras; who, proceeding from their
primitive seats, in the mountains of Taurus and Amanus, ascended Asia to the
river Tanais (or, Don); and there entering Europe, penetrated as far
westward as the straits of Gibraltar, occupying the lands which they
successively met with in their progress (all of which were uninhabited), and
bequeathed their names to their different families or nation.--Granville Penn.
By Rosh is most probably meant the Russians, descendants of
the ancient inhabitants on the river Araxes or Rosh. See Bochart, Phaleg, lib.
III, cap. 13, &c. Michaelis, Spicileg. Georg, part I, p. 34, &c.,
D'Herbelot and others.
According to our common English translation, the prophecy is
addressed to "Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal."
So the English translators of the Bible have rendered that
important title, following the interpretation of the Vulgate, or Latin
version of Jerome, used in the western church; which interpretation rests upon
a criticism of that same ancient writer. But the first
translators of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint, or Seventy
Jews of Alexandria, who translated the prophecies of Ezekiel into the Greek
tongue above six hundred years before the age of Jerome, and above two hundred
years before the birth of Christ, rendered this passage with a very notable and
essential difference, viz.: "Gog, the chief of Ros, Mesoch and
Thobel."
The difference between the two interpretations turns upon
this one point. The Hebrew word rosh or ros, used as an
appellative noun, signifies indeed "head," "chief," or
"prince." But the ancient Jews were sensible that in this place it
was not an appellative, but a proper name; and they therefore rendered it by
the proper name Ros.
Ezekiel makes mention of other proper names of nations
besides Ros, which yet are nowhere to be met with in the writings of Moses; and
the question has long been set at rest by the concurring judgment of the
learned, who have adopted decidedly the primitive interpretation of the
Alexandrian Jews. And although our common English version has not derived the
benefit of that decision, yet the title of the prophecy has been generally
received among the erudite portion of the western nations for nearly two
centuries, according to the ancient Greek interpretation; that is to say, as
uniting the THREE proper names of nations. Ros, Mosc, and Tobl.
Vitringa observes that "the Seventy interpreters, Symmachus, and
Theodotion, perceived Ros in this place to be the proper name of a
people." Conformably to this corrected interpretation Archbishop
Newcome has expressed the three names Rhos, Meshech, and Tubal, in his
English translation of Ezekiel; following Michaelis in the orthography of these
words. And David Levi, the most learned Jew of our own days, thus determined
the signification of the word Ros: "So to this word I must observe, that
it is not an appellative, as in the common translation of the Bible, but
a proper name,"--Dissert, on the Prophecies, vol. II,
p. 308. The word "prince" in our common translation, ought therefore
to be replaced by the proper name Ros. The celebrated Bochart has observed that
Ros is the most ancient form under which history makes mention of
the name of Russia; and he contended that the two first of those names properly
denote the nations of Russia and Muscovy. "It is
credible," says he, "that from Rhos and Mesech, that is
the Rhossi and Moschi, of whom Ezekiel speaks, descended the
Russians and Muscovites, nations of the greatest celebrity in European
Scythia." We have, indeed, ample and positive testimony that the Russian
nation was called Ros by the Greeks, in the earliest period in which we
find it mentioned.
"The Ros are a Scythian nation, bordering on the
northern Taurus."
This testimony is given by Cedrenus, Zonarus, Leo
Grammaticus and Tzetzes. And their own historian thus reports: "It is
related that the Russians, whom the Greeks call Ros and sometimes Rosos, derived
their name from Ros, a valiant man who delivered his nation from the yoke of
their tyrants. This is the identical name which the first interpreters of
Ezekiel found in the text of that ancient prophet; upon the peculiar form of
which name Mr. Gibbon has this remark: "Among the Greeks this national
appellation has a singular form, Ros, as an indeclinable word, of which
many fanciful etymologies have been found." Moskwa or Moscow, the ancient
capital of the Russian empire, derives its name from the river Moskwa, which
runs in the south side of it. Busching's Geography vol. I, p. 452. The
river Tobol gives name to the city Tobolum or Tobolski (ut supra,
p. 506, 483), the metropolis of the extensive region of Siberia, lying
immediately eastward of the territories of Muscovy or Mosc. "Tobol
and Mosc are mentioned together in a former chapter of the same prophet, 27:
13, where they are characterized as nations trading in copper; a
metal which it is notorious abounds in the soil of Siberia. And thus the Three
Denominations, united in the prophecy, point out, with equal capacity and
conciseness, those widely extended regions which, at the present day, we
denominate collectively, THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE. It is true that in I.
Chron. 5: 4, we find the name Gog in our English Bible as a Hebrew name among
the Reubenites; but the ancient Greek interpreters teach us that in that place
it was properly enounced Goug, and not Gogue. But the name in
Ezekiel's prophecy is not a Hebrew but a Gentile name. "If," as
Michaelis says "Gomer was the Hebrew name for the Gauls, it is not
improbable that the Trocmi, a nation of the Gauls, were Togarmah." --Penn's
Prophecy of Ezekiel.
Here we have the Prince of Rosh, or Czar of Russia beyond
doubt; and now we have only to follow him in the great feats he is to perform
in the latter days up to his final destruction upon the mountains of Israel. He
is an enemy of God and of His people Israel, and, therefore, in verse 3 it is
said, "Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog."
Verse 4 says, "I will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws."
This implies that he was to step upon forbidden ground, and make attempts to
force his way before the time appointed by Him who "rules in the kingdoms
of men." After he is turned back, a time is to come when, it is said,
"I will bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen"
etc. Now when this bringing forth takes place he is to be prepared with a great
company to "come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is
gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel;" and this is
to be in the "latter years." Since it is to the mountains of Israel
he is to come, it follows that thither he was bound in his attempts when he was
"turned back." Constantinople is what Russia wants, not as an end;
but as a means to an end--the possession of the Holy Land, the holy places of
Mount Zion and Jerusalem in particular. The Crimean war was with this in view;
but he was "turned back." The war with Turkey in 1876 seemed as if it
must be the final "bringing forth;" but instead there was another
"turning back," for the reason that the situation had not been fully
formed. The situation to be formed is:(7)
(7)This is another particular, in which time has brought
change. In the Crimean War, charge of the Holy Places, and jurisdiction over
the Principalities, mostly Greek-Catholic, was made the pretext for Russian
expansion. It does not now appear probable that history will repeat itself in
this respect. Bolshevik zeal is addressed to the abolition of all religion. In
this it agrees with its prototype, the Assyrian of old. (See Isa. 10: 10, 11;
36: 18-21.)
1. The settlement of Jews in the Holy Land, which now has
taken place to a large extent and is growing apace, as we have shown under
"Israel" in this chapter.
2. Turkey weakened and in the power of Russia, which has
fully become a fact as the result of the Armenian outrage, the pressure of the
other powers leaving no other alternative for the Sultan, and the intrigue of
Russia welcoming it.
3. England well settled in Egypt, which has of late became
the policy to a remarkable degree under the administration of Lord Salisbury,
even to the extent of recovering lost prestige in the Soudan.
4. France in a position to disturb, which she has become
quite able to do of late by her alliance with Russia whom she threatens against
England in Egypt and Germany in Alsace and Lorraine.
The situation is now formed, and all is ready for Turkey to
go down, for Russia to take Constantinople, and afterwards prepare to execute
the "evil thought," when she shall say, "I will go up to the
land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell confidently
all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates, to take
a spoil, and to take a prey; to turn thine hand upon the desolate places that
are now inhabited, and upon the people that are gathered out of the nations,
which have gotten cattle and goods, that dwell in the midst of the land"
(verses 11, 12). Here are the Jews whom the "swift messengers upon the
waters" have taken there and colonized under British guarantee of
protection. Russia's "evil thought" is to plunder them and make
conquest of the land; but England must be true to her promises of protection,
as well as obey the "first law of nature," that of self-defence; and
it is now that the "merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions
thereof" are to challenge the Prince of Rosh, Gog, of the land of Magog,
the "king of the north," saying, "Art thou come to take a spoil?
hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold,
to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?" (verse 13). Now the
battle begins in earnest; but the Prince of Rosh is to be victorious over all
human foes. He is to "overflow and pass over" to the extent of
"planting the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious
holy mountain" (Dan. 11: 45) stopping not short of Egypt; for it is said,
"He shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over
the precious things of Egypt. He shall stretch forth his hand also upon
the countries and the land of Egypt shall not escape"
(verses 42, 43). Thus he has carried everything before him and become the
Nebuchadnezzar of the latter days, who will in his pride and pomp, flushed with
the glory of his successful conquests, say, "Is not this great Babylon,
that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and
for the honor of my majesty?" (Dan. 4: 30.) But a voice comes not from
this nation nor that, for there is no power on earth that is able to meet the
Philistinian giant. They are all "at his steps." Human pride, and
pomp and haughtiness have been permitted to reach the climax, and a voice comes
from heaven, saying, "O, King Nebuchadnezzar! O proud Prince of Rosh! The
kingdom is departed from thee." "I am against thee, O Gog, Prince of
Rosh, Moscow and Tubal" (Ezek. 39: 1). "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" (chapter
38: 18, 19). "I will call for a sword against him throughout all my
mountains, saith the Lord; 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 among the many people that are with him, an
overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire and brimstone" (verse 22).
"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 nation, even to that same time; and at that time thy
people shall be delivered every one that is found written in the book. And many
of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake" (Dan. 12: 1-3).
The going forth of the three unclean spirits like frogs is
to "gather all the kings of the earth and of the whole world to the war of
the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16: 14). The same great event is
predicted in the following prophecies:
For behold in those days, and in that time, when I shall
bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, I will also gather all
nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehosaphat, and will plead
with them there for my people, and for my heritage Israel, whom they have
scattered among the nations and parted my land (Joel 3: 1, 2).
Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be
divided in the midst of thee, for I will gather all nations against Jerusalem;
and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled and the women ravished; and
half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people
shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight
against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle (Zec. 14: 1-3).
The king of the north, or Russia, is destined to become the
head of all nations in this final gathering against Jerusalem. It is the final
stroke so far as the nations are concerned in the settlement of the Eastern
question, which has been so perplexing for a long time. When Russia comes forth
to execute his evil thought, and to be as a "cloud to cover the
land," Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya "are to be with him, all of them
with shields and helmet, Gomer and all his bands; the house of Togarmah of the
north quarters, and all his bands; and many people with thee." He and all
that are to be with him are warned, "Be thou prepared and prepare for
thyself, thou, and all thy company, that are assembled unto thee, and be thou a
guard unto them" (Ezek. 38: 5, 7). Either by agreement, under pressure, or
by force all these nations will be under the power or guardianship of Russia;
and this will constitute the Czar the king of Babylon of the latter days and
the head of Nebuchadnezzar's image when it stands upon its feet in all its
military power and pride. At this time, the point of attack and the coveted
spot is Jerusalem, which will have been a "burdensome stone to all
nations." It is for this great and final war that the nations are now
preparing in fulfillment of the words, "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 scythes
into spears; let the weak say, I am strong; assemble yourselves, and come, all
ye nations, and gather yourselves together round about" (Joel 3:9-11).
This proclamation is obeyed till the nations are all assembled in the valley of
Jehoshaphat to the extent that there will be "multitudes, multitudes in
the valley of threshing" (verse 14), which is the Armageddon, "or
heaps of slain," of Rev. 16: 16, and of which it is said, "and he
gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue
Armageddon."
This great gathering completed and under the guardianship of
Russia, the power, and the only power in sight, to be dealt with is Britain,
who as the "merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof,"
is preparing to resist the attack, but in the end fails, as we have already
seen, from the fact that "the land of Egypt shall not escape." It is
now that the great giant says in his heart, "I will ascend into heaven, I
will exalt my throne above the stars: I will sit also upon the mount of the
congregation, in the sides of the north" (Zion--Psa. 48: 2); "I will
ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High." The
climax is reached now, and the time has come for Jehovah to be sanctified in
Gog before the eyes of all nations (Ezek. 38: 23). But by what means? Where is
there a power to be used as the "rod of God's anger and staff of His
fury?" There is no power in sight--no such nation known upon the earth.
The world stands amazed and breathless before the victorious king of the north,
Prince of Rosh, wondering what will be next. The unexpected comes, and comes
with such force as to "leave but the sixth part" of the mighty hosts
of the Gogian army. The great giant falls upon the mountains of Israel,
"thou and all thy bands, and the people that are with thee." That
which smites the image and brings it down to the ground is the "stone
which the builders rejected," the stone of Israel, the man of God's right
hand--Christ.
After this first and staggering blow to the power which has
forced its guardianship over the nations, the One who smites him seems to
disappear for a time; and the nations, seeing their despotic victor stricken
down, cry out, "How hath the oppressor ceased, the golden city ceased! The
Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers. He who
smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in
anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth," "How art thou fallen from
heaven, O day star: how art thou cut down which didst weaken the nations!"
"They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee,
saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake
kingdoms!" (Isa. 14).
Then there seems to be a rally in the vain hope that now
their great enemy that had made them tremble is destroyed they can seize the
coveted spot and after all settle the Eastern Question to their own
satisfaction. But their attention is suddenly arrested, and turned Edom-ward,
and the question goes out, "Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed
garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the
greatness of his strength?" Who can this be? It cannot be a power of any
great strength coming in that direction. What Madhi is this that presumes to
come from the wilds of the wilderness to contest the rights of Christian
nations in the land of the birth and death of our founder and protector?
"The nations rage and the people imagine a vain thing. The kings of the
earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord
(ignorantly) and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands
assunder and cast their cords from us" (Psa. 2: 1-3)--"Who is this
that cometh from Edom?" The answer comes in thunder tones, "I that
speak in righteousness, mighty to save * * * I have trodden the winepress
alone; and of the people there was none with me: for 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. * * * And I will tread down
the people in my anger, and make them drunk in my fury, and I will bring down
their strength to the earth" (Isa. 63 :1-6). "He that sitteth in the
heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak
to them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure." Setting His
king upon His holy hill of Zion, and giving him the uttermost parts of the
earth for his possession, he shall break the nations with a rod of iron and
dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. The "time of trouble such as
never was" is now over. The sickle has been thrust in and the harvest of
the earth reaped. Armageddon's war has been fought. God has plead with all
nations in the valley of decision. What now? To those that are left the command
will go out from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem, and it will be
obeyed, in the nations "beating their swords into plowshares and their
spears into scythes, and nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither
shall they learn war any more." "O, house of Jacob, come ye, and let
us walk in the light of the Lord" (Isa. 2:3-5). The world's storms
have now passed away. The howling winds have been hushed into silence. The
raging sea has been calmed and the sweeping tempest stilled. The gently
descending rain comes down upon the mown grass, which springs up in beautiful
verdure. There is a handful of corn in the earth upon the top of the
mountains, the fruit thereof shall shake like Lebanon; and they of the city
shall flourish like grass of the earth. All nations call the Messiah blessed;
all nations are blessed in him. Peace, sweet peace, reigns universally. "Blessed
be the Lord God, the God of Israel, who only doeth wonderous things, and
blessed be his glorious name for ever, and let the whole earth be filled with
his glory." The world's conqueror and saviour reigns till he hath put down
all enemies under his feet, when the last enemy death is destroyed, and
God is all and in all, and here is the world's redemption. Amen and amen.
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
The writer has learned from experience that it is not only
necessary to set forth the truth in a clear and conclusive manner in these days
when a false theology has bewildered the minds of the people; but it is also
necessary to anticipate and remove what difficulties arise in the readers'
minds concerning a few texts which, superficially viewed and sophistically
presented by theologians, appear to be at variance with what has been set forth
herein. He has had ample opportunity during thirty-two years of his life of
observing the methods employed in endeavoring to sustain the popular theories,
and has had considerable experience in defending the truth of the Bible against
the different tactics of representative men of the various sects of
Christendom, both in private conversation and public discussions. He feels that
the first part of this book will be more useful to the inquirers after truth and
to those who are equipping themselves to effectually defend it, if a chapter is
devoted to the careful consideration of the few texts which are used, or rather
misused, against the truth it contains and the many proofs given in their
support.
The representative men of different sects must necessarily
employ methods somewhat differing according as they differ in their theories.
Hence a Campbellite, who believes in a Pentecostal kingdom must resort to
different tactics from those employed by a Baptist, who believes the kingdom
was established before Pentecost--some Baptists claiming it was set up when
Christ triumphed over death and others at an earlier date, not being willing to
be definite as to the date. In meeting these opponents of the Truth it is necessary
that one "study to show himself a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth;" for an awkward use of the sword of
the Spirit is quite likely to leave the interested listeners confused and
deluded by the sophistry of perverters of the word of God. We are commanded to
"Prove all things and hold fast that which is good," and to "Try
the spirits whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out
into the world." It is our duty to "earnestly contend for the faith
once delivered to the saints;" and this cannot be done unless we carefully
prepare ourselves as good soldiers of Christ. Let us not be driven from our
duty in this matter by the taunts of some that we are controversialists and
always ready to discuss for the sake of discussion. This is one of the tactics
used to enable the enemy to escape the test of truth. We must make up our minds
to obey the foregoing injunctions, not for discussion's sake, but for truth's
sake, and for the sake of deluded fellow men, and we must not shirk nor be
cowardly, but press the battle, giving no quarters, and fully convinced that
truth can never surrender to, retreat from, nor compromise with error.
NEH. 9: 7, 8
In chapter iv, page 36 we have shown that the promise to
Abraham that he and his seed should have the land of Canaan for an everlasting
possession was not fulfilled. In attempting to meet this and sustain the
popular theory that it was fulfilled and that Abraham is in heaven, Neh. 9: 7,
8 is quoted with great emphasis on the words, "and hast performed thy
words." Now how is this to be met? In the first place we must never
give place for a moment to a theory or an argument that will make the Word of
God appear to contradict itself. Let us ask our opponents a few questions and
give the answers which they give--and let it be remembered we give
substantially the answers representative men have given in this case. Let us
ask, then, Do you believe that the covenant spoken of in verse 8 is the same
covenant, relating to the same time and the same extent as that wherein God
said to Abraham, "For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give
it and to thy seed forever" (Gen. 13: 15)? Ans. Yes. Then you make the
Bible contradict itself; for if you apply Nehemiah's words to the covenant of
Gen. 13: 15 you make the Bible say that God had given to Abraham and to his
seed all the land promised forever: and yet the Bible says, "He gave him
(Abraham) none inheritance in it (the land of Canaan), no, not so much as to
set his foot on, yet he promised that he would," etc. (Acts 7: 5).
Do you believe the words which say He gave him not so much as to set his foot
on? Yes. Then how could inspiration speak of the same promise in two different
places and say in one, God had fulfilled it and in the other say He had not?
Acts 7: 5 not only declares that God did not give him so much as to set
his foot on, but it also says, "Yet he promised that he would give
it." Therefore that which was not given was identically the thing that
was promised; and that which was promised was the very thing that
was not given. Think of this! Does Nehemiah say that God fulfilled the
promise to Abraham and his seed? You are bound to answer no. To fulfill the
promise of Gen. 13 :15 would not the land promised have had to be given to
Abraham and his seed? You are compelled to answer yes. Then since Nehemiah does
not say that God fulfilled the covenant he speaks of to Abraham and his seed,
and since Gen. 13: 15 speaks of a promise to be fulfilled to Abraham and his
seed, it follows that Nehemiah's words do not apply to the fulfillment of the
promise of Gen. 13 :15. Now all that is necessary to escape and expose the
sophistry of the opponent is to read Neh. 9: 7, 8, as it is, without adding to
or taking from, and then it will be seen that he does not contradict Acts 7: 5.
It reads as follows: "Thou art the Lord the God, who didst choose Abraham,
and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of
Abraham; and foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant
with him to give the land of the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the
Girgashites, to give it, I say, to his seed, and hast performed thy
words; for thou art righteous."
Now how does the matter stand? Is it not clear that Nehemiah
says that the fulfillment he is speaking of was one that pertained only to
Abraham's seed and not to Abraham, while Gen. 13: 15 promised the land to both
Abraham and his seed? Nehemiah is therefore referring to the typical and
temporary possession of a part of the land involved in the everlasting
covenant; and the apostle Paul distinctly says that this temporary possession
under the Mosaic law "cannot disannul that it should make the promise of
none effect." "For," he adds, "if it be of the law, then it
is no more of promise, but God gave it to Abraham by promise" (Gal. 3:
18). The possession under the law, of which Nehemiah speaks, was an added,
temporary and typical thing like the law itself-- "till the seed (Christ)
should come to whom the promise was made;" but under the
everlasting covenant to which the Mosaic was added, Abraham and the "seed
to whom the promise was made" had not been given so much as to set foot
upon, yet it was promised and the promise remained unfulfilled, and will so
remain till the words of Micah 7: 20, uttered about ten hundred years after
Abraham's time, are fulfilled: "Thou wilt perform (not thou hast
performed) thy truth to Jacob and thy mercy to Abraham which thou hast sworn
unto our fathers from the days of old." If the sophists say that the
meaning was heaven as a spiritual Canaan, then the answer is still that
"He gave him none inheritance in it (heaven), no not so much as to set his
foot on." The truth will allow of no evasion or quibbling. It is protected
on every side and when "rightly divided" will put to silence the
ignorance of foolish men.
MATT. 3: 2
In attempting to prove that the kingdom of God is a
"kingdom of grace in the heart," and that the church is the kingdom,
the words "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3: 2; 4: 17) are
often quoted. In Chapter III, page 24, we have shown that the kingdom of God,
which, of course is the "kingdom of heaven," is a more glorious, substantial
and extensive thing than can in any sense be termed a "kingdom of grace in
the heart." "In the days of these kings," says Daniel, referring
to the kings of the earth that should exist after the division of the Roman
empire, "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
forever"--Dan. 2: 44. This is the kingdom of God, or of heaven to be set
up by the God of heaven upon the downfall of all the kingdoms of men, when, as
represented by the stone which destroys these kingdoms it is to fill the whole
earth (verse 35). Speaking of this same kingdom of God and these kingdoms of
men, John, who in vision was enabled to look down to the time of the seventh
trumpet, beheld that "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdom of
our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever" (Rev.
11: 15).
This is neither a "kingdom of grace in the heart"
nor the church, but a grand constitution of things far more powerful, glorious
and extensive, and fraught with sweeter blessings than the "heart hath
conceived," than the church has ever experienced or the world ever
witnessed.
But there was a sense in which the kingdom of heaven was at
hand in the days of John's ministry, for the words quoted so declare. In order
to get at the meaning of the words we have only to ask, What was the mission of
John? What or whom did he come to herald? In Isa. 40: 3 the prophet says,
"The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of
the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." And
Matt. 3: 3 says of John's coming, "For this is he that was spoken of by the
prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye
the way of the Lord and make his paths straight."
From this we learn that John came to herald and to prepare
the way of the Lord, Christ; and we may therefore conclude that it was Christ
who was "at hand," as declared in John's preaching. But if it was
Christ, why does it say "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Is there
a sense in which Christ can be spoken of synonymously with kingdom? The
word in the Greek for "kingdom" is Basileia, a word which the
lexicons say stands for royalty or a royal personage, as well as for kingdom.
Pickering's Greek lexicon has the following: "Basileia, a
kingdom, realm, domination, royal authority, hereditary monarchy." The
same word in the feminine form, he says, means a queen, princess, lady of royal
blood. For Basileias he gives kingly, royal, regal. Now in view of the
fact that it was the royal person, Christ, whom John came to prepare the way
for, it is certain that he used the word Basileia for Him, meaning that
the King, Prince of royal blood, in whom was the "hereditary
monarchy," was at hand. So in accordance with this meaning of the word
which John used (Basileia), the Emphatic Diaglott correctly renders the
passage as follows: "Reform! because the ROYAL MAJESTY of the
HEAVENS has approached." Christ, the king of the kingdom of God had
approached, or was "at hand;" but the time for the establishing of
his kingdom was not at hand. When the disciples "thought," some time
after Christ had appeared, "that the kingdom of God would immediately
appear, he added and spake a parable unto them" (Luke 19: 11)--the parable
of the nobleman, in which he taught that his kingdom would not appear till his
return from heaven. When this kingdom is established, the least in it will be
greater than John the Baptist was in his humility and suffering. Not that the
least in the church now is greater than John the Baptist; for John was surely a
greater man than many in the church. The kingdom to which the Saviour refers,
therefore, is the glorious kingdom to come, in which the lowest position will
be higher and the least honor will exceed anything attributable to John in this
life, honorable and great though his office was--that of being a messenger to
prepare the way of the Royal Majesty of the Heavens.
Now that Christ is spoken of as synonymous with the kingdom
of God is a matter not entirely dependent upon the meaning and use of the word Basileia.
The same truth is revealed in another way. It is said in Acts 8: 5--"Then
Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto
them." What it was to preach Christ is seen from verse 12--"But when
they believed Philip preaching the "things concerning the kingdom of
God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and
women." To preach Christ, therefore, is to preach the kingdom of
God; for he is the germ that is to grow and expand into a kingdom that shall
fill the "uttermost parts of the earth;" he is the acorn which is to
become the great and mighty oak whose branches shall spread protection and
shelter over the now groaning but then blessed, happy creation.
Luke 10: 11--"Be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of
God is come nigh unto you."
The work of Christ and his apostles was not to set up the
kingdom of God, but to preach it--the good news concerning it. In the
very nature of things a great plan or purpose in which many are to participate
must be made known, or preached or heralded, before the actual full
establishment of that which is contemplated or proposed takes place. In the
initiative step towards the carrying out of a great plan the name of whatever
form the plan is to assume when complete is given to the initiative step. We
may illustrate this by great business enterprises, it may be the building of a
railroad or the formation of a great company, whose purpose is to establish and
carry on in a systematic manner a certain line of business.
In building a great railroad, after the plan is conceived
and arranged, the first thing necessary to the accomplishment of the purpose is
to make it known--to preach it. In doing this the name the railroad is to have
when complete is used in making known the enterprise. Suppose it is the
Northern Pacific Railroad. It was planned and called by this name before
anything was done towards preparing the literal bed, ties, rails, cars and
locomotives, etc., and when agents are sent out to make the plan known, they
call it the Northern Pacific Railroad, and they present the plan to those whom
they desire to become participants in the enterprise. If they are asked, What
do you represent? they answer "The Northern Pacific Railroad. We have come
to make it known to you--or to "bring it nigh"--for your acceptance
and embarkation in it, so that when our plan, to use a modern term, materializes,
you may partake of the profits.
At the present time Zionism is preaching the establishment
of an "Independent Jewish State" in Palestine. The advocates are
presenting the plan, or bringing it "nigh" to all who will listen to
their elucidation of the contemplated "Jewish State;" but there is no
such "Jewish State" actually established yet, it is only brought
"nigh" to the people in the sense of being preached.
Now, if we apply these illustrations to the verses quoted,
we shall readily see that the kingdom of God has been planned and named by the
God of heaven Himself--in this sense "prepared from the foundation of the
world" (Matt. 25: 34). When this great and good and sure plan is spoken of
it is called by its name-- the Kingdom of God--though it has not actually been
established, but is being preached, made known or heralded to those who are
invited to join in this divine enterprise with a view of receiving a share in
the blessings which shall come from its operations when it becomes an actual
fact. In presenting this glorious plan it was brought "nigh" to the
Jews first and afterwards to the Gentiles in the form of the Gospel, or
good news, "concerning the kingdom of God." Hence we read of Jesus
that "he went throughout every city and village, preaching and showing the
glad tidings of the kingdom of God; and the twelve were with him" (Luke 8:
1). "And he sent them (the twelve) to preach the kingdom of God and to
heal the sick" (chap. 9: 2).
Those who would "study to be workmen that need not to
be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth," should always be on guard
not to apply one scripture in a way to contradict other scriptures. To say of
the verses we are considering that they mean that the kingdom of God had come
nigh in the sense of being set up is to array them against the teachings of
Jesus when he corrected the mistake of his disciples in supposing that
"the kingdom of God would immediately appear" (Luke 19: 11).
If the kingdom of God had "come nigh" in the sense of being set up or
established--in the form of a church, or in a spiritual sense in the
heart--then the disciples were right in believing in its immediate appearance,
and then the question is, Why did Jesus declare them to be mistaken in this
immediate appearing aspect of the question? He taught them that the kingdom of
God which they thought would immediately appear would appear, but not
immediately; not until he would go to heaven and return, "having received
the kingdom" (Luke 19: 15). It follows therefore that the only sense in
which the kingdom of God had "come nigh" was in that it had been
presented to them for acceptance, in which acceptance they would receive
Christ, who was the kingdom in its germ form, and would receive the gospel which
had Christ for its alpha and omega, and which was the kingdom of God in gospel
form, destined to ultimately pass from being a matter of gospel, or good news,
into a reality that would bring to an afflicted world the blessings of a reign
of "peace on earth, good will toward men and glory to God in the
highest."
Matt. 11: 11, 12--"Verily I say unto you, among them
that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist:
notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth
violence, and the violent take it by force."
It is here said that John was a great man, yet in the
kingdom of heaven the least is greater. It can not be said that the least in
the church is as great as John. Neither can it be, that the least one who has
the so-called "kingdom of grace in the heart" is greater than he. The
"kingdom of heaven," here, therefore, is not the church, nor the
"kingdom in the heart." What then is the meaning of the words? When
the kingdom of heaven in answer to the prayer, "Thy kingdom come," is
established and the redeemed will inherit it, having been invited to that honor
in the words, "Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared
for you from the foundation of the world," the position of the very least
there will be a high and glorious one. It is said, "To him that overcometh
will I grant to sit with me on my throne, even as I also overcame and am
set down with my Father in his throne" (Rev. 3: 21). This will be
"When the Son of man shall come in his glory and all his holy
angels with him," for it is added "then shall he sit upon the
throne of his glory" (Matt. 25: 31). "Then shall the righteous shine
forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Matt. 13: 43). For the
least in this exalted state the honor and glory will be great. Notwithstanding
John's greatness in this life, compared with that of the least in the kingdom
of God it is small. The object of the words is to show the greatness and glory
of those who shall be permitted to enter that glorious kingdom when its king
shall say "Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for
you."
While we have partly dealt with this text before, since it
is here connected with what is said in verse 12, we deemed it best to give a
more elaborate treatment.
The next question is, In what sense did the kingdom of
heaven suffer violence? It cannot be that in the establishment of the kingdom
of heaven there will be power enough to "treat it with violence,"
nor that it can be taken by force; for at that time the violence will be on the
part of the kingdom of heaven against the wicked kingdoms of men. The prophet
Daniel says, "In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a
kingdom, which shall never be destroyed, neither shall it be left to other
people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and
it shall stand forever" (Dan. 2: 44). So we may safely conclude that when
the kingdom of God "suffered violence and the violent took it by
force" was not at the time of the establishment of the kingdom.
Now, if when agents are sent out to preach Zionism, or the
establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine, some one should ask, How is the
Jewish State being received by the people? and if they should answer, "It
is receiving violence and the violent are taking it by force," we should
not conclude that the Jewish State had been actually established and had been
taken by force; but the only conclusion we could come to would be that the preaching
of the plan of establishing a Jewish State had caused the people to become
violent and that they had mobbed the agents or preachers. Now, this was the
fact in the preaching of the kingdom of God. John, himself, because he preached
the kingdom of heaven, was beheaded; the Saviour, who "went through every
city and village preaching the glad tidings of the kingdom of God," was
"smitten" and finally crucified, and his disciples were "cast
out of the synagogues," imprisoned, scourged and martyred. In its preached
form, then, the words of our text find fulfillment; but when the time comes
to establish the kingdom, there will be no power on earth able to use
violence against it, for it--the kingdom of the "God of heaven," or
the kingdom of heaven--will come with such force and violence as to "break
them (all human powers) with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a
potter's vessel" (Psa. 2: 9).
Luke 16: 16--"The law and the prophets were until John:
since that time the kingdom of God is preached and every man presseth into
it."
We are asked, How could they press into the kingdom if it
was not there? This question has been put by Campbellite preachers to the writer
in public debates; but they forgot for the moment that their theory is that the
kingdom was not set up till the day of Pentecost. To expose the sophistry of
the question with them, all we had to do was ask, Since you say the kingdom was
set up on the day of Pentecost, how do you account for every man pressing into
it from the days of John the Baptist? According to your own theory the kingdom
was not there in its established form, and the force of your attempted blow at
your opponent falls upon your own head. How could they press into the kingdom
when it was not there?
Most of the "orthodox" representatives, when
pressed to state the time when such a remarkable event as the establishment of
God's kingdom took place--an event which must have been a marked epoch in
history if it took place in the past--will answer that it was when Christ had
triumphed over death and hades. So with all such the question is still
pertinent, How could every man press into the kingdom from the days of John?
None of them are willing to say that the kingdom was set up in the days of
John's ministry, and therefore, since it was from that time every man was
pressing into it, the difficulty, if there be a difficulty, which they raise
against a future establishment of the kingdom is as great against one set up in
the form of a church or otherwise after John's ministry and before or at
Pentecost. There is, therefore, nothing in the passage to sustain the popular
view of a heart-kingdom or a church-kingdom.
Now, the illustrations we have given relative to the kingdom
"coming nigh" and "suffering violence" will help to explain
this text. It does not say that "the law and the prophets were until John:
since that time the kingdom of God is established and every man presseth
into it; but it says, "Since that time the kingdom of God is preached."
For men to "press into" Zionism when it is preached is for them
to enter the society promoting the enterprise and become parts of the
institution; but not till Zionism is established at Zion can they enter it in
its established form and receive the real advantages, faith in which
induced them to enter it in its preached form. So when men believed the
gospel of the kingdom and were baptized they pressed into that institution as
constituent parts in the hope that when it would become an established fact,
fraught with the promised blessings, they may realize how "good it is to
be there."
Then, again, the matter of pressing into the kingdom of God
is one of probation. The "pressing" begins when we "put our hand
to the plow," when we start on probation, which is when we believe the
gospel and are baptized into Christ, and we must continue "reaching forth
unto those things which are before" and to "press toward the mark of
the prize, the high calling of God in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3: 13, 14).
Having put our hands to the plow we must not look back, else we shall not be
fit for the kingdom of God when the time comes for there to be ministered an
abundant entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ (II. Pet. 1: 11). We must not delude ourselves with the idea that we are
in the kingdom before the Master has invited us to inherit it, which will be
when "the Son of man shall come in his glory." Those who claim to
have been in the kingdom as long as they have been in a church would be
surprised to hear in that late day--the day of judgment--an invitation to enter
the kingdom. They would be apt to say, "We have been there for a long
time." And those who think the kingdom is in their hearts might be
surprised to find that the kingdom of God is a thing to be entered into, not a
thing to enter into men's hearts. The only sense in which it can be spoken of
as in our hearts is that we believe and love the gospel of the kingdom of God
because we know that its coming will flood the earth with heavenly blessings
and chase away the darkness and gloom of this long and dreary night of sin and
sorrow.
Luke 17: 20, 21--"The kingdom of God cometh not with
observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or lo there! for, behold, the
kingdom of God is within you."
This is the text generally quoted to prove that the kingdom
of God is a "kingdom of grace in the heart." Now let it be understood
that in refusing this theory we are not denying nor speaking disparagingly of
Christ dwelling in the true Christian by faith, governing his heart in
centering his affections upon heavenly things and shaping his conduct according
to the precepts of Christ. This is the clear teaching of the Scriptures and if
in this sense the spirit of Christ, or his disposition, is not in us we are
none of his (Rom. 8: 9). All this, however, is not the kingdom of God in us as
an actual kingdom. What is in our minds and hearts is an affectionate belief in
the "things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus
Christ" (Acts 8: 12) which will be the means at last of insuring us the
welcome of the words, "Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom
prepared for you from the foundation of the world." This glorious kingdom,
instead of being in us, is what we are to enter into when we have "passed
through the much tribulation," through which "we must enter the
kingdom" (Acts 14: 22).
Still, the inquirer will ask, What about the text in
question, which says, "The kingdom of God is within you?" For the
word "within" we have, in the margin of our Bibles,
"among," and here again we must take heed to the context and the
meaning of the words used. We may ask, What called forth the words from the
Saviour? The Jews were looking for the coming of their Messiah; but did not see
a fulfillment of their expectations in the "despised Nazarene." To
them the coming of the Messiah was his coming in glory to establish his
kingdom, overlooking the prophecies of his first appearing as a "lamb to
be led to the slaughter." Looking anxiously for their Messiah to come to
deliver them from the galling Roman yoke they were then groaning under, they
were crying out, "Lo here! and lo there!" is our expected Messiah.
Their belief of the kingdom of God when restored to them and fully established
was that it would be in their own land, with David's throne restored. Of this
kingdom, therefore, they would not be saying, "Lo here! or lo there! is
the kingdom." The words could apply only to the personal coming of their
Messiah, who might appear here or there in person, afterwards, as they hoped,
to restore the kingdom to Israel. It is clear, therefore, that it was the
personal appearing of Christ that was in question, and he told them that he whom
they were looking for, and of whom they were saying "Lo here! or lo
there!" was among them. Thus the facts of the case define the meaning of
the word here translated kingdom (Baseleia) a word which we have before
shown to sometimes mean royal personage, etc. See under heading of "The
Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand."
The Emphatic Diaglott renders the passage as follows:
"Nor shall they say, Behold here! or behold there! for, behold, GOD'S
ROYAL MAJESTY is among you," and in a footnote the author says:
"In this verse it has been found necessary to depart
from the usual signification of hee basileia tou theou, the KINGDOM of
GOD, and render as in the text. That this rendering is admissible and correct,
see note on Matt. 3: 2. Basileia here refers to the person to
whom the title and honor of king belonged, rather than to his territory
or kingdom. Prof. Whiting, an able Hebrew, and Greek scholar, says, this
clause in the 21st verse ought to be rendered "The King is among
you." Dr. A. Clarke, in a note on the 21st verse, evidently understood it
as relating to the Christ. He says, "Perhaps these Pharisees thought that
the Messiah was kept secret, in some private place, known only to some of their
rulers; and that by and by he should be proclaimed in a similar way to that in
which Joash was by Jehoiada the priest. See the account, II. Chron. 23:
11."
Of his first coming Jesus could truthfully say, "The
kingdom of God cometh not with observation," or outward display. Or,
"God's Royal Majesty cometh not with outward show;" for "a
bruised reed shall he not break, and a smoking flax shall he not quench till
he send forth judgment unto victory" (Matt. 12: 20). When he comes the
second time to "send forth judgment unto victory" he will come
with "observation" or visible display of glory and power; for it is
said, "Every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all
kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him" (Rev. 1: 7). He will then
come to establish the very kingdom which Israel hoped for when the prophetic
words of Zacharias will be fulfilled, and the hope of Israel realized:
"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his
people * * * 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 1: 68-73).
John 18: 36--"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this
world: If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I
should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from
hence."
This passage is quoted to prove that the kingdom of God is
not on this earth, many when they quote it forgetting their theory that the
church is the kingdom and that they have called the civilized world
Christendom-dominion of Christ. If the church is the kingdom, since the church
is on earth the kingdom must be on earth. If the kingdom of God is a kingdom of
grace in the hearts of so-called Christians, then, since these are on earth,
the kingdom in their hearts must be on earth.
But, it will be said, in answer to this, The meaning is that
Christ's kingdom is not of this world--the present worldly institutions. Then,
we answer, do not call this world Christendom: for if this world is
Christendom, and if Christendom is the dominion of Christ, then this world is
Christ's kingdom, and his words in the text are denied.
Finding a difficulty here to sustain a false theory, there
is an attempt to prove that the meaning of the passage is that the kingdom is
not on earth, but in heaven. This, of course, contradicts the hundreds of texts
which show that Christ is to have "the uttermost parts of the earth for
his possession" (Psa. 2: 8), and that the kingdom is to be "under the
whole heaven" (Dan. 7: 27). When the champions of the popular theories
take this turn to protect their claims they forget that they are praying,
"Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is done in
heaven."
The passage does not say the kingdom is not to be on
earth; but that it is not of this world. World, from the Greek word kosmos,
here does not mean earth, but order or constitution of things. At that time
the world represented by Pilate (to whom the words of the passage were spoken)
was the Roman government, consisting of civil and religious laws and
institutions of men--false, corrupt and sinful in the sight of God. Christ's
disciples were not of that world, but had been called out of it, and were no
longer "walking according to that world (kosmos) according to the
prince and power of its aerial (or ruling customs) the spirit (disposition)
that now worketh in the children of disobedience" (Eph. 2: 2). Christ's
kingdom is not a worldly kingdom, but a heavenly kingdom. Its great plan was
conceived in heaven, and the revelation concerning it came from heaven. It is a
heavenly or heaven-like kingdom to come, that God's will might be
done on earth as it is in heaven. Had Christ's kingdom been of
that world represented by Pilate it would have been one kingdom of that world
contending against another, and in that case his servants would have fought
that their king might not be delivered to the Jews. Hence he adds, "But
now is my kingdom not from hence." As he had shown by the parable of the
nobleman, he must go to heaven and receive the title and power at the hands of
Him who said, "Sit thou at my right hand until I make thy foes thy
footstool." Then his kingdom will come as the stone, to smite the kingdoms
of this world, break them in pieces, grind them to powder and blow them away as
the chaff of the summer's threshing floor. Then the stone kingdom will become a
great mountain and fill the whole earth.
To accomplish this great work Christ will come as a man of
war and then his servants will fight for divine rights; for they are to
"execute vengeance upon the nations and punishment upon the people; to
bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute
upon them the judgment written: this honor have all the saints" (Psa. 149:
7-9). "The Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day there shall
be one Lord and his name one" (Zec. 14: 9).
In heaven God rules the universe; but to His Son he has
promised the earth and a kingdom upon the earth. When the set time arrives,
"God 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"
(Acts 3: 20, 21).
Rom. 14: 17--"For the kingdom of God is not meat and
drink; but righteousness, and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."
This text is often quoted against the literality of the
kingdom, and in an effort to prove that the kingdom of God consists of the
spiritual effect of conversion in the righteousness, peace and joy some think
they experience when they "get religion." In this peace and joy of
mind we must discriminate between the fanaticism of ignorance and the calm
tranquility begotten by an intelligent belief of and faithful obedience to the
gospel. Many shout with joy begotten by delusion, and generally the greater the
ignorance and the stronger the impulse of the flesh, the louder the talk and
glib about feeling this and feeling that. In this there is a "zeal
of God, but not according to knowledge," while, where there is zeal
arising from knowledge of the Truth it manifests a corresponding temperance and
soberness. The shoutings and ravings of fanaticism, while they may spring from
temporary good intentions, are not enduring, and are easily discerned by those
who "try the spirits whether they are of God" (I. John 4: 1), and who
subject what men say to the test of the "law and the testimony,"
knowing that if they "speak not according to this word it is because there
is no light in them" (Isa. 8: 20).
In the confidence which an intelligent belief of God's plan
of salvation only can beget there is an experience of peace and joy; but it is
not from present conditions apart from "the hope set before us."
"Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted"
(Matt. 5: 4). "Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be
filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh" (Luke 6:
21). It is, therefore, not from present experiences that Christ's followers
have peace and joy. It is from the consciousness that the hope which
they have come to possess will be realized in the future. Shut out from view
this glorious future and we should "be of all men the most miserable"
(I. Cor. 15: 19). The mortal life of the Saviour was one of "sorrow and
acquaintance with grief," and it was "for the joy that was set
before him that he endured the cross and despised the shame" (Heb. 12:
2). This is our time of "much tribulation" through which we must
"enter into the kingdom of God" (Acts 14: 22) and what peace and joy
of mind we have arise from contemplation of the prospects ahead.
Now, the true followers of Christ are commanded to
"seek first the kingdom of God and its righteousness" (Matt. 6: 33);
to pray, "Thy kingdom come" (Matt. 6: 10): They are "heirs of
the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him" (Jas. 2:
5); and if they continue faithful to the end "an entrance shall be
ministered unto them abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ" (II. Pet. 1: 11). The great question is
therefore one of "putting the hand to the plow" and not looking back,
in order to a fitness for the promised kingdom. It is, therefore, not a
question of meat and drink about which there were discussions in Rome, and
which called forth the words in question. The affairs of the kingdom of God did
not consist of these; but of "righteousness and peace and joy, in the Holy
Spirit," in preparing now and realizing in the future the blessing of that
which shall fill the earth with the glory of God, bring "on earth peace,
good will toward men and glory to God in the highest."
Col. 1: 13--"Who hath delivered us from the powers of
darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son."
Here is a verse which is supposed by some to prove beyond a
doubt that the church is the kingdom, and the two words, "hath" and
"into" are sometimes vehemently emphasized when this verse is quoted
by the advocates of a church-kingdom, and the "kingdom of grace in the
heart" is forgotten; for instead of it proving that the kingdom is
"within"--in the heart--it shows that it is something to be entered
into, and in this it is in perfect harmony with the general teaching of the
Scriptures; the only texts which could in any way favor the
grace-in-the-heart-kingdom being Luke 17:21, which we have explained under the
heading "The kingdom of God is within you."
There being a willingness to agree, therefore, that the
verse in question teaches that the kingdom of God and of His dear Son is one
into which the "saints in light" are to enter, the only question to
be dealt with is, When does this entrance take place?
The answer generally given is that it takes place when one
enters the church, and it is to sustain this theory that the word
"hath" is emphasized. Now it is always well to be careful not to
build too much upon the tenses in the Scriptures. To the Author of this
wonderful book all is present, for He seeth the end from the beginning, and he
speaks of things that are not as though they were, because the things that are
not and are parts of His purposes are not dependent upon emergencies; they are
as sure of fulfillment as if they had actually come to pass. It would have been
a mistake seven hundred years before Christ was born to have emphasized the
word "is" in the passage, "Unto us a child is born, unto
us a son is given" (Isa. 9: 6)--that is, for the purpose of proving
it to have become a fact then; so with the prophetic words of Mary: "He hath
scattered the proud," "hath put down the mighty from their
seats and exalted them of low degree. He hath filled the hungry with good
things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. He hath holpen his servant
Israel," etc. (Luke 1:51-54). We give this word of caution here because
many are very apt to put too much stress upon the tense of a verb, when a
careful observance of the context and the subject in hand would show that the
future was meant when the present tense was used.
Coming, however, to the real meaning of the text in
question, a little more than a superficial view will show that it in no way
sustains the theory of a church kingdom, and surely we ought to expect the
religious leaders of the people to go deeper than the surface of a certain
translation of a text that seems to contradict the general tenor of the
Scriptures. Christ is to "Judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and
his kingdom" (II. Tim. 4: 1), and it is "when the Son of man
shall come" he shall say, "Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the
kingdom prepared for you," etc. (Matt. 25: 31). Now the fact that viewing
the words, "hath translated us into the kingdom," as a present
reality seems to contradict these and many other passages ought to evoke a
close and careful investigation of the verse, even to the extent of a
comparison of the different translations. When the question of translation is
mentioned some are apt to ape indignation, and they cry out, "There you
are, questioning the translation again!" And why not? Why was there a
revision a few years ago? Why have our best scholars deemed it necessary to give
us translations differing from our Authorized Version? Why do
"orthodox" commentaries so frequently correct the translation of the
Authorized Version? "But how can common people be expected to look
critically into the question of the translation of texts?" Well, there are
not many texts needing such careful, critical investigation, and if one is as
much in earnest about the meaning of a clause in his title to eternal life in
the kingdom of God as he would be about that of a title to a worldly estate he
would not consider it too much trouble to go critically and deeply into the
investigation of the apparently difficult texts of the Bible. "But what do
common people know about Greek and Hebrew?" we are asked. They need not
understand Greek and Hebrew to critically examine these matters. They have the
meanings of words given by Hebrew and Greek lexicons in English dress. So they
can, if they are in earnest, examine the meanings of a given Hebrew and Greek
work, as they can an English by the use of an English dictionary. Then, again,
they can compare one translation with another, and when they find that the
words are by some scholars translated in such form as to be in harmony with the
general tenor of Scripture, they can be sure that they have found the solution
of the difficulty.
Of late years, Dr. Young, author of Young's Concordance, has
come to be regarded as a very able Greek and Hebrew scholar. In his
"Commentary of the Holy Bible, as literally and idiomatically translated
out the original languages," he has the following on the passage in
question:
"12. [GIVING THANKS.] lit. 'Ye leaping much for joy in
the Father, who made us sufficient with a view to the portion of the lot of the
hallowed ones in light.'
"13. [HATH.] lit. 'Who freed us out of the authority
of darkness, and set with (them) with a view to the kingdom of the Son of his
love.'"
Here the verse is shown to be in perfect harmony with the
general teaching of Scripture that entrance into the kingdom is future. We are
now "freed out of the authority of darkness with a view to the
kingdom." It is to prepare us to be fit for the kingdom that we are
brought into the light of the good news of the coming kingdom.
In the Greek the preposition rendered in verse 13 into is
the same as in verse 16, next to last word, is rendered for. It is eis
in both places. Now, if eis can be rendered for in verse 16
why not in verse 13? It would read quite sensibly, and indeed, put verse 13 in
perfect accord with other passages.
The Emphatic Diaglott gives the best rendering of the
passage we have ever seen. It agrees with Dr. Young's in showing that the
kingdom is future and shows that "translation" means the change which
brings an "alien from the commonwealth of Israel," into Christ,
wherein he is an "heir of the kingdom" which God hath promised to
them that love him (James 2: 5). Here it is:
12. Giving thanks at the same time to THAT FATHER WHO CALLED
and QUALIFIED us for the PORTION of the saints' INHERITANCE in the LIGHT.
13. Who delivered us from the DOMINION OF DARKNESS, and
changed us for the KINGDOM of the SON of His LOVE.
14. By whom we have REDEMPTION, the FORGIVENESS of SINS.
Those the apostle wrote to, then, had been qualified for the
portion of the saints' inheritance in the light. They had been changed for, or
"with a view to," or in order to, the kingdom of God's dear Son.
Having thus put their hands to the plow, if they will not look back they will
be fit for an "entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ" (II. Pet. 1:11), when he shall come to "Judge
the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom" (II. Tim. 4: 1).
Among those the writer has met in public debate, the
ministers of the Campbellite church have made the most of this passage, and yet
there is a reason why they should be more careful than others in the use they
make of the Greek preposition eis. In the many discussions between
Baptists and Campbellites on "baptism for the remission of sins," the
latter, following their leader, are very emphatic in saying "for, or
in order to, the remission of sins" (Acts 2: 38). Here we have the same
preposition, eis, and it is strange that our Campbellite friends
(Christians as they prefer it, we mean no dishonor, only we do not think they are
Christians in the sense they use the term), forget this in the verse under
consideration. Let them take Mr. Campbell's translation of eis in Acts
2: 38, and apply it to Col. 1: 13, and read "translated us into (eis, in
order to), the kingdom," and then all is clear.
Rev. 1: 9-"I, John, who also am your brother and
companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was
in the Isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony
of Jesus Christ."
By this verse there is an attempt to sustain the theory of a
church-kingdom. It is claimed that John meant that he was, when he wrote these
words, in the kingdom as well as in tribulation, etc. This is a very
short-sighted view of the text, and its misuse in bolstering up a theory goes
to show how hard-pressed that theory must be for support. If to be in the
kingdom is a fact when one is in "tribulation," it cannot be a great
boon to be in the kingdom. The general teaching of Scripture is that to be in
the kingdom is to have passed beyond the reach of tribulation. In the church
tribulation is to be expected, but not in the kingdom. "We must through
much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God" (Acts 14: 22). It does not
require much tribulation to enter the churches whose members are the kingdom.
It does require tribulation to enter into the kingdom of God--therefore these
churches and the kingdom of God are not the same thing.
Since it is through much tribulation we must enter
into the kingdom, we might safely conclude that when we are in the kingdom the
tribulation is a thing of the past. If one passes through Chicago to go to New
York he would not be in the two cities at the same time.
In the form of words of the text in question it is obvious
that John combined the language of fact and of hope, just as one might exclaim
to a friend, "I am your friend in adversity and in prosperity," or to
a comrade, "I am your comrade at home or on the battle field." It
would be a very foolish thing to infer from these expressions that the friend
must be in prosperity and adversity at the same time, or that the comrades
would be at home the same time they would be on the battlefield. In the time of
John he and his companions were passing through much tribulation, and it was by
this that they hoped to enter the kingdom under the seventh trumpet; for it was
not till then that John saw, by the Spirit, the kingdoms of this world become
the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ (Rev. 11: 15). The tribulation
through which they were passing was the means of discipline; entering the
kingdom when Christ shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his
kingdom is the goal. This is the joy that is set before us to enable us to
endure the conflict to the end with a hope before us shining along the rough
and rugged pathway brighter and brighter unto the perfect day. Our
companionship gives a little sweetness mixed with the bitterness of this evil
day; but now even this companionship can last but a short time when death
defiantly severs the closest ties that bind us. At the end of the journey,
however, death will have no power. It will then be a sweet companionship in the
kingdom of God with all the ancient worthies, the apostles of the Lamb, the
Lamb, himself.
"Friends then shall part from friends no more
Endless as time their joy shall be:
For pain is swallowed up in joy,
And death in victory."
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
In dealing with the question of man's redemption, we must,
necessarily, consider the question of his origin and nature; and in doing this we
are quite conscious of having much prejudice to contend with. There is a
popular side to this question, and it has bred and fostered a sensitiveness
which makes the task of reducing it to reason and subjecting it to the light of
scripture quite a difficult one. He who would undertake to call in question the
popular view must not hope to escape the suspicion of being a troubler, bent
upon "turning the world upside down."
Those in whom truth has produced thorough conviction, will
never shirk a duty from fear of popular sentiment. Truth is too precious to be
bargained off for the good will and applause of the world, especially truth
upon which hangs the question of what is pleasing or displeasing to Him
"in whom we live and move and have our being." If it is the duty of
honest conviction to face the popular prejudice at all risks in the
presentation of truth, it is also the duty of every man to so far overcome
prejudice as to investigate for himself in an earnest endeavor to obey the
injunction, "Prove all things and hold fast that which is good."
But, the reader will say, you are assuming that the claims
you are about to make are sustained by truth. Certainly, otherwise we should
not attempt to brave opposition with the certainty of incurring the displeasure
of the religious world, of friends and of neighbors. Whether our claims are
based upon assumption, however, is the very question we beseech our readers to
test, and the only way to test it is to read carefully what we say, and examine
impartially the evidence given and then judge ye.
On many exploded theories the world in all ages has drifted
into the habit of following the popular procession, spurning any attempt of
truth to emerge from the obscurity of its shelter in caves and to break into
the ranks and sound a word of warning. Perseverance, however, has many times
succeeded--not that we hope to stop the procession, but the most we can hope
for now is to pull a few out of the crowd and help to save them from the
precipice ahead. The time for a revolution will come, but not by human effort;
that honor is reserved for him who is the strong arm of the Almighty. With the
few who may be willing to stop and reason we desire to reason on the question
in hand.
"What is man that thou art mindful of him" (Psa.
8: 4)? is a question in which the whole problem of life here and hereafter is
involved. In seeking the answer, experience and observation are not sufficient,
for if you ask two men to look at a man and answer the question, What is he?
two very different answers will be given. One will say he is a being composed
of two natures, that he is an immortal soul and a mortal body; the former
capable of surviving the latter as a living, conscious entity. The other will
answer that he is a mortal being, animated by that principle of life which
sustains all living beings, and without which he must cease to be.
The doctrine of the immortality of the soul has such a hold
upon the people that to challenge it is to arouse the indignant question, What!
all of our great men of this day and ages gone by, wrong? Nothing but the
courage of strong conviction can meet this, and the question is, how best to
induce it to lay down its arms long enough to reason on the matter. We think
that perhaps a brief history of the doctrine would help to induce this
prejudice to give place to reason, and so let us glance over this phase of the
subject under the heading of
It is well known that the doctrine of the immortality of the
soul is called "Platonic;" which is an implied admission that Plato
was its founder, at least in its present popular form. This places the matter
in a bad light at once; for who that has the least knowledge of the Bible can
help viewing with suspicion a doctrine having its origin in the mind of a
heathen philosopher? The Grecian philosophers were the very men of whom the
apostle Paul warned the churches of Christ to beware. Writing to the church at
Colosse, he says, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and
vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world and
not after Christ" (Chap. 2: 8).
If we trace the history of this doctrine farther back than
the time of Plato and Socrates, its more ancient origin is calculated still
more to arouse suspicion--yea, rather to stamp it with unqualified
condemnation, as emanating from a nation who were the enemies of God and His
people, and who groveled in the lowest depravity of their natures. These were
the Egyptians, who are said to be the first to hold the doctrine of the soul's
immortality, believing also, as Plato did, in the transmigration of souls
through various animal bodies, and their return to a human body in a period of
three thousand years. Search where we will, instead of this doctrine having its
origin in the Scriptures of truth, it has emanated from heathen minds, and come
down through heathen channels, at last to be united with so-called Christianity
when the latter became enthroned as the religion of the State.
Herodotus, the oldest historian, says:
The Egyptians say that Ceres (the god of corn) and Bacchus (the god of wine),
hold the chief sway in the infernal regions; and the Egyptians, also, were
the first who asserted the doctrine that the soul of man is immortal.
--Herodotus, p. 144.
Its promoters argued from that known doctrine of the
Platonic School, which was also accepted by Origen and his disciples, that
the divine nature was diffused through all human souls. --Mosheim's
Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I, p. 86.
Even with the originators of the doctrine of the immortality
of the soul, it was a matter of expediency rather than one of truth. As Gibbon
says, "With the people"--the ignorant masses--"it was equally
true, with the philosophers equally false, and with the statesmen equally
necessary." The "Pious Fraud" was used as a means in the hands
of philosophers and statesmen to intimidate the common and ignorant masses.
With them the policy was to do evil that good might come--to teach lies as
productive of supposed good results. They would seem to have reasoned thus: We
must persuade the masses that they have or are immortal, or never-dying souls;
and that if they do not obey the laws of the State, their souls will be
preserved in misery eternally in the fires of Tartarus; but if they are obedient
to the laws of their superiors, then their souls will be taken to the happiness
of the elysium fields. Hence Plato, alluding to this sentiment says, "If
falsehood be indeed of no service to the gods, yet useful to men in the form of
a drug, it is plain that such a thing should be touched only by physicians, but
not meddled with by private persons. To the governors of the State then (if to
any) it especially belongs to speak falsely, for the good of the State,
whereas, for all the rest, they must venture on no such thing." It is said
that Cicero, on the authority of Plato, taught that not to deceive for the
public good was wickedness. (We quote from Hudson, Future Life, pp.
277-8.)
The most casual examination of the Pious Fraud of the Greeks
and Romans will reveal the similarity between it and the popular religious
systems of our times. The Platonic and the modern beliefs in relation to the
soul's immortality are identical; for the heathen tartarus the Bible
term hell has been made to do service in expressing the heathen doctrine
of endless misery, and the term heaven to represent that of the elysium
fields. It is a question if the same "Pious Fraud" is not
secretly perpetuated by the theologians of our times; and indeed it is
observable that the immortality of the soul and its cognate doctrine of endless
misery find more willing welcome among the ignorant masses than with those
whose minds have by education been released from the slavery of a cruel
delusion and a degrading superstition. Of the modern phase of this Mr. Hudson
says: "Isaac Watts deserves praise for his exposure of a flagrant instance
of 'Pious Fraud' by Thomas Burnet, who had advised a preacher, in sly Latin, to
use the common language concerning future punishments, whether he thought them
eternal or not."
When the theory of eternal torment is treated of in what
quotations we make under this heading, it must be remembered that it stands
related to the immortality of the soul as effect does to cause. Eternal torment
is a necessary outgrowth from the immortality of the soul, for if the soul is
immortal and some are to be lost, what can be done with them? They cannot be
destroyed; and therefore a place of eternal misery must be provided for them.
From the "Bible Vindicated" we quote the
following:
"Fitch, in his review of Tyler, on future punishment,
gives the following translation of one of the early fathers in reference to
eternal torment: 'Allowing our tenets to be as false and groundless presumption
as you would have them, yet I must tell you they are presumptions the world
cannot well be without. If they are follies, they are follies of great use;
because the believers of them, under the dread of eternal pain, and hope of
eternal pleasure, are under the strongest (?) obligations to become good men.'"
It is well known that Plato and other Grecian philosophers
received considerable of their education in Egypt, whence they derived their
theories of transmigration, etc. Through their influence the immortality of the
soul became the fundamental doctrine of the philosophy of the Greeks; and when
the time came for the gospel of Christ to be preached among the Gentiles, it
consequently found them steeped in the wisdom of their schools. The preaching
of Christ was therefore to them foolishness; for to believe in Him meant a
total abandonment of their exalted and vain thoughts of man's natural
immortality and boasted dignity. To accept Christ as the Saviour of mankind was
to view man as a mortal, helpless creature, dependent upon the goodness of God
and the faithfulness of His Son for his redemption; and the gospel of Him who
"brought life and immortality to light" was a condemnation of
the theory that immortality is man's nature by necessity, whether he be good or
bad, whether he be saint or demon. The light from heaven which, through the
gospel, was thrown upon the subject, made the Platonic wisdom of the world
foolishness and its light darkness.
As the work of Christ and his apostles progressed and
prospered, in the pulling down of the strongholds of both Jewish and Pagan
superstition, and by signs and mighty wonders performed by the apostles in
attestation of their cause the masses were becoming loosed from the thralldom
of the "Pious Fraud" that had held them in ignorant and slavish
subjection, and they rallied around the standard of "Christ and him
crucified" until the pagan world was being turned upside down, the
philosophers saw that something had to be done to save their cherished thoughts
from utter destruction. In the state of unrest incident to the wonderful
revolution which the cause of Christ was effecting, the selfish and ever
watchful priests of paganism and the ambitious and unscrupulous politicians
were on the lookout. They were planning the best methods to appropriate the new
cause to their own use, and to make it subservient to a system of selfish and
ambitious priestcraft and statecraft. To carry out their plans, they cunningly
worked the scheme of amalgamating paganism and Christianity. A little
Christianity and much of paganism would do, only give it the name of the
former; and upon the great Constantinian tidal wave they were carried up to the
throne of "Christendom," where, by decrees of councils, patronized by
the emperor, they fortified themselves and were in a position to compel the
acceptance of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul and all its cognate
theories. Peter, being led by the Spirit to forsee this, says, "There
shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable
heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them. * * * And many shall follow
their pernicious ways, by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken
of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of
you; whose judgment now of long time lingereth not, and their damnation
slumbereth not"--II. Pet. 2: 3. Paul assures us that these deceivers
should cause a "falling away," and says that the "mystery of
iniquity doth already work." Here and there after the apostles' death we
find an opponent of these heathen dogmas, as they were stealing their way into
the church of Christ. Justin Martyr, in the second century, who at one time had
been a Platonist, makes a strong protest, and warns those for whom he wrote not
to give place to the pagan heresy. He says:
For if you have conversed with some that are indeed called
Christians and do not maintain these opinions, but even dare to blaspheme the
God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, and say that there is
no resurrection of the dead, but that the souls, as soon as they leave the
body, are received up into heaven, TAKE CARE THAT YOU DO NOT LOOK UPON
THESE. But I, and all those Christians that are really orthodox in every
respect, do know that there will be a resurrection of the body and a thousand
years in Jerusalem, when it is built again and adorned and enlarged, as Ezekiel
and Esaias and the rest of the prophets declare--Dialogue with Trypho, the
Jew, Section lxxx.
But what could an individual protest do to stem the tide of
what was rapidly becoming the popular sentiment? The light of immortality
brought to light through the gospel was doomed to be hidden under a bushel in
order to afford scope for the continuance of the "Pious Fraud," which
of course would prove profitable to the "clergy" at the expense of
the intelligence, liberty and salvation of a plastic and helpless
"laity." The "mystery of iniquity" continued to work until
the man of sin was revealed. The old Platonic doctrine of the immortality of
the soul was incorporated into the so-called Christian religion, which then
became the religion of the State. The philosophy of Greece became the religion
of Rome. The East was moved to the West, and Plato's disciples became
multiplied until their name was legion. Every man who had the courage of his
conviction was pronounced a "heretic;" and the "man of sin"
in the person of Pope Leo X, backed by the council of Lateran, having closed
the Bible to the common people, made the doctrine the subject of the following
decree:
Whereas, in our days some have dared to assert, concerning
the nature of the reasonable soul, that it is mortal, or one and the
same in all men; and some, rashly philosophizing, declare this to be true, at
least according to philosophy: We, with the approbation of the sacred council,
do condemn and reprobate all those who assert that the intellectual soul
is mortal, or one and the same in all men, and those who call these
things in question; seeing that the soul is not only truly, and of itself, and
essentially the form of the human body, as is expressed in the canon of Pope
Clement V, published in the general council of Vienne, but likewise immortal
* * * And seeing that truth never contradicts truth, we determine every
assertion which is contrary to the truth of revealed faith to be totally false;
and we strictly inhibit all from dogmatizing otherwise, and we decree that all
who adhere to the like assertions shall be shunned and punished as
heretics."
The system of abomination which here finds vent in the
decree of council and pope is the one which has profaned and degraded the name
of Christ by effecting the unholy alliance between paganism and Christianity,
and in this is to be seen the Antichrist so clearly described by the apostle
Paul in the following words: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in
the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing
spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their
conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry" (priests, nuns,
etc.), "and commanding to abstain from meats (on Friday and Lent) which
God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them that believe and know
the truth"--I. Tim. 4: 1-3.
This system, the apostle says, shall be headed up in
"the man of sin, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself
against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the
temple of God, setting himself forth as God" (II. Thes. 2:4).
It is by the decree of this "man of sin," with the
"approbation of the sacred(?) council," and by "the canon of
Pope Clement V," that the immortality of the soul is declared to be true;
and it is by this Antichrist that the faithful are "strictly inhibited
from dogmatizing otherwise," and commanded to be "shunned and punished
as heretics." In thus maintaining the doctrine of the immortality of the
soul, and other heathen doctrines by force, the "man of sin" has
fulfilled the prophecy: "I beheld and the same horn made war with the
saints, and prevailed against them * * * and he shall speak great words against
the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High"
(Dan. 7: 21, 25).
Now, dear reader, if you cherish this heathen dogma, look at
its origin! Look at the channels through which it has come down to you! Look at
the character of its supporters! Look at the means employed in its support! and
then tell me what you think of a doctrine which was conceived and born in
Egyptian darkness, which was nursed and fed in the speculative heathenism of
Greece and which has been made the idol of the corrupt and abominable religion
of Rome! Look at this very pope, Leo X, whose decree for the maintenance of the
immortality of the soul by brute force we have given. Here are some of the
abominable practices under his sanction. I quote from the able writer, H.
Grattan Guinness, in his Approaching End of the Age, p. 181.
The deeply interesting story must not be told here--how
Tetzel the indulgence-monger, bearing the bull of Leo X, on a velvet cushion,
traveled in state from town to town in a gay equipage, to his station in the
thronged church, and proclaimed to the credulous multitude, "Indulgences
are the most precious and sublime of God's gifts; this red cross has as much
efficacy as the cross of Christ. Draw near and I will give you letters duly
sealed, by which even the sins you shall hereafter DESIRE to commit shall
be forgiven you. There is no sin so great that indulgence cannot remit. Pay,
only pay largely and you shall be forgiven. But more than all this, indulgences
save not the living alone, but they also save the dead. Ye priests, ye nobles,
ye tradesmen, ye wives, ye maidens, ye young men, hearken to your departed
parents and friends (immortal souls of course), who call to you from the
bottomless abyss, "We are enduring horrible torment, a small alms would
deliver us, you can give it, will you not? The moment the money
clinks at the bottom of the chest, the soul escapes from purgatory and flies to
heaven. With ten groschen you can deliver your father from purgatory. Our Lord
God no longer deals with us as God--he has given all power to the pope."
It will be seen that the doctrine of the immortality of the
soul is the very foundation of this corrupt practice; and no wonder, therefore,
that the papacy should go to such lengths to maintain it. Remove the doctrine.
Relegate it to heathenism whence it came, and what would be the result to Rome?
With no immortal soul, there would be no use for purgatory and
"hell;" and there would be no heaven for those whom we pretend to
give release from purgatory. These all gone, which would be the case if we
surrendered the immortality of the soul, and we are left without a
"hell" to frighten without a "heaven" to allure, and our
indulgences, and consequently our income, are gone, and our cause must fall to
pieces. Reasoning thus they determined to maintain the foundation doctrine by
force; and what have they not been guilty of in supporting this child of
heathen parentage?
Mr. Guinness says of this wicked system:
As to the practice of this unchangeable church there is
not a statement in the following quotation which history does not abundantly
substantiate: "As some luxurious emperors of Rome exhausted the whole
art of pleasure, so that a reward was promised to any who should invent a new
one, so have Romish persecutors exhausted all the arts of pain, so that it will
now be difficult to discover or invent a new kind of it which they have not
already practiced upon those marked out for heretics. They have been shot,
stabbed, stoned, drowned, beheaded, hanged, drawn, quartered, impaled, burned
or buried alive, roasted on spits, baked in ovens, thrown into furnaces,
tumbled over precipices, cast from the tops of towers, sunk in mire and pits,
starved with hunger and cold, hung on tenter hooks, suspended by the hair of
the head, by the hands or feet, stuffed and blown up with gunpowder, ripped
with swords and sickles, tied to the tails of horses, dragged over streets and
sharp flints, broken on the wheel, beaten on anvils with hammers, blown with
bellows, bored with hot irons, torn piece-meal by red-hot pincers, slashed with
knives, hacked with axes, hewed with chisels, planed with planes, pricked with
forks, stuck from head to foot with pins, choked with water, lime, rags, urine,
excrements, or mangled pieces of their bodies crammed down their throats, shut
up in caves or dungeons, tied to stakes, nailed to trees, tormented with
lighted matches, scalding oil, burning pitch, melted lead, etc., etc.
Here we stop, for other things given are too horrible to
repeat, and we again ask you who still hold the very doctrine from which all
these crimes, cruelties and abominations have resulted, what do you think of it
and its results?
The mysteries of Egypt having been transferred from the Nile
to the Tiber, the Dark Ages ensued and shut out the light of the gospel, the
saints of the Most High were "worn out" and the "Pious
Fraud" became universal. Martin Luther, however, emerged to some extent
from the thick darkness in which the masses of his time were shrouded, and made
a strong protest which bid fair to effect a revolution. Indeed it did effect a
wonderful revolution in the sense of arousing the people to assert their
rights, and free themselves from the bondage of religious tyranny. But to fully
expose the fallacy of the underlying doctrine--the immortality of the soul--was
too great a work, considering the odds that were against him. He failed not,
however, to offer his protest, as soon as he caught a glimpse of the true light
upon the subject; and defiantly he declares:
It is certain that it is not in the power of the church or
the pope to establish articles of faith, or laws for morals or good works * * *
But I permit the pope to make articles of faith for himself and his faithful
such as * * * the soul is the substantial form of the human body, the pope is
emperor of the world, and the king of heaven and God upon earth; the soul is
immortal, with all those monstrous opinions to be found in the Roman
dung-hill of decretals.--Luther's Works, Vol. II, fol. 107. Wittenberg,
1562.
As Justin Martyr answered the Platonists of the second
century, so did Tyndall those of the fifteenth:
Ye (he says), in the putting them (souls) in heaven, hell
and purgatory destroy the arguments wherewith Christ and Paul proved the
resurrection.* * * If the souls be in heaven tell me why they be not in as good
case as the angels be. And then what cause is there of the resurrection?
Notwithstanding the strong protest of these men, according
to the light they could catch in the midst of such thick darkness, the doctrine
of the immortality of the soul still held its heathen grasp upon the minds of
the people, and merged from Papalism into Protestantism, and is found today the
foundation of popular religion in all its increased and ever increasing
branches. The Bible, however, having been plucked as a brand from the fires of
Roman tyranny, was opened to the people, and was no longer entirely monopolized
by a selfish and dishonest clergy. To the extent that the Bible was carefully
read and studied, it was once more true that the "poor had the gospel
preached unto them." Here and there has sprung up a John in the
wilderness, through whom the light of the gospel immortality has been caused to
shine in a dark place. Coming to bear witness of that light, the truth in a
measure has been revived, and in the wilderness of Romish superstition, as in
the wilderness of Judea, the former in relation to the second coming of Him who
is the Light, as the latter was to his first coming, the voice is heard,
"Prepare ye the way of the Lord; make his paths straight." The
Scribes and Pharisees of Romanism, like those of Judaism, gnash their teeth at
the sound of the voices; and if their king had not lost his power to "wear
out the saints," how gladly would even the daughters of Rome dance before
its Herod could they thereby secure the heads of those Johns who rebuke them as
a "generation of vipers," and warn their followers to "flee from
the wrath to come," when the "merchants" of Rome, "who have
been made rich by her delicacies, shall stand afar off for the fear of her
torment, weeping and wailing, and saying, "Alas, alas, that great city,
that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold
and precious stones and pearls; for in one hour so great riches have come to
naught. Alas! Alas! for in one hour she is made desolate, with violence thrown
down, and shall be found no more at all."
Now with this history before the eyes of the reader we may
hope to have disarmed, in some degree, the prejudice that would indignantly
refuse to calmly consider this question; and by way of gaining still more the
friendship of our readers we would press upon their attention that the
quotations from Justin Martyr, Luther, and Tyndall show that in protesting
against the doctrine of the immortality of the soul we are in good company.
Perhaps to supplement these it would not be amiss to refer to a few writers of
more modern note:
The doctrine of the immortality of the soul is omitted in
the law of Moses-Gibbon, Vol. 1, p. 530-31.
No idea can be more erroneous than to suppose that man is
an immortal being, on account of the substance of which he is composed.--George
Combe's, System of Phrenology, p. 595.
As a noun nephesh (the Hebrew word for soul) hath
been supposed to signify the spiritual part of man, or what we commonly
call his soul. I must confess that I can find no passage where it hath
undoubtedly this meaning.--Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon.
Before examining the highest authority, the one that must
forever settle the question, it may be profitable to view the subject from the
standpoint of nature, for if we find from history and nature that the evidence
is against the doctrine the satisfaction of finding the Scriptures in harmony
with these will be all the greater. So let us consider the question:
We behold man a living, breathing, thinking creature,
possessed of what we call the five senses--seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling
and tasting. Viewing him as we see him in the exercise of his various
functions, forbidding the play of imagination, and excluding the influence of
theological training, do we find anything in him that may be set down as proof
that he is possessed of an immortal, or immaterial soul? Does the fact that he
can see and hear, smell, taste and feel prove it? If it does, then it proves
the same for every creature possessed of these senses. The five senses are
exercised and experienced by contact, in some form or other, with objects; and
it is the same whether in the lower animals or in man. Is it, as some claim,
that "the eyes are the windows of the soul?" If so, then what are the
eyes of all animals the "windows" of? Why do they have "windows"
if there is nothing in them to use the "windows," to look out through
the "windows?" The eyes of the lower animals serve the same purpose
as the eyes of man. They produce sight in both. There is a use for the eyes of
the animal and there is something to "look out through the windows."
What is it? Is it not the animal itself? the living, breathing (if not the
thinking) animal? When the eyes of the horse strike an object, it is the horse
that sees, and when any part of the animal comes in contact with any other
substance, it is the horse that feels. Why is it not the same with man--why is
it not the living, thinking, breathing man that "looks out through the
windows," or that sees? Call the horse a soul--for that is what he is, a
living creature--and then we may say, "The eyes are the windows of the
soul," and yet never dream of an inside horse-soul, separate from the
living, breathing horse. Call the man a soul, and forbidding the play of
imagination and excluding the influence of theological training, why not say,
"The eyes are the windows of the soul," i. e., the living,
breathing, thinking man sees with his eyes, and not that there is an inside
soul entirely separate from the physical man we behold?
It is not claimed that the immortal soul is visible. When we
examine man from the natural standpoint we cannot see the immortal soul. If we
believe there is one it is not because it has come in contact with the five
senses--either any or all of them. Our five senses will not reveal to us an
immortal soul in man or beast. It is no use to try to find it by sight,
hearing, feeling, tasting, or smelling; and since these are the five natural
senses, and we are considering the subject from a natural standpoint, there is
no natural sense by which to discover it. If it is discoverable at all, it must
be by supernatural means, which we will examine further along.
But, it will be said, there is something back of the
five senses; because sight, hearing, feeling, etc., are not mere contact. True,
there may be contact without feeling, or without producing the experience of
any of the five senses; there must be "something" to take cognizance
of contact--to feel pain or pleasure; but what is that "something?"
If we, for the want of any natural law of demonstration, imagine it is the immortal
soul, then we have over-reached the mark, because that "something"
experiences the results of contact in animals as well as in man. What is it
that makes the animal conscious that any part of its body has come in
contact with another substance? In other words, where is the seat or center of
consciousness in the animal, to which the fact of contact is instantly carried
by the electric nerve wires of its natural being? Can we, by the use of our
natural senses find the center? If we can find it in the animal, shall we not be
in a fair way of discovering its seat in man? Well, we shall not look for it in
its feet, nor in its body; but, instinctively, we shall go to the head of the
animal, and when we remove a portion of the skull, we shall find that by
pressure upon the brain we are able to stop the consciousness from taking
cognizance of contact--the five senses will cease to perform their functions.
The animal will be in a state of insensibility. Why is it that the contact of
the foot with another substance is not felt now? If it were the foot
that felt, it would still feel, but an interference with the brain is
what has stopped the sense of feeling, and what does this prove? It proves that
the brain is "headquarters" of the animal institution, and when it is
prevented, by natural causes, from performing its natural functions, there is
no consciousness, no experience of pain or pleasure, no knowledge, no thought.
When the animal is in its normal state, the fact of any part
of its body coming in contact with another body is felt because by the
electric nerve-wires the fact is communicated to the nerve-center, the brain,
and then causes sensation; pain or pleasure is experienced, and knowledge
produced, which is retained in the storehouse of memory, and used, practically,
according to the degree of intellectuality possessed by the creature. The very
same is true of man, and therefore, so far, we have found no reason, viewing
the subject from the standpoint of nature, for man's possession of an immortal
soul.
The metaphysician asserts that matter cannot think, and upon
this he proceeds to build his theory, adding, "Man thinks, therefore he is
more than matter." In the same manner it might be asserted that matter
cannot see; the horse sees, therefore he is more than matter. Logic will lie if
it is based on a false premise. Who is to say what matter can or cannot be made
capable of doing when fearfully and wonderfully organized and vitalized by the
creative hand of Omnipotence? What is it that feels, sees and hears in the
horse--yea, what is it that thinks and retains thoughts, manifesting them in
memory, in some animals, too, in a higher degree than in some men? Who will be
presumptuous enough to assert that it is not matter? If it is anything besides
matter in the animal then the mark is overreached again, in proving the animal
in possession of an immateriality which is desired to be limited to man. If
thought is the property and product of immateriality, then nothing material can
affect it; the one cannot come in contact with the other, and therefore they
cannot interfere with each other, any more than an act of congress can collide
with a locomotive. But we do find that materiality may interfere with thought,
that one material substance producing pressure on another--the brain--will put
a stop to the evolution of thought. Numerous experiments have proved this, and
observation demonstrates it every day. From the American Advent Review the
Bible Vindicated quotes the following:
Richmond 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 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 been trepanned,
and who perceived that his intellectual faculties were failing and his
existence drawing to a close every time the effused blood collected on the brain
so as to produce pressure."
Prof. Chapman in one of his lectures, says: "I saw an
individual with his skull perforated, and the brain exposed, who was accustomed
to submit his brain to be experimented upon by the late Prof. Weston before his
class; his intellectual 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."
The most remarkable case, however, is that given by Sir
Astley Cooper, in his "Surgical Lectures," as follows:
A man by the name of Jones received an injury to his head
while on board a vessel in the Mediterranean, which rendered him insensible.
The vessel soon made Gibraltar, where Jones was placed in the hospital,
and remained several months in the same insensible state. He was then carried
on board the Dolphin frigate to Deptford, and thence was sent to St. Thomas'
Hospital, London. He lay constantly on his back and breathed with difficulty.
When hungry or thirsty he moved his lips or tongue. Mr. Clyne, the surgeon,
found a portion of the skull depressed, trepanned him, and removed the
depressed portion. Immediately after the 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 the moment of the accident, thirteen months
and a few days before, oblivion had come over him, and all recollection
ceased, yet on removing a small portion of bone which pressed upon the
brain, he was restored to full possession of the powers of his mind and body.
These facts are sufficient to show that men and animals are
dependent upon matter, in the form of brain, for the power of thought, and that
it is the living brain that takes cognizance of contact, and is, therefore, the
center to which facts that come within the range of the five senses are carried
to be intellectually dealt with. When communication with this center is cut
off, or when the brain is injured, consciousness and intellectuality cease in
all creatures possessing these powers.
There is no use denying that there are degrees of
intelligence in men and animals. It is a fact that is patent to observation and
experience that the shape of the head is quite a consideration in the question
of degree of intelligence, both in the creature and man, a fact that can never
be accounted for upon the hypothesis of thought being a property or product of
an immaterial soul--that which has no shape, because it has no
substance, cannot be seen, felt, weighed or measured--which is supposed to
possess the power of thought independently of the body, and, indeed, if the
body has anything to do with the evolution of thought at all, it is a hindrance
rather than a help; and it is claimed that the soul thinks more perfectly when
disembodied than when it is imprisoned in the body, although it is difficult to
see how a material body could affect the functions of an immaterial entity; and
if this difficulty could be explained in relation to man, we should still have
the fact that thought, in various degrees--according to the "shape of the
head," too--is manifest in animals. Moreover, it is a fact that the degree
of thinking powers in the animal ascends in proportion to the extent the shape
of its head approaches to that of man. When these facts are recognized it will
be evident that instead of there being a necessity of going from the material
to the immaterial to account for thought, we are driven to the position that it
can be accounted for upon no other principle than that it is a product of
electrically vitalized matter--a position which necessarily forces us back to a
First Cause, possessed of infinite wisdom, which, in the impartation of the
vitalizing power, impregnated it, as it were, with a will force that determined
what should be its functions according to natural laws.
The metaphysician and the theologian claim that God is
immaterial, and that the soul is part of God and that it is therefore,
immaterial--without body or parts. Without stopping to notice the absurdity of
that which is without parts being a part of that which has no parts, we may ask,
When does this supposed part of God, which is claimed to be the thinking
entity, take possession of the body? Is the question of whether a body begotten
by natural laws shall be supplied with an immortal entity decided by the
laws of nature, or is it decided by the direct will of Him of whom the soul is
claimed to be a part? It would be difficult to see how natural laws could reach
up to heaven, into the very presence of Him who dwells in light unapproachable,
and snatch millions of parts of God's very essence, transform them into
individuals, intellectualities--some of them--and deposit them in their
respective bodies as these are forced into the world, some of them in direct
opposition to the laws of God, and in the lowest depths of depravity, and the offspring
of the worst crimes. To commit one's self to such a theory would surely be to
defy nature and give it power to even enter heaven in defiance of the moral
laws of God.
On the other hand, if the question of the supply of the immaterial
entities in proportion to the demand of material receptacles is determined by a
special decision of God in each case, then why is there so much partiality
shown? Why are some of these "thinking entities" possessed of so much
greater superiority of intellect than others? Why are some not able to think at
all--why are there idiots? Moreover, if the thinking entity comes direct from
God, why is there not the power of thought in infancy that there is in
maturity? And why is not the mind as strong in old age as it is in the full
bloom of manhood? Is it that the immaterial grows and declines with the
material? and if the material is dwarfed, the immaterial is proportionately
dwarfed? This would make immateriality, after all the effort to seek for the power
of thought in it, dependent upon materiality, and thus defeat the object in
view in refusing to see that vitalized matter thinks.
Again, a man's mind is largely affected by what he eats and
drinks. Look at the man tottering and reeling in a state of intoxication.
Listen to his foolish talk, and then let us ask, What is the cause of this? To
answer that he has been drinking intoxicants is not enough; another question
must be answered, viz.: Why has the drinking of intoxicants by the body
affected his mind, if the mind is no part of matter--the body--but is the
product of an independent entity which is not matter? Are we not driven back to
the position that it is matter, in the form of vitalized brain, that is the
thinking part of man and animal, and that certain kinds of material things are
adapted to affect other certain kinds of material substances; that intoxicants
will inflame and excite the brain, throw it out of its normal state into an
unbalanced condition, and the incoherent babble of the inebriate is the result?
There are thousands of poor unfortunate people in a state of
insanity. How is this to be accounted for, except upon the principle recognized
by the reasonable physician, that it is the result of transmission from parent
to child, according to (abused) natural laws, or of impairment or disease of
the brain? If thought is not a property of matter, what is the use of placing
an insane person in the hands of a physician? Surely his professional skill is
limited to the domain of matter; and any treatment from him must be based upon
the principle that what will restore the brain to a healthy state, or what will
remove a disease from any part of the body that affects the brain, will restore
soundness of mind. Were he foolish enough to believe that the mind is the
product of an immaterial entity, he would never try to reach it with drugs nor
by surgical operations; he would do as the heathen do--turn the patient over to
the priests and the gods, who alone are supposed to have jurisdiction in the
realms of immateriality.
Upon the hypothesis that every man is possessed of an
immaterial entity, and that he depends upon it for his mind, how absurd to
believe that insanity is transmissible from generation to generation? If mind
comes direct to the child as a quality of an immaterial soul, why do we see
traits of character--mental and moral habits--inherited from parents? Mental
traits and powers possessed by parents are generally manifest in their
children, a fact which is accounted for by what common people call
"running through the blood." Bitterness or sourness of the fruit of a
tree is transmitted, and no one is foolish enough to claim that these qualities
are supernaturally infused into it. Why not allow the same natural laws to
operate in man in the production and transmission of temperament, mental
powers, and moral proclivities? We should then see that the many faults,
idiosyncrasies, idiocy and imbecilities "bred and born" in men are
not infused into them as qualities of an immaterial entity direct from heaven;
but that they are the results of disease and, many of them, perversion of
natural laws, generation after generation.
It has been claimed by some that while thought is a quality
of an immaterial soul, the brain is necessary as a channel through which it
operates during natural life; and that upon this principle the fact of mind
being affected by body is to be accounted for. But instead of this explaining
the matter, it only presents the absurdity of the immaterial being affected by,
and dependent upon, the material; and a philosophy that would volunteer such a
theory to extricate itself from a difficulty only manifests the straits to
which it is given to hide itself from the light of reason. To admit that the
brain is necessary as a channel for the soul to think in man is to lay down a
principle that would prove the possession of thought in the animal to be the
result of an immaterial soul operating through the channel of the brain, and
therefore prove too much. It will not do to try to evade the force of this by
splitting hairs to divide instinct from thought, using the former term in
relation to the animal and the latter in relation to man. That is only an
artificial distinction--a distinction without a difference, when considered in
relation to the intelligence of some animals as compared with that of some men;
for it must be admitted that such a comparison in many instances gives a
verdict in favor of the animal.
But suppose we grant for a moment that the soul as the
thinking entity operates conjointly with and is dependent upon the brain for
the evolution of thought, what then becomes of the theory that it continues to
think when the body, with its brain, lies silent in the dust of death? If it
depends upon the brain for thought in life then in death there can be no
thought. It will not do for philosophy to imagine that when the brain is gone
another channel will be provided; for that would be going into realms of
imagination, and stepping on ground that is forbidden philosophy, revelation
being the only means of determining its truth or falsity, and that we will
consider further along. It is certainly reasonable and logical to reduce this
theory to the following syllogism, which will show that it defeats the very
object it seeks to maintain: The soul is dependent upon the brain for thought;
the brain dies with the body; therefore when the body is dead the soul cannot
think.
Nature stands by and sees one who is to be subjected to
electrocution; the subject receives one shock and he is unconscious, but signs
of life are manifest. He receives another, and nature pronounces him dead and therefore
unconscious, while the priest steps to the front and boldly, however
absurdly, exclaims, "No, he is not unconscious." Nature asks the
"Rev." gentleman, "Was the man unconscious after receiving the
first shock?" "Yes." "And do you mean to say that while the
first shock nearly killed and struck the man unconscious, the second absolutely
killed and yet struck him conscious?" and the priest answers,
"Y-e-s," and proceeds to abuse Nature for being too critical and for
encroaching upon ground that belongs only to a monopoly that enriches itself
upon disembodied ghosts and immaterial entities.
We behold man as he approaches the verge of death, after a
long and struggling life. As his body declines his mental powers gradually
weaken and wane, until he is in his "dotage." Then he lies helpless
upon his dying bed; and soon, while there is little life remaining,
consciousness ceases, and at last the lamp of life goes out, and he who once
lived is now dead; he who once talked is now silent; he who once could
see now sees no more; he who once could hear is now oblivious of all sound; he
who once thought has ceased to think--he is dead.
There nature leaves him, and that is as far as it will take
us in the investigation of the question, Is the soul immortal? If there is a
future life, it must be by a resurrection, a doctrine that nature will not
teach and prove to our satisfaction; and if there is to be a resurrection of
the dead, we must derive our knowledge of it from Revelation, in the realms of
which we will now proceed to further investigation. The only satisfactory way
to settle the question of the immortality of the soul is to appeal to Him who
is the author of our being. We depend upon Him for the knowledge of our origin
and He has been pleased to reveal the particulars to us of man's formation,
what he was formed out of and how he was made a living being. In accepting His
explanation we shall not have to do it in spite of true science and philosophy,
but we shall find that facts and revelation perfectly agree, so our question
now shall be, Does the Bible teach the immortality of the soul?
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
Continued
In opening the Bible in the investigation of the subject of
the nature of man, we enter upon a work that will repay our efforts much more
satisfactorily than can be expected in the wide fields of history and
philosophy. It is reasonable to expect that he who formed and gave life to man,
and who revealed the plan of salvation, meeting in all respects the
requirements of a sin-cursed, fallen and lost condition, would, in that
revelation, make known the real nature and condition of the being to be saved,
and the nature and state to which the plan of salvation purposed to exalt those
who come within its scope. The nature of the case to be dealt with must
necessarily be understood before there can be a proper comprehension and
appreciation of the plan that purposes to meet the requirements of the case.
If one believes that he is naturally immortal, while
the plan of salvation is intended and adapted to save mortal men and
bless them ultimately with immortality, he will not be in a position to believe
in that plan; because his belief must, necessarily, nullify it. For how can one
properly believe in and appreciate an offer of immortality if he is persuaded
that he is already in possession of it? As the apostle Paul says, "We are
saved by hope; but hope that is seen is not hope; for what a man seeth why doth
he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not (or are not in possession
of) then do we with patience wait for it"--Rom. 8: 24, 25.
The word "soul" as used in our times, conveys to
the minds of most people the idea of immortality and immateriality; and it is
associated with what is supposed to be the thinking, conscious, never-dying
part of man which it is thought survives the death of the body, and goes
immediately to bliss or woe, according to its deserts.
Opening the Bible with this theory in mind, but with a
desire to test its truth, one would think the first thing that would reasonably
suggest itself as a wise course would be to examine the use of the word soul
in the Scriptures; and what more natural than that such an inquirer would
turn to the first place in which the word is found? Supposing him to be a
careful inquirer, and desiring to go to the root of the matter, he will avail
himself of the ample means now at his disposal, to ascertain what words in the
Hebrew and Greek stand for our word soul; and finding that the Hebrew word is nephesh
he will, by the aid of a concordance, or otherwise, find the first place
where that word occurs in the Bible. He will, no doubt, be astonished when he
is referred to Gen. 1: 20, and finds that the word nephesh, translated
"life" in the text and "soul" in the margin, is applied to
the "moving creature and fowl that may fly above the earth." By
continuing he will find that verse 21 reads, "And God created great
whales, and every living creature--nephesh, or soul--that
moveth." Still further, in verse 24: "And God said, let the earth
bring forth the living creature-- nephesh, or soul--after his kind,
cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after his kind and it was
so;" and in verse 30 he will again find creature--nephesh, or
soul--applied to "every beast of the earth."
Having now examined the first chapter of the Bible in search
of the immortality of the soul, and having found the word nephesh, or
soul used four times and in every case applied to the animal, and not once to
man, what conclusion can he come to, but that he has been wrong in believing
that the word soul signified an immortal entity?
Recalling the fact that he has frequently used and heard
used the phrase "immortal soul," he will leave his critical search
for a moment and run over all the books of the Bible to see if he can find the
oft-repeated phrase within its pages, and to his astonishment he discovers it
is not there; that he has been using and hearing used a phrase that, while
always on the lips of theologians, "holy men of old, who spake as they
were moved by the Holy Spirit," never used. Disappointed, and feeling that
the foundation upon which he had supposed himself secure is a questionable one,
he determines to make a careful investigation of the subject, and naturally
returns to the book of Genesis, and reads the second chapter to see what is
said about the creation of man.
As a rule, the believers in the immortality of the soul are
willing to stake their whole theory upon Gen. 2: 7, believing it says that God
formed the body of the man of the dust of the ground, and put an
immortal soul into that body. It is quite reasonable to expect that whatever
the truth of the matter is it will be found in this, the account of man's
creation; and we may, therefore, freely enter upon a careful examination of the
text without fear of disappointment in regard to reaching the truth of the
matter.
It reads thus:
And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Here is a clear statement of the facts, and all we have to
do is to accept each statement as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth. It says that the Lord God formed man of the dust of the
ground; therefore, that which was formed out of the dust of the ground
was the man--not a body into which a man was to be put. The statement,
"The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground," must, in
and of itself, be true; and the next statement, following the conjunction
"and," is the statement of another truth, namely, that God
"breathed into his--the man's--nostrils the breath of life;" and this
caused the man that had already been formed out of the dust of the ground to become
a living (not an immortal) soul.
Here we have a soul called also a man. Where did he come
from? Did he come from heaven? or out of the earth? The answer is before us in
the words of the text; and if corroborative evidence is needed, it is found in
the words of the apostle Paul: "The first man is of the earth
earthy" (I. Cor. 15: 47). Since it is clear that man--the soul--came
out of the earth and is earthy, and that immortality is God's nature and must
come from heaven, it follows that the soul of man is not immortal.
Many believers in the immortality of the soul contend that
the soul was breathed into man when he received the breath of life; and they
lay stress upon the fact that it is said in so many words, that God breathed
into man the breath of life, but that it is not so said of the beasts. This
cannot be called an argument. It is simply a foolish attempt to escape the
force of the evidence against their cherished but false theory. If it were not
that they deserve to some extent to be pitied in their attempt to save
themselves by catching at a straw, one might condescend to meet them upon their
own ground, and thereby show that their premises would logically lead to the
conclusion that the woman was left destitute of an immortal soul. Their
would-be argument might be submitted in the following syllogistic form: It is said
that God breathed into man the breath of life. It is not said that God breathed
into the beasts the breath of life; therefore when the breath of life was
breathed into man he received an immortal soul, which the beasts did not
receive.
Now let us try the same syllogism in relation to the woman:
It is said that God breathed into the man the breath of life. It is not said
that God breathed into the woman the breath of life; therefore when the breath
of life was breathed into the man, he received an immortal soul which the woman
did not receive. This is sufficient to show the absurdity of such a position.
But upon what authority is it denied that God breathed the
breath of life into the beasts? That they have the breath of life we are
positively told; and the question therefore is, Where did they get it from, if
God did not breathe it into them? Besides, what a wild imagination one must
have, to see an immortal soul put into the body by the breath of life being
breathed into a man's nostrils. Now of the beasts it is said, "And out of
the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the
air" (Gen. 2: 19). The similarity between this and the words of verse 7,
in relation to man is worthy of note. In chapter 6: 17 it is said, "And,
behold, I, even I do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all
flesh wherein is the breath of life." Again, chapter 7:
15--"And they (the creatures named in verse 14) went in unto Noah into the
ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life." Since the
beasts are said in these quotations to be possessed of the breath of life, it
follows that they must have received it of God, the only source of life; and
since it is said to be in their nostrils, who but God could have breathed it
into their nostrils, any more than into man's? If they could have the breath of
life breathed into them and yet be destitute of immortal souls, as is admitted,
then man could also have the breath of life breathed into him and still not
have an immortal soul. While life, which is the result of the inbreathing of
the breath, or the causing of respiration, is sometimes called soul, it is
never spoken of as an immortal soul.
Now at this stage of our inquiry we may venture to give a
definition of the word soul and quote a number of passages to show how it is
used in the Scriptures:
The Hebrew word nephesh, of the Old Testament, occurs
about 700 times, and is rendered soul 471 tunes, life and living
about 150 times; and the same word is also rendered a man, a person, self,
they, me, him, anyone, breath, heart, mind, appetite, the body, (dead
or alive), lust, creature, and even a beast: for it is 28 times
applied to beasts and to every creeping thing. The Greek word psuche
of the New Testament corresponds to nephesh of the Old. It occurs
105 times, and is rendered soul 59 times, and life 40 times. The
same word is also rendered mind, us, you, heart, heartily, and is twice
applied to the beasts that perish. Psuchikos, an adjective
derived from psuche, occurs 6 times, and is translated natural and
sensual; it is properly translated animal in modern translations.
Perhaps it may he worthy of notice that in all the 700 times which nephesh occurs,
and the 105 times of psuche, not once is the word immortal or
immortality or deathlessness or never-dying found in connection as qualifying
the terms.--Emphatic Diaglott.
Numb. 31: 28--And 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.
Gen. 1: 20--(the very first place where the word nephesh,
the word rendered soul, occurs). And God said, Let the waters bring forth
abundantly the moving creature that hath life (nephesh, soul, see
margin), and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen. 1: 30--And to every beast of the earth, and to
every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth
wherein there is life (margin living soul) I have given every
green herb for meat.
Gen. 2: 19--And Adam called (named) every living creature
(Hebrew nephesh, soul).
Gen. 9: 9, 10--And I will establish my covenant with every
living creature (Hebrew nephesh, soul) that is with you of fowl,
of cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you. See also
verses 15, 16.
Job 12: 10--In whose hand is the soul of every living
thing and the breath of all mankind.
Josh. 10: 28--And that day Joshua took Makkedah and smote it
with the edge of the sword; and the king thereof he utterly destroyed them,
and all the souls that were therein. See also verses 30, 32, 35, 37, 39.
Judges 16: 16--And it came to pass, when she pressed him
daily with her words and urged him so that his soul was vexed unto
death.
Job 7: 15--So that my soul chooseth strangling and
death rather than my life.
Psa. 33: 19--To deliver their souls from death and
to keep them alive in famine.
Psa. 78: 50--He made a way to his anger; he spared not their
soul from death.
Isa. 53: 12--Therefore will I divide him a portion with the
great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured
out his soul unto death.
Ezek. 13: 19--And will ye pollute me among my people for
handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that
should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not
live?
Ezek. 18: 4--Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul
of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine; the soul that
sinneth, it shall die.
Verse 27--Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his
wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he
shall save his soul alive.
Matt. 26: 38--My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even
unto death.
Jas. 5: 20--Let him know that he that converteth the sinner
from the error of his way shall save a soul from death.
Rev. 16: 3--And the second angel poured out his vial upon the
sea, and it became as the blood of a dead man; and every living soul died in
the sea.
Psa. 35: 17--Lord, how long wilt thou look on? Rescue my soul
from their destructions.
Psa. 63: 9--But those that seek my soul to destroy it
shall go into the lower parts of the earth.
Acts 3: 23--And it shall come to pass, that every soul that
will not hear that prophet shall be destroyed from among the people.
In the following testimonies the Hebrew word nephesh and
the Greek word psuche, which are so frequently rendered soul are
rendered life. Substitute the word soul for life in the
reading of these and it will be seen that, instead of soul being indestructible
and immortal it is the opposite.
Ex. 4: 19--Go, return unto Egypt; for all the men are dead
which sought thy life.
Matt. 2: 20--For they are dead which sought the young
child's life.
Mark 3: 4--Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath day, or to
do evil? to save life or to kill (life or soul)?
Rev. 8: 9--And the third part of the creatures which were in
the sea, and had life (soul) died.
Rev. 12: 11--And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony: and they loved not their lives (souls)
unto the death.
Job 33: 18--He keepeth back his soul from the pit
(grave) and his life from perishing by the sword. Also verses 28, 30.
Psa. 16: 10--For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell
(the grave), neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Psa. 30: 3--O Lord, thou hast brought up my soul from the
grave; thou hast kept me alive that I should not go down to the pit.
(The "pit" and the "grave" are here synonymous; also
"my soul" and "me" and "I."
Psa. 49: 15--But God will redeem my soul from the
power of the grave; for he shall receive me.
Psa. 89: 48--What man is he that liveth and shall not see
death? Shall he deliver his soul (himself) from the hand of the grave?
Isa. 38: 17--Thou hast in love to my soul delivered
it from the pit of corruption; * * * for the grave cannot praise
thee, death cannot celebrate thee, they that go down to the pit cannot hope for
thy truth.
Acts 2: 31--He seeing this before spake of the resurrection
of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell (grave, same word as is
translated grave in I. Cor. 15: 55).
The phrase my soul is seized upon by some to prove
that the soul is a separate entity from the body; but a comparison of the use
of the phrase in relation to man with that of the beasts will show the fallacy
of such a claim. In one verse quoted above we have the words, "one soul
of"--of what? One soul of the persons, one soul of the beeves, etc.
Besides, it is fatal to the popular theory that we have the soul spoken of as
belonging to the man, if in the phrase "my soul" we are to understand
the pronoun "my" to represent the man, and the "soul" an
entity possessed by the "my"--the man. For the theory of those who
hold to the doctrine is that the soul is the real man, and the body only the
habitation of the soul. But suppose for the sake of the argument we allow the
claim, then what should we do with the phrases "my body" (Job 19:
17), "your bodies," etc. (Job 13: 12)? We should have to reverse our
position to suit these phrases, and at one time say the soul is the man,
and at another time that the body is the man. What we should do with the
"my," however, when we read "my body and my soul" (Mic. 6:
7) would be an overwhelming difficulty; for in this case we have "my"
separate from both soul and body, and by the premises laid down in the claim we
are combating, we should be driven to conclude that the "my," the
man, was a separate being from both soul and body. It becomes apparent that no
theory of the kind claimed can be built upon such an uncertain foundation. A
man might say, My body, my soul, my spirit, my head, my hands, etc., etc., but
what folly it would be to conclude that he thereby meant that he himself was a
separate being from all the parts named. We cannot avoid this form of
expression, and in common parlance it is never misconstrued. It is only when
the theory of the soul being a separate entity from the body is hard pressed to
protect itself that such a foolish contention is resorted to. One might speak
of the foundation of the house, the walls of the house, the roof of the
house--everything of the house, and even the believer in the immortality of the
soul would not suppose that the house was a separate thing from the parts
named. Why not be as reasonable when similar language is employed in relation
to man?
The Hebrew words rendered "living soul" in Gen. 2:
7, where it is said "man became a living soul" are nephesh
chayiah; speaking of which Dr. Adam Clarke says:
It "is a general term to express all creatures
endued with animal life in any of its infinitely varied gradations."
This phrase is used thirteen times in the Scriptures; eleven
times it is applied to the beasts and twice to man, a fact which of itself is
sufficient to convince a reasonable mind that the phrase "living
soul" does not mean "immortal soul." The unreasonable mind that
would persist in claiming for it the popular meaning of "immortal
soul" would be forced to acknowledge that there would be eleven
testimonies in favor of the immortality of the soul of the beasts to two in
that of man. Many, we are sorry to say, are so unreasonable that, rather than
abandon a theory that has become popular, will rest their belief upon the most
absurd claims. They have been taught to believe in the immortality of the soul;
they cannot find the phrase "immortal soul" in the Bible, and rather
than surrender to the force of facts and reason they will delude themselves
with the idea that "immortal soul" is to be seen in "living
soul," to which they will cling even if it does commit them to the
conclusion that the beasts have "immortal souls."
Scripture explains scripture, to observe which is a very
safe rule. The apostle Paul makes use of the phrase "living soul,"
referring to the very verse in question. The use he makes of it must certainly
be accepted in preference to that of uninspired men. The latter would say,
"There is an immortal soul; for so it is written, 'The first man Adam was
made a living soul;'" but Paul says: "There is a natural body, *
* * and so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul" (I.
Cor. 15: 44, 45). A natural body is a living earthy body: and that is what man
is in his present state. What the apostle terms a "natural body" in
verse 44 he calls "the first man" in verse 47, where he says,
"The first man is of the earth, earthy."
First--He says, "There is a natural body."
Second--He proves that there is a natural body by the words
written, "The first man Adam was made a living soul."
Third--He says that this "natural body," which is
a "living soul" is "the first man," or man in the state
which is first--the natural.
Fourth--He declares that this man is of, or out of,
"the earth, earthy." Had the apostle been a believer in the
immortality of the soul his language would certainly have been contradictory of
his theory, as it is contradictory of the popular theory of our times. To have
given expression to the general belief of to-day he should have said, "The
body of the first man is of the earth, earthy, but the man himself is
an immortal soul, which came from heaven and entered into the body."
If there is such a thing as an immortal soul, then it is a
spiritual thing: and if the immortal soul is the man then man is now a
spiritual being. Now the apostle shows that man, while he may become a
spiritual being, is now a natural being. Can there be anything plainer than his
statement?--"There is a natural body (which, as we have seen, is the man,
the living soul, of the earth, earthy), and there is a spiritual body. * * *
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is
natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. * * * And as we have borne
(and do bear) the image of the earthy, we shall (not we do) also bear
the image of the heavenly." And to make the matter still more clear, if
possible, he adds: "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit
incorruption." Could anything be clearer to show that man is not both
natural and spiritual at the same time? He is not mortal and immortal, of an
earthy and a heavenly nature now. The first is the natural and afterward the
spiritual. Incorruption does not inhere in corruption. There is not an
incorruptible soul in the corruptible body. Man is first earthy and the worthy
shall be made heavenly. So that man is first sown a natural body, or a natural
being, and then raised a spiritual body, or a spiritual being.
The word soul, philologically, may be said to mean
self. The various uses of the word in the Scriptures we have already given; and
it will be observed that its primary meaning is living creature. As such it is
necessarily a material being; for what would it be if it were immaterial? It
would really be nothing; and this is what the popular tradition reduces itself
to. The soul is carefully guarded by its champions from anything of a material
nature, its zealots being very much afraid of being called
"materialists." To regard the soul as material and therefore something
is looked upon by those of the Platonic school as sacrilegious. It seems
more to their taste to enshroud the subject in a mystery that will baffle the
understanding of their followers and hide themselves from the sharp arrows of
reason and scripture. Nothing will do for them but a soul that cannot be seen,
felt, weighed nor measured. It must have no form, no body, no parts, no
substance--it must be immaterial; and yet, without visibility, weight, form,
measurement or substance, it is claimed to be an entity! Now we submit that a
being without form, weight, measurement or visibility is a nonentity--has no
being, because it has nothing to have a being. It is simply nothing--nothing
but a phantom of a bewildered and paganized mind. In the Scriptures, however,
when the word soul is applied to being it is a substantiality. It can be born
(Ex. 12:19); die (Rev. 16: 3); go to the grave (Psa. 89: 48); be raised out of
the grave (Acts 2:31); slain (Joshua 10: 28-39); eat and drink (Lev. 7: 20;
Isa. 32: 6), etc., etc. Scripturally speaking, therefore, the soul is a
being--it is something and therefore it is material.
As set forth in the various Scriptures we have given, when
the word is used otherwise than of the person or being, it is always employed
to express the variety of aspects in which a living being can be contemplated,
such as life, individuality, mind, disposition, breath, etc.; but it never
expresses the idea of immortality, and is never used in the popular form,
"immortal soul."
It is when the word soul is used for life that it seems to
strengthen an opinion already formed of it being a separate entity from the
body. To a mind holding such an opinion the idea of an immortal soul that can
forsake the body and still exist as a conscious entity has, by education and by
breathing, as it were, from infancy the paganized theological atmosphere of the
religious world, become a self-evident fact. It is taken for granted, and
everywhere is viewed from that unscriptural and unreasonable standpoint. The
result is that there is not that exercise of reason in the use of phraseology
upon this subject that there is upon other matters. The moment the phrase
"the soul of man" is seen or heard the thought received is that the
soul is a separate entity; but when the phrases, "the hearing of
man," "the sight of man," "the feelings of man,"
"the love of man," etc., are used there is no thought of hearing,
sight, and all the other attributes of man being separate entities. If you say
to one who believes in the separate existence of the soul as an entity that a
man's soul has gone, he would ask, Where to? because his perverted mind cannot
conceive of the man's soul "having gone" without also thinking of it
being an entity after it "has gone." If, however, one were to say to
him, "The man's hearing is gone," he would never dream of asking;
Where to? In the latter he is reasonable; in the former he is unreasonable. He
is able to see that the statement, "The man's hearing is
gone," only expresses the fact that the man has lost the sense of hearing.
That condition of things which combined to produce what we call
"hearing" has been destroyed. If the condition could be restored, it
could then be said, "His hearing returned," and still there would be
no danger of any one falling into the mistake that the hearing had, as an entity,
been absent and maintained an abstract existence. That the very same is true of
life is clear to an unbiased mind. The life of a man is no more an abstract
thing than the life of a horse. Life is a condition of being. Destroy the
condition in any living being and the life of that being then ceases. You may
express this by saying the life is gone, whether it be the life of a man or the
life of a horse; but that does not mean that the life maintains an abstract
existence as an entity after it "has gone." Restore the condition and
you may say the life has returned and still not commit yourself to the idea of
the life, either of man or animal, having been roaming around bodiless.
Now the word soul, as we have said, is sometimes used for life,
and this recalls a text often referred to in support of the popular idea of the
departure of the soul at death. In I. Kings 17: 21, 22, it says:
And he (Elijah) stretched himself upon the child three
times, and cried unto the Lord and said, O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this
child's soul come into him again. * * * And the soul of the child came into him
again, and he revived.
Now all that this teaches is that when the child's soul left
him he died and was therefore dead and not alive; and when his soul "came
into him again, he revived," or was restored to life. The departure of the
soul, as we have illustrated in regard to hearing, sight, etc., was the
destroying of that condition of things called life; and the return of it was
the restoring to life that which was not alive, but dead. The Septuagint
rendering of this text bears this out very clearly. It is as follows: "Let
this child's life be restored to him." Of course, a man bent upon holding
to the doctrine of the soul's immortality will continue to see in the return of
the child's soul the return of an immortal entity. But let us ask such an one,
Do you find the word immortal prefixed to soul here? Since you do not why will
you add it? Which is the child, the body or the soul? If you answer, The body,
then it follows that the child was dead and that which departed and returned
was not the child. If you answer that the soul is the child, then it follows
that the soul died: for if the soul is the child and the child is the soul,
then, since it says the child died, it follows that the soul died. But if you
persist in adding to and contradicting God's word and say that the child in the
case is the immortal soul and that the child did not die but forsook its body
and continued to live, then was it not an act of cruelty, rather than an act of
mercy and goodness, to compel the immortal soul to forsake its newly-attained
state of bliss (for you believe that death to a child is a certain reward of
bliss) and return to its mortal habitation to pass through a probation that
might deprive it of ever again enjoying that bliss of which it had been
permitted through death to get a taste? If you will persist in claiming that
the word soul here means "immortal soul," how will you account for
the fact that the very same word is used for the life of the beasts of the
field? A glance at your concordance and lexicon will show you that the Hebrew
word which is here rendered soul is nephesh and if you will turn to
Prov. 12: 10 you will find the same word rendered life and applied to the life
of the beast: "A righteous man regardeth the life (nephesh) of his
beast." See also Gen. 9: 4; Lev. 17: 11; Deut. 12: 23 and many other
places. Now you would hardly be willing to read these quotations as you would
the one in question. You are determined to read, "And the child's immortal
soul came into him again;" and if you were consistent you would be
compelled to read, "A righteous man regardeth the immortal soul of his
beast." If not, why not? The word in both instances is the same; and if
you derive any strength from the fact that it is worded "the soul of the
child" as though it proved it to be a separate entity, then you see that
you have the same phraseology in the "life (nephesh, soul) of the
beast." Why not surrender a pagan fiction to the Bible and be consistent
enough to admit that the word soul is used in this case, as it is in many
others, for life; and then you can understand that the child died and the child
was restored to life.
Another text much relied upon is Gen. 35: 18, in which the
wording is very similar to the text we have been considering:
And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing (for she
died) that she called his name Ben-oni."
The departure of the soul here, as in the other case, results
in the death of the person. It is therefore clear that "soul"
is used for life; and that when the life departs, it is gone out, as one
would say of the extinguished light of the candle. It is gone out; but the man
who would claim that the soul (life) that has gone out is still existent as an
entity is as unreasonable as one would be to insist that the light of the
candle still exists as a light after it is blown out.
In the New Testament, where the Greek word which answers to
the Hebrew word nephesh is psuche, we find it used in the same
way. Sometimes it applies to the man as a being sometimes to life, etc.,
variously speaking of the conditions in which a being can be thought of; but
never, be it remembered, is it applied to an "immortal soul." To find
this phrase or the theory it expresses, it is necessary to go outside both the
Old and the New Testaments, into the works of heathen philosophers, such as
Plato and Socrates and those of the Platonic school in general.
The superficial character of those who compass sea and land
to maintain their theory of the soul being a separate entity is frequently seen
in the attempt to force into service the words:
Then I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid
up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink and be merry--Luke 12: 19.
"There," it is said, "look at that; 'my
soul.'" Well, what is there in that? What kind of a soul is the man
talking to and about? Is it an immortal soul, an immaterial soul? It cannot be;
for it is a soul that had use for "goods" to be stored in barns, of
which it was to eat, and surely an immaterial soul without weight, measure or
visibility would have no use for such substantial things. But it is the fact
that the phrase "my soul" is used that charms the mind.
Suppose it had read, "Then will I say to myself, Eat," etc.?
Would not the thought have been just the same? Is not that the real thought
conveyed? When one uses the word myself is it to be understood that the
"my" and the self are separate and that the self can forsake
the my and exist independently of it? If this is too absurd to be
entertained, why not use "my soul" in the reasonable way we use
"myself?" If the "my" is a separate being from the
"soul," then we should be committed to the theory that when the words
"your body, soul and spirit" are read, they represent four
beings--the "soul," the "body," the "spirit" and
the "your." Moreover, such premises would lead one possessed of a
logical turn of mind to the conclusion that the beasts are separate entities
from their bodies; for the apostle Paul speaks of "the bodies of those
beasts," etc. This is the same as if he had said the beasts' bodies; but
not that they and their bodies are separate beings.
In the next verse to the one in question (Luke 12: 20) we
have the word soul used for life:
This night thy soul shall be required of thee.
Here is an illustration of the latitude given the word in
its application to a being, attributes of a being, or various conditions in
which the being may be thought of or spoken of, the context always showing the
sense. The same latitude is seen in our way of speaking of other things. We
say, "Blow out the candle," and we say, "Blow out the
light." Also, "The kettle boils" is the same as to say,
"The water in the kettle boils."
Now to illustrate how the meaning of the word soul in the
Bible can be determined by the context, we find it says, "And levy a
tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle, one soul of
five hundred, of the persons and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the
sheep" (Num. 31: 28). Here the reader is bound to see that the word means
creature or being, both man and beasts. In Job 12: 10 it says, "In whose
hand is the soul of every living thing and the breath of all
mankind." In this case it must be seen that soul applies to the life
of the beasts; so that in one instance it stands for the animal itself and
in the other for the life of the animal, it being impossible to misunderstand
its application, and no one thinks of attaching the meaning of immortal entity
to the word. Now carry the same reason to cases where the word stands sometimes
for the man and at other times for the life of the man and the texts are clear
to a mind willing to be reasonable and scriptural that "immortal
entity" is out of the question. It is said that Zilpah bare unto Jacob
sixteen souls (Gen. 46: 18); and here "souls" stands for the
persons, while in Ex. 4: 19, where it says, "All the men are dead which
sought thy life" (nephesh, soul) it is clear that it means life,
and the translators so rendered it, as they did also the Greek word psuche in
Matt. 2: 20, where it says, "They are dead which sought the young child's life."
If the translators had given soul here, as they have in many places,
the reader would have seen by the very nature of the case that the word stood
for life.
With this view of the matter we can readily understand the
texts in question to mean, "Then I will say to myself, Thou hast
much goods," etc. "Thou fool, this night thy life shall be
required of thee." And we may also turn to another portion of scripture
often used in support of the dogma we are combating--Matt. 16: 26: "What
is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? or
what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" This is supposed to be
conclusive evidence of the popular doctrine of the soul's immortality; and upon
it is based the idea of the priceless value of the soul. It is very easy,
however, to see that it is the life the Saviour is speaking of; and the text
might be read as follows: "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain
the whole world and lose his own life? or what shall a man give in
exchange for his life?" The context in this case entirely excludes
the idea of "immortal soul," as we shall presently see. To say the
least, there must be a word added by the reader to make the case suit the
theory of the immortal soulist. The word immortal is not in the text, and, as
we have repeated, it is never prefixed to the word soul. Our substituting the
word life for soul is strongly objected to by those who are
determined to cling to the Platonic dogma, who, loving to have it so, snatch at
what appears to them on the surface and run away with their fingers in their
ears when one says to them, "Come and let us reason together." Now
the fact is that in verse 25 the very word is translated life, which in
the verse in question (verse 26) is translated soul; and now it will be
clear that the context shows the case to be entirely opposed to the theory of
the immortality of the soul. The way those who contend for this theory would
like to read the twenty-sixth verse is this: "For what shall a man profit,
if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own immortal soul? or what
shall a man give in exchange for his immortal soul?" Since the Saviour
used the very same word in verse 25 that he did in verse 26; and since the
theorist is determined to have "immortal soul" in verse 26, let us
read it the same way in verse 25: "For whosoever will save his immortal
soul shall lose it, and whosoever shall lose his immortal soul for my sake
shall find it." Now it will be seen that this text at once condemns the
immortal soul theory and proves that it had no place in the Saviour's mind and
that it is the life he is speaking of.
It happens that one of their own commentators bears
testimony to the truth upon this portion of scripture. Dr. Adam Clarke, in his
Commentary, says: "On what authority many have translated the word psuche
in the twenty-fifth verse life, and in this verse (26) soul I
know not; but I am certain it means life in both places." In the
Revised Version, too, life is used in both verses.
Of all the texts in which the word soul occurs Matthew 10:
28, is the one most confidently relied upon in support of the immortality of
the soul. It is thought that this text wholly refutes the idea of the soul
being destructible and sustains the theory of its never-dying and
indestructible nature. The phrase "cannot kill the soul" is seized
and loaded down, as it were, with the claim that it is not only out of the
power of man to kill the soul, but that it is, by reason of its essential
nature, absolutely indestructible and must live eternally. Of course, if the
soul is immortal it can never be destroyed, no more than angels can. If it can
be destroyed, it follows that it is not immortal; for to speak of destroying an
immortal being is a contradiction in terms.
So far as we have gone in our examination of the subject we have
found nothing that would indicate that the soul is immortal; and, no doubt, it
is the consciousness of the fact of the entire absence of words in the
Scriptures that in any way support the theory that arouses its advocates to
almost stake their all upon the text in question; feeling that it is their last
and only chance.
"What will you do with Matt. 10: 28 where it says,
"Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the
soul?" ask the zealots of the theory, with an air of triumph. Well, let us
examine it critically and carefully; and if we find that it teaches the
immortality of the soul we shall be prepared to admit that the doctrine is
taught in one text; and it will then be necessary for us to account for one
text being contrary to the general tenor of the Bible. That the word soul is
used in the text as something distinguishable from the body we admit; and it is
clear in "killing the body," whatever that may mean as used here, the
soul was not "killed." In admitting this, however, we are standing
firmly to the position we have maintained all through, namely, that the word
soul is variously used for body, life, mind, etc., and that the text and
context must always determine its application. When the apostle Paul says,
"Stand fast in one spirit, with one mind" (psuche, soul) we
have no trouble in seeing that soul here is used for mind and not for body or
life. When, in speaking of Epaphroditus, he says, "He was nigh unto death,
not regarding his life" (psuche, soul) we can readily see that he
is using soul for life, and not for mind or body. When it is said,
"Neither shall he go in to any dead body" (nephesh, soul) it
is clear that soul here stands for body. In each case one must be reasonable in
discriminating between the various uses of the word and a satisfactory
conclusion can be reached.
In the verse in question, then, it is clear that the word
soul does not stand for body; but that is no reason that it means
"immortal soul." Unless the immortality of the soul can be proved
before going to this text it will not do to assume that that is the meaning
here. All that the phrase "cannot kill the soul" will justify one in
saying is that soul as used here refers to something that man cannot kill. The
reason why is not because it is essentially indestructible, we may be sure,
from the fact that the word "destroy" is applied to the soul and the
body in this very verse. Many reasons may exist why man could not kill a soul
and yet the soul be capable under other circumstances of being killed. The question
is one of prerogative, of nations in some cases, and of God. For instance, when
a criminal is condemned by the law of the land to be put to death, no man can
or has a right in the eyes of the law to kill that criminal. The state, and the
state only, "is able to destroy" him. So it will be with those who
are condemned at the judgment seat of Christ. The life of the condemned is not
left within the reach of man's whims or choice, nor to the chances of accident.
It is in the hands of a judicial authority whose prerogative alone it is to
take it or to destroy it.
Now it is safe to say that the word in this text either
stands for life or mind. If for life, then it refers to that life which will be
restored at the resurrection, when the just and the unjust shall be judged
according to their deeds (II. Tim. 4: 1; II Cor. 5: 10). God, through Christ,
will then be the only one who can "destroy both body and soul;" for
it will be His righteous judgment that will decide when the "weeping and
gnashing of teeth" shall end in destruction in Gehenna; He alone
will regulate the "few and many stripes" and determine when the
second death shall take place. And in view of this, He is the one to fear.
Hence the Saviour says: "Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body
in hell" (Gehenna).
If the word soul in the text is understood to be used for
mind, as it is in other cases, then a critical examination of the text and
context will make the matter quite clear as to the Saviour's meaning. Let it
not be denied that soul sometimes means mind, for in addition to the
proofs we have already given we submit the following texts in which psuche, the
Greek word frequently rendered soul, is translated mind: Acts 14: 2; Phil. 1:
27; Heb. 12: 3. The Hebrew word nephesh, which is mostly rendered soul,
is also translated mind in many cases, of which the following are a few:
Gen. 23: 8; Jer. 15: 1; Ezek. 36: 5. If, then, the word is used for mind in
the verse in dispute, it is not an exceptional case. In verse 16 the disciples
were warned that they would be as "sheep in the midst of wolves;" and
from verse 17 to 18, that they would be persecuted and scourged in many and
various forms--all of which would be bodily punishment. It is a
well-known fact that, while the martyrs were subjected to every conceivable
form of bodily torture, they were calm, composed and cheerful in mind.
Their faithfulness maintained its life while bodily they were
"tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better
resurrection." And they "had trial of cruel mockings and scourging,
yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn
asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wandered about in
sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented"--and yet
their tormentors could not "kill" that mind or soul that had been
begotten and was sustained by the hope of the gospel. Although they were then
"killed (or tormented) all the day long" by them that could
"kill" or torture the body, they feared not, knowing that so long as
they maintained the mind of the spirit of Christ--the soul--they need not
"fear those who could kill the body, and after that had no more that they
could do" (Luke 12: 4). The only one for them to fear was Him who has
power to do more than "kill"--torture--the "body," namely
to destroy utterly the entire man--body and mind, or soul, in Gehenna.
In view of the fact that when the wicked are cast into Gehenna,
not only is their life or soul to be destroyed, but the body is to be devoured,
either by the worm or by fire, and here is a total destruction of the being,
the word "destroy" in the text applying to "both soul (mind) and
body," a destruction which is to take place in Gehenna, the very
place itself assuring that total destruction is what is meant as the destiny of
the entire being.
This is a text in which the word psuche may mean life
or mind; it is not clear on the surface which. With either meaning, however,
the mortality of man agrees and the destructibility of man is certain. With a
careful regard for the context, it seems that the word stands for mind, and
with that meaning let us consider it further.
We have used the word "kill" as synonymous with
torture; and the word "destroy" we have taken in the absolute sense.
It must be noticed that not only do we have two words in the English
Version--"kill" and "destroy"--but there are two different
words in the Greek; and the latter of the two is a much stronger word than the
former. The word for "kill" in the verse is apokteino, and
some of its meanings as given in Donnegan's Lexicon and others are, to torture,
torment, condemn to death. The word "destroy" in the verse is from apollumi;
and the definitions given of it are, to abolish, to waste, to cause to be
lost, to perish; to be annihilated, to destroy totally. Now it is the latter
word that is used to describe the final end of "both soul and body in Gehenna;"
and when this fact is seen it seems very strange that any one should
attempt to use the verse in support of the immortality and indestructibility of
the soul. The advocates of this dogma may refuse the explanation we give if
they please, but they cannot refuse to believe that the Saviour is here
speaking of a soul whose destruction is expressed by the same word as that of the
body. Let me repeat, Gehenna was not a place in which to preserve alive
those who were cast therein. It was a place where the victims were devoured,
either by worms or by fire. And it will be the same again; and there the
just and righteous judgment of God will destroy utterly the entire being of
those who shall have been unfaithful.
No countenance whatever is therefore given to the soul's
immortality in this verse upon which so much dependence is placed; but, on the
other hand, it proves the very opposite, in that the soul spoken of, whether
applied to mind, life or what not, is shown to be as destructible as the body.
And now, with these facts in mind, we hear the Saviour
saying, Fear not them which torture, torment, render miserable the body (as the
persecutors did by thumbscrews, etc.), but are not able to torture, torment,
render miserable the psuche, mind. For the mind would be fixed upon the
hope of the gospel, even when the body was being tortured by the many wicked
devices the tormentors of the Christians invented. The case of Polycarp is an
illustration of this, when he assured his persecutors that they need not tie
him to the stake, for he could stand there to be burned and yet maintain that
composure of mind that a faith such as his only could exemplify. It was a mind
such as this, filled with confidence, hope and joy in the promises of God,
whose godly zeal could not be quenched by all the bodily torture they might
inflict. Therefore fear not them who will torture the body but cannot torture or
harass the mind. Fear not men in the sufferings you will be called upon to
receive at their hands. Be faithful, be calm and steadfast. Then he tells them
whom they should fear. "Fear him who is able to destroy"--here
is the stronger word, meaning to destroy totally, to be lost, to perish,
to be annihilated. Fear Him who is able to thus destroy both body and
mind--the entire being--in Gehenna.
This view of the matter brings out in full the encouragement
and the warning of our Saviour's words to those whom He knew stood in need of
much fortitude to withstand the terrible sufferings they were to pass through.
Rev. 6: 9, 10 is the only passage that remains to be
examined as a stronghold of the popular theory of the immortality of the soul;
that is of those texts in which the word soul is found; others we shall examine
under their proper headings. Superficial indeed must be the mind that cannot
see that, instead of this portion of scripture favoring the immortality and
immateriality of the soul, it is directly opposed to such a theory. One would
think that the fact of these souls being under an altar, and of their having
blood would be sufficient to show that they are not immortal or immaterial.
Suppose the words are taken in the most literal sense, we should, standing
beside the Apostle John, see a heathen priest place a person on an altar, slay
the person or soul, who in the struggles with death falls from the altar and
under it cries out, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge
and avenge our blood (which we see running from the wounded soul) on them that
dwell on earth?" What! Slay a soul! cries out the astonished
immaterialist. How can you slay that which is immaterial? If it has no weight
or dimension; if it cannot be seen or felt, how can it be put on an altar and
slain, and how can it be said to have blood? We grant the force of the
questions; but they are all based upon "if the soul is immortal or
immaterial;" and if that were true the text would be inexplicable. But that
is just where the evil is--in reading the verse with the preconceived dogma in
the mind, and therefore allowing a distorted imagination to take the place of
reason and Scripture. The apostle was not speaking of immortal, immaterial,
bloodless souls. Such souls were only found in the myths of those who slew upon
the altar souls that were real and substantial. Why be astonished at the idea
of souls being slain, when it is said that "Joshua took Makkedah, and
smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed,
them and all the souls that were therein" (Josh. 10: 28, 39)? Why
should it be thought incredible that souls have blood, when the prophet
Jeremiah says, "In thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of
the poor innocents" (chapter 2: 34)? To a mind in harmony with and
familiarized with the Word of God the text in question presents no difficulty
whatever in the way of the materiality and mortality of the soul. Neither is
there anything in the fact of their crying out to prove that they were
disembodied entities. We would ask the immaterialist, Have the souls of your
theory blood? Can they be slain upon an altar? and the answer is, No. Then you
have nothing to do with Rev. 6: 9, 10--in fact you have nothing to do with the
souls of the Scriptures. Your sphere is in the realms of pagan and Roman myths
whose heavens are filled with imaginary dead men's ghosts.
Now as to the real meaning of the verses in question, we
have to take our stand along with the Apostle John before we can discern it. We
must remember that the things John is seeing are "signified" to
him, that is, they are shown by signs. In this way he is shown things before
they actually come to pass. "I will show thee things which must be
hereafter," says the Spirit to John (chapter 4: 1). In this way he saw the
resurrection of the dead, and heard the redeemed sing the song of Moses and the
Lamb after they had been raised; and he saw them live and reign on the
earth with Christ for one thousand years (chapters 5: 7-12; 20: 4). So in the
verses in question, he is relating the signs of what was to take place under
the fifth seal, when the Roman persecution and martyrdom of the saints filled
to overflowing the pit, as it were, under the altar with the blood of the
innocents and faithful. John himself knew from experience that the cruel hand
of persecution and death would be imbrued in the blood of his brethren, and his
anxiety was to know the outcome. He first sees the scroll sealed with seven
seals; and when he hears that no man is worthy to open the book, he says,
"I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the
book" (chapter 5:1-4). Now the actual breaking of the seals and unrolling
of the scroll are to be seen in the actual events that have transpired and will
yet transpire in the world from John's time down to the fulfillment of the
promise, "Behold, I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give to
every man according as his work shall be" (chapter 22: 12). John, hoping
to be one of those to be rewarded, and knowing that the reward could not be
received till the coming of the Lord within the period of the seventh seal
(chapter 16: 12-16), it is no wonder he was so anxious to know the course of
events during the interval. His anxiety is soon ended by the information that
the "Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, had prevailed to open
the book to loose the seals thereof" (chapter 5: 5). Thus by signs he is
shown what would take place, not in heaven, God's holy habitation, but in the
earth and the political heavens thereof. To signify what would be the treatment
his brethren would receive at the hands of Roman persecution, of whose cruelty
he was himself a victim, the Spirit causes a panoramic view to pass before his
vision showing him that faithful souls would be slain upon the altar of Romish
superstition, whose blood would cry to heaven for just vengeance upon the
enemies of God, His truth and His people. To show John that there would be a
grand sequel to the dreadful drama that was being performed before his eyes, as
the canvas, as it were, passes, a vision appears of those souls being given
white robes, indicative of the glorious reward of immortality to be bestowed
upon them by him who declared, "Behold I come quickly and my reward is
with me to give to every man (or every soul) as his work shall be."
The only shadow which the believer in the immortality of the
soul can snatch at in this case is, that the souls are represented as crying
out. "Can dead souls speak?" they triumphantly ask. To which it would
be excusable to retort, "Can blood speak (Gen. 4:10; Heb. 12: 24)? Can the
earth sing? Can fir trees and cedar trees rejoice (Isa. 14: 6, 7)? The common
sense that can see in a parable or a symbol how blood can speak, the earth
sing, trees rejoice and clap their hands, will have no difficulty in
understanding how souls, though dead, can be represented as crying out for to
be justly avenged of the cruelty of which they have been the victims.
There are some, however, who are possessed of common sense
in common things, but who seem to be destitute of it when their cherished myths
are in question. So long as men allow themselves to be intoxicated with the
spirits of pagan and Roman beverages they can see nothing in this scripture
except disembodied souls in a conscious state--alive and conscious because they
are represented as speaking. But when the attention is called to the fact that
John saw the "dead, small and great stand before God" at the judgment
day; and that he heard them sing the song of Moses and the Lamb (Rev. 20: 12;
5: 9), they are able to see that men can be represented as having real bodily
existence, and as singing while they are dead--some of them, too, before they
are born; for in the view that John had of the resurrection there must have
been a representation of some who would die between his time and the
resurrection day.
Those who so stubbornly resist the truth, and so tenaciously
cling to hoary superstition may be asked, Where is this altar under which these
souls are seen? If you say heaven, then we ask, Is there an altar in heaven
upon which souls are slain and under which they cry for vengeance? Perhaps if
reason and scripture will not persuade you of the folly of such a foolish
thing, the prestige of a famous "orthodox" commentator might have
some weight. Dr. Adam Clarke, in commenting upon this text, says:
"A symbolical vision was exhibited in which he saw an
altar, and under it the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God,
martyred for their attachment to Christianity, are represented as being newly
slain as victims to idolatry and superstition. The altar is upon earth, not in
heaven."
We are reminded, however, that "if men will not hear
Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the
dead," and so we conclude our remarks on Rev. 6: 9, 10.
We have now considered the scripture teaching concerning the
soul sufficiently, we think, to convince the reasonable and candid mind that
there is no foundation for the Platonic theory as held in the popular schools
of theology in our day. That the oft-repeated phrase "immortal soul"
is never found in the Bible is a simple fact that can easily be tested by
anyone of ordinary intelligence. When it is seen that the Spirit of God never
moved a single one of the "holy men of old, who spake as they were moved
by the Holy Spirit," to make use of the phrase or anything equivalent
thereto, reason will at once recognize the difference between the phraseology
of the Bible and that of so-called orthodox teachers. The few portions of
scripture in which the use of the word soul is supposed to sustain popular
belief we have shown to afford no support whatever when carefully examined free
from prejudice.
Of late years some zealous advocates of the theory finding the
application of the word soul to the beasts of the field as well as to man, have
surrendered the argument so far as the soul is concerned, and admitted that it
is a word expressive of animal being and animal life and not of the supposed
spiritual entity in man. Realizing that the day had gone by when papal bulls
declaring that the soul is immortal would suffice for the absence of the dogma
from the Bible they must find refuge somewhere, rather than abandon a doctrine
upon which all so-called orthodox churches are built, and upon the retaining of
which depend their clerical position, prestige and support. In the vain attempt
to find the desired refuge, spirit is seized as being the word in the
Scriptures expressive of the theory of man being an immaterial, immortal entity
capable of disembodied existence between death and resurrection. It will
therefore now be our duty to examine the Bible upon the subject of the spirit.
In proceeding to consider what the spirit of man is, it will
be well to give the definition of the word, one which we believe a careful
examination of Scripture will support; and it is the use of a word in the Bible
that must be allowed to determine its meaning so far as the subject under
consideration is concerned. Dictionaries give the conventional meaning of
words, and it is not always safe to apply such meanings to words found in the
Bible--indeed, it is seldom safe to attach the same exact meaning to words in
one age that has been applied to them in another, for there has been no
uniformity maintained. The safest dictionary, therefore, of Bible words, is the
Bible itself. The use made of any given word by the Spirit can readily be seen
by comparing scripture with scripture, and conclusions thus arrived at may
always be relied upon.
Spirit in the Bible is used to represent a being, influence,
disposition, mind, state of feeling, air, breath and life.
Spirit in the Old Testament is translated from two words, neshamah
and ruach. The meaning of these words given by lexicographers is
wind, breath, life, mind and intellect.
Neshamah only occurs twenty-four times, and it is translated breath,
blast, spirit, soul and inspiration. Example, neshamah, translated breath:
"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. 2: 7.
"All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of
all that was in the dry land, died"--Gen. 7: 22.
Neshamah translated blast:
"And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations
of the world were discovered at the rebuking of the Lord, at the blast of
the breath of his nostrils"--II. Sam. 22: 16.
"By the blast of God they perish, and by the
breath of his nostrils are they consumed"--Job 4:9.
The word is translated soul in Isa. 57: 16 and inspiration
in Job 32: 8.
The Hebrew word ruach occurs in the Old Testament
over four hundred times, and is translated wind, breath, mind, smell, tempest
and blast. For example, ruach translated wind:
"And God made a wind to pass over the earth and
the waters assuaged"--Gen. 8: 1.
"The ungodly are not so, but are like the chaff which
the wind driveth away"--Psa. 1: 4.
Ruach translated breath:
"And behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon
the earth to destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life"--Gen.
6: 17.
"Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled; thou takest
away their breath, they die and return to their dust"--Psa. 104:
29.
Ruach translated mind:
"Which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and
Rebekah"--Gen. 26: 35.
"A fool uttereth all his mind"--Prov. 29: 11.
Instances of the word ruach being translated smell
will be found in Gen. 8: 21: 27: 27; of blast in Ex. 15: 8; II.
Kings 19: 7. Now it is clear that the original words translated in our Bible spirit
do not mean immortal entity. If spirit as applied to living beings
had such a meaning in the minds of the inspired writers they never would have
applied the word to the beasts of the field. In Gen. 6: 17 it is said, "I
do bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh wherein is the breath
of life;" and in this case breath is from ruach, the
word that is most frequently rendered spirit. Again, in Eccles. 3: 19:
"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 (man and beasts)
have all one breath." Here, too, the word breath is from ruach, and
if our translators had maintained uniformity they would have given spirit instead
of breath. In this same book, chapter 12: 7, they have given spirit, and
the original word is ruach there, as it is in chapter 3: 19. It would
not do to read, "Yea, they (man and beasts) have all one immortal
entity." Yet if ruach or spirit means immortal entity why not so
read it? Is it not clear that no such meaning was in the writer's mind? When
Moses and Aaron exclaimed, "O God, the God of the spirits of all
flesh," they meant the lives of all flesh. They certainly did not
mean the immortal entities of all flesh. It is by the spirit of God the life of
all living creatures is sustained. When that spirit is withdrawn from animals
they die; and when it is withdrawn from men they die. Hence it is said, "O
Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all; the earth
is full of thy riches. So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things
creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts * * * That thou givest
them they gather; thou openest thy hand, they are filled with good. Thou hidest
thy face, they are troubled; thou takest away their breath (ruach, spirit),
they die and return to their dust" (Psa. 104: 24-29). By the spirit of God
then the creatures live. While they are allowed to breathe and thereby
appropriate the spirit of life to their use, the spirit is called their spirit
or their breath; and if God "gather into himself his spirit and his
breath, all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust
(Job 34: 14). Since it is "the Spirit of God that hath made man, and the
breath of the Almighty hath given him life" (Job 33: 4), it follows that
when God withdraws His Spirit it ceases to be man's spirit and man dies. Therefore
the Psalmist says, "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man,
in whom there is no help. His breath (ruach, Spirit) goeth forth, he
returneth to his earth and in that very day his thoughts perish" (Psa.
146: 3, 4).
Now this is very easy to be seen when we compare the taking
away of life with the giving of life. In the creation of man it is said that he
was formed out of the dust of the ground, and the breath, or spirit, of life
was breathed into his nostrils, and he became a living soul. God's Spirit is
the essence of life. He imparts it to the creature for a time, and it is
breathed by the creature as a means of receiving and retaining life. Then it is
the life, breath, or spirit of the creature. When death comes, the breath, life
or Spirit is expired, breathed out, "returns to God who gave it," and
the creature, whether it be man or animal, is dead. The spirit that was given
to man to make him alive is at death, taken from him; and as a result man
becomes as lifeless as he was before he received the spirit.
The words of Eccle. 12: 7 are quoted by believers in
the theory that the spirit of man is an immortal entity that survives the death
of the body in a conscious state, as a text that is thought conclusive. It is
only to a mind already filled with such a preconceived idea that the verse even
seems to support the dogma popularly held. Allowing it to read as they would
have it, thus, "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the
immortal entity shall return to God who gave it," it would have to be
revised to suit the claim made; for the verse makes no exception. What then
about those supposed immortal entities that are unfit to go to God, and that
are supposed to go in an opposite direction? If it be said that Solomon is
speaking of the good only, we answer, That is a mere assumption, worth nothing
without proof. We have already seen that God takes away the spirit of the
"creeping things" when they die, and is not the same true of man? Let
the mind be freed from the bondage of a superstitious theory of an
"immortal entity" and it will have no difficulty in seeing that the
spirit that returns to God who gave it is the spirit that God breathed into
man's nostrils to give him life. To produce life the spirit was given; to
produce death the same spirit is taken away. The Spirit was not an
"immortal entity" before it was breathed into man's nostrils; neither
is it after it returns to the source whence it came.
The spirit that "returns to God who gave it" is
not the man. It is not the he or the him; it is the "it."
It is an it that was given to a him and at death is taken
away from the him. It is therefore not the man that returns to
God, for man never was in heaven and therefore could not return to a
place he never came from. It was the spirit that was breathed into man's
nostrils to make him a living man that came from God, and therefore it returns
to God. It surely was not an immortal entity that was breathed into man's
nostrils. It was not a being. It was not a person. It was that which in
diffusion was capable of being breathed by the being, person, or man to whom it
was given. It came to the man from God; in death it is breathed out into the
great ocean of life or spirit and thus returns to God who gave it. The
man himself to whom the spirit was given did not come from heaven, but out of
the dust. "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the
ground" (Gen. 2: 7). The first man is of the earth, earthy" (I.
Cor. 15:47). Hence the statement in the verse in question, "Then shall the
dust return to the earth as it was," is a simple declaration that the man
that is out of the earth returns to the earth; which is in accord with the
sentence, "Dust thou--the man--art, and unto dust shalt thou return"
(Gen. 3: 19).
It is said that "the spirit of man is the candle
of the Lord" (Prov. 20: 27). It is that which lights up, as it were, with
life. When a candle is blown out its light is gone; darkness follows. So when
the spirit of life is breathed out it is as if a candle were blown out; there
is no light, no life, the darkness of death is the result. The breath or spirit
goeth forth, the man returns to the earth and his thoughts perish (Psa. 146:
4).
Spirit being the essence of life it is used in various ways
and applied to the various conditions in which life can be contemplated. Since
there cannot be mind without life, mind is sometimes called spirit; and so with
energy, disposition, etc. Hence it is said that Esau's marriage was "a
grief of mind unto Isaac" (Gen. 26: 35). "Mind" in
this case is from ruach. If it had been translated spirit, as it
is in numerous cases, it would have read, "which was a grief of spirit to
Isaac." But common sense would see that spirit meant mind. In Prov. 29: 11
it says, "A fool uttereth all his mind." It is said that when
the Queen of Sheba saw the glory of Solomon's kingdom there was no spirit in
her; from which it is readily seen that spirit is used for energy. It certainly
is far from meaning that there was no immortal entity in her. When we speak of
a haughty spirit, a proud spirit, a meek spirit, etc., we are giving expression
to the various characteristics of man, the word spirit representing the minds
of men in their various shades of character or disposition.
Stephen's dying prayer, as recalled in Acts 7: 59, is
thought by some to be proof of the theory that the spirit of man is an entity
separate from the body. Suppose we read it as such theorists would have it, it
would be, "Lord Jesus, receive my immortal entity." This would not
suit the theory, for it would not prove that Stephen continued to live after he
was dead, since the next verse says, "He (Stephen) fell asleep."
Reading the verse just as it is, with the mind freed from a false tradition, it
is very easy to understand. When Stephen's spirit had left him he was a dead
man; but he is in the resurrection to be made a living man again. To make him a
living man his spirit will be returned to him. Left without the spirit he is a
dead man; because "the body without the spirit (breath, see margin) is
dead (Jas. 2: 26). In the possession of the spirit he will be a living man
again.
Now to state the same fact in other words, when Stephen's life
returned to God who gave it he died. When the time arrives to raise him
from the dead to live again, his life will be returned to him. Stephen,
therefore, in the hour of death, with the hope of living again,
commended his life into the hands of Him who is the resurrection and the
life, and who said, "He that believeth in me, though he were dead
yet shall he live."
Some ask, Where did the spirit go when it left Stephen? The
answer is given in Eccles. 12: 7--"Then shall the dust return to the earth
as it was; and the spirit (life) shall return to God who gave it."
From God the spirits of all flesh come (Numb. 16: 22; Job 34: 14), and in death
to God they all return; for it is in Him all creatures "live and move and
have their being." Spirit, therefore, in the text under consideration stands
for life, without which thought the words cannot be properly understood.
What we have said in relation to Stephen's prayer is true
also of our Saviour's dying words, "Father, into thy hands I commend my
spirit" (Luke 23: 46). Having uttered these words it is said, "He
gave up the ghost," or spirit--ezepneusen--breathed out. In other
words he expired; he died. When Jesus had given up his spirit or life he was
dead, having "poured out his soul unto death." But God raised Jesus
from the dead (Acts 3: 15), and therefore returned to him his spirit or life.
With the understanding that the word spirit in the Bible
represents influence, disposition, mind, state of feeling, air, breath and
life, its meaning in any particular text can readily be seen by keeping in view
the context; and in those we have been considering it is clear that life is
meant.
In our definition of the Bible use of the word spirit we
have said that it represents a being. God is a spirit and yet we read of His
spirit. He is everywhere present by His spirit; but He, who is a spirit
being, has a "dwelling-place." Hence in the Lord's prayer we say,
"Our Father who art in heaven." As a being, therefore, He
dwells in heaven; but flowing out from Him as the center of the universe comes
His spirit, in diffusion, filling, upholding and sustaining all things. When we
speak of God as a being we have in mind Him "who dwells in the light which
no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see" (I. Tim. 6:
16). He is spirit focalized, as it were, into being, form or personality while
that which we speak of as His spirit is the effluence and influence
flowing out from His presence. While we can in a measure "know God"
to know whom is life eternal (Jno. 17: 3), we cannot fathom the depths nor
ascend the heights of His unapproachable being.
There are created beings who are called spirits; for of the
angels it is said, "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent
forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation"? (Heb. 1:14).
The angels having become spirit beings are consequently deathless beings; they
"die no more" (Luke 20: 36). Notwithstanding that they are spirits,
they are real, substantial personalities. They have appeared like men; have had
their feet washed and have partaken of food (Gen. 18:1-4).
Now the difference between angels and men is that the former
are spirit beings or bodies, and the latter are natural beings or
bodies. The popular theory that men are spirit entities dwelling inside natural
bodies make men to be like the angels now, which was what the serpent claimed
would be the case if our first parents partook of the forbidden tree. "Ye
shall be as gods," he said; and the believer in the theory that man is an
immortal spirit must believe that the words of the serpent came to pass--indeed
some of the popular leaders do not hesitate to say that every man is a god,
because he partakes of the immortal nature of God. Very few, if any of them,
will hesitate to say that when men die and thus escape the burden of the
"mortal coil" they become as gods, immortal spirits. This theory is
quite an invention in helping to prove that the serpent was right. It is an
attempt to reconcile the words of God, "Thou shalt surely die," with
those of the serpent, "Ye shall not surely die," by saying, Yes, they
shall die, as God said; and yet they did not die, as the serpent said; for
death was only the means of liberating the immortal spirit, which is the real
man, from the body, and giving it its freedom to roam in the heavens like the
angels or gods. What a good thing, according to this, it was, after all, that
Adam sinned; for if he had not sinned he would not have died, and if he had not
died he never could have been liberated from his body, he could not have become
as gods to roam in the heavens above; so it was a good thing the serpent opened
up the way by preaching the first popular theological sermon that was ever
preached. Reader, are you prepared for this? If you are you must believe the
serpent's lie and deny God's Word. If you are, you must believe the serpent to
have been a good creature instead of a "liar from the beginning," a
thing which, upon sober reflection, you certainly are not prepared to do.
We have seen that angels are spirit beings. That men are not
like them now in nature is shown by the words of the apostle Paul, when
speaking of man on this side the resurrection as compared with what he will be
on the other side. He says, in I. Cor. 15: 44, "There is a natural body
and there is a spiritual body. * * * Howbeit that is not first which is
spiritual, but that (is first) which is natural; and afterward that
which is spiritual." Man is therefore first a natural body or being, and
he may "afterward" become a spiritual body. After what? After the
resurrection; for he says, "It is sown a natural body and raised a
spiritual body" (verse 44). This is in harmony with our Saviour's
words concerning the same subject--the resurrection--when He says, "They
that 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 20: 35, 36). On the other side
of the resurrection, therefore, men who are worthy become like the angels, to
die no more, having then been raised spiritual bodies. Of this spirit nature,
which Paul says comes after the natural state, Christ is the
"first-fruits;" for since God's plan is orderly, it is "every
man in his own order; Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are
Christ's at his coming" (I. Cor. 15: 23).
By His power through His spirit God created all things and
formed all creatures. In the halo of His spirit all creatures dwell, and by
breathing it are sustained in life; and thus "in Him they live and
move and have their being." So long as they thus live they have the spirit
of life, consequently have mind, and may be in "good spirits" or
"bad spirits." They may be of "haughty spirit" or
"humble spirit." These are phrases descriptive of the various aspects
in which living creatures are seen--all the result of "the spirit of God
who hath made us, of the breath of the Almighty who hath given us life"
(Job 33: 4). While these phrases, however, would seem to convey the idea of
various kinds of spirits, being accommodative terms to express the various
shades of human experience, primarily there is only one spirit--the spirit of
God; and so long as the creature lives he breathes it; and therefore "all
the while his breath is in him and the spirit of God is in his nostrils"
(Job 27: 3), which is true of all creatures; for "they have all one breath"--ruach,
spirit--Eccles. 3: 19. No room is therefore left for the tradition that the
spirit of man is an immortal entity dwelling in the body in life and continuing
to be a conscious entity dwelling out of the body in death.
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
Having seen that man is not an "immortal soul" or
"never-dying spirit," we are prepared to accept the clear and
unmistakable scriptures which say that "the Lord God formed man of the
dust of the ground" (Gen. 2: 7); that "the first man is of the
earth earthy" (I. Cor. 15: 47); and we can understand the following
testimonies:
"Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the
Lord, which am but dust and ashes"--Gen. 18: 27.
"Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as
the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again?"--Job 10: 9;
4: 19.
"Man that is born of a 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." "Man dieth and wasteth away; yea
man giveth up the ghost and where is he?"--Job 14: 2-10.
"He knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are
dust"--Psa. 103: 14.
"For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of
man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth
away"--I. Pet. 1: 24; Jas. 1: 10, 11.
It would be impossible to understand these testimonies and
many more of the same character if man were such a "precious immortal
soul" as he is claimed to be by popular theology. That he is mortal is the
only view consistent with the Bible, reason, and the facts of human experience.
"Mortal man" is what, therefore, he is declared to be (Job 4:
17).
Coming to see that man is mortal, we are able to understand
the scripture use of the word death, and thereby see that "By one man sin
entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, in
whom all have sinned" (Rom. 5: 12). It is God's universal law that
"the wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23). Our first parents having
sinned, the "wages" necessarily followed; the penalty was pronounced,
"Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" (Gen. 3: 19). By sin
they were stricken with mortality, passing from a happy, healthful state into
one of sorrow, pain and death; ending at last in the darkness of death itself.
The causes that would produce death were set at work in their physical nature
as soon as the law of righteousness was broken. Thus the stream of human life,
having been poisoned by sin at its head, has carried sickness, sorrow, pain and
death down through all its channels, until universally it is "appointed
unto men once to die" (Heb. 9: 27), and death has passed upon all men
(Rom. 5: 12). It is safe, therefore, to conclude that, had not God's love moved
Him to offer a means of redemption, all the race would have gone down to dust
under the sentence, "unto dust shalt thou return," there to have
remained eternally. This the apostle Paul assures us of when arguing so
eloquently and so reasonably for the doctrine of the resurrection.
"If," he says, "the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised;
and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then
they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished" (I. Cor.
15: 16-18). "I know," he exclaims, "that in me, that is in my
flesh, dwelleth no good." "O, wretched man that I am! who shall
deliver me from the body of this death?" (Rom. 7: 18, 24). This is the
universal cry of man. The spectacle presented by human life past and present is
a world shrouded in the gloom of death, with its vast millions being carried
down as by an ever-restless and resistless stream into the dark depths of the
dismal grave.
When the apostle Paul speaks of the "mortal" he
means the man, recognizing nothing as the man except that being which is
"out of the earth, earthy," animated by the breath of life. This is
what he terms "a natural body," and this natural body, he says, is a
"living soul" (I. Cor. 15: 45). Of "natural bodies,"
"living souls" he says "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all
be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye at the last trump"
(verse 52). Redemption with him was redemption of the body--the man, without
the remotest hint of a soul or spirit entity separate from the body. "This
mortal," he says, "must put on immortality, and this corruptible must
put on incorruption;" and this is the triumph of the plan of salvation--the
swallowing up of death (by resurrection) in victory. Surely if the apostle
regarded the body as a mere receptacle for the soul, which the soul could
dispense with and be blissful without, his language concerning the redemption
of the body was extremely extravagant. It is only by recognizing that he viewed
man as a body and not capable of disembodiment that the force and eloquence of
his language can be understood. Entirely ignoring a separate soul or spirit
entity, he exclaims, "So when this mortal shall have put on
immortality, and this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, then
shall be brought to pass the saying, Death is swallowed up in victory." Of
the transportation of the soul at the death of the body, popular
theology says, "It mounts triumphant there"--to heaven, which if
true, the apostle lost sight of when he made a glorious resurrection the
"victory" for which he gives thanks to God; and it was in view of
this resurrectional victory over death that he exhorted steadfastness and
unmovableness, "always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye
know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord"--all because there is to
be a final triumph over death, by resurrection, and not because of a
disembodied triumph of the soul at death.
The writers of popular theology have "made a covenant
with death" by persuading themselves that it is a friend instead of a foe.
This is the logical sequence of the false and delusive theory that man is an
immortal spirit entity dwelling in the body till death liberates him. If man is
an entity capable of conscious existence separate from the body, and if as soon
as death takes place every good man enters a state of happiness, and if death
must take place before he can enter such a state, it follows that death is
indeed man's very best friend, and the poet might well say:
"I'll praise my Maker with my breath
And when my voice is lost in death
Praise shall my nobler powers employ."
But this would put a premium upon sin; for it was sin that
brought death into the world. It makes death the "gate to endless
joy" instead of the "wages of sin" (Rom. 6: 23). The cunningness
of the serpent has taxed its most eloquent powers in the use of enticing words
in both prose and poetry to persuade men that the death which its words of
falsehood brought upon man is, after all, a good thing. Sometimes it even has
the audacity to attempt the justification of its words, "Ye shall not
surely die," by saying:
"There is no death;
What seems so is transition,
This life of mortal breath
Is but the suburb of the life elysian,
Whose portal we call death."
But Nature protests against this and cries out, "Death
is a self-evident fact. I am stricken with the poisonous fangs of death. I am
sick, I am pained, I am dying. Had I all that the world contains how willingly
I would give it to save myself from death. 'All that a man hath will he give
for his life.'" It persistently refuses to be silenced by the sanctimonious
rebukes and frowns of the ministers of Satan feigning to be angels of light;
and knowing from experience and observation apart from revelation that it is
right, it confidently answers back, declaring, "Death is a fact."
If it is too glaringly false to say "there is no
death," the serpent's subtlety is not to be daunted by Nature's protests
nor to be defeated by positive facts. Its inventive powers of deception try
other tactics, cunningly admitting that death is a fact, but claiming that the
dread fact is a blessing; with which delusion it attempts to captivate the
feeble mind when overwhelmed with that grief and sadness that death inflicts
upon the bereaved. Calling again to its aid the enchanting power of poetry it
exclaims:
"Why do you mourn departed friends
Or shake at death's alarm!
'Tis but the voice that Jesus sends
To call us to his arms."
Having been first led into the snare of the popular delusion
that man is a spirit that can fly to realms of bliss in a disembodied state,
many easily become victims of this falsehood and drink deep draughts of the
intoxicating cup of the strong delusion.
"Console as you will, they receive it
As a well-meant alms of breath;
But not all the preaching since Eden
Has made death other than death."
If death is a call to the "arms of Jesus," why did
he weep over Lazarus' death, and why must he reign till death as the last enemy
is destroyed? Can it be that "death is the gate to endless joy" and
yet the Son of God came to "destroy him that hath the power of death, that
is the devil?" (Heb. 2: 14)? Is it that the devil has the power of death,
and yet that death is the "gate to heaven"? Has the charm of the
serpent's seed cheated men of all reason, that they can believe that
"death is the gate to glory" and yet to it the redeemed are to
exclaim, "O death, where is thy sting?" Is it that the cup of
delusion is so intoxicating as to cause minds that are reasonable in ordinary
things to believe that death is a friend and yet that "the sting of death is
sin"? How marvelous is the power of the serpent's craft and cunning,
that it can persuade men to believe that death is the gate to heaven while they
hold in their hands the Book that says that Jesus offered up prayers and
supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save
him from death, and was heard in that he feared" (Heb. 5: 7)? A
companion in labor, a fellow soldier with the apostle Paul, who ministered to
his wants, was "sick nigh unto death" (Phil. 2: 25-27), which,
according to popular tradition, was to be nigh unto heaven; and yet it is said
that "God had mercy on him," and saved him from dying; which was to
save him from going to heaven, if death is transition and transmission from
earth to heaven. Is it that God's mercy, by saving one from dying, prevents him
from passing from sickness and sorrow into joy and glory? Would it not--if
"death, translated into the heavenly tongue, means life"--would it
not be more merciful to allow death to do its work and relieve those who say:
"Burdened with this weight of clay
We groan beneath the load;
Waiting the hour that sets us free
And brings us home to God."
To prevent such from dying is certainly not an act of mercy;
it is cruel; for they claim to
"Know that when the soul unclothed
Shall from the body fly,
'Twill animate a purer frame
With life that cannot die."
With the apostle Paul, however, instead of death being such
a blessing as tradition has poetically and logically (from false premises)
concluded, it was a thing to be saved from, and to save Epaphroditus from it
Paul deemed an act of mercy. If an act of mercy even in one individual case,
how much more so will it be for God to at last save the world from it, when the
last enemy, death, is destroyed?
To Hezekiah the prophet Isaiah was sent with the message of
death, which he delivered in the following emphatic words: "Thus saith the
Lord, Set thine house in order, for thou shalt die and not live,"
(Isa. 38: 1). Notwithstanding that Hezekiah believed that he "had walked
before God in truth and with a perfect heart, and had done that which was
good," the thought that he must die caused him to "weep with a great
weeping;" and he prayed that he might be spared from dying. Why was this
if death is the beginning of a life of bliss? The popular delusion afforded no
consolation to Hezekiah; to him death was death. The words, "Thou
shalt die and not live" meant to him the cessation of life, sweet
life; and all that he had would he give for his life. For his prayer to be
answered to the extent of adding to his days fifteen years was to him a cause
for deep thankfulness to God.
Now it is clear from this that Hezekiah's view of death was
very different from that of the popular Christianity of our day. Instead of
expecting death to transport him to "the Eden above," he declared
that it would have been the "cutting off of his days;" that he would
"go to the gates of the grave;" that he would "not see the Lord
in the land of the living," and "behold man no more with the
inhabitants of the world." In the contemplation of death, instead of
"peace he had great bitterness;" and in that God had caused him to
recover, and had made him to live instead of die, He had "in love to his
soul delivered it from"--Where? From heaven? Yes, says the advocate of the
great delusion that death is the gate to heaven. Was Hezekiah thankful that his
soul was delivered from heaven? Did God in love to his soul deliver it from
that "heavenly place beyond the bounds of time and space, the saints
secure abode?" What folly men become victims of! Let Hezekiah proceed:
"Thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption."
What is the pit of corruption to which his soul (or he himself) would have gone
had he died? He answers, "For the grave cannot praise thee, death
cannot celebrate thee; they that go down to the pit cannot hope for thy
truth."
Thus we see that death is death and not life; that
death begins where life ends, and that instead of deluding ourselves that death
is an escape from a world of woe to a world of bliss, we must face the grim monster
as an enemy from whose relentless grasp we can find escape in Him only who is
the resurrection and the life; for "by man came death; by man came also
the resurrection from the dead" (I. Cor. 15: 21).
There are some who are deceived as to the meaning of death
by the cunning use their leaders make of the word where it represents a moral
state.
The words "You hath he quickened who were dead in
trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2: 1) are quoted and commented on in an attempt
to prove that men are not really dead when they are said to be. But if the word
death means life, why is it used as the opposite of life? Why not dispense with
the word entirely and use the word life? Why not read the verse referred to
thus: "And you hath he made alive who were alive?" Is it not clear
that when they were quickened or made alive they were in the opposite state
from that represented by the words "dead in trespasses and sins?" So
far as their physical life was concerned no change had taken place. Physically
they were alive, though they were bodies of death that would ultimately die. So
long as they were alive physically they were not in this sense dead; for it is
a contradiction of terms to say that one is dead and alive in the same sense at
the same time.
What kind of death had the Ephesians been made alive from?
This question can be answered by asking, What kind of life had they received?
They had been dead in trespasses and sins; they were now alive in the
righteousness of Christ. In other words they had been quickened into a state of
moral life from a state of moral death; and when they were in the former state
they were in the opposite of the latter, and vice versa. So when they
were dead in trespasses and sins they were dead in that sense; and when
they were quickened from that death they were alive in righteousness.
The text "But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while
she liveth" (I. Tim. 5: 6) is often quoted in an endeavor to prove that
death does not mean absence or cessation of life. Triumphantly we are asked,
"Is this woman destitute of life?" Our answer is, In the sense in
which "she liveth" she is not destitute of life, not dead, for the
very reason that "she liveth;" and in the sense that "she is
dead" she is destitute of life, for the very reason that she is dead.
There is one sense in which "she liveth;" there is another sense in
which "she is dead." Physically she is alive and therefore is not
dead; morally she is dead and therefore is not alive. The most ordinary powers
of discrimination are all that are needed in reading such words, and if it were
not for a blind zeal to sustain a dogma no trouble would be experienced. The
word death would be seen to be a necessary word in our vocabulary to express
the opposite thought to that represented by the word life.
There is no use trying to evade the force of facts and
scripture teaching on the question of what is death. We are all subject to its universal
power; the rich and the poor, the great and the small, the old and the young
are subject to death's tyrannical reign. To call it a friend does not change
the fact that it is a foe; that when it enters our homes to snatch from us our
wives, husbands, children or friends, it is the most unwelcome visitor and one
against which we would close our doors had we the power. We may believe as
strongly as it is possible for man to believe in the deceptive theory that
"death is the gate to glory," but our whole being rebels and protests
with all its might when we are threatened with a visit from death. The
self-evident fact that death is an enemy will not allow even the strong power
of superstitious delusion to hold back the burning tears that its presence will
cause to spring forth and trickle down our cheeks. You may talk and talk to the
grief-stricken one who bends over the corpse in the coffin about death being a
transition from a world of woe to a world of weal, and the distressed one may
try to cherish the thought and proclaim belief, but the tears cease not to
flow, the pain and anguish written upon every feature of the mourner refuse to
give place to joy and gladness. Tell us not, then, that death is the
"voice of Jesus to call us to his arms." It is the voice of sin, for
sin brought death. "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world and
death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have
sinned"--Rom. 5: 12. It is not the "gate to heaven," but the
gate to the grave. It is not the beginning of life--a better life--but the end
of life; and since "all that a man hath will he give for his life,"
he naturally revolts at death as his worst enemy.
When death is viewed in its proper light it is seen that for
the dead resurrection is the only hope, and that resurrection out of death is
the "gate to glory," the beginning of another life; and therefore it
is said: "By man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the
dead" (I. Cor. 15: 21). At the resurrection the judgment will therefore take
place, when "every man will be rewarded according to his deeds" (II.
Cor. 5: 10). It is not that good men are rewarded in heaven and wicked men
punished in hell from the time of their death till the time of resurrection and
then judged, the foolishness of which would be too great for even a fallible
human judge, to say nothing of Him who is great and wise and good and whose
ways are the perfection of order.
We do not depend, however, upon facts and reason only, nor
upon scripture testimony that may be regarded as inferential. The Word of God
is quick and powerful in proclaiming to us what death is, the state of man in
death and his hopelessness apart from resurrection. It is because death
destroys life and places man in total unconsciousness that so much importance
is attached to the resurrection. Some in the church at Corinth having denied
the resurrection of the dead, the apostle Paul is inspired with a marvelous
earnestness and logical power to show how utterly subversive of the truth such
a denial was; that it formed one of the chief elements of the gospel and that
salvation depended upon "keeping it in memory."
How can the doctrine of resurrection be held as important by
those who believe that death does not end life for the real man; that it only
relieves him of the burden of the "mortal coil" and sends him to a
land of bliss in the sky? Resurrection with such, instead of being gospel or
good news, is an encumbrance to their belief and an event that will be a
disturbance to the happiness to which death is supposed to send them. If at
death they "mount triumphant there" to unspeakable joy, surely to
compel them to leave their "thrones on high" and return to their
house of clay to be judged, to be placed in jeopardy, to be weighed in the
balances, would be the most awkward, inconsistent and unwelcome arrangement.
To those in Corinth who had denied the resurrection the
apostle says: "Awake to righteousness and sin not; for some have not the
knowledge of God; I speak this to your shame" (I. Cor. 15: 34). He had to
declare over again the gospel he had previously preached to them and "by
which they were saved if they kept in memory what he had preached to them,
UNLESS," he says, "YE HAVE BELIEVED IN VAIN" (verses 1, 2).
Believers in the popular theory of death being the beginning of a better life
might, from point of view, well reply to Paul with a rebuke for predicating so
much upon the resurrection. "Why, Paul," they could consistently say,
and do in effect say, "do you not know that the dead are 'not dead but
gone before,' to bask in bliss, and that it matters not to them whether there
is ever a resurrection or not? The body, which is all that is dead, was an
encumbrance to them before they died, before death, 'their friend,' the 'gate
to heaven, liberated them from their mortal coil; and now that they from their
'bodies have fled' and are 'animated by a purer frame,' why do you force upon
us the doctrine of resurrection of that body from which we are so thankful to
death for freeing us? Let the body remain where it is; let the resurrection go.
We would rather not be disturbed by resurrection after 'death has called us to
the arms of Jesus.'" To such, however, the inspired apostle rejoins with
an irresistible and overwhelming force that crushes the serpent's head in its
attempt to palliate its crime of causing death by deluding its victims with the
fatal falsehood that death, even though it did come by sin, is man's best
friend. With the burning words of the spirit of truth the apostle declares:
"For if the dead rise not, then is Christ not raised; and if Christ be not
raised your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are
fallen asleep in Christ ARE PERISHED" (I. Cor. 15: 16, 17). The dead
in Christ are dead and in their graves; and if there is no resurrection they
will never see life again, they are perished. Death robbed them of life and
imprisoned them in the grave; and if He who holds "the keys of death and
the grave," who "opens and no man shuts and shuts and no man opens;"
if He who is the "resurrection and the life" does not sound the trump
and raise the dead, then there is no hope for the dead, because they are dead
and not alive. If there is no resurrection of the dead, he continues to show,
then in this life only have we hope; and "if in this life only we have
hope in Christ we are of all men the most miserable" (verse 19); for
"by man came death" (verse 21); and if by man came not the
resurrection of the dead, then "in Adam all die" (verse 22) and there
is no making alive in Christ. "But now is Christ risen from the dead and
become the first-fruits of them that sleep" (verse 20); "Christ, the
first-fruits, afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming" (verse 23).
Then at the end of his reign, when "he hath put all enemies under his
feet" the last enemy shall be destroyed, DEATH" (verses
24-26).
The process by which man was formed and made alive is given
very clearly in Gen. 2: 7--"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." In this we see that, first man is formed from the dust;
second, the breath of life is breathed into his nostrils; and third, he--the
man formed out of the dust--becomes a living soul or creature. As the result of
this we now behold a living man. Now death being the opposite of life there
ought not to be any difficulty in understanding it. What made the man alive?
The breathing into his nostrils the breath of life, and starting respiration.
What would take away life? The breathing out of the breath of life, expiring,
and thus stopping respiration. When the life is thus expired or gone out of the
man he is dead, and when dead he is lifeless as he was before the life was
breathed into him. We have now a dead man who is "out of the earth,
earthy," whom "the Lord God formed of the dust of the ground,"
and of whom it is said, "Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return."
When this dissolution has taken place the man, as a living, formed being, is no
more. Death and dissolution have reversed what formation and life did. Hence
Inspiration says: "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man,
in whom there is no help; for his breath goeth forth (death), he
returneth to his earth (dissolution); and in that very day his thoughts
perish (unconsciousness)--Psa. 146: 4. So far as death is concerned, there
is no difference in its results in man and animal; all die alike, the
difference being in man's relation to resurrection. Hence Solomon's inspired
words declare: "I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of
men, that God might manifest them, 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 (in death) hath no pre-eminence above a beast; for
all is vanity. All go to one place; all are of the dust and all turn to
dust again" (Eccles. 3: 18-20). Then as a challenge to the believers in
disembodied spirits, and at the same time in transmigration from creature to
creature, he asks, "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and
the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth" (verse 21)? Let
the reader ponder over what has been said and carefully read the testimonies
following, and he will see that man's hope of a better life is not in death,
but by a resurrection from the dead:
"For I know that thou wilt bring me to death and to the
house appointed for all living"--Job 30: 23.
"Is there not an appointed time to man upon earth? are
not his days also like the days of a hireling?"--Chapter 7:1
"What man is he that liveth and shall not see death? Shall
he deliver his soul (himself) from the hand of the grave?"--Psa.
89: 48.
"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth
beasts; even one thing befalleth them; as the one dieth so dieth the other;
* * * all go to one place; all are of the dust and all turn to dust again."--Eccl
.3: 19, 20.
"All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is
as the flower of the field: the grass withereth, the flower fadeth, because the
Spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it; surely the people is grass"--Isa. 40:
6.
"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 goest"--Eccl. 9: 10.
"In death there is no remembrance of thee, in
the grave who shall give thee thanks?"--Psa. 6: 5.
"For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know
not anything"--Eccl. 9: 5.
"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 THAT VERY DAY HIS THOUGHTS PERISH"--Psa. 146: 3, 4.
"The grave cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate
thee; they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth."--Isa.
38: 18, 19.
The theory that man is an immortal soul that never dies and
is never buried has produced different inventions of resurrection in attempts
to fit the needs of the supposed case. Some have confined resurrection to a
moral quickening of the "immortal soul;" others have declared that it
consists in the escape of the "immortal soul" from the house of clay
and its elevation into the "spirit world." These speculators no doubt
saw that too much importance is attached in the Scriptures to the resurrection
to allow of its application to the body as a mere tabernacle for the soul which
was only a burden during natural life, and which to be rid of is the unhampered
and unburdened liberty of the soul to bask in bliss. No theory of resurrection
would fit this disembodied existence as well as the ascension of the soul out
of the body into heaven, and if the words of scripture could be manipulated to suit
this invention the body might just as well, indeed much more conveniently, be
left to moulder eternally in the dust. Having shown that disembodied existence
is a myth it will be readily seen that to invent such theories of resurrection
is only to add myth to myth. The fact that death is the cessation of life to
the real man, and that the man is buried in the dust and is then in the dust
and nowhere else, makes a real resurrection a necessity.
Death having passed upon all the race in Adam when he
sinned, escape from death is what is needed in order to salvation. Since the
sentence is "Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return,"
the escape can be found only in a resurrection that will bring man out of the
dust. "By man came death;" and if the race had been left in the
condition into which it fell in Adam and no other provision had been made,
every one of the race must have gone down to dust without a shadow of hope.
Having sinned and thus lawfully brought himself into this
hopeless and helpless state, man had no one to blame but himself; and if means
of escape are provided it must be an act of love and not one that could be
claimed upon a basis of man's right. Therefore if salvation is offered to
fallen man it will be by love; and so it is said: "God so loved the world
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not
perish but have everlasting life" (Jno. 3: 16). Perishing,
therefore, man is, and if the love of God is not accepted by faith and
obedience perish he will, for "in Adam all die" (I. Cor. 15: 22).
Death is the legacy, so to speak, Adam left to his entire family, and in him it
is all that can be hoped for. We are "by nature children of wrath,"
"without Christ," "having no hope and without God in the
world" (Eph. 2: 3-11, 12).
Realizing that this is the condition the human family is in,
we see that a gospel that will meet the requirements of the case must provide
for resurrection. "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by
sin, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned" (Rom. 5:
12); "by man came death" (I. Cor. 15: 21) and "in Adam all
die" (verse 22). How can escape be found from this except through
resurrection? Exclude resurrection from the gospel and it will be no gospel to
man in the plight in which scripture and facts prove him to be. Spiritualize
the resurrection and you might as well deny it altogether; for what is the use
of a "spiritual resurrection" as a means of reaching the literal fact
of death, and dissolution in the dust? Death, as we have seen, is terribly
literal, and a resurrection that does not deal with the fact of death as it
really is, is a delusion and a snare. The cure must reach the disease; the
plaster must fit the wound. It is worse than vanity to theorize about a resurrection
of a supposed spirit entity out of the body and lose sight of the resurrection
of that upon which death and dissolution to dust came. It is grasping at an
imaginary shadow and losing the substance. It is the substantial man that is
the "thou" of the words, "Dust thou art and unto dust
shalt thou return," and it is this man that must be the subject of
resurrection if the requirements of the case are to be met. In view of the
reality of this it is said: "By man came death; by man came also the
resurrection of the dead" (I. Cor. 15: 21). The first man gave all who
were his, death; the second man will give all who will be truly his, life.
Related to the first by nature, we are related only to death; related to the
second by grace, we are related to resurrection and life.
Whenever and wherever the gospel is made known to man the
resurrection must be found in it, either expressed or implied; for if it is
not, then in this life only we have hope and we are most miserable; since death
is the extinction of life, if there is no resurrection there is no hope beyond
the present life. It is said by some that resurrection is a New Testament
doctrine, and that scarcely is it referred to in the Old. If the gospel was
made known to Adam and Eve when they found themselves alienated from God and
sentenced to death, it must have offered a hope of real deliverance from the
real destiny brought upon them. The serpent's lie, "Ye shall not surely
die," was what had caused them to sin. On this account the serpent became
a representation of sin, and sin became personified and was called a serpent.
The effectual way to kill a serpent is to crush its head; and this is used to
represent the taking away of sin and redeeming from its power. What power had
sin obtained? It had power to take life, for "the wages of sin is
death" (Rom. 6: 23), and it had the power to take man into its
prison-house, the grave. This is the power that must be destroyed if escape is
ever possible; and what will release the captives from the prison-house? Resurrection
and life, is the only answer--the only provision fully meeting the requirements
of the situation; and therefore resurrection is implied in the first gospel
words that were ever uttered--"I will put enmity between thee (the
serpent) and the woman; and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy
head and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Gen. 3: 15). To bruise the heel of
the woman's seed was to put Him to death but not to destroy Him; to bruise the
serpent's head was to destroy sin's power to hold the woman's seed in death and
the grave, and therefore resurrection was promised in the gospel when it was
first preached, afterwards more fully made known as God's plan of redemption
became unfolded, and clearly demonstrated when "the God of peace brought
again from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ, that great shepherd of the sheep,
through the blood of the everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13: 20).
It will be seen from the "bruising of the heel" of
the seed of the woman in the crucifixion of Christ that as a means to the
removal of sin and destruction of its power over man God saw fit to require
sacrifice, even that of His beloved Son. All the sacrifices of the law of Moses
were shadows of the "better sacrifice" made by Christ. With this in
view we may go back to Eden and see the resurrection implied in another way
besides in the words concerning the bruising of the serpent's head.
Death is not brought to view, either in man or animal, until
after sin is committed. The first intimation we have of it as a matter of fact
is in the words, "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make
coats of skin and clothed them" (Gen. 3:21). The forgiveness of sin is
spoken of in the Scriptures as a covering of nakedness. David says: "Blessed
is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered" (Psa. 32: 1).
Again: "Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people, thou hast covered
all their sin." Sin having caused shame of nakedness literally in our
first parents, nakedness became a representation of man's unfitness to be in
communion and conciliation with God. By the sacrifice of Christ he became an
acceptable mediator between God and man and the "holy place," as it
were, in which God would become reconciled to man. By another figure of speech
we are spoken of as "putting on the new man," and are "in
Christ new creatures" (II. Cor. 5: 17). Having "put on the new
man" (Col. 3: 10), he is to us a garment of righteousness to hide the
nakedness of sin in which we were placed by the disobedience of the "old
man" (Col. 3: 9). In all this we see sacrifice, a garment for covering
sin, and redemption; and all brought about by the death, burial, and
resurrection of Christ.
For "coats of skins" to be made for Adam and his
wife there must have occurred the death of the victims from which the skins
were procured; and is it going too far to say that their death was sacrificial,
typical of Christ's death, and that the clothing made from the skins
represented redemption in Christ? The death of Christ without his resurrection
would not have procured the necessary release for man. "Christ died, yea, rather
is risen," says the apostle Paul; and "if Christ be not raised
your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins" (I. Cor. 15: 17). So
that resurrection is the vital question--that which the sacrificial death leads
to and makes possible. What then is implied by the slaying of victims to
provide coats of skins for Adam and Eve? Is it not resurrection from the dead,
a release from the sentence and its effects that sin had brought upon man? In
the very beginning, therefore, when we have death as a fact, we have
resurrection from the dead as a promise; and the vital element of the gospel as
first preached is resurrection.
Coming one step down, we next see resurrection typified in
Abel's "excellent sacrifice," speaking of which the writer to the
Hebrews says: "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice
than Cain" (Heb. 11: 4). There must have been instruction given to Adam's
sons before they could know that God required sacrifices, and that the
instruction was sufficient to render it possible for them to offer acceptable
sacrifices is shown by the fact that Abel had a faith that enabled him to make
one that was more excellent than that of Cain's and by which he "obtained
witness that he was righteous." To be righteous is to believe and obey
God; and to do this there must be a knowledge of what to believe and what to
do. The only faith that will please and without which "it is impossible to
please God" (Heb. 11: 6) is one that "cometh by hearing, and hearing
by the word of God" (Rom. 10: 17). It must have been by a faith of
this kind that Abel was moved to offer "a more excellent sacrifice."
We may be sure of this from the fact that the apostle prefaces what he says the
ancient worthies did by faith, by clearly defining what "faith" as
used by him meant. The first verse of the chapter begins: "Now faith is
the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it
(this defined faith) the elders obtained a good report." Then he proceeds
to state what the elders did by the power of this faith.
Abel, therefore, hoped for something promised; and his
intelligence in the promise is exhibited in the excellence of his sacrifice.
Christ, the seed of the woman, who would "bruise the serpent's head"
had been promised--promised as a sacrifice, the Lamb to be slain, whose blood
would bring remission of sins, the "Lamb of God that taketh away the sin
of the world." Here is Christ crucified, buried and raised again from the
dead; and here, therefore, is resurrection for all in Him who have Abel's
faith. Did Abel "by faith" show forth in his sacrifice of the
"firstling of his flock" Christ put to death only? Belief in the
death and burial of Christ, unless he saw his resurrection to "die no
more," would to have been belief in good news of deliverance; but seeing
that the sacrifice of Christ would give him power over death and the grave, he
saw in him "the resurrection and the life," and his faith taught him
that he that believeth in him, though he were dead, yet shall he live"
(Jno. 11: 25). Thus the resurrection is seen in every step as we come down the
ages to Him who broke the barriers of the tomb and came forth and declared:
"I am he that liveth and was dead; and behold I am alive for evermore,
amen; and have the keys of hades and of death" (Rev. 1: 18).
That resurrection is not so clearly and fully set forth in
plain language in the Old Testament as it is in the New is, no doubt, the
reason some think it almost exclusively a New Testament doctrine. Being of
little importance, too, to a theory that sends good men to happiness and the
wicked to torment at death, it has not been viewed as a serious
omission, even if the Old Testament did have but little to say upon the
subject. Indeed, the popular theory would be much relieved if the doctrine were
not taught in the New Testament. With a few clear exceptions resurrection in
the Old Testament is shown by types and taught by implication. Wherever the
gospel is set forth necessarily it is either expressed or implied. A striking
instance of implied resurrection is seen in the words, "I am the God of
thy fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob"
(Ex. 3: 6). One who believed that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were alive in heaven
would not see resurrection implied in these words. Indeed the words are often
quoted to prove the disembodied existence of these fathers in a happy state.
But to one who believed that they were dead and "gathered to their
fathers" in sheol, or "in the dust of the earth" (Dan. 12: 2)
this passage would be an implied proof of resurrection. It was the Saviour's
clear discernment of this that enabled him to silence the Sadducees, who denied
the resurrection. They were sticklers for the writings of Moses, and from a
passage in these writings Jesus proved the doctrine they denied. "Now that
the dead are raised," he says, "even Moses showed at the bush, when
he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob. For he is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for all live unto
him"--Luke 20: 37, 38.
To fully see the force of this argument the facts must be
kept in view. The Sadducees denied the resurrection; Jesus is proving the
resurrection. He is not proving that the fathers were alive and stood in no
need of resurrection, as believers in the immortality of the soul claim from
this passage. If it were true that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were alive in
happiness, and that they--their "immortal souls"--never died the
Saviour's argument for resurrection based upon the words quoted would be
utterly without force and entirely irrelevant. The believers in the conscious
state of the dead when they use this text to prove that doctrine in effect
declare it to be useless for the purpose quoted by Jesus. They say it does not
prove resurrection, but it proves conscious existence independently of
resurrection. The argument as used by our Lord, however, is this: Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob are dead; God is their God, and He is not the God of the dead,
but of the living; therefore they must have a resurrection to life from the
dead. They "live unto him" now, because it is His purpose to raise
them to life. As a matter of fact they are dead; and it is because they are
dead that resurrection is necessary to make them alive; and God's purpose to
raise them is irresistibly proven by His words, "I am the God of Abraham,
and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob."
Let there not be an attempt to evade this by saying that our
Saviour was speaking only of the body. He is speaking of the men named.
God was the God of these men, not of bodies of which they could live
independently and better without than with. They were among those who had
"died in the faith, not having received the promises" (Heb.
11: 13). "Having obtained a good report through faith, they received not
the promise; God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us
should not be made perfect" (Heb. 11: 40).
In the offering of Isaac we have another way of showing
forth resurrection. Many claim it was unnatural and cruel of Abraham to be so
willing to make an offering of his beloved son, and that the demand that he should
do so was inconsistent with a God of love and justice. This disparagement of
Abraham's faith and reflection upon the character of God exhibits destitution
of the faith which made such an act possible for a loving father. It
also shows ignorance of God's ways and His object in making trying demands.
If Abraham had seen only the death of his son the demand
would have been greater than human nature could bear and the object in view
would not have been reached, namely: to make a practical test of his faith.
Faith here, as in the Scriptures generally, must not be viewed as blind trust,
but as intelligent confidence. The faith that sustained Abraham in such a hard
trial is defined by the writer to the Hebrews as the "substance of things
hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen." And then it is added:
"For by it the elders obtained a good report," etc. (chapter 11: 1,
2).
We have already shown that a faith pleasing to God is based
upon His promises. It was confidence that what God "had promised He was able
to perform" that constituted a faith intelligent and strong enough to
stand such a rigid test as Abraham was subjected to. Belief that God would
restore his son to life was the faith that inspired Abraham and prevented him
from "staggering at the promises of God." The promises that had
begotten this great faith were as follows: "For all the land which thou
seest to thee will I give it and to thy seed forever. And I will make thy seed
as the dust of the earth" (Gen. 13: 15, 16). "And the Lord said,
Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; seeing that Abraham shall
surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the
earth shall be blessed in him" (Gen. 18:17, 18)? The fulfillment of these
promises depended upon Isaac, for it had been told Abraham, "In Isaac
shall thy seed be called" (chapter 21: 12). How could he reconcile
promises involving the blessing of all nations through Isaac with Isaac's death
when a youth? Only by believing that God would raise him to life again. He
would reason thus: God has said that from me through Isaac a great nation shall
come, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; He now requires me to
take Isaac's life; God's promises can not fail; therefore if I take my son's
life God will restore him to me alive and thus fulfill His promise. That this
was Abraham's view of the case is shown by the apostle Paul in the words,
"accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from
whence also he received him in a figure" (Heb. 11: 19). Here then is a
figure of resurrection through Christ, who was offered as a sacrifice in order
that He might be practically the "resurrection and the life" (Jno.
11: 25).
Redemption is nothing without resurrection. Resurrection is
a necessary part of redemption. Therefore the offering of Isaac was a type
fully showing forth redemption in its various aspects and especially
foreshadowing resurrection. In it the great love of God is seen, the willing
resignation of the Son to the Father's requirements; the necessity of offering
for sin; the fact that God only could provide the sacrifice; that death by
shedding of blood must take place and that resurrection would surely follow;
thus redemption would be complete when every child of God would be brought out
of death into immortal life to be received into the love of a Father's embrace
without danger of ever more falling.
In the history of Israel as a nation and in what is yet to
take place in their national revival, the resurrection is represented, and when
the types and shadows of the law are considered it is continually brought to
mind. Passing these by we come to positive and literal declarations in the Old
Testament that cannot be misunderstood, and about which it would seem no
dispute could possibly arise.
The patriarch Job, after taking a view of the work of death
among men, and showing that in general man "lieth down and riseth
not," cries out in the great agony he was then suffering, "O that
thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret until thy
wrath is past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time and remember me"
(Job 14: 13). Then he asks: "If a man die shall he live again?" and
his faith in God's promises answers: "Thou shalt call and I will answer
thee; thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands." The "set
time" that God would call and he would answer was the time of the
resurrection. Then will Job, with all of like faith, answer. This
"call" is undoubtedly the same that in the New Testament is spoken of
as the "sound of the trump."
Further along Job gives still clearer expression to his
knowledge of resurrection. He says, "For I know that my Redeemer liveth,
and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; and though after my
skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God; whom I shall see
for myself, and mine eyes shall behold and not another, though my reins be
consumed within me" (Job 19: 25-27).
In the Psalms there is abundant proof of resurrection. In
chapter 49 the Psalmist, like Job, declares that the masses of men, who are
without understanding and are "like the beasts that perish," die in
their folly without hope of resurrection. But in contrast with this he says:
"But thou wilt redeem my soul from the power of the grave; for thou wilt
receive me." Of the resurrection of Christ and of his own through Christ
he says: "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 (sheol, the grave),
neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption" (Psa. 16:9,
10). That this refers to resurrection is made more evident by the apostle
Peter's reference to it in Acts 2: 27-31. Referring again to the destiny of men
in general and in contrast with his hope concerning himself and all of his
faith, the Psalmist prays to be delivered "from men of the world, which
have their portion in this life;" and then of himself he says, "As
for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied when I
awake with thy likeness" (Psa. 17: 14, 15).
It was hope in resurrection to the Divine nature, which he
terms "thy likeness," that inspired David's last words. The
"everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure," which
"was all his salvation and all his desire" (II. Sam. 23: 1-5),
depended upon resurrection; without it the covenant could never come into
force. In making this covenant with David, God assured him that he would raise
up Christ to sit upon his throne and that of his kingdom there should be no
end" (II. Sam. 7: 12-15; Luke 1: 32, 33; Acts 2: 30). He knew that Christ
would suffer death, and yet God covenants that he should rule upon David's
throne forever. How could this be without resurrection? How could David derive
consolation from this covenant unless he understood and believed the doctrine
of resurrection? The fulfillment of the covenant he knew was not to be until
"a great while to come" (II. Sam. 7: 19). He had been told that when
he would "sleep with his fathers," his "days having been
fulfilled," (verse 12), his Son and heir should be raised up. Then he is
assured: "Thy throne and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before
thee" (verse 16). It followed therefore, that his resurrection must take
place.
Let it not be forgotten that "the dead know not
anything;" for if the reality of death is not kept in view the absolute
necessity of resurrection in these cases will not be seen. If as is popularly
claimed, David did not die, only forsook his body and went to heaven in a disembodied
state, it would be difficult to see why he exulted in hope of resurrection, and
declared that he would be satisfied when he would "awake." It is
quite difficult to persuade believers in the disembodied existence of the dead
to look at the words of scripture that assure us that David is "both dead
and buried" (Acts 2: 29); that he "fell on sleep and saw
corruption" (chapter 13: 36); that "David is not ascended into the
heavens" (chapter 2: 34). These truths must be accepted, however, before
the importance of resurrection can be seen.
The prophet Isaiah is very clear in declaring his hope in
the resurrection. After speaking of some who were dead and should not live,
deceased and should not rise, he exclaims: "Thy dead men shall live,
together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing ye that
dwell in dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast
out the dead" (chapter 26: 19). In the prophecy of Ezekiel there is a very
remarkable representation of resurrection. It is a vision of the national death
state and resurrection of Israel (Ezek. 37: 11); but it is based upon the
literal resurrection of the dead. It would be without force if there were no
resurrection of the dead. This vision of dry bones is not only a case of Old
Testament proof that there is to be a resurrection, but it shows the state of
the dead and the process of resurrection in such a way as to utterly condemn
the notion of man's disembodied conscious existence when dead. The prophet is
carried in spirit and "set down in the midst of the valley of dry
bones," and the question is asked, "Can these bones live?" when
the prophet answers, "O Lord God, thou knowest." He is told to
prophesy upon these dry bones, and say unto them, "O ye dry bones, hear
the word of the Lord" (verses 3, 4). The process of resurrection then
commences: "There was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came
together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and flesh came up
upon them and the skin covered them above; but there was no breath in
them." Then "the breath came into them, and they lived and stood upon
their feet, an exceeding great army." To a believer in the immortality of
the soul this vision of resurrection must appear very deficient indeed; so much
so that the most vital part of man, yea, the man himself, is left out entirely.
There is not a word about calling back "immortal souls" from hell and
heaven to reinhabit their resurrected bodies. Ezekiel's vision of resurrection
is as silent about the supposed "immortal soul"--the real man--as
Moses is in giving account of man's formation. In the formation he is formed of
the dust of the ground, the breath of life is breathed into him and the formed
man is made alive. In the reformation or resurrection, bones, sinews, flesh and
skin come together; then the breath is breathed into the formed man and he is
thereby restored to life. How much more suitable to popular theory this vision
would have been if it had clearly stated that only the bodies of the dead were
reformed; and when it was said "there was no breath in them," instead
of calling for breath to be breathed into them, if the happy "immortal
souls" had been called down from "heaven," and the miserable
"immortal souls" called up from "hell," and all had been
commanded to re-enter their rebuilt houses of clay, how convincing it would
have been that the popular theory of man in death is true. It would have been
very easy for a popular theologian to state the case in this way. Why did not
the prophet do so? The answer is, Because the "immortal soul" is a
fiction, and it is man that is dead, and it will be the dead man
that will be the subject of resurrection.
The resurrection is set forth in symbol and in plain words
in the book of Daniel. The prophet sees in vision a man clothed in linen, whose
loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz; his body was like the beryl and his
face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his
arms and his feet like in color to polished brass, and the voice of his words
like the voice of a multitude" (chapter 10: 5, 6). This description is
similar to that given in the book of Revelation, and represents Christ as the
multitudinous man--that is, Christ returned to the earth, the dead saints
raised and with the living glorified with immortality. These saints will, after
resurrection and glorification, constitute the one body of which Christ will be
the Head to rule the world in righteousness. Since they have been redeemed and
glorified by one man, even Jesus, the aggregation is represented in the picture
of a wonderful man portrayed in the words quoted. "When he shall
appear," says John, "we shall be like him; for we shall see
him as he is" (I. Jno. 3: 2). It follows, therefore, that this vision
represented the resurrection state of the redeemed; and therefore the
resurrection is implied by it. Having seen the glory of the resurrection state,
the prophet is personally caused to pass through a symbolical death and
resurrection. Death is symbolized in the words, "Therefore was I left
alone and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me;
for my comeliness was turned into corruption and I retained no
strength." After this a hand "touched me, which set me upon my knees
and upon the palms of my hands," etc. This would seem to be a fitting
representation of death and resurrection. In any event, the doctrine was
clearly revealed to the prophet, as will be seen in chapter 12: 1, 2. Here we
have words about which we cannot be mistaken. The prophet is taken down in the
program of events to the time when "Michael shall stand up, the great
prince which standeth for the children of thy people." The angel is
speaking to Daniel of the end of the kingdoms of men and the establishment in
their place of the kingdom of God. This great revolution, he shows, will cause
"a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation even to that
same time." Then he continues: "And (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." Daniel is not given to understand that
he or any of his faith will receive reward before their resurrection. He is
told that it is after resurrection that "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."
In the interval, which he is informed must elapse between
his time and the resurrection, the program of events previously symbolized will
be carried out in the world. Periods of time represented by "time, times
and a half," "one thousand two hundred and ninety days" and a
"thousand three hundred and five and thirty days" were to intervene
between an event subsequent to the prophet's time and the "time of the
end;" and Daniel is given no hope, and entertains no hope of salvation
till the end of the events symbolized, or "that time" when
"Michael shall stand up" and "many of them that sleep in the dust
of the earth shall awake." The last words spoken to him gave him the only
consolation that could be given to one who must "sleep in the dust of the
earth." No use is found for the common custom of consoling men with the
hope of soon shuffling off the mortal coil, and "mounting triumphant
there" to realms of bliss. Such delusive hope was not given by the angel;
but he says: "Go thou thy way till the end be; for thou shalt rest and stand
in thy lot AT THE END OF THE DAYS" (verse 13).
In the prophecy of Hosea (chapter 13: 14) the restoration of
Israel to national life is spoken of as resurrection from the grave. This is a
similar comparison to that of the prophet Ezekiel, where the "whole house
of Israel" is represented as a "valley of dry bones," a passage
we have already considered. There is a fitness in this, for it is said of
Israel as a nation, "O Israel! thou hast destroyed thyself" (verse
9). While the children of Israel have been preserved from destruction in spite
of attempts of all nations to blot them out of existence, as a nation they have
been dead. When the restoration of the kingdom of Israel shall take place it
will be a national resurrection. "What shall the receiving of them be but life
from the dead?" asks the apostle Paul (Rom. 11: 15). Israel after the
flesh is nationally dead, and some of Israel after the spirit are literally and
individually dead. Both will be the subjects of resurrection; and the words of
Hosea, though the context seems to confine them to Israel nationally, are
applied in I. Cor. 15: 54, 55 to the literal resurrection of the dead, or of
Israel according to the spirit. God through the prophet says, "I will
ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O death!
I will be thy plague; O grave! I will be thy destruction" (verse 14). This
is the "saying that is written" referred to by the apostle Paul, and
when fulfilled he says: "Death is swallowed up in victory." There are
many testimonies of resurrection in the rest of the minor prophets, but
sufficient has been given to show that it is a doctrine underlying the entire
teaching of the Old Testament. Without it the ancient worthies would have been
just as hopeless as those living in the apostolic times, when it was said,
"If there be no resurrection of the dead * * * our preaching is vain and
your faith is also vain."
The resurrection is so fully taught and there is so much
predicated upon it in the New Testament that he who runs may read the doctrine
there, and special examination of numerous testimonies is unnecessary, even if
our space allowed. A careful reading of one chapter--I. Cor. 15, is enough to
convince anyone of the truth of the doctrine. But it is not as necessary to
prove the resurrection as it is to show what it really is and that future life
depends upon it. Few there are professing to believe the Bible who will not
admit that it is taught; but it is nullified by the tradition that
"immortal souls" go to heaven and hell at death. After proving
resurrection by showing it to have been a fact in the case of Christ, the
apostle emphasizes its necessity; and in doing so shows that the dead are dead,
and that without resurrection dead they must remain. This chapter (I. Cor. 15) is
nearly always read at funerals; and the speaker is sometimes drawn into the
powerful current of the apostle's argument, until one is almost persuaded that
he accepts the doctrine of resurrection as of vital importance--so much so that
the only hope for the dead is in resurrection. But we are soon disappointed
when the "orthodox" creed begins to assert itself, and breaks out in
such expressions as "He is not dead but gone before;" "Weep not,
our friend is better off;" "He is in the land of bliss," etc. This
not only spoils what the officiating preacher has said when he is in the
current of the teaching of the chapter, but it entirely destroys the force of
the apostle's argument--rather the apostle's argument utterly destroys the
orthodox tradition expressed in the foregoing quotations. If "he is not
dead but gone before," is "better off" and in "the land of
bliss," why read a chapter that has not a single word in it about one that
is dead having "gone before" to "the land of bliss" to be
"better off"? Why read a chapter that only treats of resurrection and
that predicates all upon it? If the resurrection has nothing to do with the
real man who has "gone before," and only provides for the reforming
of the body, what consolation can there be in it when it is claimed that the
"departed" is "better off" without his body than he was
with it? When the "departed" was in the body before "he went
before" it is claimed his experience was,
"Burdened with this weight of clay
We groan beneath the load:
Waiting the hour that sets us free
And brings us home to God."
If, now that he is dead, he is "set free" from the
"weight of clay under which he groaned" and has "gone home to
God," why read a chapter about a resurrection that is supposed to have to
do with the "weight of clay" only, and what consolation can there be
in contemplating a time when the "departed" must return from his
"home with God" to his "load" and "weight of
clay"? Resurrection in this case is surely the most awkward and
inconvenient prospect for the "departed" to contemplate. To them the
prospect of a resurrection would make them "miserable;" but with Paul
it was, If there is no resurrection of the dead there is only this
life; and "if in this life only we have hope in Christ we are of all
men most miserable" (verses 16-19).
Now it is safe to say that any theory that will destroy the
force of an argument of an inspired apostle must be false. The burning words of
the Spirit enabled the apostle in this chapter to present one of the most
powerful, logical arguments to be found in the Bible. In it he lost sight of no
truth that could in any possible way be used to weaken his force or in
any manner to oppose his trenchant position. This must be admitted by all who
accept the inspiration of the apostle in this chapter. Yet, if the popular
theory of heaven-going at death for the righteous be true, Paul's argument is
absolutely destitute of force, truthfully or logically. This arises from the
fact that the apostle on the one hand starts out with the postulate that the dead
are dead and not alive, and that if they ever live again it must be by
resurrection. On the other hand the advocate of the popular tradition starts
out with the assumption that the dead are not dead, only their bodies, and that
they are better off since they died than they were before. With premises so
opposed how can a conclusion be reasoned out without conflict? The inspired
apostle starts with the truth and finishes with the truth. The advocate
of the popular theory starts with a false position and his finish must
necessarily be false. The result is collision in this way: Paul's argument is
that, since all who have died are dead, if there is no resurrection then
"they also which have fallen asleep in Christ are perished."
It follows, therefore, that "our faith is vain" if in "this life
only we have hope;" and we who have supposed ourselves to be in Christ and
thereby in the resurrection "are of all men most miserable." But a
champion of the "orthodox" theory steps forward and says: You are
wrong in the start, Paul; the dead are not dead, only their bodies. "They
that have fallen asleep in Christ" are not asleep, they are awake in the
happiness and bliss of heaven, and when we die we shall go to them. Therefore you
attach too much importance to resurrection, we can do without it; for
death to us is what resurrection is to you. Let them deny the resurrection and
our faith is not vain; neither are we "miserable," for our faith is
not dependent upon resurrection; it is that we shall be happy in heaven as soon
as we die; and therefore for you to say that if there is no resurrection they
that have fallen asleep in Christ are perished is without foundation. Thus a
false theory nullifies the Word of God; and the fact that it does is sufficient
to expose its fallacy and render it worthy of condemnation by all who are
willing to "let God be true though all men are liars."
With these truths kept in view a simple reading of the
following scriptures affords all that is necessary to show that man's relation
to the law of sin and death necessitates resurrection in order that he may
enjoy the blessings of life and immortality:
The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there
is no resurrection * * * Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not
knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they
neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in
heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that
which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I 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. 22: 23-32.
And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee;
for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.--Luke 14: 14.
Marvel not at this; for 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 damnation.--Jno. 5: 28, 39.
These things said he; and after that he said unto them: Our
friend Lazarus sleepeth, but I go that I may awake him out of sleep * * * Jesus
saith unto her. Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that
he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus saith unto her,
I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were
dead yet shall he live.--Jno. 11: 11, 23-25.
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the
time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism
of John unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained
to be a witness with us of his resurrection.--Acts 1: 21, 22.
He (David) seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of
Christ, that his soul was not left in hell (hades, the grave) neither
did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are
witnesses.--Acts 2: 31, 32.
The Sadducees came unto them, being grieved that they taught
the people and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.--Acts 4:
1, 2.
And with great power gave the apostles witness of the
resurrection of the Lord Jesus.--Acts 4: 33.
Then certain of the philosophers of the Epicureans and the
Stoics encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some,
He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods; because he preached unto them
Jesus and the resurrection.--Acts 17: 18.
When they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked;
and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.--Acts 17: 32.
But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees and
the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council: Men and brethren, I am a
Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am
called in question.--Acts 23: 6.
But this I confess unto thee, that 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; and have hope towards God, which they
themselves also allow, and there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of
the just and the unjust.--Acts 24: 14, 15. See also verse 21.
Who (Christ) was made of the seed of David according to the
flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the spirit of
holiness by the resurrection from the dead.--Rom. 1: 3, 4.
For if we have been planted in the likeness of his death, we
shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.--Rom. 6: 5. I. Cor. 15, the
entire chapter.
I count all things but loss * * * that I may know him, and
the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made
conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the
resurrection of the dead.--Phil. 3: 8-11.
Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ,
let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance
from dead works and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of
laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal
judgment.--Heb. 6: 1, 2.
Women received their dead raised to life again; and others
were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better
resurrection.--Heb.11: 35.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope
by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.--I. Pet. 1: 3.
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us
* * * by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.--I. Pet. 3: 21.
Not only do these testimonies show that the resurrection is
an essential part of the gospel, that salvation depends upon it, but they
contain irresistible proofs that death ends the present life and holds man
helpless and unconscious in its grasp, and that no future life can be reached
by the dead except through resurrection. It is "in the resurrection that
we are to be made like the angels to die no more." It is in the
resurrection that the just are to be recompensed. It is in the resurrection
that the righteous are to come forth to eternal life and the wicked to
condemnation. It was "in the resurrection at the last day" that
Martha believed her brother would rise again. Since all depended upon the
resurrection of Christ there must be "ordained witnesses" to testify
of its truth. Since David could not hope for the realization of God's promises
without resurrection he spake of the resurrection of Christ; and in fulfillment
of the promises of Christ's resurrection, and as assurance that all depending
upon it would at last be fulfilled, it says: "This Jesus hath God raised
up." It was the part of Epicurean and Stoic philosophy to deny and mock at
the resurrection of the dead. It was for the hope of the resurrection of the dead
Paul was called in question. He had "hope towards God that there would be
a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust." It was by
the resurrection of Christ from the dead that he was "declared to be the
Son of God with power by the spirit of holiness." The hope of the Roman
believers was that they would be "in the likeness" of Christ's
resurrection. Paul counted all else as nothing "if by any means he might
attain to a resurrection from among the dead." The doctrine of the
resurrection of the dead is one of the principles of the foundation upon which
the church of Christ is built. The sufferings of the ancients were that they
may obtain a "better resurrection." By the resurrection of Christ the
apostles were "begotten again to a lively hope," and without
resurrection their hope would be a dead one, for nothing but death would be
their lot. Baptism doth now save us "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ
from the dead." Everything, all things everywhere in the Scriptures in relation
to future life and happiness depend, absolutely depend, upon the resurrection
of the dead; yet we are asked by a paganized and papalized Christianity to
believe that all good men have gone and now go and will continue to go to the
happiest realms of bliss conceivable at and through death before, without, and
absolutely independent of resurrection. O ye priests, ye parsons, ye preachers,
why will ye pervert the ways of the Lord? We hurl back your God-dishonoring,
truth-nullifying, soul-damning heresies to the darkest dungeons of a heathen,
priest-ridden, superstitious, savage past, and we declare before God and man
that you and "your fathers have inherited lies, vanity and things wherein
there is no profit."
In John 11 we have an account of a case of a once happy
little family stricken with sorrow by the visitation of man's great enemy,
death. A beloved brother had died, and two loving and devoted sisters were left
to mourn his loss. Here is the scene that death, cruel death, always brings to
view wherever its cold withering hand clutches. Who is there that has not been
in its presence, and witnessed aching hearts, agonizing cries and scalding
tears? And who can be there and not feel the darkness of the hour, and not be
touched with the sympathetic chord that vibrates through every throbbing heart?
Why these pangs? Why this pain, this sorrow and sighing? What is the cause? The
answer to it all is in the dreadful word, death. Yes, it is death that
makes the heart ache and the tears burst forth. In its presence the Son of God,
"Jesus wept." What a rebuke to the false tongues that in death's
presence say it "is the voice that Jesus sends to call us to his
arms!" "Our friend Lazarus sleepeth," said Jesus. "If he
sleepeth he doeth well," said his disciples, speaking of natural sleep.
And if he sleepeth in death he doeth better, say the modern believers in the
conscious, happy state of the dead of Lazarus' faith; for he is not asleep but
basking in bliss. Look at those loving sisters weeping. Send some one to
console them. Whom shall we send? Shall we send one who will console them with
the words, "He is not dead but gone before"? Or shall we send one who
will console them with the words, "Thy brother shall rise again"?
If you send a popular preacher who has "made a covenant with death"
he will use the former method; if the Son of God go he will use the latter--he
will give resurrection as the consolation. Why this difference? Because
one represents the lie of the serpent, "Ye shall not surely die," while
the other is the "Seed of the woman" and represents the truth of God;
"Thou shalt surely die." Let the preacher say "He is not
dead," "There is no death," and let the serpent hear him, and if
he still has the power of speech he will say, "That is right; that is the
doctrine I taught when I said 'Ye shall not surely die,' and I am pleased to
hear preachers faithful to me in saying that 'there is no death.'" Let the
Saviour say plainly "Lazarus is dead," and "Thy brother shall
rise again," and let the serpent and popular preacher hear him and
they will charge him with being a materialist, believing that the man is dead
and unconscious, depending upon rising again for life. Let them stand by when
Jesus calls Lazarus back to life as an act of kindness, and they will charge
him with an act of cruelty; because to them it is calling a man back from bliss
to re-enter a life of woe. How can these things agree? How can truth and
falsehood walk together? They cannot; and now whose consolation to the two
weeping sisters is consolation? Is there consolation in a lie? No; there
is only deception in it, cruel deception; all this is the deception of popular
funeral sermons, rebuked and condemned by the Son of God in words that sound
out, echo and re-echo the mournful sound, "Lazarus is dead," and
rebuked again in words of cheer that give hope, the only hope, "Thy
brother shall rise again."
The resurrection of Lazarus had for its object more than
simply temporary gratification of the two bereaved sisters. Its object was to manifest
the power of God in Christ and to give a practical demonstration of the words
Jesus uttered, "I am the resurrection and the life." The real and
permanent benefits of resurrection were not realized by Lazarus, and will not
be till the time contemplated by Martha when she said, "I know that he
shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." This miracle
of our Lord's was therefore an illustration of the resurrection, and shows us
the meaning of the word of which resurrection is a translation. That word is anastasis
and means a standing again--that is, a standing again in life. For one to stand
again in life implies that he stood once, then fell from standing in life,
and then was made to stand again in life; and this implies that during the interval
between there was no life, but death. This is why Jesus could say plainly,
"Lazarus is dead," and then promise, "Thy brother
shall rise again."
If we follow the Saviour to the tomb of Lazarus we shall
have the question of the state of the dead and the resurrection from the dead
decided by the highest authority and in the most demonstrative manner. A
believer in the conscious happy state of the righteous in death would expect to
hear Jesus call Lazarus down from heaven; and since they expect to see their
friends in heaven, bodiless though they be, they would expect to see Lazarus
come and re-enter his body. On the other hand, a believer in the scriptures,
that the "dead" are "asleep in the dust of the earth" and
that "the dead know not anything" would expect to see Lazarus called
out of the grave where he lay dead and buried. Of course the expectations of
the one are doomed to disappointment, as all theories and hopes contrary to the
Word of God are, while the other will see just what the Scriptures prepare him
to expect. Jesus is at the tomb; the stone is removed therefrom; prayer is
offered to God, and the Son of God "cried with a loud voice, Lazarus,
come forth! And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot
with grave-clothes, and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith
unto them, Loose him and let him go." Surely there is no room here for the
popular theory of the consciousness of man in death.
With an air of triumph the question is asked, What will you
do with the words, "He that liveth and believeth in me shall never die?"
Our answer is, Believe these words just as fully as those that immediately
precede them, namely, "He that believeth in me, though he were dead,
yet shall he live." Lazarus had believed and he was dead; yet he
should live. Jesus had said plainly, "Lazarus is dead." Who
will say he never died or apply the words "shall never die" to all
men? He who would must use one scripture to contradict others and would support
the serpent's lie, "Ye shall not surely die." The two statements of
verses 25 and 26 must be true; and therefore one class will be dead but shall
be made alive by resurrection, while the other class will be alive and not
dead; and Christ at the time referred to--the "resurrection at the last
day"--having come to change the mortal to immortality "in a moment,
in the twinkling of an eye" (I. Cor. 15: 52), they will "never
die." This is the "mystery" that Paul said he would show and did
show when he said, "We shall not all sleep" (I. Cor. 15:51, 52), for
some will be "alive and remain to the coming of the Lord" (I. Thess.
4: 15).
When Martha met Jesus she exclaimed: "Lord, if thou
hadst been here my brother had not died." It is possible she only meant
that if Jesus had been at Bethany he would by his power to heal sicknesses have
prevented the death of Lazarus; but are not the words capable of a much more
far-reaching application, especially in view of the saying of Jesus, "He
that liveth and believeth in me shall never die?" Let us suppose Christ
returned today; how would it be with those who live and believe? Would it not
be as Martha's words declare, and as more fully explained by the apostle Paul:
"We shall not all sleep, or die"? When the Lord does return our
brothers and sisters who, like Lazarus, are dead, shall be made alive by
resurrection; and our faithful brothers and sisters (in the Lord) will not die,
but will "be changed in a moment in the twinkling of an eye at the last trump."
The whole matter concerning the "quick and the dead" is therefore
dealt with in this narrative, and we can confidently say of all in Christ as
Martha did: "I know he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last
day."
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
That "Life is sweet" is a self-evident fact.
"All that a man hath will he give for his life." This is true of life
as it now is, with its many hardships, pains and disappointments. That life was
a blessing, and felt to be so, in the beginning, is evident from the fact that
death was the punishment or penalty of the law as first given to man. If death
had been as good as life it would not have been a punishment for sin; and if
life was not a self-evident blessing there was no force or utility in the
threat of death.
Every one who has experienced, if but for a moment, the
exhilarating energy and glow of health, even in this mortal state, knows how
sweet life is. When one is in full possession of all the nobler faculties, and
is successfully engaged in what he is conscious of being a good and noble and unselfish
work, is not his whole being thrilled with the rapturous pleasure of life? No
man in possession of reason, who sanctifies his energies to what he sincerely
believes to be a good work, fails to feel that life is a blessing--even mortal
life--for which deep gratitude is due to the Source and Giver thereof.
To test this let us suppose one asking himself if he would
like to have such a moment of thrilling pleasure perpetuated, and who would
doubt as to the answer? If, taking the present life's bitterness with its
sweetness, a man will give all that he hath for his life, what would he say
were he promised undisturbed endlessness of the pleasure he has momentarily
experienced when in the full exercise of his nobler faculties?
Had life remained as it was in man when he was created, its
possession must necessarily have been unmarred happiness and pleasure, even
though its recipients were "of the earth and earthy;" its enjoyment,
no doubt, being intensified according as its possessors exercised the mental
and moral faculties with which they were endowed; the range being not between bad
and good, but between good and better, with the superlative degree
possible by an ultimate ascension to a nature of greater capacity and
consequently of still greater and grander blessings.
But man sinned and mortality, with all its consequent evils,
befell the race, and here we are with life but a little span, a flower of but a
day, which buds, blossoms and then withers and vanishes away. Its perpetuation
is impossible now, because the present is life manifested in mortal bodies,
journeying from birth to death under the heavy burden which sin has imposed
upon a fallen race. And now, what will meet the requirements and supply the
needs of man in this state but a beneficent offer of eternal life? And this is
what a God of love has offered: "For God so loved the world, that he gave
his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but
have everlasting life" (Jno. 3: 16). This is a life which essentially
involves the blessings which belong to life. To be possessed of it is to be
possessed of all its consequent and inseparable blessings; and endless life
therefore cannot possibly be or become the possession of any but those who fit
themselves for it by complying with the conditions of the Great Life Giver.
When we show from the Scriptures and reason that death is
real, those who advocate the immortality of the soul, without stopping to hear
the rest, cry out, "Materialism! Infidelity!" and delude themselves
with the idea that if death is the cessation of life then death ends all. But
if we show that death is real, we also show that there is resurrection. If we
show that in death life ends, we also show that in resurrection life again
begins. If we teach that man dies, we also teach that he may live again. If we,
in harmony with scripture, set forth that man has not now the power of endless
life, we also show that if he complies with the conditions he "might not
perish, but might have everlasting life." Surely this is more consistent
than to teach that every man, good, bad and indifferent, is in possession of
the power to live forever. Reason would say that those only who are fit to live
forever ought to live forever. There is a state of fitness for eternal life set
forth in the Scriptures, and where this fitness is not, eternal life is not
given. Everlasting life is therefore a matter of promise and may be hoped for
by those only who believe the promises and do the commands. All must admit that
salvation depends upon belief of the gospel. The principal promise in the
gospel is eternal life. Now if one believes that he is in possession of eternal
life, or a "never-ending soul" by birth independently of the gospel,
he cannot believe the true gospel; for how can he hope for that which he
already hath? The apostle Paul says: "The wages of sin is death; but the
gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 6: 23).
Here is death on one hand and life on the other. The "orthodox"
theory is that all men will live forever, the only difference between the good
and the bad being in the place where they live. They say the good will live in
"heaven" and the wicked will live in "hell;" and when they
are asked how long will the wicked live in "hell" they answer, Just
as long as the good live in heaven, and that is eternally. Therefore the wicked
have been given eternal life to live in "hell" and the good have been
given eternal life to live in "heaven;" so that Paul's words should
be changed to read, The wages of sin is eternal life in hell and the gift of
God is eternal life in heaven. With them the gospel is not to save men from
perishing and to give them everlasting life; for they are "never-dying
souls" and therefore never-perishing souls, but according to the word of
God it is that they "might not perish, but have everlasting
life," that God has sent His Son.
Now that eternal life is a matter of promise to the
righteous only the following testimonies will clearly show; and these carefully
read and studied will make manifest that man by nature is not related to the
law of life and immortality--only to the law of sin and death; and that if he
ever obtains eternal life it must be by becoming related to the law of life,
which he can do only in the way God has revealed in His Word.
And this is the promise that he hath promised us,
EVEN ETERNAL LIFE, through Jesus Christ.--I. Jno. 2: 25.
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God,
according to The PROMISE OF LIFE which is in Christ Jesus.--II. Tim.
1: 1.
IN HOPE OF ETERNAL LIFE, which God that cannot lie promised
before the world began.--Titus 1: 2.
That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs
according to THE HOPE OF ETERNAL LIFE.--Titus 3: 7.
Who will render to every man according to his deeds; to them
who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory, honor and immortality,
eternal life.--Rom. 2: 7.
For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in
God, and when Christ, who is our life, shall appear, THEN shall ye also
appear with him in glory. Col. 3: 4.
All that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall
come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life.--Jno. 5:
28, 29.
He that soweth to the spirit shall of the spirit reap
life everlasting.--Gal. 6: 8.
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 20: 35,
36.
Could anything be more clear than these testimonies? God
"hath promised us eternal life through Christ," not given it to us by
natural descent from Adam; Paul was an apostle "according to the promise
of life which is in Christ Jesus," not a life in us regardless of promise.
"In hope of eternal life," not in possession of it. "Heirs
according to the hope of eternal life," not yet inheritors of it; to those
who seek, God "will render eternal life;" not that it is the
possession of all without seeking. "Your life is hid with Christ in
God;" not hid in us in the form of an immortal soul--hidden so that it was
never seen by any one; "Shall come forth unto the resurrection of
life;" not that they are in possession of it when dead and do not need
resurrection to it; "Shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting;" not
that it comes through fleshly inheritance without sowing or reaping;
"Shall be accounted worthy, * * * shall die no more;" not that they
will never die whether they are worthy or unworthy.
In the struggle to escape the force of these testimonies the
immortal soul theorist falls back upon his inventive powers and produces a
meaning for the words "eternal life" that is as much opposed to the
Scriptures as the dogma he seeks to sustain. The meaning of eternal life, he
says, is not a living without end, but it is happiness. No doubt if he were
allowed to revise the Bible he would make many improvements (?) in the
phraseology of the prophets, Christ and his apostles; and if his theory is the
true one the words and inspired men need much revision--no, not revision, but
radical change. When the angel declared to the prophet Daniel that some who
"sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake to everlasting life,"
according to this "orthodox" invention that the meaning is happiness,
the angel should have said, "come forth to everlasting happiness."
The Saviour's words, "Strait is the gate and narrow is the way that
leadeth unto life" should have been, "leadeth unto happiness;"
for the popular belief is that those who go in the "wide way" that
our Saviour says "leadeth to destruction" do not go to
destruction, but to a life that lasts as long as that of those who go in the
"narrow way." Those, however, who reverence the Word of God will
never allow such changes to be made by uninspired men. They will not charge men
who spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit with using the word life
instead of happiness. They will believe that the "narrow way leadeth to life
and the wide way to destruction," and that eternal life is what
the gospel offers to the good, and eternal destruction, not eternal
preservation, to the bad.
Of course eternal happiness will be the boon of those who
are given the power of endless life; for only those worthy of happiness will be
allowed to live forever; and therefore the great object is to get life through
Christ, in whom eternal life is hid till he appears. When this life is obtained
at the appearing of Christ, "then shall ye also appear with him in
glory" (Col. 3: 4), and that glorious life will necessarily bring
happiness.
Refuge is again sought in such statements as these:
"He that hath the Son hath life" (I. Jno.
5:12). "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life" (Jno. 3:
36). "He that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me hath
everlasting life" (Jno. 5: 24).
With these quotations, snatched out of their connection, the
champion of the immortality of the soul becomes vehement, especially when he
presses down with all his might upon the little harmless word "hath."
A man with a poor case has generally a poor memory and is sure to confuse and
contradict himself. Our opposers, when dealing with the testimonies quoted
showing that eternal life is a matter of promise, claim that the meaning is
eternal happiness, and that we are not to enter upon a realization of eternal
happiness till death; but forgetting this when quoting the texts now under
consideration, they place all dependence upon the word hath as proving
present possession of eternal life. Come, gentlemen, we must remind you of your
own definition and hold you to it in these verses; and you must be prepared to
read your definition into these disconnected statements you quote, in doing
which do not forget to put your whole stress upon the word hath. You
must now quote thus: "He that hath the Son hath eternal
happiness," "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting
happiness." Do you really believe that he who is a true follower of Christ
hath this happiness now? If so, how about the "much
tribulation" through which we must enter the kingdom? Met in this way our
opposers are quite ready to say that "hath" is used in a prospective
sense. But this concedes the entire question; for if hath is prospective when
applied to eternal happiness, and if eternal happiness is synonymous with
eternal life, then eternal life and eternal happiness, so far as actual
possession is concerned, are prospective and not a present possession.
The texts are quoted with the emphasis on the word
"hath" to prove the immortality of the soul. The claim is this: We
have souls that are immortal, and therefore must live forever. When we read
such phrases as "hath life" they mean that we have immortality
or "immortal souls." Now let the reader calmly consider the
disconnected quotations in the light of the context and it will be seen at once
that if it be allowed that "hath life" means actual present
possession, the possession is conditional upon believing in the Son of God, and
therefore has no reference whatever to the delusion of natural inherent
immortality. If the word "life" in the texts means "immortal
soul," then they could be read, "He that hath the Son hath an
immortal soul." "Yes," say some of our opposers before they see
what they are stumbling into, "that is just it; hath an immortal
soul." But it is "he that believeth on the Son of God" that hath,
while you claim that all men have immortal souls whether they know anything
of the "Son of God" or not. And now if you will quote the verses in
full you will see that they declare that "He that hath not the Son hath
not life." Let us now have a little emphasis upon the word
"not" and it will relieve the hard-pressed little word hath of
the ponderous weight you put upon it. For argument's sake you may stick to your
cherished unscriptural phrase "immortal soul" and read: "He that
hath not the Son of God hath not an immortal soul." This works
disastrously to the "immortal soul" and present possession of eternal
life cause; and it shows that when it says eternal life it means eternal life,
and that it is conditional upon believing in the Son of God, and therefore
never to be the possession of the wicked.
A drowning man will snatch at a straw, and finding defeat
inevitable on every hand our opposers will sometimes say: "Well, we will
grant your claims for conditional life and that it is for the righteous only,
and we will still hold you to the phrase 'hath life'--that is, that the
believer hath eternal life as an actual possession; for the text says: 'He that
hath the Son hath life.'" Very well; stick to the text, the whole
of it, and not a garbled part of it, and we shall soon see the fallacy of your
present actual possession theory. You now want to have it that every man who
believes in Christ is in actual possession of eternal life. Now suppose there
is a "falling away from the truth and a giving heed to fables," does
the actual possession cease to be actual possession? For when one departs from
the Truth and "falls away" and "crucifies the Son of God afresh
and puts him to open shame" (Heb. 6: 6), surely such an one "hath not
Christ;" and the text says, "He that hath not the Son of God hath
not life." Is it that one can come into actual possession of eternal
life and then lose possession; and, if his sin is not unto death, repent and
again come into actual possession, and so on and so on? No sane man would
accept such an absurdity, and a theory that so enslaves one as to shackle him
with such chains of darkness and folly had better be relegated to the darkness
whence it came.
Now the words "hath life" are clearly explained by
the apostle Paul when he says: "Ye are dead, and your life is hid with
Christ in God." It is yours so long as you believe in and are faithful
to Christ; but you must thus hold fast to Christ in order to have the life, for
the life is in him now, not in you. "When Christ, who is our
life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in
glory" (Col. 3: 3). "As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he
given to the Son to have life in himself." And now, as the Son hath life
in himself, so will he, at his appearing, give to the righteous man to have
life in himself. The difference between now and then is that now the faithful
man hath life in Christ, while then Christ will give him that life and he will
have it in himself. Then it will be present actual possession; but the
possession of the worthy only, never of the unworthy.
It is no use to deny facts. For poor suffering, mortal man
to persuade himself that he is now in possession of eternal life is worse than
folly, when his own feelings of weakness are a standing denial of such a
delusion. Surely when we are thrilled with the power of endless life our
experience and sensations will be very different from what they are now. The
conception we can now have of the exhilarating delight that possession of such
a boon will impart can only be of the faintest character, by momentary feelings
of ecstacy and by living hope and longing anticipation. However brightly and
warmly such a hope may burn within us, the actual fact of our present condition
will cry out, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the
body of this death?" Why should it be thought for one moment that the
power of endless life is the natural possession of all men, when it is seen
that it necessitates the eternal perpetuation of evil, sin and sinners? Ought
not the beautiful thought that life eternal is only for the good, and that all
evil, all sin and all sinners will at last cease to be; ought not, I say, such
a consistent thought, based upon scripture and commendable to the highest
faculty of reason as it is, summarily and forever banish from the mind any
theory that would necessitate the endlessness of sin, sorrow and suffering? It is
true and everything to the contrary is false, that "God so
loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in
him might not perish but have everlasting life." Let the glorious sound go
out, "Ho everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters;" for he who
is our life has said: "I will give unto him that is athirst of the
fountain of the water of life freely." No longer let us "spend our
money for that which is not bread and our labor for that which satisfieth
not;" but let us hearken diligently and God will make with us an
everlasting covenant; yes, a covenant of life and peace and joy, and give us at
last the "sure mercies of David."
When our Lord says he who believeth on him shall not
"come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life," he
shows clearly that only those who believe are in any way related to the law of
life and immortality. Before they "passed from death unto life" they
stood related to the law of sin and death only; and therefore the only way one
can pass into a relation to eternal life is by complying with the conditions
laid down. This goes to more fully establish the fact that eternal life is
conditional and not a natural inheritance. But the words, "is passed from
death unto life" are sometimes used in the fruitless attempt to prove
present actual possession of eternal life, and the conditional feature of the
text is ignored. We have said sufficient to show that actual possession
now is out of the question; and it is necessary under this heading only to show
how the words in question can be understood in harmony with the facts in the
case and the general teaching of the Scriptures.
We often say of one condemned to death, "He is a dead
man," as soon as the law has pronounced him guilty, though the execution
may be put off for a considerable length of time. By this we mean that legally
the man is dead, and his actual physical death is, as a consequence, only a
question of time. When such a person is pardoned by the mercy of the officer having
the legal power we can truthfully say. "He is passed from death unto
life." We are, of course, speaking of his relation to law. Under the
sentence the person is legally dead, having no rights as a citizen. When he is
pardoned he passes back into the relation he once was in and is again a living citizen,
having the rights of a citizen, and is, as lawyers say, "known in
law."
Now the apostle Paul says: "By one man sin entered into
the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have
sinned" (Rom. 5: 12); and, "By one offense judgment came upon all men
to condemnation" (5: 18). So we are all born under the sentence of death
that was passed upon Adam, he being the whole race in one man, and the
condemnation followed as he became multiplied generation after generation. Men
are thus "by nature children of wrath" (Eph. 2: 3). In addition to
this all adults are sinners by personal transgression. Thus are all men by
nature and by actions under the just condemnation of God, "born in sin and
shapen in iniquity" and "dead in trespasses and sins"
(Eph. 2: 1). Here is relationship to the law of sin and death. Now when we by
belief of the gospel and baptism into Christ pass out of this hopeless state
and in him who is our life are "made free from the law"--the
condemnation or the sentence--"of sin and death" there is "no
condemnation." We are "in Christ Jesus." The "law of the
spirit of life in Christ hath made us free from the law--the condemnation--of sin
and death" (Rom. 8: 1, 2), and the "dead in trespasses and sins are
quickened" or made alive (Eph. 2: 1). We were dead legally and morally.
When we were dead legally and morally we were waiting death physically without
hope of life; now that we are alive legally and morally we are waiting the
"redemption of the body" (Rom. 8: 23). Legally and morally it
is therefore true of one in Christ that "he is passed from death
unto life;" and if he continue faithful he "shall not come into
condemnation."
To understand the sense in which we are said to be alive in
Christ now we have only to consider the sense in which we were dead in Adam
before we were baptized into Christ. It will then be seen that the present
phase of the subject has to do only with our relation, our legal and moral
status, while the future has to do with the physical change of our "vile
bodies." The passing from death unto life in the former sense is essential
to that of the latter.
But some ask, If we passed from death unto life legally and
morally why do we die? The answer to this is that salvation in Christ is not
necessarily to save men from dying now, but to save them out of death. This
will be clearly seen by the words of Heb. 5: 7, where it is said Christ
"offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto
him that was able to save him from death AND WAS HEARD." His prayer
was not that he be saved from dying; for in that he was not heard, for he died.
It was that he be saved from death, or out of death, and in that he was heard.
Those who are alive when the Lord comes will necessarily be
saved from dying; but that is only an incident in the working of the great plan
of salvation, which is to save us out of death. While mortal man is
walking about the earth or lying in the grave he is in death so far as his
physical state is concerned; and when deliverance comes he will be saved out of
death in whatever part of its domain he may be found. The final salvation out
of death into immortality will be for those only who stand in the relation of
things expressed in the words "passed from death unto life," and who
have thereby entered into the atonement provided in Christ by the goodness and
mercy of God.
How necessary, then, that we should make haste to place
ourselves in a right relation now; put off our relation to the law of sin and
death and pass into that of the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus,
which is the law of life and immortality. Surely the taste we now have of
life's sweetness, even bowed down with the weight of mortality, is sufficient
incentive to strive for that glorious life of eternity, which shall know no
sickness, sorrow or pain, but which shall bask in the bliss of perfect health,
with all the faculties aglow with divine energy and the sweet realization of a
glorious immortality.
What has been said in reference to eternal life is largely
applicable to the subject of immortality; for eternal life implies immortality,
the distinction being only in that the former has to do with the duration of
life, while the latter relates to the nature that is capable of enduring
forever and of sustaining endless life.
The word immortal in its adjective and noun forms is only
used in the Scriptures six times. So it will be an easy matter to examine and
see what man's relation to immortality is. When we confine our investigation on
the subject in hand to the sense in which the Scriptures speak of immortality
the only possible conclusion is that man is mortal and can become immortal only
by complying with the conditions laid down. Following are the passages in which
the word is found:
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the
only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever.--I. Tim. 1: 17.
Which in his times he shall show, who is the blessed and
only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality,
dwelling in the light, etc.--I. Tim. 6: 15, 16.
But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour
Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and
IMMORTALITY to light through the gospel.--II. Tim. 1: 10.
Who will render to every man according to his deeds; to them
that by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory, honor and immortality,
eternal life.--Rom. 2: 7.
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this
mortal must PUT ON IMMORTALITY, then shall be brought to pass the
saying that is written. Death is swallowed up in victory.--I. Cor. 15: 53, 54.
From the first text quoted it will be seen that the word
"immortal" is used to describe God's nature. May we not therefore
safely conclude that it describes that, and that only, which is perfect, pure
and holy? If the word can be applied to sinners and to the supposed personal
monster called the devil, where would be the relevancy of the apostle's words,
"Now to the King immortal, invisible?" If the devil is
immortal he could be spoken of in the same way. Now to the devil immortal,
etc., and if every man is immortal any king could be addressed, "Now to
the king immortal." It must be seen therefore that the word is expressive
of a nature that is pure and perfect and in no way applicable to sinful, mortal
man, nor to an immortal devil.
In the second quotation given we have the word applied to
God in this form: "Who only hath immortality." This must mean that it
is God's underived, glorious nature; that He only hath it to give, which
implies that when it is given it is a blessing of the highest nature. If,
however, it is given to all men regardless of merit--to the most depraved as
well as to the most noble and pure in heart--it is not a blessing; for surely
the possession of a never-dying nature to the wicked is a curse, not only to
them, but an eternal curse, an indelible blot in the universe of God. God only
hath immortality underived; and from Him it must have come to any of His
creatures who may be in possession of it, and from Him alone can it be derived
by any who may yet receive it. He has blessed angelic "ministering
spirits" with it. Who will say He has given it to one single being who is
not good and acceptable to Him, worthy and fit for endless existence? To say so
is to charge God with folly; for it charges Him with imparting His own
underived and glorious nature to depraved beings, resulting in the
ceaselessness of depravity of the deepest dye.
The apostle Paul means the same thing when using the word
immortal in reference to God that the apostle Peter does when he uses the words
"divine nature." What is the "divine nature?" we may ask.
Immortal, Paul answers. What is man's nature? let us ask. Only presumption will
dare answer that it is also divine nature. What is the devil's nature? we may
also ask. Only blasphemy will answer that it is divine nature. God never did
and never will give His pure and perfect nature to sinners. The word immortal
when used in relation to man speaks of the great blessing he may attain to
through Christ. It is "brought to light through the gospel," hence
offered to man in the gospel. To claim that all men are in possession of
immortality is to deny the gospel; for it is to claim possession of what the
gospel offers, and in effect to say we do not need what God in His goodness has
offered us.
When man was created he was "made a little lower than
the angels" (Heb. 2: 7), a fact which shows that angels are not
"departed spirits" of the Adamic race; but that they are beings of a
preadamic race. It is not revealed what or where they had been, nor upon what
conditions they became what they were when man was made "lower" than
they. That they were immortal when man was made "lower" is
proof that man was not made immortal; and that they were immortal is clear from
the Scriptures. In the resurrection the righteous are to be "made equal to
the angels" to "die no more" (Luke 20: 36); and it is then
"this mortal shall put on immortality" (I. Cor. 15: 54) and
"mortality is swallowed up of life" (I. Cor. 15: 54). It therefore
follows that since man is made immortal at the resurrection and that makes him
"equal to the angels," he was not immortal when made "lower than
the angels," and is not immortal now, and that angels were immortal when
man was made and therefore "partakers of the divine nature" before
the Adamic race existed, and therefore that they are not the "departed
immortal souls" of Adam's descendants. It is reasonable to conclude that
their possession of immortality--divine nature--was obtained upon conditions
complied with. When and how is not revealed, and it is sufficient for us to
know that they are immortal and that we may become "equal to the angels to
die no more" upon our complying with clearly defined conditions laid down
in the Word of God.
By "patient continuance in well-doing" we must
"seek for glory, honor and immortality" if ever we come into
its possession; but one deluded with the belief that he is in the possession of
it by nature will not be apt to seek for it. To put ourselves in the right
position to believe and receive the benefits of the gospel we must discard the
tradition of natural immortality and accept the truth of man's mortality, and
his natural relation to the law of sin and death. All who do this will now seek
for immortality, and at the resurrection this corruptible will put on
incorruption and this mortal will put on immortality, and then shall be brought
to pass the saying, "Death is swallowed up in victory." Now we are
suffering from the sting of death; but then the righteous will triumphantly
exclaim, "O death! where is thy sting? O grave! where is thy
victory?" And our praise will go up to a merciful and beneficent Creator
in the words, "Thanks be to God who giveth us the victory through our Lord
Jesus Christ."
A correct understanding of man's relation to the law of sin
and death and of life and immortality opens the way out of the dreadful and God-dishonoring
thought of the perpetuity of evil, sin and sinners, and leads out into the
light of scripture and reason in which is to be seen the final end of evil in
all its forms, leaving a world filled with the glory of the Lord as the waters
cover the deep. In the brightness and glory of this view God is seen to be
triumphant over all that defaces the beautiful work of His creative power and
wisdom and everything is removed that interferes with the exquisite joy and
eternal well-being of the righteous. Why should it be thought for one moment by
civilized, not to say reasonable, people that if there is an eternal God there
must be an eternal devil? Why should it ever enter the minds of intelligent men
that if there is an everlasting heaven of happiness there must be an eternal
hell of misery? Does the existence of God depend upon the existence of a devil?
Does His shining brightness depend upon the deep darkness of a monster of
wickedness and woe? Does the happiness of the everlasting and glorious kingdom
of God depend upon eternal and indescribable misery of a kingdom of Satan? Away
with such heathen thoughts. They are clouds of darkness to be dispelled by the
sunlight of truth and reason; and when their thick darkness and depressing
gloom are removed the mind can bask in the bright prospect and exhilarating
anticipation of the day when every enemy, the last enemy, death shall be
destroyed and "God shall be all in all."
If immortality is the nature of the fabulous devil of
"orthodox" religion, of course he must exist as long as God exists;
if every wicked and depraved human being is an immortal soul, as much in
possession of immortality as the righteous will ever be, of course their
existence must be co-eternal with that of the good and the pure. But what a
reflection upon the character of a wise and omnipotent Deity it is to entertain
such heathen dogmas. The horrors of an eternal burning hell were conceived in
the savage heart of heathenism and used by the "philosophers" as a
"pious fraud" to frighten into submission brutes in human form whose
depravity made reason and moral suasion absolutely useless and powerless. The
theory was "with the people equally true, with the philosophers equally
false and with the statesmen equally necessary." As with modern Jesuitism,
the policy with the "learned" was to "do evil that good might
come," in pursuance of which Plato declared: "If falsehood be indeed
of no service to the gods, yet useful to men in the form of a drug, it is plain
that such a thing should be touched only by physicians but not meddled with by
private persons. To the governors of the state then (if to any) it especially
belongs to speak falsely for the good of the state." "Not to deceive
for the public good is wrong" was Cicero's teaching, it is said, upon the
authority of Plato.
The savage doctrine of endless misery found fertile soil in
what Luther terms the "Roman dunghill of decretals." As some of the
profligate emperors of Rome "exhausted the whole art of pleasure, so that
a reward was promised to any who should invent a new one, so have Romish
persecutors exhausted all the art of pain; so that it will now be difficult to
discover or invent a new kind of it which they have not practiced upon those
marked out as heretics." Men whose practices were so in this life, would
manifest the same savage revenge on the one hand and a reveling in luxury and
fleshly pleasure on the other in theories of the future life. The secular
powers have overcome and subdued the power of priest-craft and put a stop to
its wicked practices so far as the infliction of physical suffering goes; but
the theory of the thing is still abroad, not only in Romanism, but in so-called
Protestantism. Public sentiment is against the present execution of the laws of
this abominable doctrine; but the skeleton is still in the closet, and
frequently is exhibited in the pulpits of so-called orthodox churches. If the
"earth has helped the woman" and the "two witnesses" have
shut the heathen heaven that it may not rain fire and brimstone upon the "heretics"
now, the messengers of darkness fail not to give expression to their inmost
souls in picturing up the "infernal regions" of heathenism and the
horrors they expect to witness in an "eternal hell," while they enjoy
in heaven the spectacle throughout eternal ages. "Listen," they say
in their lurid pictures of the future, "to the tremendous, the horrible
uproar of millions and millions of tormented creatures mad with the fury of
hell. Oh! the screams of fear, the groanings of horror, the yells of rage, the
cries of pain, the shouts of agony, the shrieks of despair from millions on
millions. There you hear them roaring like lions, hissing like serpents,
howling like dogs and wailing like dragons," and so on, in language so
overwhelmingly dreadful that the pen almost refuses to write. If there is a
mind that can really believe this, how can there ever be a smile? How can there
ever be a peaceful moment in this life? Why did nature make a moment of this
life sweet and become possessed of the power to sing or experience a moment of
rejoicing? If it be said that it is so because of the possibility of a few
being saved, how can the few, even with the hope of their own salvation, spend
one moment of peace of mind with the thought of witnessing or of even knowing
that there is such a thing as the eternal torture of mothers, fathers, children
and friends, or even of creatures of their own nature and feelings whom they
never saw? No rational mind can believe such a horrible thing; it is not for
belief; it is for delusion, not of civilized minds, but of heathen, whose
slavish subjection can be accomplished only by fears and frowns.
True the doctrine of endless misery is kept behind the
scenes when "refined" audiences are addressed from the pulpits of our
times; and some of the leaders are inclined to be ashamed of the common red
pictures of some of the painters of the past; and this being looked upon as an
artistic age, the pulpit artists are softening the colors to suit the taste of
modern religious art. The result is a modification in their teachings. But with
all their fine art and soft colors they still will have an eternal hell of
eternal misery. Change it, if you please from hot coals and burning brimstone
to a deathless worm knawing the consciences, and you still have eternal misery,
and you still keep the blot upon the character of a wise and just God. Some, it
is true, of the "orthodox" leaders have renounced and denounced the
doctrine; but they still hold to its parent theory, the "immortality of
the soul," the one that is the root of all the evil. So long as you keep
in your creed the immortality of the soul you are bound to one of two
conclusions, both of them bad, but one worse than the other--eternal torment of
the wicked, or their salvation in spite of themselves. That which is
indestructible cannot be destroyed; and if the wicked are indestructible souls
they must exist eternally somewhere and in some condition. The fact is, there
is no escape except in relegating the fabulous thing to the myths of a superstitious,
benighted past, and in letting the light of Bible truth reveal to reason that
man is a destructible being, and his destiny, if unfit for perpetuity, is
destruction; and that only those who will be an honor to God will be allowed to
survive and enjoy the power of an endless life.
The triumphing of the wicked is short and the joy of the
hypocrite but for a moment. He shall perish forever like his own dung; they
which 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
20: 5-8.
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 wicked
shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs;
they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.--Psa. 37: 10-20.
But the transgressors shall be destroyed together;
the end of the wicked shall be cut off.--Psa. 37: 38.
Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth and let
the wicked be no more.--Psa. 104: 35.
The Lord preserveth all them that love him; but all the wicked
will be destroyed.--Psa. 145: 20.
There is a way that seemeth right unto a man; but the end
thereof are the ways of death.--Prov. 16: 25.
Behold all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so
also the soul of the son is mine; the soul that sinneth IT SHALL
DIE.--Ezek. 18: 4.
For, 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. * * * And ye shall tread down the
wicked: for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet.--Mal. 4:
1, 2.
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. 3: 12.
As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the
fire, so shall it be in the end of this world.--Matt. 13: 40.
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.--Rom. 6: 23.
And to you who are troubled rest with us, when 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; who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from
the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power.--II. Thess. 1: 9.
But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed,
speak evil of the things that they understand not, and shall utterly
perish in their own corruption.--II. Pet. 2: 12.
Many more testimonies could be added, but these are
sufficient to show the general tenor of the Scriptures, and what do they say?
Do they need comment? How can anybody change the words or the meaning to derive
a shadow of support for the doctrine of the endless preservation of the wicked
in misery? To "perish forever" is surely not to live forever. To
"cease to be" is not to always be. To "consume into smoke"
is not to dwell in fire and smoke eternally. To "be destroyed" and
"cut off" is not to be preserved. To die is not to live. To be "burnt
up root and branch" and become "ashes" is not to writhe in
torment eternally. To "utterly perish in their own corruption" is not
to be incorruptible and imperishable. Men may confuse with words with all the
theological ingenuity they possess, but these words of divine truth will still
speak the same thing; and, pray, what is it that they declare? Why are there
such strenuous efforts to make them mean what they do not say? They declare the
end of sinners. Will it be a calamity for the world to attain such an
end? Why should there be such a strong desire to have sin, sinners and the
great evil of a hell of torment perpetuated? Which will redound to the glory of
God, an end or no end of evil?
When paradise was planted in Eden and our first parents
formed and given life, every thing was pronounced "very good." There
was no hell of torment then; no sin, no sinners. How is it to be at the finish?
Is the beginning to be viewed as "very good" and the end very bad?
What else but very bad will it be if there are millions of wretches writhing in
indescribable misery with no chance of escape? Can the comparatively few saved
in "heaven" compensate for the countless millions of tortured in
hell? Will the Adamic cycle have proved a success in evolving divine good and
glory out of human evil and woe, when millions are sorrowful and sighing,
groaning and moaning and cursing their own existence and that of their Creator?
Who can scan the cycle of Adam's race and view such an outcome with the
remotest idea that it yields glory to God? To teach or to believe the doctrine
of endless evil is to blaspheme the name of God and to outrage His blessed
Word.
God has given man power over the creatures of the earth; and
the man who would invent methods of torture for even a dog would be denounced
by all reasonable people; and the man who would falsely report that another had
subjected a dog to torture would be equally denounced. To represent God as
having provided a deathless devil and an endless hell to torment the fallen
sons of a sinful race is to represent Him as worse than wicked man; and the one
who does so represent him is a slanderer of His great and glorious Name.
The evil brought upon the race by the sin of our first
parents is defined and there need be no misunderstanding about it. The extent
of the curse is given; and it does not extend to an eternal hell of evil and
torment. It is a curse that brings thorns and thistles in the earth, hard toil
and sorrow, mortality and sinfulness upon man, ending in, "Dust thou art
and unto dust shalt thou return." To extend it beyond this is to go beyond
what is written in the sentence. The end of evil is the end of this, and as by
the first Adam the evil was originated, so by the second Adam it is to be
brought to an end. Hence the apostle Paul declares of Christ, "For he must
reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be
destroyed is death" (I. Cor. 15:25-28). When this triumph is realized
there will not be an enemy left, but every survivor will be an eternal and
immortal friend of God, fit for endless existence to the honor and glory of His
name because all will be the manifestation of the triumphant execution of the
wise and beneficent divine plan of the ages. All enemies having been
destroyed--even to the "last enemy," there will not be one
living creature remaining in whom God will not dwell; for everyone will be a
"habitation of God through the spirit" (Eph. 2:22) and God will be
"all in all" (I. Cor. 15: 28). Then universal blessings will have
supplanted universal evils, sorrow and sighing given place to joy and gladness,
woe and want to heavenly wealth and unspeakable raptures of immortal life. Our
fair planet, which for a cycle of seven thousand years had groaned under the
heavy burden of a sin-cursed suffering race, will forever revolve majestically
upon its axis bearing upon its bosom millions of redeemed and grateful
offsprings of love divine, whose heaven-tuned voices shall ascribe glory, and
honor, praise and power and thanksgiving to Him that sitteth upon the throne
and to the Lamb for ever and for ever.
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
Having shown that the wicked are finally to be all destroyed,
the question will arise in the reader's mind, What about the hell we hear so
much of in popular churches? If the destiny of all the wicked is utter
destruction, what use can there be for such a place as the hell we have been
taught to believe in, for it is said to be as necessary for the receptacle of
the wicked as the heaven of popular theology is for that of the righteous? If
the wicked are to be destroyed in the sense of blotted out of existence, and if
there is such a place as hell, it will be, when the destruction is complete,
left entirely empty. Is it that it, too, is to cease to be as well as those who
were intended to be its endless inhabitants, or is it that no such a place
exists? Whatever place the wicked may for a time be allowed to occupy, it is
evident that the time is to come when they shall occupy it no more; for the
Psalmist says, "For yet a little while and the wicked shall not be; yea
thou shalt diligently consider his place and it shall not be" (Psa.
37: 10). This, however, does not mean that God has a particular place allotted
for the wicked into which they are all to be collected to be kept in torture
and that that place is to cease to be; It simply means that when the wicked
cease to be they shall not be found in any place, for there will be no room
allowed for any to exist but those who are fit to enjoy eternal blessings.
Hence Job says, when for the moment losing sight of the hope of salvation;
"The eye of him that hath seen me shall see me no more, thine eyes are upon
me and I am not: as a cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he that goeth
down to the grave shall come up no more. He shall return no more to his house,
neither shall his place know him any more" (chap. 7: 8-10). The
"place" of the wicked, therefore, is that which he occupies in this
life and when he is "consumed as a cloud and vanisheth away," no
place will be desecrated by his presence in all the universe of God.
The popular theory is that God created this earth for man to
inherit in this life only; and that since His intention was to separate the
good from the bad when their supposed immortal souls would, by death, forsake
their bodies, two places must necessarily be provided. The place for the
eternal abode of the good is supposed to be heaven, and that for the wicked is
what has been called hell. Now we have an account of the creation of the heaven
and the earth, but not a word is said about the creation of that place people
popularly call hell. Heaven is evidently the place where God dwells; and
the earth was created as a place for man to dwell in. It is said, "For
thus saith the Lord that created the heavens: God himself that formed
the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in
vain, he formed it to be inhabited" (Isa. 45: 18). If God did
create a hell to be "inhabited" by a much larger human population
than was ever at one time on this earth, and than will ever inhabit heaven, why
is it that such an important place was not spoken of when the account of the
creation of the heaven and the earth was given in the beginning and referred to
throughout the Scriptures? It would be the first place that would come into use
after the earth; for it is claimed that the sentence Adam brought upon himself
and his posterity was one which consigned all to its everlasting torments, and
that salvation is rescue from going there and transportation to heaven. Then,
too, it would soon come into demand as a place in which to put wicked Cain and
those like him. So that its importance, from the popular point of view, was
such as to call for its mention along with that of the creation of the heaven
and the earth; and the fact that no mention is ever made of its creation is a
proof, among many others, that such a place never was created, except in the imaginative
brains of heathen philosophers and used by them to frighten the unruly masses
into subjection to their superiors. "With the masses it was equally true,
with the philosophers equally false, and with the magistrate equally
necessary;" and it was considered wrong not to deceive the masses with
falsehoods, claiming that the end justified the means. While such a procedure
may be excusable in heathen "philosophers" facts are seen to be more
absurd than fiction when we behold civilized and educated people still clinging
to such a pagan relic of savage superstition.
When God created the heaven and the earth we may safely
conclude He did not create the popular hell; for it is not mentioned. When He
placed our first parents in Paradise and pronounced everything "very
good" there could not have been such an evil place. The Adamic race was,
in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator, given a good start, both as regards
Adam and Eve and the heaven above them and the earth beneath them. All they
stood related to was "very good," a fact which leaves no room for a
hell of torment, nor an immortal personal devil whose business it was to
deceive and torment and nothing else. If the creation of "hell" was
an afterthought, arising from man's sin, we surely would have had some hint of
its beginning in that Book which is designed to teach man his origin and
destiny. The very time one might reasonably expect to find mention of it would
be when the sentence was pronounced upon our first parents; but not a hint do
we find there of the existence of such a place, or that they or any of their
descendants were liable to the pains and penalty of such a horrible place. The
end of the sentence is, "Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou
return," a sentence which, as we have shown in a previous chapter, was
upon the only person that sinned; and if there was another person, in the form
of an "immortal soul," who was more guilty than the one sentenced and
who is supposed to be the one for whom "hell" was made, that person,
the chief sinner in the case, escaped being sentenced to its place, for not a
word is said about it or its supposed place. So we start with the Bible in our
hands without a "hell," and without a devil, and even after man's
fall no "hell" is revealed to us, and if there was one, we have only
the assertion of prejudiced minds deluded by a hoary superstition in support of
it.
The best way to ascertain the meaning of a Bible word is to
examine its use in the Bible. Employing this method we shall escape the
theological bias to which all compilers of dictionaries are subject. Nearly all
the Old Testament was written in the Hebrew language, and the New Testament in
the Greek. Fortunately, we have a translation of the Old Testament into the Greek
language, called the Septuagint, a translation which was made about B. C. 250.
This enables us to compare Hebrew and Greek words in the Old Testament, and
helps us to understand their meaning throughout the entire Scriptures. In the
Hebrew the word standing for "hell" in our English translation is sheol;
and in the Greek when applied to the same thing as sheol it is hades.
There is another word in the Greek New Testament which has been wrongly
translated "hell," and that is Gehenna; but this we will consider
further on. It happens that the translators have not always given the word
"hell" for the word sheol, and this helps us to see how they
struggled with this word upon finding that it did not coincide with the theory
their theology had perverted their minds with.
Now let us examine some of the passages where the word sheol
occurs and see if we can make them fit the popular theory of
"hell," and if not, let us allow our minds to reach the conclusion
the passages will of themselves lead to.
Gen. 37: 35--He (Jacob) refused to be comforted: and he
said, For I will go down into the grave (sheol) unto my son mourning.
Gen. 42: 38--If mischief befall him in the way by which ye
go, then shall ye bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave (sheol).
I. Sam. 2: 6--The Lord killeth and maketh alive; he bringeth
down to the grave (sheol) and bringeth up.
I. Kings 2: 6--Do therefore according to thy wisdom, and let
not his hoary head go down to the grave (sheol) in peace.
Job 14: 13--O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave
(sheol), that thou wouldest keep me secret until thy wrath be past.
Job 17: 13--If I wait the grave (sheol) is mine
house; I have made my bed in the darkness.
Psa. 30: 3--O Lord, thou hast brought up my soul from
the grave (sheol); thou has kept me alive that I should not go down to
the pit.
Psa. 49: 14--Like sheep they are laid in the grave
(sheol); death shall feed on them.
Hos. 13: 14--I will ransom them from the power of the grave
(sheol); O grave I will be thy destruction. (Compare with I. Cor.
15: 55).
Eccles. 9: 10--There is no work nor device, nor knowledge,
nor wisdom in the grave (sheol), whither thou goest.
Psa. 31: 17--Let them be silent in the grave
(sheol).
Ezek. 32: 27--And they shall not lie with the mighty
that are fallen of the uncircumcised which are gone down to hell (sheol)
with their weapons of war; and they have laid their swords under their
heads.
Psa. 16: 10--For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell
(sheol), neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption, (Peter
uses this to prove that Christ was raised from the dead).--Acts 2: 27, 30-32.
From these testimonies it is clear that the inspired writers
had no idea of a place of eternal torment being represented by the word sheol.
If we substitute "the place of eternal torment" for the word sheol
in these texts we shall see how absurd is the theory of modern theology. It
would make Jacob say, "I refuse to be comforted; and I will go down to the
place of eternal torment to my son mourning." It would make David say,
"Let not his hoary head go down to the place of eternal torment in
peace," as though it were possible to go to such a place in peace. It
would make Job say, "O that thou wouldst hide me in the place of eternal
torment until thy wrath be past," which would be praying to be taken from
bad to worse. It would make David and Peter say that Christ went to the place
of torment but was not left there. Now if we keep in view that the final end of
the wicked is to be punished with eternal death--to be cast into
the darkness of death and the grave--then we shall easily understand the use of
the word sheol when the translators have rendered it "hell;"
such, for instance, as "The wicked shall be turned into hell (sheol), and
all nations that forget God" (Psa. 9: 17).
Take, for instance, the words of Ezekiel 32: 27--"And
they shall not lie with the mighty that are fallen of the uncircumcised, which
are gone down to hell (sheol) with their weapons of war; and they have laid
their swords under their heads. "Hell" is here shown to be a
place where the "mighty lie with their swords under their
heads," alluding to the custom of placing the swords of the warriors under
their heads in their graves or sepulchers. But how absurd to suppose soldiers
going to the popular "hell" to "lie" there and have
their swords under their heads. The use of the word sheol, therefore, in
this and the other passages given shows that the word had no such meaning in
the minds of the inspired writers as is given to the word "hell" in
our times. There is not a single passage where it has any such an absurd
meaning as "hell" and the fact that the testimonies given show it to
mean the grave, a meaning which the mind of the most ardent believer in the
popular theory cannot resist, is enough of itself to preclude its application
to the popular "hell;" for how could the same word be employed for
two places so widely different as the grave, where all is darkness and
insensibility, and one lit up with lurid flames, where are experienced the
keenest sensibility of endless torture?
Coming to the New Testament we find the same conclusion
irresistible. Here, of course, we have the Greek word hades, instead of
the Hebrew sheol. That they mean the same will be seen where the New Testament
quotes from the Old. In Psa. 16 David says prophetically of Christ: "For
thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (sheol), neither wilt thou suffer thine
Holy One to see corruption." This is quoted in Acts 2: 27,
31--"Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (hades) neither
wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." They are both speaking
of Christ's resurrection from where he was during death, a place where
ordinarily men "see corruption;" but where God did not suffer Christ
to remain but made an exception in his case, and did not leave him in sheol or
hades, but raised him from the dead. Hence Paul says, he had declared to
the Corinthians that "Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day"
(I. Cor. 15: 3, 4). When Christ died he "poured out his soul into
death" (Isa. 53: 12). So that when he was dead he was not alive, and
wherever he was put when dead there he was till raised. They put him in
the sepulcher; but he was not "left" there; and in stating the fact
Peter says "His soul was not left in hell," and the Psalmist
in prophesying this of himself and Christ said, "God will redeem my
soul from the power of the grave (sheol): for he will receive
me" (Psa. 49: 15).
Now this shows that sheol with the Psalmist was the
same as hades with Peter; and what was "hell" with the
translators in one place was "grave" in the other in the passages
which speak of the same event--the resurrection of Christ. We can now examine
the use of the word hades in the other places where it occurs in the New
Testament.
Matt. 11: 23--And thou Capernaum which art exalted unto
heaven, shalt be brought down to hell (hades).
This prediction of our Lord's was literally fulfilled: for
with the wars with the Romans and the Jews these cities were totally
destroyed, so that no traces are now found of Bethsaida, Choraizin
or Capernaum.--Clark, Commentary.
To be brought down to hell, the grave, was therefore to be
destroyed.
Matt. 16: 18--And I say unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon
this rock will I build my church; and the gates of hell (hades, the
grave) shall not prevail against it.
"The gates of hades," says Parkhurst,
"may always be allusive to the form of Jewish sepulchres."
The gates of the grave will not prevail, because the church
will be delivered, and exclaim: "O grave (hades), where is thy
victory?" (I. Cor. 15: 55).
Luke 10: 15--Same as already referred to in Matt. 11: 23.
Luke 16: 23--And in hell (hades) he lifted up his
eyes.
Acts 2: 27-31--Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (hades),
neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
I. Cor. 15: 55--O death, where is thy sting? O grave (hades)
where is thy victory?
Rev. 1: 18--I am he that liveth and was dead; and, behold, I
am alive forevermore, amen; and have the keys of hell (hades) and of
death.
Rev. 6: 8--And I looked and behold, a pale horse; and his
name that sat upon him was Death, and Hell (hades) followed after him.
Rev. 20: 13, 14--And the sea gave up the dead which
were in it; and death and hell (hades) delivered up the dead which
were in them; and they were judged every man according to his works. And death
and hell (hades) were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
These passages will all be clear to the reader as applying
to the grave except, perhaps, one--that in which the rich man is said to lift
up his eyes in hell (hades). We purpose explaining this parable further
along, but will say here, that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was
addressed to the Pharisees (Luke 16: 14), who, having received traditions which
made the Word of God of none effect, had become believers in the heathen dogma
of the conscious existence of disembodied souls. To find a receptacle for these
after death they invented a place where good and bad souls were reserved
awaiting the judgment day; and to that place they gave the name of hades. In
this parable our Lord used their theory to represent the national calamity
shortly to come upon them in the destruction of Jerusalem and their torment at
the hands of the Romans and other nations among whom they would suffer. The
fact that the Saviour used their theory in parable no more commits him to that
theory than the use of the word Beelzebub (Matt. 12: 27) committed him to the
pagan fiction of the god of the fly. It must be remembered that our Lord made
no attempt to instruct the Pharisees and show them the fallacy of the heathen
dogmas they had espoused. He knew they were self-righteous, and ironically said
to them "I am not come to call the righteous" (Matt. 9: 13). It is
said that, "without a parable spake he not unto them" (Matt. 13: 34);
and the reason he gave for this was, "because it is given to you (the
disciples) to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is
not" (Matt. 13: 11).
While the Scriptures cannot be strengthened by anything
authors may say, many feel more confident if they find popular authors
supporting any position they may take. Sometimes commentators honestly give a
true exposition, even when the scriptures commented on condemn their cherished
theories; and on the subject in hand this is exemplified as the following
quotations will show.
The Hebrew word sheol is translated HELL properly as
a general thing, if intended to mean the same as the old Saxon word hell, the
covered receptacle of all the dead, where the good and bad repose
together in a state of UNCONSCIOUSNESS; but very improperly and
very SHAMEFULLY IF intended to be a symbol of the "orthodox" and traditionary
hell as a place of conscious torment for the wicked only. But we, without
the slightest reservation, condemn the translators; for they have evidently
endeavored to observe the true sense of the word sheol, and to uphold
the traditionary meaning of hell at the expense of truth and uniformity. Had sheol
been uniformly translated pit or grave or the state of the dead, or
even the mansions of the dead, no such absurd idea as that of a place of
conscious torment could ever have been associated with it.--Bible versus
Tradition, p. 188.
Hades means literally that which is darkness. A careful
examination will lead to the conclusion that no sanction to the
intermediate state is afforded by these passages where hades occurs; but
they denote the grave, both of the righteous and wicked--Dr. Kitto,
Cyclopedia.
The original word hades, from a, not, and idien,
to see--the invisible receptacle or mansion of the dead, answering to sheol
in Hebrew. The word hell, used in the common translation, conveys
now an improper meaning of the original word, because hell is only
used to signify the place of the damned. But as the word hell comes from
the Anglo-Saxon helan, to cover or hide, hence the tiling or slating of
a house in some parts of England (particularly Cornwall) is heling to
this day, and the covers of books (in Lancashire), by the same name, so the
literal import of the original word hades was formerly well expressed by
it.--Dr. Adam Clarke, Commentary.
The gates of hades may always be allusive to the form
of the Jewish sepulchres, which were large caves with a narrow mouth or
entrance, many of which are found in Judea."--Parkhurst, Lexicon.
These authors make the matter clear in harmony with the
scriptures; and it will be seen that if we have the true meaning of the word
"hell" in mind when reading passages wherein it is translated from hades,
the word is a correct translation, meaning invisibility, the unseen. What can
be termed invisibility and unseen more fittingly than the death state, in the
dust, or in the grave, "helled" over or covered. In some parts of
Wales today the people speak of "helling" their potatoes when they
cover them over; and when they cover over a corpse in the grave the same word
is employed and is in common use in this sense throughout the peninsula of
Gower, where the old Saxon words are largely in use. The writer can speak from
personal knowledge, having been bred in that part of the world.
But, to return to the Scriptures:
A glance at the passages given will show them to be in
perfect harmony with the Old Testament use of the word sheol for grave.
To bring Capernaum down to hell was to destroy it. To say that the gates of
hell should not prevail against the church was an assurance of the resurrection
to life, triumph and glory of all the faithful constituents of the bride who is
to be made the Lamb's wife at His coming. For Christ to have the keys of hell
is for him to be "the resurrection and the life" of all his faithful
ones and to forever consign to death and the grave the unfaithful. For death
and hell to give up the dead which are in them is for the dead to be
given life and the buried to be raised from the grave. For death and hell to be
symbolically cast into the abyss is for their power over all the redeemed to be
destroyed, when there shall be no more death, and consequently no more victims
to be swallowed up in the grave. When Christ has "reigned till he has
destroyed the last enemy--death"--every one that will prove to be worthy
of endless life in glory will be able to triumphantly exclaim, "O death
where is thy sting, O grave (hades) where is thy victory?" The time
will then have arrived when "the wicked shall not be: yea thou shalt diligently
consider his place and it shall not be," and "God will be all in
all," universally.
A brief examination of the other Greek word translated
"hell" in the New Testament is all that is necessary now to rid our
minds of the slavish superstition of eternal torment.
Gehenna has an entirely different meaning from hades, and
never ought to have been translated by the word hell. The following from the Emphatic
Diaglott is a good explanation:
Gehenna, the Greek word translated hell in the common version,
occurs 12 times. It is the Grecian mode of spelling the Hebrew words which are
translated "The Valley of Hinnom." This valley was also called Tophet,
a detestation, an abomination. Into this place were cast all kinds of
filth, with the carcasses of beasts and the unburied bodies of criminals who
had been executed. Continual fires were kept to consume these. Sennacherib's
army of 185,000 men were slain here in one night. Here children were burnt to
death in sacrifice to Moloch. Gehenna, then, as occurring in the New
Testament, symbolizes death and utter destruction, but in no
place symbolizes a place of eternal torment.
The Jews having come to look upon Gehenna as a place
of horror, it was associated by our Lord with the destiny which awaited those
who shall be the victims of the wrath of God in the day of just retribution.
The testimonies in which the word is used indicate that, not only was Gehenna
a place of judicial punishment in the past, but in that same place will the
righteous judgments of God be poured upon the transgressors. The worms that
preyed upon the carcasses in the past have long since devoured them; the
unquenchable fire that burned has devoured its victims. So when the worms shall
again prey upon the bodies of the wicked and the fire burn, destruction will be
the inevitable result. You will see, dear reader, that the meaning of the
words, "The worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched," is not that
the bodies upon which the worms prey are preserved alive--not that they will
burn and yet never burn. The fact that worms are represented as preying is
proof that their victims have been put to death and that to be totally devoured
is the end; and the fact that the fire is not quenched is proof, not that
its victims will be preserved, but that they will be devoured.
The following are the passages where the word hell in the
common version is from Gehenna:
Matt. 5: 22--But I say, That whosoever is angry with his brother
without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to
his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say,
Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell (Gehenna) fire.
Matt. 5: 29--And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out
and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members
should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell (Gehenna).
Matt. 10: 28--And fear not them which kill the body, but are
not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both
body and soul in hell (Gehenna).
Matt. 18: 9--And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and
cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye rather
than having two eyes to be cast into hell (Gehenna) fire.
Matt. 23: 15--Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is
made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell (Gehenna) than
yourselves.
Matt. 23: 33--Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can
ye escape the damnation of hell (Gehenna).
Mark 9: 43, 45, 47; Luke 12: 5--These are the same as given
from Matthew.
Jas. 3: 6--And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity; so
is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth
on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell (Gehenna).
Does it not seem strange that a theory of endless
preservation of the wicked in torment should strive to find support in a word
which is the name of a place where destruction by fire and absolute devouring
by worms were the certain results of being cast therein? The quenchlessness of
the fire instead of meaning the preservation of its victims could mean nothing
else but their destruction, which is emphasized by the words, "He shall burn
up the chaff with unquenchable fire." The word
"unquenchable" applied in ordinary language is well understood to
mean the hopelessness of keeping in existence that which is on fire; and this
is the Scriptural meaning, as will be seen by the words of the prophet
Jeremiah--"Then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall
devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched" (chap.
17: 27). This fire was kindled by the Romans in A. D. 70 and it
"devoured;" but he who would claim it is still burning because it was
not to be quenched would be as foolish as those who claim that the fires of
Gehenna will always be burning and never go out because it is called
"unquenchable."
For to say "the worm dieth not" is to insure the
devouring of its prey, surely not that its victim will be eternally preserved,
always being devoured and yet not devoured. There is an attempt to escape the
clear common-sense meaning of these and other passages wherein the word "destroy,"
"perish," etc., occur by assuming that these words are not to be
taken to mean literal destruction of the being, that they only mean that the
wicked are destroyed in the sense we speak of a man who has become a
reprobate--his character is destroyed, he is ruined. It would seem that
anything will do if only the cherished theory of eternal torture can be
sustained, and why? Why are men so anxious to uphold a theory that is so
revolting to reason and so dishonoring to God, when there is no man who really
believes it when he silently reflects, but all sorts of apologies are offered
for the horrible doctrine? It is true the words "destroy,"
"perish," etc., are sometimes used in the secondary sense claimed,
but in the passages we have given the context shows clearly that they are
employed in the most literal sense. It is that the wicked are destroyed,
not that good men are destroyed in character by becoming wicked. They are
already destroyed in the latter sense, that is, in the sense of being ruined,
from the fact that they are wicked, and it is the destruction, devouring
and perishing of these that the Scriptures are speaking of.
Then again, there is a play upon the words "destroyed
from among the people" (Acts 3: 23), as if they did not mean absolute destruction,
but banishment to another region. A comparison of scripture with scripture will
show the fallacy of this. We have only to observe the use of the word
"destroy" in the following texts to see that no such a theory as
banishment to another region is meant: "And every living substance was destroyed
which was upon the face of the ground, both man and cattle and the creeping
things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the
earth" (Gen.7:23). If "destroyed from the earth" here as
applied to man means banishment to "hell," then it must mean the same
for all the creatures named, for the one phrase describes what happened to them
all. Now here, in the punishment of the wicked antediluvians, was the very
place to make mention of the "hell" of popular belief if such a place
existed. All the advocates of the theory will try to believe that this place of
torture became greatly in demand as a receptacle of all whom the Flood swept
off the earth; yet not a word do we find in the scriptures about their
transportation to such a region. On the contrary they were destroyed in the
same sense that the cattle, creeping things and fowls of the air were.
Therefore to be "destroyed from among the people," "from the
earth," etc., is to be blotted out of existence in the case of wicked men
as literally as in that of the creatures of earth and sky.
Many foolishly say that "if there is a heaven there
must be a hell; and if there is a God there must be a devil." This shows
how perverted the minds of the devotees of popular religion are that they
seriously believe that the existence of heaven, God's holy habitation, depends
upon a "hell" where millions moan and groan and writhe in torture
eternally; and that the existence of an everlasting devil is essential to that
of Him who is the source of all life. Some have even gone so far as to say that
if the lurid flames of hell were ever to be quenched, heaven would be left in
darkness; and many of the blind insane advocates of the horrible,
God-dishonoring doctrine have exhausted the strongest words of our language in
an effort to paint pen pictures of the "infernal regions" the most
revolting and disgusting, and which would almost shock the sensibilities of the
most savage of savages.
It is well that modern theologians are getting ashamed of
seeing their theory painted in colors befitting it, but so long as they cling
to the theory of the immortality of the soul they never can rid their creeds of
their horrible "hell" of endless torture. They may spiritualize the
old-fashioned tongues of flashing, fiery flame into an eternal "gnawing of
conscience," and thus render the horrors of their "hell" a
little more pallatable to the refined tastes of modern church society; but
behind the pulpit there is still the old closet with the hideous skeleton, and
until they totally abandon their creeds, all of which are based upon the
immortality of the soul, destroy the books their predecessors have produced,
books that are black with the darkness of the dark ages of Romish superstition,
and red with the savage glare of pagan insatiable cruelty and crime, all the
spiritualizing their refinement may invent will never quench the sulphurous
fires their creeds have kindled, nor wipe from the records of history the
stains they have cast upon the character of a God of justice and love.
Perhaps it would not be amiss to glance here at a few of the
pictures they have painted of their "hell."
The "Rev." J. Furness writes as follows:
Listen to the tremendous, the horrible uproar of millions
and millions of tormented creatures, mad with the fury of hell. Oh, the screams
of fear, the groanings of horror, the yells of rage, the cries of pain, the
shouts of agony, the shrieks of despair, from millions on millions. There you
hear them roaring like lions, hissing like serpents, howling like dogs, and
wailing like dragons. There you hear the gnashing of teeth, and the fearful
blasphemies of the devils. Above all you hear the roarings of the thunders of
God's anger, which shake hell to its foundations. But there is another sound.
There is in hell a sound like that of many waters; it is as if all the rivers
and oceans in the world were pouring themselves with a great splash down on the
floor of hell. Is it then, really the sound of waters? It is. Are the rivers and
oceans of earth pouring themselves into hell? No. What is it then? It is the
sound of oceans of tears running down from countless millions of eyes. They cry
for ever and ever. They cry because the sulphurous smoke torments their eyes.
They cry because they are in darkness. They cry because they have lost the
beautiful heaven. They cry because the sharp fire burns them."
The third dungeon, the lowest depth of hell, is described as
follows:
The roof is red-hot; the walls are red; the floor is like a
thick sheet of red-hot iron. See! On the middle of that floor stands a
girl--she looks about sixteen years old. Her feet are bare; she has neither
shoes nor stockings on her feet; her bare feet stand on the red-hot burning
floor. The door of this room has never been opened since she first set her foot
on the red-hot floor. Now she sees that the door is opening. She rushes
forward. She has gone down on her knees on the red-hot floor. Listen! She
speaks. She says: "I have been standing with my bare feet on this red-hot
floor for years. Day and night my only standing place has been this red-hot
floor, Sleep never came on for a moment, that I might forget this horrible
burning floor. Look," she says, "at my burnt and bleeding feet. Let
me go off this burning floor for one moment. Only one single, short moment. Oh!
that in this endless eternity of years I might forget the pain only for one
single moment." The Devil answers her question, "Do you ask for one
moment to forget your pain? No! not for one single moment during the never
ending eternity of years shall you ever leave this red-hot floor."
The following is from "Cheever's Powers of the World to
Come:"
The shock of furious armies, the crash of falling
avalanches, mountains overwhelming cities, volcanoes in action, herds of wild
beasts confined and roaring in the dungeon of the Coliseum, making the whole
structure quake with their bellowings, then all at once let loose, and with a
fierce conflict of hunger and rage grappling with one another; the elements in
wild affright and uproar; earthquakes, conflagrations, floods, pestilences,
wars; all these are dire images of terror, ruin, desolation, destruction. But
all these, and even the stars dropping from heaven, as when a fig-tree casteth
her untimely figs, and the whole universe beaten together in chaos, or
shrivelling as a parched scroll, all these come short of any representation of
eternal death; they all fail; they are merely transitory syllables. The moral
death is unapproachable by any such representation.
These are only a sample of the many shocking pictures which
popular preachers have drawn of the unending torture of those who fail in
life's hard struggle.
The educated and refined, even of popular churches, will
stand aghast before such pictures as these; but get rid of them they never can,
till they come out from among churches based upon the doctrine which is
responsible for such horrors. Those of the vulgar ranks will make no apology;
but exclaim, "What shall we do with wicked people without a hell?" To
these the "strong delusion that they should believe a lie" seems
indispensible to whip and frighten men into the churches. That may be true so
far as "conversion" to popular churches is concerned; and the
horrible doctrine seems to be permitted scope to hold in reasonable subjection
the passions of the lustful and brutish. Still even in this it falls short; for
most of the criminals in the penitentiaries and those swung from the gallows
are believers in the popular "hell." But whatever this permitted libel
upon God may be for, it is a slander upon His name and an enemy of His Word.
Men are not allowed to slander each other with impunity, and there is some care
between man and man; but many seem to think they can represent God in any
inconsistent, unjust, revengeful manner their theological whims may suggest.
The man who would falsely circulate a story of his fellow-man subjecting a dog,
be it the most wicked, savage creature, to daily torture for one week, would be
declared a slanderer to be shunned by all decent people, but men who report
from pulpits that God preserves billions of helpless, moaning, groaning,
withering, maddened creatures in an eternal mad-house theologically called
"hell," are lauded and applauded as the most respectable and refined
members of society. Man's character must by common consent be vindicated in
measure, but God may be held up before the world as a monster of injustice, and
insatiable vindictiveness. Dear reader, let us stand up boldly and fearlessly
against this theological outrage, and let us vindicate the character of God and
the truth of His Word; heralding to a perishing world that a God of justice and
love holds out a hand of help and hope to rescue men from perishing and passing
into the pit of oblivion; and to give them health and life and joy eternal,
with, ultimately, a redeemed world, cursed not by sin, sorrow and death, but
one in which shall dwell only the grateful, righteous and glorified children of
a beneficent Being, who will be the fruits of the "travail of the soul"
of a faithful loving Saviour. Then God will be "all in all," His name
magnified, honored and adored, and all the surviving creatures of His handiwork
forever blessed.
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
The word "devil" is used by some flippantly and
frivolously, and the subject of the devil is regarded as one to excite laughter
and derision. While there is some excuse for this because of the absurd
theories set forth in the religious world, theories in which there is a strange
mixture of the sublime with the ridiculous, yet the subject deserves and
demands a most serious consideration; and it is this demand which renders it
necessary for us to include the investigation of it in our dealing with the
great problems of the world's redemption.
The word "devil" comes from two Greek words in the
Scriptures. It is not properly a translation of either of them, and its
adoption by the translators of the Authorized Version to represent two words,
which are of different meaning, is quite confusing. It would have been better
had the two words been transferred, or if even one of them had been represented
by "devil" and the other transferred, so as to put the English reader
on his guard and enable him to make a proper distinction.
The two words are Diabolos and Daimon. Diabolos is the one
demanding the more elaborate treatment, because it represents that from which
the world, in the broad sense, needs redemption. When redemption takes place
from the universal evils represented by the word diabolos, those evils,
which may be termed incidental and special, which are represented by the word daimon,
will necessarily be included, upon the principle of the lesser being involved
in the greater.
The meaning of the word diabolos is, that causing to
pass over, to cross the line from right to wrong, to overstep. A diabolos
is an accuser, calumniator, slanderer, a traducer. The meaning of daimon
is, as used by those who believe in disembodied spirits, deified spirits or
spirit entities, which were supposed to be able to enter the bodies, singly or
in companies, of mortal people and to afflict them with various diseases, such
as blindness, deafness, madness, etc. Hence one so afflicted was called a demoniac,
one possessed. The word daimon or demon occurs about sixty times in the
New Testament, and the word diabolos thirty times. The apostle Paul uses
the latter in the plural number three times--I. Tim. 3: 11; II. Tim. 3: 3; Tit.
2: 3--and applies it to both males and females. The two words must be kept
distinct, for diabolos is never applied to demoniacs as
descriptive of their condition or affliction.
As already observed, diabolos is the word which
stands for the great evil of the world, from which the world needs redemption
and which it is the purpose of God, in carrying out His great plan of
salvation, finally to destroy.
Whether we view the subject of the devil from a Scripture
standpoint or from the point of so-called orthodox religion it will be seen to
be of vast importance; so much so that the plan of salvation, from either point
of view--and they are widely different--cannot be understood apart from it. It may
be said to be the cause or reason of religion, which is designed to cope with
the devil, whatever it is or he is, or whether it is an it
or a he.
As to popular religion, its aim is to save immortal souls from
being dragged by the devil into a hell of eternal torment. The aim of the
religion of the Bible is to save men from the devil, which it is said
"hath the power of death," and to give them a life free from all the
evils of the present and a nature invulnerable against temptation, sin and
death.
In considering the subject it is necessary to compare the
devil of the Bible with that of popular belief so as to accept the truth and
reject the error; and by such a comparison the striking contrast will largely
help to a clear understanding of the truth concerning the entire subject--the
origin, nature and end of the devil.
The devil of popular religion is a personal being, an
immortal being, an omniscient being, an omnipresent being. He is said to have a
kingdom of his own, quite well regulated, with the reins of government well in
hand; and although the kingdom proper is located in a place called hell,
supposed to be in the heart of the earth, its dominion extends throughout all
the earth's surface. This devil, though personally located, it is asserted, can
be present in hell and on earth--in all parts of the earth--at the same time;
in hell tormenting, and in the earth influencing, enticing, deceiving and
deluding millions of men, women and children. His success in this world-wide
wicked work, if it be judged by the numbers of the subjects of his kingdom as
compared with those of the kingdom of God, far exceeds that of the Creator's in
His salvation of the children of men.
His power is represented as being sufficient to miraculously
appropriate the laws of God to his own use in carrying out his evil designs,
and thus to change laws which were designed for good into the perpetration of
evils the most deplorable, either in defiance of or by the permission of the Great
Creator.
His advantage in his antagonism against God and in his
contest for the greater number of souls, in addition to his marvelous power,
his omniscience and his omnipresence, is in the fact that he finds mankind
already to his hand, in that they are naturally weak and prone to do evil
rather than to do good. The battle is therefore half won for him before he
begins; and man, poor creature, already possessed of a sin-perverted and
sin-disposed nature, finds himself pitted against the most subtle and powerfully
wielded hypnotic influence imaginable in his struggle to save himself from an
eternal abode in a hell of indescribable torture.
The possession of such wonderful power as is attributed to
the popular devil, and his vast kingly possessions in hell and upon earth, are
said to be due to a rebellion which in a very remote past, long before the
creation of man, he was guilty of inciting in heaven, where he had previously
enjoyed the glories of a holy angel. As Milton poetically gives it --
"Brighter once amid the host
Of angels, than that star the stars among."
As a punishment for this rebellion it is asserted that he
was cast out of heaven, upon his declaring that "he would rather rule in
hell than to serve in heaven," and was given power and authority to rule
in hell and to perform his wicked work in the earth in the furtherance of a
great kingdom of evil which is to be as eternal as heaven against which he
rebelled. Since that expulsion,
"Satan, so call him now, his previous name
Is heard no more in heaven, he of the first,
If not the first, archangel; great in power,
In favor and pre-eminence."
In the alleged fall of the devil from heaven it is asserted that
others of his kind, but of lower rank, fell with him. Alexander Cruden, M. A.
says: "By collecting the passages where satan or the devil is mentioned,
it may be observed, that he fell from heaven, with all his company; that God
cast him down thence for the punishment of his pride, that by his enraged
malice sin, death, and all other evils came into the world; that by the
permission of God he exercises a sort of government over his subordinates; that
God makes use of him to prove good men and chastise bad ones; that his power
and malice are restrained within certain limits by the will of God; in a word,
that he is an enemy to God and man, and uses his utmost endeavors to rob God of
his glory and men of their souls."
If we reason upon this theory of the devil we shall be
driven to ask, Is it possible that "he of the first, if not the first
archangel" in heaven could, with his company, be transformed into such a
monster of evil? Is it possible that evil can even, arise in the thoughts of
one who has presumably after a successful probation, been admitted into God's
holy habitation? If so heaven itself is not secure from evil passion, and if
one prominent angel with his followers can thus transform the whitest of
holiness into the blackest of wickedness, why may not all the immortal angels,
and even the mortals who shall "put on immortality" in the
resurrection morn, be corrupted with evil thoughts and transformed from happy
beings walking with the Lamb in the whiteness of the "righteousness of the
saints" into the blackness and darkness and wickedness of this devil and
his subordinate outcasts from heaven?
Moreover, here we are asked to believe that the flaming
passions of the devil for power and dominion in opposition to God were punished
by giving him exactly what he desired. He desired rulership in hell rather than
to serve in heaven; and as punishment he is given hell inside of the earth as a
kingdom and a free scope on the earth to play upon the weaknesses of its
habitants in what must surely be a successful effort to add to the population
of his kingdom in the dark and fiery regions he so well likes and fully enjoys.
Was it not a most singular way of punishing this disobedient angel to give him
the very thing his wicked ambition craved and to thus gratify his most ardent
desires?
If the devil is a being possessed of the marvelous powers
attributed to him by popular belief, the question will obtrude itself upon
reasonable minds, without in the least deserving the charge of irreverence, Why
did God, who is the source of power, give such powers of evil to a being bent
upon war against all that was good, even against God Himself? Of course if the
devil was once a holy angel, he was immortal; and, indeed, he is declared to be
immortal and therefore possessed of the power of endless life--to live as long
as God lives--to live, too, in the hottest fire imaginable, according to the
literal theorists of hell, and therefore he must be constituted of a fire-proof
nature, which can be none other than immortal nature; and that is the nature of
God Himself. Then comes the question, Why did the All-Wise God ever impart His
holy and pure nature to a devil of any kind, to say nothing of such a fiend as
that under consideration? If He did not impart his holy nature of immortality
to this being when he was a devil, but before he became one, then, since He
knows the end from the beginning, why did He impart his nature to one who He
knew would become a devil notwithstanding his consubstantiality with God? But
we cannot continue such questions as these without appearing irreverent, and so
let no one say that the All-Wise God of heaven ever did or ever will impart His
pure and holy nature to any but those who are worthy and who will, after the
possession thereof, and by reason of the possession, forever continue worthy,
since one possessed of Divine nature is so possessed because he has
"escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust" and cannot
then sin, any more than he can die; for the Divine nature is as sinless as it
is deathless. It is therefore nothing short of blasphemy to declare or to
believe in the popular theory of the devil.
As already observed, man is in a fallen state, possessed of
the "carnal mind, which is enmity to God," and if in addition to this
he is constantly exposed to the hypnotic powers of such a being as the popular
devil, what chance has he to overcome? His case is a hopeless one indeed; and
to add to this the horrible thought that the result of captivity to the carnal
mind, enticed and inflamed by such a powerful external influence from a being
who plies his wicked work from behind the scenes invisible to the victim--I
say, the very thought that the victim's eternal fate is one so fearful, so
terrible, so horrible that tongue or pen cannot describe it and eternity cannot
end it, is most revolting to reason and a manifest libel upon the character of
a just and beneficent Creator.
To a reasonable mind, therefore, a naked statement of the
popular belief of the devil is all that is required to secure its rejection,
and at the hands of men who have escaped the superstition of the world's
darkest ages the theory is relegated to the myths of pagan and Roman traditions
to renew its companionship with Pluto, Pan and Nox, and with all other myths of
ignorant and superstitious inventions.
The truth concerning the origin, nature and end of the devil
can be learned from the Bible only. With this subject, as with all others which
relate to man's fall and ultimate rise through the beneficent plan of
salvation, the rule must be, "To the law and to the testimony, if they
speak not according this word, it is because there is no light in them."
But it is claimed that the theory of the popular devil is derived from the
Bible, and Cruden, in our quotation from him, says, "By collecting the
passages where Satan or the devil is mentioned, it may be observed, that he
fell from heaven, with all his company," etc. So we must examine the
passages supposed to teach this and see wherein lies the mistake, for before we
turn to them we may be sure they do not teach a theory so at variance with all
that is reasonable and all that is revealed of the justice and wisdom of God.
One passage relied upon is Isa. 14:12--
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my
throne above the stars of God; I will also sit upon the mount of the
congregation, in the sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the
clouds; I will be like the Most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell (sheol)
to the sides of the pit, etc.
Now we need not seek outside this chapter to discover who
this Lucifer is. In the margin it is "day star" instead of
"Lucifer," an epithet which in no sense can apply to a being who is
said to love darkness and hate the light of day. This "day star" is
spoken of as aspiring to "ascend into heaven" and to exalt his
"throne above the stars of God," while the devil of popular belief
first comes into view as already in heaven, expressing a preference for
rulership in hell. The Lucifer of the passage seeks to ascend; the popular
devil desired to descend. The one desired to exalt his throne above the stars
of God; the other preferred to have his beneath the stars in a kingdom of
darkness as deep down as possible, the deeper the better to suit him. This day
star was to be brought down to sheol, to the sides of the pit,
which is the grave (verse 11), which is no place for an immortal being. But, to
cut the matter short, the fourth verse leaves no room to doubt who this Lucifer
is; for it says: "Thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of
Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! The golden city ceased!
and then the prophet continues:
The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the
sceptre of the rulers. He who smote the people in wrath with a continual
stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth. The
whole earth is at rest, and is quiet; they break forth into singing. Yea, the
fir trees rejoice at thee and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art
laid down, no feller is come up against us. Hell (sheol) from beneath is
moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming; it stirreth up the dead for thee,
even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all
the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou
become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to
the grave, and the noise of thy viols; the worm is spread under thee, and the
worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer!
Here is very glowing and highly poetic language describing
the fall of the king of Babylon from his throne. Frequently the scriptures
speak of the eminence of kingly powers and exaltation as heaven, a figure drawn
from the fact that in the physical world the heavens rule the earth; and this
is not an uncommon figure in the newspapers of our times, when speaking of the
"political heavens," "clouds," "stars," etc. From
the political heaven of Babylon this king, as "day star" is
represented as falling, having "weakened the nations." It
requires a most fertile imagination to discover an angel falling from the
presence of God in heaven in a remote past, when there were no nations, here
where it is the fall of one who had weakened the nations. The desire of this
fallen king had been to exalt his throne on the "mount of the
congregation," "in the sides of the north," and thus to
be "like the most High." This place was none other than Mount Zion,
of which the Psalmist says, "Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole
earth, is Mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great king"
(Psa. 48:2). Here the heaven of God's kingdom was in the days of Israel's
glory, before her sun went down; and here it will be re-established in the
future days of Israel's greater glory, when "her sun shall no more go
down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself; for the Lord shall be thine
everlasting light, and the days of thy morning shall be ended." --Isa. 60:
20. This is the time the prophet is referring to in the chapter we are dealing
with, as will be seen from verses 1 and 3. At that time the Prince of Rosh, or
Russia, will "plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas, in the
glorious holy mountain" (Dan. 11: 45) which is Mount Zion, in the hope of
"being like the most High," in having his throne established
"upon the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north." Then,
at the hands of Israel's Messiah, returned to take his promised throne upon
Mount Zion and to reign over the house of Jacob (Luke 1: 32-33), the
Russo-Babylonish king, who previously will have subdued the other nations, will
fall to rise no more, Israel will take up the proverb of verse 4 and the
"weakened" kings will taunt him with the words, "Art thou also
become weak as we?"
Where now is there room in this passage for the devil of
popular belief? If it be said that the devil is prompting the king, then we
ask, Do kings, judging from their history, need such a devil to make them
proud, ambitious, covetous and tyrannical? Are not all these natural to the
hearts of kings? What is the need of calling in a supernatural devil when the
natural devil is equal to all the requirements of the case? In any event, we
must abide by the testimony, and to him who would read into it what is not
there it might well be said, "Get thee behind me Satan."
Whether we consider the existence of evil in all its forms
and the perpetrations of the many crimes of this wicked world as they are seen
in high places of power or among the lower masses in their gratification of
lust, we shall find a palpable cause for it all without seeking for an
omniscient, omnipresent person possessed of power to tempt nations and
individuals to do wicked things. Man in his fallen state, degenerate man,
giving unrestrained liberty to the promptings of the lower faculties and freely
allowing the passions to play according to their natural tendencies, will be
found to be of sufficient causative power to produce all that is to be seen in
the phenomena of evil and therefore there is
Some thoughtlessly say: "If there is a God there must
be a devil." If this were true the heathen notion of the eternity of two
great antagonistic powers would be true. If there must be a devil because there
is a God, then since there never was a time when God was not, there never could
have been a time when the devil was not. Of the popular devil it might be
safely said, If there is a God there cannot be such a devil; for God would not
allow such a being existence, to say nothing of a co-eternity of existence of
such a monster with God Himself.
As already observed, there is no need for calling in the
supernatural where the natural will answer all the requirements of the case.
There is no difficulty in accounting for the origin of evil and the universal
existence of sin. This is easily done without calling in the aid of a supernatural
wicked one. The Scriptures tell us that it is the flesh, the lower propensities
of the flesh, uncontrolled by the higher faculties, which is the source of sin.
Paul says, "For I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no
good thing." "I find then a law in my members, that, when I
would do good, evil is present with me." "But I see another
law in my members, warring against the law of my mind" (the higher
faculties imbued with truth and righteousness), and "bringing me into
subjection to the law of sin which is in my members" (Rom. 7:
18-23). The same apostle shows us what the flesh is capable of
producing, indeed what it naturally produces now, since it has been poisoned by
transgressions. He says:
For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit
against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye
cannot do the things that ye would. * * * 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; of which I
tell you before, as I have told you in time past, that they that do such things
shall not inherit the kingdom of God.--Gal. 5: 17-21.
Let there be a careful examination of these things which flesh
can do and which it does do--yea, which are characteristic of the flesh
uncontrolled, and then the question may well be asked, Wherein does the flesh
need the help of a supernatural devil? What is there for such a devil to do? Is
there any vice which he can add to those which the flesh is capable of? Surely
there is no need of calling in a supernatural devil when we find the natural,
the flesh, equal to the production of all the categories of evils which are in
the world. In discovering the source, the cause, the fountain of all vices in
the flesh, have we not discovered the real devil--that which causes to cross
the line from right to wrong, from righteousness to wickedness, from virtue to
vice?
If we keep in mind what the lust of the flesh is capable of
doing, yea, what it is natural for it to do, we shall have no difficulty in
finding a proper explanation of passages of Scripture which refer to persons,
kings and nations as "devils" or "satans." The diabolism of
any form of wickedness will be found rooted in the lust of the flesh, the lust
of the eyes and the pride of life, in antagonizing that which is good and
right, and in inciting to that which is bad and wrong.
As a person, Judas was a diabolos, a traducer, a
calumniator, because he betrayed his Master; and that which was the cause was
the lust of the flesh, assuming the form of covetousness.
As a king, Herod was a diabolos, in that his lust for
political power and his fear of being supplanted by him "who was born King
of the Jews," incited his cruelty upon the little children.
As a nation, Rome was a diabolos, in that it passed judgment
against Christ and martyred His followers in an effort to stamp the truth to
the ground and to uphold a superstition which deceived men and dishonored God.
When Jesus said, "I have chosen you twelve and one of
you is a devil," there was no thought of Judas being such a devil as that
of popular belief. Judas himself became a diabolos by yielding to evil
thoughts; and this instance will illustrate all others of a similar character,
and it will render it useless to seek for a cause beyond the lusts of the
flesh. We must not forget that man is in a fallen state--a state in which his
passions are inflamed and his natural proclivities bent upon wrong-thinking and
wrong-doing.
This evil condition varies in different persons. One man may
be possessed of a very "bad temper," another of a "good
temper." What makes the difference? Is it that a separate personal devil
excites the "bad temper" in the one and not in the other? Not at all.
The difference depends upon the phrenological make-up of the men; and this,
too, depends upon the extent to which the passions have been yielded to on the
one hand and curbed and controlled on the other. A "bad temper"
allowed full scope will grow worse and worse and will create a condition of
mind that will be transmitted to future generations, and thus the diabolism of
a "bad temper" becomes a "family failing." The same is true
of all the vices. Cultivate them and they will become master of the man; check,
curb and control them and the man will, to a degree, become master of
them--never, however, so long as he is in the flesh, will it be safe to be off
his guard; and with the utmost watchfulness his mastery over himself will only
be to a degree; for only one was ever able to overcome completely and that one
was Jesus Himself.(1)
(1) It is of course, not necessary that one should accept the
theory of Phrenology or any other scheme of Psychology, in order to be saved
and have a place in God's Kingdom. The theory of Phrenology never was popular,
and it has become even less so as the years have rolled by--which is not the
slightest evidence that it is not true. It nullifies the theory of the
immortality of the soul, and sort of brings men to judgment before the
time--neither of which effects are or can be popular. And as to the systems of
Psychology now in vogue, there are probably no two leading Psychologists who
are in perfect agreement. These systems of character analysis are arts, rather
than sciences: which is to say that they depend for their successful
application upon the skill and intelligence--and experience--of their
practitioners: their ability to balance one faculty or one influence against
another.
No, it is not necessary that one should be an expert in
these matters in order to be saved; but some understanding of the causes and
effects of sin on human-nature is essential. It must be recognized that the
human species, individually and collectively, is degenerate in mind and body,
through sin. Solomon says, "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made
man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." A similar truth is
voiced by Jeremiah, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and
desperately wicked: who can know it?" This is confirmed by the Savior,
when he declares: "Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders,
adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." To this we
may add the testimony of Paul: I find then a law, that, when I would do good,
evil is present with me . . . bringing me into captivity to the law of sin
which is in my members."
Now these mental phenomena of human life as it is seen at present
will help us to discover the mode by which the diabolos originated.
Let us call the present mental state of man an abnormal
state; for we may safely conclude man was not created in his present mental
state. Then we can call his original state, before he fell, when "every
thing was very good," the normal state. The difference between the
two states will then appear to be that one was not naturally bent in the wrong
direction, while the other is. To cause the change from the normal to the
abnormal, something must have occurred to affect, pervert, unbalance the mental
and moral faculties and to cause evil results also in the physical man. What
will intensify the abnormality of the mind now? The answer is, A breach of
law--sin. Passion propagates passion, theft propagates theft, and so on with
all other things that are wrong to do. So we may safely conclude that the
mental and moral abnormality of the human race was originally caused by sin.
The mind having perverted itself, it became hard to control and thus brought
the flesh into such a state that, in order to do good and obey righteous law,
the abnormal lusts, now impregnated in the very being, must be
"overcome," "crucified," "kept under"; and this
because sin is now inherent in the flesh and antagonizes right thinking and
right doing and is therefore the diabolos.
There was therefore a time when "everything was very
good," and therefore when there was no devil, or diabolos; and in the
account of creation the Scriptures are as silent upon the creation of a devil
as they are upon that of a hell. So now the question is, When and how did the
devil originate? The history is clear as it is; any mystery about it is the
result of an attempt to be wise above that which is written. Here it is:
Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field
which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, yea, hath God said, Ye
shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent,
We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the
tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of
it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the
woman, ye shall not surely die; for God doth know that in the day that ye eat
thereof, then your eyes shall be opened; and ye shall be as gods, knowing good
and evil. And 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 to her husband and he did eat.
And the eyes of them both were opened and they knew that they were naked; and
they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons. And they heard the
voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day; and Adam
and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God, amongst the
trees of the garden. (Gen. 3: 1-8.)
Now we need not speculate about what kind of a creature this
"serpent" was, what his manner of locomotion was before he was cursed
to go upon his belly and to eat dust. The testimony declares his subtlety was
greater than that of the creatures of his kind, and informs us that he talked
with the woman. That no such a creature exists now possessed of the same powers
in no way lessens the truth of the history of the case as God has given it to
us. God has spoken; it is for us to believe. To those who go further back than
this history goes, seeking for a devil that will answer to the description of the
popular monster, and who is supposed to have used the serpent as a medium, all
we can say is, you presume to go further than the inspired Word permits you,
and your devil-hunting in the garden of paradise, at a time when God pronounces
"every thing very good," is a reflection upon the work of the
Creator. Let us give Him the credit due to His Holy name in admitting that He
gave us a "very good" start; and let the fact of a subsequent
existence of a diabolos or of a million of them be attributed to sin upon the
part of the creature rather than to an evil work of a beneficent creative hand.
Keeping within the limits of what is written, limits which
the wisest man has no more power or right to go beyond than has the simplest
child, we have a creature which could talk and reason and hereby tempt Eve to
cross the line from right to wrong by telling her a lie, the first lie we ever
hear of. That lie is the father of all evil, the cause of sin; and that serpent
lie became sin on the part of our first parents in the transgression of the
first law we have any record of. They were tempted, drawn away of their lust,
the lust becoming inordinate by believing the lie, it conceived sin, and the
sin, in accordance with the law, brought death. Here is the serpent begetting,
and the woman giving birth to sin--a crossing the line from right to wrong,
from which birth sin has been a power to propagate itself and therefore in
forms innumerable it is the diabolos, the great enemy of mankind. Hence to the
wicked Jews who yielded to sin's influence against Jesus, our Lord said,
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
He was a murderer from the beginning 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,"--Jno. 8: 44.
Now the origin of the whole matter is given clearly by the
apostle Paul in the words, "By one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have
sinned"--Rom. 5: 12. Man, according to this, was in the world before sin
entered and therefore before there was a diabolos, and the order of entry into
the world was, first, man; second, sin; third, death; and now we have
discovered an adequate cause for all evil and man's great enemy, death, and it
is needless to seek for a personal supernatural, omniscient, omnipresent devil.
A comparison of Scripture with Scripture will make this still clearer. We are
told that Jesus came as the "Lamb of God to take away the sin of
the world"; and we are also told that He came to "destroy the works
of the devil" (I. John 3: 8). We also find that sin is the cause of
death; as declared in the words, "Sin when it is finished, bringeth forth
death; and that the devil hath the power of death" (Jas. 1: 15; Heb. 2:
14).
When the lamb of God shall have "taken away the sin
of the world," he will have "destroyed the works of the
diabolos;" and when he has removed from the world the cause of death, he
will have brought sin to an end and destroyed the devil. Since there is only
one cause of death, sin and diabolos must be two words for that
one cause. A person, a society or nation becomes a diabolos by becoming a
sinner, and becomes a sinner by becoming a diabolos. The great evil of the
world consists of all evil things in their many and various forms; and since
these are inseparable from persons their aggregation as the world's great evil,
or the "sin of the world," is personified and called the "evil
one" and sometimes represented by personal pronouns, similarly to the
common way in which we speak of drunkenness and mammon. All drunkards and every
case of individual drunkenness are comprehended in the word
"drunkenness," which we sometimes term "King Alcohol;" and
every act of covetousness is involved in the word mammon when we say
"Mammon is the curse of the world." So every act of sin is involved
in "the sin of the world;" and every influence and incident which
causes to cross the line from right to wrong and incites to slander, to
calumniate and traduce is a manifestation of diabolism and the aggregation of
all these is the diabolos which Christ came to destroy and which he will have
completely destroyed when "he hath put all enemies under his feet and the
last enemy is destroyed, which is death." Then, having passed from
paradise lost to paradise restored, every thing will again be "very
good" and there will be no more devil or diabolos.
The personification of principles and inanimate things is
quite common with all good writers; and to this is largely due the poetic power
of the Scriptures. For instance, "Sheol from beneath is moved for thee to
meet thee at thy coming." Again, "Yea, the fir trees rejoiced at
thee, and the cedars of Lebanon saying," etc. In the New Testament we have
those eloquent words of the apostle Paul, "O death, where is thy sting? O
grave, where is thy victory?" In all these instances we have a
personification of sheol, trees, death and hades, without the remotest thought
of their being real personalities. Then, too, we have sin and obedience
represented by personal pronouns, in the words, "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?" (Rom. 6: 16). No one supposes from this that sin and
obedience are persons, but since neither can exist without a person, and are
acts of persons, they are fittingly personified. So with "evil one"
and diabolos. These are words which stand for the aggregation of evils which
man has brought upon himself by transgression of the law, and which he is
helpless to deliver himself from. But God has promised the complete end of
every form of evil when He will be honored and man blessed.
Now with these thoughts kept in mind we shall have no
difficulty in understanding scriptures which have been erroneously applied to a
fictitious devil.
In Luke 10: 18, the Saviour says, "I beheld satan as
lightning fall from heaven," and in this there is a supposed support for
the popular theory of the devil's origin in heaven. The mistake on this verse
arises from a wrong view of the two words "satan" and
"heaven." As to "satan" we will only say here that it means
adversary, leaving the proofs to be considered further along in our
investigation under its proper heading. But the word "heaven," as we
have already seen in the case of the king of Babylon falling from his throne,
in which he is spoken of as falling from heaven, must be viewed in the scriptures
in two senses--first, as a name for the physical expanse above and the place of
Deity's dwelling; and second, as representing power and position, or rulership
in the kingdoms of men. In modern phraseology this is termed the political
heaven or heavens.
Of the physical heavens it says, "And God made two
great lights; the greater light to rule by day, and the lesser light to rule by
night; he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of heaven to
give light to the earth"--Gen. 1: 16-17. Analogous to this the exalted
position of rulers is termed heaven and the ruled, the people, or subjects of a
kingdom, are called the earth. By referring to what we have said under the
title "The Heavens and the Earth, New and Old" the reader will see
this more fully elaborated.
The Apostle Paul says, "For we wrestle not against
flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers
of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places,
or in the heavenlies. The "wrestling" was with rulers, both of the
Jewish heaven and the Roman heaven, which were adversaries or satans against
the work of Christ and his apostles.
In verse 15 of the chapter in which the words of Jesus occur
with reference to satan's fall from heaven, we read, "And thou Capernaum,
which art exalted up to heaven, shalt be brought down to hell, or hades,
the grave; and the work of establishing Christianity in the place of Judaism
and paganism was to result in like manner in the fall of the rulers of both the
Jews and the Romans who then ruled, and they were satans in that they combined
as an adversary against Christ first and his apostles afterwards. Therefore,
foretelling the triumph of Christianity over this political and spiritual satan
he said, "I beheld satan as lightning fall from heaven."
This fall, so far as pagan Rome was concerned, was also
symbolized to John when on the isle of Patmos, in signifying to him things that
should be hereafter (Rev. 1: 1; 4: 1). In chapter 12, it is said there appeared
to him "A great wonder in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun and
the moon under her feet," etc. Here is the church in an apostate state
exalted to political eminence in contrast to the pure woman which "as the
chaste virgin espoused to Christ" was not of this world, and against whom
the door in the political heaven is closed till the Lord comes to open it as a
way into the "new heaven wherein dwelleth righteousness" (Rev. 4: 1;
II. Pet. 3: 13). This exalted woman gave birth to a political "man child"
(verse 5) when Constantine, the child of the church, was politically born, and
he was caught up into heaven, nominally, "to God and to his throne;"
for He who "ruleth in the kingdoms of men" had decreed that paganism
should be dethroned by nominal christianity. The result was that there
"was war in (the Roman) heaven," "Michael and his angels,"
who were for God as Cyrus and his armies had been his "sanctified
ones" in the destruction of ancient Babylon, "fought against the
dragon; and the dragon (the pagan Roman power) 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 (Roman) world; he was cast out into the earth." Thus
satan as lightning fell from heaven and the "principalities and powers in
the heavens" with which the apostles and all the followers of Christ for
over two centuries had to "wrestle" went down when this satan, or
adversary, the dragon, or pagan power of Rome, fell before the powerful wave of
christianity headed up in Constantine the Great in A. D. 312. The fact that
there had been a departure from the simplicity of the Truth and that a
perverted christianity was the means of the great overthrow of the dragon power
is not inconsistent with its being "on the Lord's side," since it was
for a time the means of protecting the "remnant of the woman's seed,"
or the faithful adherents of true christianity.
It is remarkable that Constantine, after his victory, used
words very similar to those of the scripture which had foretold the event. In a
letter to Eusebius he says: "Liberty being now restored, and that Dragon
being removed from the administration of affairs, by the providence of the
great God, and by my ministry, I esteem the great power of God to have been
made manifest even to all." Eusebius also says that there was a picture of
Constantine, which was set over the gate of the palace. Over his head there was
a cross, and under his feet the great enemy of mankind, who persecuted the
church by means of impious tyrants, in the form of a dragon, having his
body run through with a spear and falling headlong into the sea. Constantine
had a medal struck of himself, with a cross, and trampling a dragon."
History often repeats itself; and since He who inspired the
scriptures could foresee all events, a record of one future event is often
analogous to another more remote. When Christ comes to "reign till he hath
put down all enemies under his feet" satan, diabolos, and daimon or evil
in any form will "be bound." At the end of the days of the kingdom of
men the diabolos spirit will assert itself in its struggle for political
eminence, even against Christ, a greater than Constantine; but the "prince
of Rosh" who will be the leading power of the nations and who will become
the dragon power by his conquest of the seat of the
dragon--Constantinople--will be "cast out of the political heaven,"
and again the world will behold "satan as lightning fall from heaven"
when the "new heaven and the new earth wherein dwelleth
righteousness" shall be established in "the kingdoms of this world
becoming the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ."
Many suppose that the devil that tempted Christ was the
monster of popular belief; and some who have abandoned that fiction have a
difficulty in understanding the narrative. Deity decreed that the plan of
salvation should depend upon a complete victory over the evils which sin had
subjected man to. The execution of this plan must therefore entail suffering
under trial. None of the mere sons of Adam could meet the requirements without
falling helplessly under the load; and therefore God, in His love, laid help
upon one born of the fallen race, who, by faithfulness, would be able to endure
the trials and thereby be "made perfect through suffering," and
become the "Captain of our salvation."
In the origin of the evils which salvation is designed to
eliminate, there was temptation, sin and death; in the removal of the evils,
there must be temptation, righteousness and life. The first Adam when he was
tempted was "drawn away of his own lust," his lust conceived sin, and
sin brought death. The second Adam refused to allow lust to draw him away, or
to conceive sin; and therefore sin, on his part, did not bring forth death.
Hence, though he suffered death because sin had brought it upon the entire
race, of which race he was a member, he "could not be holden of
death;" and therefore he triumphed over sin and death and thereby "destroyed
him that hath the power of death, that is the devil"--destroyed him so far
as Himself was concerned first, in order that he might destroy him for his
people finally in a complete "taking away of the sin of the world."
In considering the temptations of Jesus we must keep in mind
the fact that in order to destroy the devil he was made of flesh and blood
(Heb. 2: 14); and that he was in "all things made like unto his
brethren" (Heb. 2: 17); and that therefore he "was in all points
tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4: 15).
Now this would be a singular way to cope with an omniscient,
omnipresent, immortal devil. How could it be possible for one made of flesh and
blood, in that fallen state susceptible of temptation in all points like to
ourselves, to destroy such a powerful monster? Is it not evident that the devil
is a thing of the flesh, from the fact that Jesus was made flesh and blood in
order that he might destroy the devil? What is it that tempts a man to do
wrong? Answer, "A man when he is tempted is drawn away of his own lusts."
Then lust is the tempter, and lust has been inordinate ever since it was
inflamed by the first sin committed. This is the devil, therefore, to be
destroyed; and since it is in the flesh, called sinful or sin's flesh, Jesus
was made of that very flesh in order that he might overcome and destroy lust,
in the nature which had, by the first sin of man, become sinful. Therefore His
destruction of the devil must be by the overcoming of the temptations which the
flesh would naturally suggest and finally by voluntary submission to that death
which would impale sin's flesh upon the cross as a manifestation of God's
displeasure with the nature of a fallen, perverted sinful race and yet exhibit
His pleasure with a character which was "holy, harmless, and
undefiled," developed in that nature.
Now it will readily be seen that Christ's temptation was
necessarily a thing of the flesh, as all temptation is, and that there is no
reason to seek further for an adequate cause; and now let it be observed that
his temptation was such as to appeal first to the cravings of hunger; second,
to presumption; third, to forbidden ambition, involving covetousness.
It does not require a supernatural devil to tempt a flesh
and blood man who is suffering from the pangs of hunger to seek means whereby
he may satisfy his cravings. No such a devil is necessary to tempt flesh and
blood to show off, by the performance of a startling deed that will attract and
arouse the wonder of the world. Nor is it needful to seek beyond flesh and
blood for ambition for greatness and power in the political world.
It is not wrong to satisfy hunger; but it is wrong to employ
forbidden means to do so. It is not wrong to work miracles, when a manifestation
of God's power and glory is the object; but it is wrong in one possessed of
miraculous power, when the object is the ostentation and the gratification of a
love for notoriety. It is not wrong to strive for exaltation to rulership of
the world to come, but it is wrong for a child of God to aspire to rulership in
the kingdoms of this evil world.
Jesus was suffering hunger. He possessed the power to
miraculously satisfy it; and therein was the trial, the temptation to be
overcome by such an implicit trust in God as could exclaim, "It is
written, man shall not live by bread alone; but by every word that proceedeth
out of the mouth of God." By the way, it did not even require any external
personal natural tempter to urge this temptation--the natural cravings
of the flesh, with the consciousness of the possession of the power to satisfy
was an all sufficient-tempter, and the right and duty overcame, the diabolos
received his first blow, and the victor was, by his success, in this his first
trial, in measure strengthened for to meet the next.
Not only did this first temptation appeal to the appetite of
the natural man; but it involved trust in God, a trust which had examples to
strengthen it. For had not Moses fasted forty days and forty nights and yet the
Lord sustained him? (Ex. 34: 28). Had not the Lord provided ravens to carry
bread to Elijah? Had not manna from heaven been given famishing Israel in the
wilderness? The circumstances attending these instances were such as to place
the recipients of providential provision in a situation of utter dependence
upon God. So Jesus was likewise taken into a wilderness, beyond the reach of
natural means of providing food and yet possessed of miraculous power to
satisfy natural hunger. In the hunger accompanied by this power to supply its
cravings consisted the real temptation. To have performed the suggested
miracles would have shown distrust in God's power and goodness to provide bread
in His own good time, consistent with the degree of trial He required. Surrender
on the part of Jesus would have shown a lack of confidence in God's power to
sustain him through the trying ordeal. His miraculous power was not to be used
for personal ends, not even under the most severe trial. It was only for the
glory of God and to attest the words and confirm the work pertaining to the
public mission of Jesus. Success in this first trial would be a victory over
the cravings of the flesh and an exhibition of the most implicit trust in God,
and again, let me repeat, it was such a trial as needed no other tempter than
the flesh, which, in its famishing condition would naturally suggest the
exercise of possessed miraculous power as a means of relief. But the faithful Son
held out to the end and vanquished the suggestions of the flesh with the sword
of the spirit. Here was a "war going on in his members, the spirit warring
against the flesh," and once the victory was gained Jesus was strengthened
to meet the next trial, which would appeal to the natural presumption of the
flesh.
In the wilderness our Lord is contemplating, and preparing
for the great work before him, having just passed from private life into the
official performance of the great work he came to do. He must meet the gaze of
the world, though he was just emerging from obscurity. How could it be done? In
a moment, the flesh would be ready with a plan by which he would quickly become
a hero in the eyes of the masses. And then, had not scriptures declared that
God would give his angels charge concerning him? By one act he could test the
truth of scripture and make a hero of himself. Would not this be what the flesh
would naturally suggest? Did it require a supernatural devil to invent
this temptation? And suppose it had been suggested by such a devil or even by
an external personal natural devil, would it have been any more of a trial?
Jesus was not yet an angel possessed of impeccable nature. He must be tempted
in all points like unto his brethren, and therefore sin's flesh was his nature
purposely in order that it might do just what it did do--suggest, in this case,
a presumptuous test of the truth of scripture by a misapplication of scripture.
But quick as a flash, the mind of the spirit was ready to resist the devil and
make him flee--drive the fleshly thought out of the mind. Jesus was fortified
with the knowledge that the promises of the scriptures were predicated upon a
performance of duty, and realizing that "the path of safety was the
way of duty" he quickly drove out the fleshly thoughts and braced
himself with the words, "It is written, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy
God." Another victory was won--over what? Over the flesh; whose desire for
unlawful notoriety by unlawful means had been peremptorily rebuked, and a
noble, faithful and abiding trust in God was exhibited for our example.
One more trial must be met, and here again we may ask, did
it require a supernatural devil to suggest this? Did Jesus depend upon such a
devil for power to take the kingdoms of the world? Did he depend upon even a natural
personal devil in the form of a king or any living man? Jesus knew very well
that no such a devil as the popular personal monster had the power to give him
the kingdoms of the world; and with such knowledge wherein would be the
temptation? He knew likewise that no man had the power, even if it could be
supposed that he had the will, to give Jesus the kingdoms of the world. One
would only bestow a laugh of contempt upon any kind of a devil that might offer
what it were well known he had no power to give. There would be no real trial
in such "temptation." To give edge to a temptation the tempted must
believe that the tempter has the power to fulfil his part of the contract. Now
search for the power to take the kingdoms of the world, and the only one in
whom you will find it is Christ; and in the fact of his consciousness of the
possession of such power and yet that he resisted, and manifested the
resignation to abide the Father's time, is seen the real merits of the victory.
To have allowed the Jews to "take him by force and make him a king,"
or to have exercised his miraculous power to seize the kingdoms of this world
would have been worshipping the flesh instead of serving God. The flesh could
easily, as it always does, quote scripture to prove that to the Messiah
belonged the kingdoms of this world, and why not take them? But the mind of the
Spirit knew the time allotted for each part of the mission of the Saviour--that
in which he must be "made perfect through suffering;" and that in
which he will rightfully transform "the kingdoms of this world into the
kingdom of our Lord and his Christ."
The "orthodox" theory is that Christ was "God
very God;" and that the devil is a hideous, cloven-footed, powerful
personality. If these two theories are true the temptation of Jesus was a sham.
How could such a devil tempt God to sin? Just imagine such a devil offering God
the kingdoms of this world. If it be said that God had assumed human form, that
will not explain how He could cease to be God and forget His former omniscience
and omnipotence and become actually a man, and really susceptible of
such temptations as Jesus was subjected to. Jesus was begotten of God, born of
a woman and "made like unto his brethren;" and his temptation was
"in all points like unto theirs, yet without sin." His education and
preparation for the ordeal of his trial would forewarn and forearm him against
temptation from such a being as the popular devil. He would know who he was the
moment he presented himself, and he would have disdained to talk with such a
creature for a single moment. For a low, besotted man to suggest an evil act to
a respectable upright man would be no temptation at all. The very sight of the
sot would be enough. If it be claimed that the devil had the power to
hypnotize, then again there was no real trial in the case; for one hypnotized
is not a subject of a mental and moral trial; he is a helpless victim.
To claim that it was the popular supernatural devil that
tempted Christ is to exalt the devil above one who, according to the popular
belief, was "God very God," and to represent the devil as offering to
give kingdoms to God himself. The temptation of Christ cannot be explained upon
any other basis than that it was a struggle of the mind in determining whether
to yield to the natural inclination of the flesh to seize present, temporal
gratification at the cost of future and eternal blessings, or to deny the
promptings of the flesh, though for the time it would necessitate great
suffering, in order to attainment to the eternal and glorious reward which God
had in His wisdom and goodness placed, not at the beginning of probation, but
at the end. Jesus, therefore, succeeded as the "seed of the woman"
against the "seed of the serpent" in a hard-fought battle which
manifested that "enmity" which God in the beginning had declared
should exist between sin's flesh and the spirit of truth and righteousness.
After this great victory the adversary, satan, or diabolos, would be certain of
defeat throughout the Lord's entire probation till he would attain to the
"joy that was set before him" beyond the cross.
If in the Saviour's overcoming the diabolos--destroying him
and all his works--we find no place for any sort of a devil except the sinful
proclivities of man's fallen nature, is it to be supposed for a moment that we
shall find any other devil as an enemy with which we must contend? When from
scripture, observation and experience we learn the sinful tendencies and
capabilities of the flesh, it will be useless to look further for a satan, a
diabolos or a devil. If in the "war in our members" which must be
waged in every one who strives to do the right we give the mind begotten by and
imbued with the spirit of truth and righteousness the preeminence, we shall
have done our part in "resisting the devil" and in causing him to
"flee from us." Let us therefore consider well the task before us and
we shall find where our enemy is, and what he is, and thereby half the battle will
have been fought.
As a further means of understanding the meaning of the word
diabolos, which is rendered devil in our translation, we will now examine the
use of the word where it has been properly translated. This translation will
show that when there was no possible way to make the word mean the same as the
word "devil" was intended to mean the translators could be true to
the original word; for the translation in the cases we are about to consider
gives the true definition of Diabolos. It is by comparing Scripture with
Scripture that we can best arrive at the correct doctrinal meaning of Scripture
words. Dictionaries and lexicons often give theological meanings opposed to the
Biblical meaning, and therefore they are not always safe to follow. This is
apparent in the meanings given of "soul," "spirit,"
"hell," etc.
In 1842 there was a book anonymously published on the
subject of the devil. The author was evidently a scholar, and he treated the
subject masterly and elaborately, though on other matters incidentally
introduced he was in error, which somewhat hampered him. The book has been
republished by brother Thos. Nisbet, of Glasgow, Scotland, to whom we are
indebted for a copy, which we have read with much satisfaction. Upon that part
of the subject now before us we cannot do better than quote from this valuable
book. After giving a list of passages wherein diabolos occurs the author says:
What, then, is the word rendered "devil" in these
passages? It is diabolos. What does this mean? It is derived from diaballo,
this itself being compounded, or made up, of two words, dia, through, and
ballo, to strike, to pierce (as with an arrow): diaballo,
therefore signifies to pierce through: and as, when a man's character is
attacked by the false charges of another, his character is pierced through with
darts of calumny. And, as the idea of this calumny implies that the accusations
are false, the term diabolos means a false-accuser, a
calumniator. The proper meaning of the word diabolos is, therefore, FALSE-ACCUSER,
CALUMNIATOR; the improper meaning is "devil"--this improper interpretation
having been first given by the translators of the Scriptures into Greek; a
rendering Leigh remarks, "nowhere else sampled (i.e., so used) in
any Greek author." The derivation of this word thus proves that
false-accuser, calumniator, is the correct translation.
Additional evidence that "false-accuser" is the
correct translation of diabolos is offered in the occasional use of the
proper meaning of the word in the common translation. A few passages may be
noted. Paul, in writing to Timothy respecting the wives of deacons, observes,
"Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful
in all things," I. Tim. 3:11. The phrase, "not slanderers," is
in the original, me diaboli, not devils--that is, if the proper meaning
of the word diabolos is "devil." The translators here were
obliged to translate the word rightly: for the same subserviency of mind that
caused them to obey the audacious mandate of King James to translate the word ecclesia,
"church" and not assembly or congregation, which is its
proper meaning, would operate in making them avoid giving offence to the fair
sex, which they would have done had they rendered the word diaboloi
"devils." Their gallantry, perhaps it was, made them do right.
This, then, is passage the first where the proper meaning has been given.
Paul, in writing to Titus, uses the same expression:
"The aged women, likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness,
not false-accusers," Tit. 2: 3. The phrase rendered "not
false-accusers" is me diaboloi, not devils--if "devil" be
the proper meaning of the word diabolos. The translators, however, have
here again, by the undoubted application of the term to women, been obliged to
translate the word properly, and have themselves thus afforded a second
evidence that diabolos means false-accuser.
A third passage, confirming this as the proper
interpretation, is the following:--"This know also, that in the last days
perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves,
covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful,
unholy. Without natural affection, truce-breakers, false-accusers,
incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good: Traitors, heady,
high-minded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; having a form of
godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away," II Tim. 3:
1-3. Here the word, correctly rendered "false-accusers," is diaboloi,
"devils"--that is, if "devils" is the proper
interpretation--the interpretation given to it in thirty-five other
passages in the common translation. But it is not the proper rendering: the
proper translation has been given in this passage, thus affording a
third confirmatory evidence that "false-accuser" is the meaning of
the word diabolos.
In all the passages thus quoted the word is applied to human
beings, and not to any supernatural, invisible beings--a fact well worthy
of being noted.
The question here occurs, If the phrase "false-accuser,"
or that of "slanderer," is the proper translation in these passages,
why should not a similar rendering be given throughout the Scriptures? Why
should the Translators, or, more correctly, the Revisors of the Scriptures, not
have rendered the word uniformly throughout? The answers are left to be
supplied by the common-sense of each inquirer.
It will be seen from the preceding remarks that false-accuser,
slanderer, calumniator is the primary meaning, and, it may be added, the
proper meaning of the word diabolos--a meaning which has this advantage,
that all can understand it; a statement which cannot be made in reference to
the word "devil;" for does any one, adopting the common notions,
understand what the "Devil" is? Do any two people agree on his character,
his existence, his attributes? Seeing, then, that there is a simple meaning,
and seeing there is a mysterious meaning, can it be proper, can it be
advantageous, to substitute a word which has no definite meaning for one which
has a fixed, a practical meaning?
Now with this definition of the word diabolos there is no
difficulty in understanding any passage in which the word occurs. If it be Eph.
4: 27-"Neither give place to the devil," the meaning is, not to yield
to the lust of the flesh in any form. I. Pet. 5: 8-"Your adversary the
devil, as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he may devour," means
the wickedness of sin's flesh in the power of Rome, persecuting and putting to
death the followers of Christ. This devil would "cast some of God's people
into prison" (Rev. 2: 10), an act which was within the power of the
authorities of the government, and not that the popular devil had police power
and was engaged in putting men in the Roman prison.
That devil that contended with the angel about the body of
Moses (Jude 9) could not have been the creature of popular creeds for if the
"body of Moses" means Moses' corpse, what would such a devil contend
about a corpse for? No doubt "the body of Moses" means the body
politic; for it is said, "They were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud
and in the sea" (I Cor. 10: 2). Moses was the head and Israel was the body
in a similar sense to Christ being the head of the body, which is the church.
About the body politic of Moses there was a dispute, raised by Korah, Dathan
and Abiram; and this insurrection needed nothing more than the flesh to incite
it; for it is a common thing for flesh to do. It is jealous; it is ambitious;
it is covetous and it is crafty; and these characteristics were present in the
case of those who, combined, became a diabolos against Moses and the nation of
whom, under God, he was the head and leader.
That which incites to do evil is diabolos. Let any honest
man take a retrospect of his life and consider well the trials he has passed
through in refusing to do wrong and in determining to do right; and let him ask
himself what was the tempter in all cases. Persons may have tried to allure him
by apparently fair words, but these persons would be natural tempters and not
supernatural. Any tendency to yield to them would be characteristic of his own
fleshly nature, and not of an invisible supernatural devil. An honest man, with
the experiences of his life before him, will be frank enough to admit that in
every case of temptation, wherein he had failed he had himself to blame; and
wherein he overcame, he did so by a strength of mind which determined to do the
right. Such men as commit murder and other crimes of the grosser sort, either
from delusion or dishonesty, shift the blame from themselves to an imaginary
supernatural devil; and they are encouraged in this cowardice by the popular
religious leaders. Were the civil government to admit the claims of popular
religion, it would have no right to punish a man for a crime; for how can a man
be held responsible for what he does while hypnotized by a being possessed of
supernatural power? Viewed from any reasonable standpoint the theory of a
supernatural devil must be seen to be a pagan fiction disguised by its devotees
in garments made of scripture words. Every intelligent, enlightened man will
find enough to do in the struggle between right and wrong, if he overcome his
own fleshly proclivities; and in proportion to his failure will be his blame;
and in proportion to his success will be his merit.
The word "devil" in the English version of the New
Testament is also used to represent the original word daimon; and the
translation is tainted with the theory of the translators concerning
disembodied spirits, or ghosts. We can the more boldly say this now, since the
Revision has exposed the same weakness in the use of the word "hell"
for two words in the original--gehenna and hades. While the
modern leaders still hold to the ancient theory of disembodied spirits, they
have made such changes in their belief as the result of superstition giving
place to education that they have no longer any use for disembodied spirits for
the purpose supposed to be involved in the New Testament account of demons. The
prevalent idea in the days of Jesus was that diseases were produced by
"spirits." Blindness, dumbness, insanity, etc., were all the work of
"spirits" possessed by the unfortunate victims; but now religious
leaders know better, and are able to dispense entirely with such "spirits"
in accounting for the same diseases. With the ancient mythologists
"spirits" were essential in accounting for diseases; now they are
not; therefore their existence is no longer necessary. If it is superstition to
believe now as in the past that diseases are inflicted by disembodied spirits,
may it not be superstition also to believe in the existence of such spirits?
The supposed utility of their existence having been seen to be a delusion, why
retain them without any thing for them to do in the line of employment in which
they were once supposed to be engaged?
Our language is full of words of heathen origin; but such
words no longer mean what they did on the lips of a heathen. Our meaning is
well understood now when we call an insane person a "lunatic,"
without retaining the theory that the person is moon-struck. One using the word
"lunatic," would not thereby be committed to the ancient theory. So
with our use of the names of the days of the week, as well as many names of
diseases, for example, "St. Anthony's fire," "St. Vitus dance."
We accommodate ourselves to the phraseology of our times without being held to
the original meaning thereof.
Now what is permissible in our times in this respect was
also so in the days of Jesus and His apostles. When a disease was miraculously
cured, the act was described in the language of the times. Then as now, some
held the heathen view, others the reasonable and truthful view. The words
"soul" and "spirit" are used to-day by some wrongfully, by
others rightfully; and the latter cannot be held responsible for the former. So
with the words daimon and demoniac in the days of Jesus. Suppose
we transfer the phraseology of those times down to our own times and use it in
the description of curing diseases, would not the facts be precisely the
same? The use of the words now would no more make the cure of disease a literal
casting out of demons or "spirits" than the use of the words then and
vice versa. The facts represented by the words are what we must seek to find,
and not stumble over the words into the delusions generally associated with
them. The following quotation from "Yates's History of Egypt" will
illustrate the truth in this matter very clearly:
It would seem that the same diseases prevailed then in Syria
and Egypt as now, and the various practices adopted by the people concerning
them have very little changed during a period of nearly two thousand years.
Nothing is more common in the present day in the East than to be told that a
person has a devil or is possessed of a devil; and the expression is applied
more or less to every complaint. I had occasion to notice this
immediately on my arrival in the country.
I have known the Rev. Mr. Wolff ridiculed for stating that
one evening when he was passing between Jerusalem and Cairo he "cast out a
devil in the wilderness;" but I can only suppose he used the expression in
the sense alluded to, and that he merely employed the native idiom. I have
often been applied to myself in Syria and other parts to cast out a devil; by
which I merely understood that I was to cure the bodily ailments of the
individuals--not that I was expected to perform a miracle on the occasion,
further than that the cure of every disease is ascribed by the natives to a
talismanic influence.
Now let us examine, for example, the first instance in the
New Testament of casting out a demon. In Matt. 9: 32 we read, "As they
went out, behold, they brought to him a dumb man possessed of a devil (daimonizomenon--being
demonized), and when the devil (daimonion) was cast out, the dumb man
spake." What really was the matter with this man? He was dumb; and the
very same affliction is the sad lot of many persons today. Shall we say of the
dumb of today that they are demonized? Yes, if the word is used to describe
dumbness; no, if it is used as meaning that every dumb person is possessed of a
"disembodied spirit," or ghost afflicting a man with dumbness. To
"cast out a demon" now, in a similar case, would be to cure the
afflicted of dumbness; but a "spirit," called a "demon"
would no more be an entity leaving the cured person than fever would be a
"spirit" or "demon" as an entity leaving a person of whom
we may say, "Her fever left her." So when it is said, "He has
lost his speech," "he lost his hearing;" or "his speech
returned," "his hearing came back to him." A comparison of the facts
in the case will show that it is only a difference in phraseology in different
times, in different countries to describe the same facts.
The relation of the two words--diabolos and daimon--may
be said to be that of cause and effect. Therefore when the former came into the
world, the latter followed; and in the same order they will go out of the
world. The Apostle Paul says, "Sin entered into the world," and when
"the sin of the world is taken away," sin will have gone out of the
world. When sin entered, diabolos entered, and thereby man's nature became
afflicted with diseases, or we may say, became demonized. When the diabolos is
destroyed, the demonized condition of the fallen race will cease. No one
supposes that when Paul says, "sin entered into the world" he meant
that sin was a "spirit" or an entity coming from one world to
another. So when the "Lamb of God" shall have "taken away the
sin of the world," no one supposes that sin is an entity taken from one
world to another. If sin could be said to have entered the world, and yet the
statement not mean that an entity entered, then if we call sin diabolos,
we can say diabolos entered; and when sin is destroyed and is no more in the
world, diabolos will have been destroyed and will be no more in the world.
Since the disease of the human family--mortality--is the result of sin, disease
may be said also to have entered into the world, and, using the heathen word,
we may say that thereby the race became demonized, or became possessed of a
demon in the form of mortality. Now the work of the Redeemer is to cast out
this demon; and in the casting out of the demon there will no more be a
personality or a million personalities than in the coming in.
Now transfer this from the race and the universal affliction
of man with the demon of mortality to an individual afflicted with one of the
many diseases resulting from a mortal state, and we can say of a certain
disease that it entered man and that, when the man is cured, it left the man;
or, to change it into Eastern phraseology of New Testament times, we would say
a demon entered a man, and, when he is cured, a demon was cast out.
If a superstitious person were to say of a certain woman,
"She is possessed of seven demons," that person would have in mind
that seven immaterial entities had entered the woman and that they were
afflicting her with seven diseases. A more enlightened person might not deem it
needful, and indeed might know it would be impossible for the time being, to
correct the superstitious idea, and might use the same language, the
"seven demons" meaning to him seven diseases. So even now in this
western world and in this boasted age of enlightenment some who still hold to
the fag ends of heathenism, despite their education and their advantage in the
advancement of science, say of a person when he dies, "His soul left
him," meaning that an immaterial, conscious entity had left him; but the
language to one enlightened in the Bible and in true science would mean that
the man's life had gone out or had been extinguished.
The greatest difficulty in understanding some of the New
Testament accounts of casting out demons is in the fact that the language
sometimes seems to make them appear to speak independently of the person whom
they are supposed to possess. Allowing that this difficulty forces the
conclusion that the demons were entities and that they actually did speak, the
question will arise, Why is the same phenomenon not to be found in similar
afflictions today? We may visit an insane asylum and hear much strange talk and
see many distressing actions, but all would clearly be the talk and actions of
the poor unfortunates who would be distressingly visible and not a word would
come from invisible entities, demons or "spirits." Have facts
changed? Have the "spirits" who talked in times of yore become dumb,
or gone off on a journey, while the same diseases still remain to afflict
mankind? No one is foolish enough to answer yes. The facts are the same now as
then; and therefore the difficulty is in the phraseology only, and it may be
removed by a careful consideration of facts, with the mind freed from
superstition.
Now let us examine a case where the demons appear to speak.
Matt. 8: 28-34 will illustrate all other passages of similar phraseology. Even
in this, however, some allowance must be made for coloring on the part of the
translators--not necessarily intentional; but because of their holding to
heathen demonology. In this passage we have a description of two insane men.
They are said to be possessed of demons. Verse 31 says, "So the devils
(demons) besought him" etc. If there were no demons there as separate
entities or "spirits" how could they talk? Here is the difficulty.
But we must not forget that we are in the presence of two insane men,
and therefore we may not hope to listen to rational speech; but we may expect
to hear them speak in accordance with the deluded state of their minds. Even in
our day some men profess to be incarnations of women. What is
this, but a delusion (or a fraud) that the disembodied entities of the dead
women have entered into these men? One professes to be an incarnation of
Christ; another of Elijah, etc. Now it would not be strange if these
women-incarnated men should personate the women and use the feminine gender in
speaking of themselves; nor if the pretended Christ-incarnate man should try to
personate and speak as if he were Christ. It would be consistent with the
delusion, but not with reason and facts, and that is all that can be expected
in such cases. We have heard of an insane man who supposed himself to be Queen
Victoria. It would not be strange if he talked according to his delusion. Now
suppose one deluded with the theory that he was not simply one immortal soul
inside the body, but that he was many immortal souls--even "legion"
[Latin: meaning Regiment]--being, to use modern fashionable language, so many
souls "incarnate." Would he not be likely to speak of himself in the
plural number? If he believed his plural self guilty and destined to be
consigned by the Messiah, whom he recognized in Jesus, to disembodiment and
then "torment" (verse 29) would he not be likely, consistent with the
heathen theory of transmigration of souls, to beg that his plural spirit-self
be allowed transmigration into an herd of swine rather than into the supposed
"torment"? It is not to be doubted that those deluded mortals who in
our day prate about being 'incarnations" of this one and that one, had
they the choice between transmigration into a herd of swine and transportation
to the hell of "torment" they believe in, they would follow the
example of those of their kind in the country of the Gergesenes. In the
narrative the possessed are identified with the possessions in the style of the
language of the East without stopping to make a radical change, which would
have been impossible with those who were so imbued with the spirit of
demonology. For the demons to beseech was for the men who supposed themselves a
legion of demons to do so, and if when their insanity was transmitted to the
herd of swine they supposed the "spirits" had been
"transmigrated" into them, to the enlightened then and now the
meaning would be clear as to the facts in the case. Of course if it
required one "spirit" for every disease, and the insanity of one pig
would not result from the possession of another, there must have been as many
demons in the two men as there were pigs in the herd of swine--and there were
two thousand. But who that is sane would believe such a thing? The only
conclusion therefore is that allowance must be made for the language of the
times and circumstances in the case, and that two insane men were restored to
their senses, and miraculously the herd of swine which was kept unlawfully, was
afflicted with a madness that proved their destruction. Indeed, according to
the science of our times all diseases have their germs, which are transmissible
from one person to another. And it is surely more reasonable to believe that
the germs of insanity were transmitted actually from the insane men to the
swine that it is to hold that so many immaterial, immortal disembodied ghosts
passed from the one to the other. As to the insane when the cure had been
performed it is said of one of the men, "he was sitting clothed and in
his right mind" (Mark 5: 15). In his madness he had torn off his
clothes and raved; but now he was sane and acted accordingly. These are facts
which show what was done, and are accounted for without the aid of the heathen
theory of transmigration or incarnation of disembodied souls of dead men and
women.
Before dismissing this part of our subject it may be well to
give a short history of demonology, as a means of showing that the popular
theory of our times is identical with that of heathenism so far as the
existence of departed disembodied spirits is concerned, the very theory to
which demonology owes its origin. The absurdities associated with the theory by
the ancient Greeks, Romans, and by the Jews after they became idolators, are
now ridiculed by people of education, and yet many of them still cling to that
which was responsible for those absurdities. The foolish tales told about
demons and the attributing of jugglery by the ignorant to their supposed occult
powers are no more absurd than is the theory of departed disembodied spirits
itself. Perhaps the reading of the short history we are about to give will make
this manifest; and the truth of the prediction of the Apostle Paul will be
found exemplified in quarters that will be a surprise to many. He declared,
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter (later) times some
shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of
devils (demons); speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared
with a hot iron" (I. Tim. 4: 1, 2). The "doctrine of demons" is
the doctrine of disembodied spirits, with all its attendant lies and frauds
about purgatory, ghosts, apparitions, table rapping, etc. It is all the
outgrowth of the immortality of the soul, which originated in the words of the
serpent--"Ye shall not surely die; but ye shall be as gods." This
doctrine, Gibbon says, the Jews did not believe till they went to Babylon. When
Jesus appeared it had so become interwoven in the language of the times that by
the use of the language those who did not countenance the theory were forced
into circumstances which compelled them to appear as if they did; and we are
today in a similar predicament; and we are compelled to express truth in words
which originally (and modernly with some) expressed heathen fictions.
The following concise history we quote from the book
previously referred to, entitled "The Devil, an Expose":
In what sense then, was the word Daimon used by the
Greek writers? A most extended inquiry by Mr. Farmer has established that the
Greek writers used this word to express HUMAN "SPIRITS" of departed
people. Many such "spirits" of departed human beings the ancients
deified and worshipped: and hence the word daimon meant to the Greek and
those who used their language, human departed "spirits," raised to
the rank of gods and deities. "Homer calleth all his gods, daimones,
and Hesiod, the worthies of the golden age."--Leigh's Critica
Sacra, Article Daimon. Hesiod maintains, indeed, that whenever a
good man dies he becomes a demon: and Plato praises him for the sentiment.
The heathen had two classes of gods: the world, together
with all its constituent parts and principles, and the demons. "They
conceived the world to be pervaded and animated by a vital and intelligent
substance they regarded as a divinity which contained, framed, and governed all
things." Farmer on Miracles, p.107. Cicero expressly asserts--"There
is nothing more perfect than the world--it is wise, and, on this account, a
god." He further adds, "that, although a Stoic, he acknowledged that
this world is wise, has a mind, which has fabricated both itself and the world,
and regulates, moves, and rules all things." Balbus, the Stoic, maintains
that "the world is a god, and the habitation of the gods." These were
designed as the natural gods. Besides these, the heathens maintained
that certain "spirits" existed which held a middle rank between
the gods and men on earth; and, because they were regarded as carrying on all intercourse
between the gods and men, as conveying the addresses of men to the gods, and
distributing the benefits of the gods to men, they were called, from daio,
to distribute, daimones. The opinion further prevailed that the
celestial gods did not themselves interpose in human affairs, but committed the
whole management to these daimones, and on this account these demons
became the great object of religious hope, of fear, of dependence, and of
worship.
A further consideration affording very strong evidence that
these "demons" meant the "spirits of departed men" is that
the parentage and, consequently, the human origin of almost all
the heathen deities were known and recorded. Philo Biblyus, the translator of
Sanchoniathon's History of the Gods, expressly asserts, "That the
Phoenicians and Egyptians, from whom other people derived this custom, reckoned
those amongst the great gods who had been benefactors to the human race: and
that, to them, they erected pillars and statues, and dedicated sacred festivals."--Apud
Euseb. Praep. Evangelica, lib. I, c. ix, p. 32. Diodorus Siculus states,
"That there were two classes of gods, the one eternal and immortal, the
other such as were born on the earth and arrived at the titles and honours of
divinity on account of the blessings they bestowed on mankind."--Lib. i
and v. This writer describes Saturn, Jupiter, Apollo, and others (the primary
gods of paganism) as illustrious men. Plato remarks, "All those who
die valiantly in war are of Hesiod's golden generation, and become demons;
and we ought forever to worship and adore their sepulchres, as the sepulchres
of demons."--Plato de Republica, c. v. 468, tom. ii, editio Serrani. This
transference of warlike heroes into gods, and the worship of them, many regard
as belonging peculiarly and solely to paganism: but have we not the same things
in our day? Do we not see statues erected in our streets to those chargeable
with legal murder which are raised for the mental worship of our children?--the
Wellingtons, the Nelsons, and hosts of others. And with what is the cathedral
of our metropolis filled? Is it with the ministers of peace? with the Fenelons,
the Oberlins, the Whitfields, the Watts, the Arkwrights, the Townshends, the
Benthams, the Adam Smiths, the Raikes? No: The interior of St. Paul's presents,
as Mr. Peter Stuart, of Liverpool, after a visit he paid recently to that
splendid edifice, remarked, "an assembly of gladiators." Add
to the look of imitative admiration a mental worship (bestowed by the young on
these gladiators), some regular ceremonies, and then there would be no
difference between the worship of Hercules and Mars of old, and of the
Wellingtons and the Nelsons now.
To return from this digression on modern hero worship, it is
apparent that among the Greeks the term daimon expressed a "departed
human 'spirit,'" DEIFIED. The Greeks held further that these daimones,
or "departed human 'spirits,'" had the power of TAKING
POSSESSION of other HUMAN BEINGS, and that they could be expelled
from these beings so possessed. Hence Lucian, writing respecting an exorcist,
one who so dispossessed the possessed, remarks: ekselaunei ton daimona =
he expelled the demon (Lucian's Philospeudes, p. 338, vol. ii., edit.
Amstelodami). Lucian affords, in a dialogue in the works from which the above
is a quotation, the view entertained in his day regarding demons. Four parties
are introduced in the dialogue; three, Ion, Eucrates, and Diognotus, being
believers in demons, and the fourth, Tychiades, who is not a believer therein.
Ion, after he had given an account of the person who cast out demons, adds that
he himself had seen one (that is, a demon) so ejected. "Many others as
well as you," said Eucrates, "have met with demons (daimosin).
I have a thousand times seen such things." In proof of this assertion, he
assures the company that he and his family had often seen the statue of Pelchus
descending from his pedestal, and walking round the house--pp. 338-339. In the
sequel of the dialogue, Eucrates, who had been defending the doctrine of
apparitions, says, "We have been endeavoring to persuade Tychiades (who
sustains the character of an unbeliever in these points) that there are demons
(diamonas tinas einai) and that the phantasms and souls of the dead
wander upon the earth, and appear to whom they please," p. 346. To confirm
this sentiment, Diognotus, the Pythagorean, bids Tychiades go to Corinth, where
he might see the very house from which he himself expelled the demon (daimona)
that disturbed it, which was the ghost of a dead man, p. 348. Hippocrates
expressly states that the Greeks referred possession to the gods and the
heroes, all of whom were human spirits. He wrote an essay on epilepsy, which
was called hiereus nosos, the sacred disease, because the people
believed what the priests taught, that epileptics were possessed: and the
priests, the magicians, and the impostors derived a considerable revenue from
attempting to cure this disease by expiations and charms. The essay was written
to expose this delusion of his countrymen, he attempting to prove that this
disease was neither more divine or sacred than any other.
The Latins also entertained the idea that "departed
human 'spirits'" sometimes possessed the living. Those so possessed among
them were so called the Cerriti and Larvati: the Cerriti from the goddess
Ceres, who was supposed to possess them; the Larvati from the laros, gods, who
were supposed to be the possessing. The correspondence between the possessing
beings, the lares, and the daimones, Cicero testifies--They whom
the Greeks considered daimones, we, I consider, [call] lares.
Littleton, in his valuable dictionary, defines the larvae as the souls of the
dead, which they elsewhere called shades. And Arnobius relates that
Varro asserts that the larvae are lares, being, as it were, certain genii and
the souls of the departed. And Crito, a learned writer, thus writes: the
larvati are demoniacs; the larvae, by which they are possessed, are human
ghosts (De Crito, vol. i. p. 238). Strabo, who flourished in the time of the
Emperor Augustus, calls the goddess Feronia (who was born in Italy) a demon;
and says that those who were possessed with this demon walked barefoot
over burning coals; and Philostratus, who was contemporary with our Saviour,
relates "that a demon, who possessed a young man, confessed himself to be
the ghost of a person slain in battle" (Strabo, lib., v, p. 364).
Opinions similar to those held by the Greeks and the Latins,
were entertained by the Jews. Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian,
asserts that those called daimonia are the "spirits" of wicked
men who enter the living, and kill those who receive no help (De Bell. Jud.,
lib. vii, 2, 6, 3). Very early in the history of the Jews they had become
acquainted with the gods of the heathen, and showed a lamentable proneness to
adopt the principles and the practices of their superstitious and idolatrous
neighbours. The philosophy of the East was greatly studied and admired by the
Jews, and they came to regard persons possessed as possessed by the same
"spirits" as those which their neighbours regarded as possessing. So
strongly was this opinion rooted in their minds and so generally diffused among
the people, that when the Saviour cast out daimonia, the Pharisees
observed, "He casteth out daimonia by Beelzebub, the Prince of Daimonia"
(Matt. 9: 34), a statement at which no astonishment was expressed; which, had
not the knowledge of the doctrine of possession by "departed human
spirits" been general among the Jews, would have excited astonishment.
Who, then, was this Beelzebub, the prince, not of devils, as
the Common Version renders the word, but of demons? We read in the Old
Testament that one of the kings of Israel, namely, Ahaziah, "sent
messengers, and said unto them, Go, inquire of Beelzebub, the God of Ekron,
whether I shall recover of this disease?" (II. Kings 1: 2). This Beelzebub
was esteemed a god--that is, a deified human "spirit," which
"spirit" the Jews, like other nations, believed to possess people. The
meaning of the word zebub or zebul is a fly, the god which the
Ekronites worshipped. History informs us that those who lived in hot climates,
and where soil is moist (which was the case with the Ekronites, who bordered on
the sea), were exceedingly infested with flies. These insects were thought to
cause contagious distempers. Pliny makes mention of a people, who stopped a
pestilence which these insects occasioned, by sacrificing to the fly-
hunting god (Plin. Nat. Hist. lib. x. c, p. 20 & 40). Influenced by
this prejudice, Ahaziah, instead of applying to Jehovah God, applied to this
god of Ekron for deliverance, or for a knowledge of his state in reference to
the disease, which he most likely considered to depend upon the influence of
these flies; and that, on this ground, Beelzebub could inform him of the
result. (Beelzebub was, most likely, Jupiter, who is described by the Greeks as
muiodes, the god of flies, and the muiagros, the fly hunter). The
fact of Ahaziah applying to Beelzebub shows at what an early period the Jews
were acquainted with the demonology of the surrounding heathen nations, and how
they had adopted the notions regarding the power of these demons; a fact which
explains the use of the phrase daimonion so frequently in the gospels.
The existence of these daimones, as possessing and influencing human
beings, was recognized so fully among the Jews, that Josephus, already quoted,
who was nearly contemporary with the apostles, dwells much upon the expulsion
of demons; he gives an instance of successful expulsion when tried by a Jew in
the presence of Vespasian: and further declares, no doubt with the view of
elevating the great monarch of the Jews, SOLOMON, that God instructed Solomon
in the anti-demoniac art.
It will be seen from the foregoing that Beelzebub, or
Beelzebul, was the heathen fictitious god of the fly. Of course it was not a
god at all--had existence only in the demonized minds of pagans. This which is
now admitted is quite helpful to us in understanding the Saviour's use of words
without being responsible for the errors associated with them. Even modern
believers in demonology will not claim that He committed himself to the heathen
theory by not protesting against the use of the word Beelzebub, or even by
using it himself, when He said, "And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by
whom do your sons cast them out?" In this passage we have the words
"Beelzebub" and "cast out demons." It would be quite as
unreasonable to claim that the Saviour believed in the heathen god of the fly
because He used the word Beelzebub as it is to claim that He believed in the
heathen theory of "casting out demons" because He used their words.
That there are difficulties it cannot be denied; but the
difficulties arise from perversion of language by heathen dogmas, thousands of
words having been invented to suit thousands of heathen fictions; and so Jesus
and His apostles in their times, and we in our times, are forced by stubborn
circumstances to use an impure language, saturated with heathenism. All we can
do is, keep the mind in a higher atmosphere than the tongue or pen, and,
"as through a glass darkly," see truth in words which originated in
lies. If any object to this, let them ask what they mean when they name
the days of the week. When the glorious time comes to put an end to the
"strange language" of an idolatrous world, He who in the days of His
humiliation was compelled, in measure, to take the language as it was, will
"turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name
of the Lord, to serve him with one consent" (Zeph. 3: 9).
Satan is a Hebrew word (Sathan), and it did not originate as
a name for a heathen fiction. It had a legitimate birth; but it has not escaped
improper use at the hands of a perverted theology; for it has been tagged on to
the fictitious devil of popular dogma. In the use of this word it is a question
of the mind as to whether it is employed truthfully or falsely. The word on the
tongue of one whose mind is imbued with the personal immortal devil theory is a
misuse; but uttered by one who understands its original and true meaning to be
the one who opposes, whether righteously or unrighteously, it is properly used.
The word Satan occurs in the Authorized Version fifty-three
times, seventeen times in the New Testament and thirty-six in the Old. For the
Hebrew word sathan the translators have not always given us
"satan." Instead of thus anglicizing the word in every case they
have, and more frequently, translated it; and herein they have, perforce, given
us the true meaning of the word. They saw that its use in many passages could
not be made to mean the Satan they had in their theologically perverted minds,
and so they were compelled to properly translate it adversary.
The word has not in itself a bad meaning; it may stand for a
good intention and act as well as for bad ones; but always meaning that which
opposes, and the meaning in any case can be ascertained by the context. It
stands for an angel, whose opposition was for good, and of the Lord, in Numb.
22: 22, 32 where the messenger said to Balaam, "Wherefore hast thou
smitten thine ass these three times? Behold, I went out to withstand (or to be
an adversary unto) thee," (see margin). Persons, good or bad, may be
satans, and so may principles, or dispositions, or circumstances--any thing
that stands in the way or opposes. The use of the word, however, is more
frequent in relation to evil or unrighteous opponents or adversaries.
An examination of one or two instances where the word has
been properly translated will serve to illustrate all others. For instance, the
princes of the Philistines were afraid that David would turn out to be a satan
to them; and therefore they said, "Make this fellow return * * * lest in
the battle he be an adversary (sathan) to us" (I. Sam. 29: 4). He
would have been a personal human satan. Solomon said to Hiram, king of Tyre:
"But now the Lord my God hath given me rest on every side, so that there
is neither adversary (sathan) nor evil occurrent, (I. Kings 5: 4). His
father had many adversaries in his wars--human adversaries, of course--but now
Solomon had none of that kind. David said, "What have I to do with you, ye
sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries (sathans) unto
me." (II. Sam. 19: 22).
In I. Kings 11: 23-25 we read, "And God stirred him up
another adversary (sathan), Rezon the son of Eliadah, which fled from
his lord Hadadezar, king of Zobah. And he was adversary to Israel all
the days of Solomon." Let it be noticed that the word is used in the
plural number as well as in the singular.
The facts in these cases interpret the word, and there is
not the slightest hint that it means the devil of popular belief. A case in the
New Testament will help further to put the matter in the true light. When the
Apostle Peter, with good intentions, said of the Saviour's predicted death,
"Be it far from thee, Lord, this shall not be unto thee" (Matt. 16:
22), the Lord answered, "Get thee behind me satan; thou art an offense
unto me; for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of
men." It was not a separate supernatural satan that inspired the words of
Peter. No such satan is needed here in order to understand the words. It was
Peter's love for his Master and, no doubt, his thought of fighting for his
protection that prompted the words. Nevertheless the apostle was opposing the
right and was therefore an adversary. With these clear testimonies in mind as
illustrative of the meaning of "satan" it is not difficult to
understand any passage where the word is employed. It may stand for a state of
mind adverse to one's intentions and efforts; for a state of the body, adverse
to health; for a state of society or politics adverse to the performance of
duty or the belief of truth; and in no case is it necessary with "satan"
any more than with "diabolos" to imagine the existence of the devil
or satan of popular delusion.
In the days of Job angels were "ministering spirits
sent forth to minister to those who were heirs of salvation," and their
visits were sometimes personal, as in the case of Abraham. The conversation
between the Lord and satan was very likely between an angel of the Lord and an
adversary who thought that Job served God for temporal and selfish ends.
The passage reads as follow:
"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to
present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. And the
Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and
said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there
is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth
God, and escheweth evil? Then Satan answered the Lord and said, Doth Job fear
God for nought? And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in
thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from
the presence of the Lord."--(Job 1: 6, 7, 8, 9, 12.)
A very good description of this satan and Job's trial at his
instigation, is given in a book entitled, "Diabolism" by Edward
Turney, of Nottingham, England, (now deceased) and we cannot do better than
quote from it, Pages 77-78 as follows:
If the reader had not harbored an idea of a supernatural,
black, malicious devil, taught him from childhood, I venture to assert that out
of these verses it would be impossible for him to invent such a being. There is
no more ground for concluding that this Satan is such a monster, than there is
for believing that "the Sons of God" were such in a literal sense.
These appear to be Job's family; we might say a company of true believers,
while the adversary, or Satan, was a person of nomadic habits, and evidently a
hypocrite, envious, etc. It does not at all appear that he was more than an
ordinary man; that is, a human being; and it would be a perversion of reason to
assume that he was a fallen angel, a supernatural, powerful, malignant being.
It does not even appear that Satan possessed any extraordinary power whatever,
but was merely permitted to be the instigator of Jehovah to put His servant Job
to the full proof. "Thou movedst me against him" (Job 2: 3).
The evil which befell Job was not from Satan, but from God. "What! shall
we receive good from the hand of the Lord, and shall we not receive evil?"
(chap. 2: 10). This is abundantly manifested from the following statements in
the nineteenth chapter. In reply to the speech of Bildad the Shuhite, Job says,
"Know now that God hath overthrown me, and hath compassed me with
His net. He hath fenced up my way. He hath stripped me of my
glory. He hath destroyed me on every side. He hath also kindled
His wrath against me. His troops come together, and raise up their way
against me, and encamp round about my tabernacle. He hath put my
brethren far from me. Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, O ye, my friends:
for the hand of God hath touched me."--(Verses 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 21). This is always the case; evil does not come from the devil, but from
God. Of good and evil God is the author; man is the author of sin. Evil is the
punishment of God upon man the sinner. "I form the light and create
darkness; I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these
things"--(Isaiah 45: 7). "Shall there be evil in the city, and the Lord
hath not done it?" (Amos 3: 6). "Therefore, thus saith the Lord,
Behold, against this family do I devise an evil, from which ye shall not remove
your necks" (Mic. 2: 3), and so forth. The testimony before us conveys not
the least suspicion that Job's Satan was superior or inferior to man; my own
conviction is that he was a fellow-worshipper, like Peter and Judas, who was
full of envy at the favour and prosperity of Job, and insinuated to the Elohim
that what Job did was from selfish motives. "Doth Job serve God for
nought? But put forth thine hand and touch all that he hath, and he will curse
thee to thy face." Whereupon, the faith of the patriarch was put to the
test, and what a noble example of patience and confidence in God he furnished
for all after time, and how wonderful was it made manifest that "the Lord
is very pitiful and of tender mercy toward all them that trust Him." With
the supposition that the book of Job is a drama, I have no sympathy. Parable is
indeed common, both in the Old and New Testament; but the connection in which
the man Job is mentioned, seems to me to show conclusively that the book is a
narrative of facts. In his denunciation upon Jerusalem, Ezekiel twice repeats
the following words: "Though these three men, Noah, Daniel and Job,
were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their
righteousness, saith the Lord God." We should never infer from this that
Job was a fictitious character; nor from the allusion to him by the apostle
James, "Ye have heard of the patience of Job," etc. But if Job is not
real, then the rest of the dramatis personae must be visionary. This
would at once destroy all claim to the reality of Satan; his personality would
find no countenance whatever from the drama. Seeing, therefore, that upon such
an interpretation of the book, the popular Satan could not be found, and that
upon the other, viz., that the book is historical, there is no clue to his
existence, I think the impartial reader will determine that the Satan of the
religious world has no existence, except in the imaginations of such as are
ignorant of the teaching of the scriptures upon the subject, and deluded by the
"seducing spirits" of the apostasy.
In Zec. 3: 1, we read of Joshua the high priest standing
before the Lord, and satan standing at his right hand to resist him. "And
the Lord said unto satan, the Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that
hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee. Is not this a brand plucked out of the
fire?" In measure this was fulfilled when the Jews were restored from
Babylon. Joshua was their high priest, and the satan that resisted in the
repairing of the temple was that adversarial spirit which moved Tatnai and
Shethar-Boznai and their companions against Zerubbabel. See in the book of
Ezra. But what happened then was typical of a greater governor than Zerubbabel
and of a greater high priest than Joshua, and a more precious "brand to be
plucked out of the fire" than Israel. Joshua and his fellows were
"men of sign" (verse 8), and Joshua was a sign or type of the BRANCH,
which is Christ. When he appeared to perform the first part of His mission
preparatory to the future rebuilding of Jerusalem and the restoration of her
people, when "The Lord shall choose Jerusalem again" (chap. 2: 12),
satan resisted him, first in the tendencies of the flesh in His temptation, as
we have already explained under the heading of "The temptation of
Jesus"; then in "Herod, Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the
people of Israel." But the Lord rebuked this multitudinous satan
and foretold its defeat in the words, "I beheld satan as lightning fall
from heaven." That satan did fall, and Jesus became high priest and is
"a brand plucked out of the fire." Whether the passage in Zec. 3 be
confined to the history of the repairing of Jerusalem upon the return from
Babylon, or be applied to the work Jesus has performed and will yet perform--in
any event the satan spirit, the opposition, the adversarial opponents were all
human or natural and no place is found for a supernatural satan, indeed a supernatural
satan would turn the facts into absurdities to become objects of jesting and
ridicule.
In II. Sam. 24: 1 we read that satan (see margin) moved
David to number Israel. This fact, whether suggested to the King by a person or
by the pride of his own heart, showed a distrust in God and a confidence in the
arm of flesh. It overlooked the well-established fact that God had many times
shown that numbers of soldiers were not necessary in the performance of His
purpose. When the King realized the meaning of his act it is said "David's
heart smote him" (verse 10). No supernatural satan was necessary in this
case. Indeed if the King had been "moved to number Israel" by a
supernatural satan possessed of hypnotic power, there would have been no need
of his "heart smiting him," for surely he would have had the excuse
of helplessness of a poor mortal in the hands of a most powerful immortal satan
as a plea to satisfy his conscience and secure exemption from blame.
In Luke 13: 11 we read of a woman who had a "spirit of
infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could not lift
herself up." To her Jesus said, "Woman, thou art loosed from
thine infirmity." This kind act displeased the ruler of the synagogue,
and to him Jesus said, Ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom satan
hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, to be loosed from this bond on
the Sabbath day?" There are many such afflictions as this poor woman had
suffered from. What are the causes? Do even the devotees of his supposed
Satanic Majesty believe that similarly afflicted women are "bound" by
their supernatural satan? Many old women in obscure parts of the world who
still ignorantly believe that the popular satan is the author of such
afflictions are looked upon with an eye of pity by modern religious leaders;
and they are called "poor superstitious old things." Yet, the old
women may consistently ask, What is your supernatural satan for if he is not
doing these deeds? The woman was cured of an "infirmity" of the body,
a state of body which was an adversary to a normal state and that
"bound" her so she could not perform the acts which life's duties
require. Her satan was purely of the flesh, and it would be superstitious now
as then to attribute it to a supernatural being.
We will examine one more passage, and then, we think, we
shall have a sufficient variety of instances to illustrate any aspect of the
question which may present itself, in all of which it will not be difficult to
find that satan and satans belong to the natural world, and it is folly to
explore unknown regions in a "world of spirits" in search of a
personal supernatural monster.
In I. Cor. 5: 5 the ecclesia was commanded to put away a
certain man who had committed a great sin. In this they would "deliver
such a one unto satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might
be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." The object was present punishment
for future good. What kind of "destruction of the flesh" will secure
salvation? Not literal destruction, of course; but that which is represented by
the Apostle Paul when he says, "I keep under my body,"
"crucify therefore your members." "The flesh with the affections
thereof." With a sinner there must be repentance, remorse, a mental
suffering that will overcome the proclivities, the lusts of the flesh; and thus
the flesh is destroyed, dead. "How shall we that are dead to sin live
any longer therein?" The man was to be put out of the ecclesia till he
would become "dead to sin," and the flesh, in its tendencies,
destroyed and he begin anew in an endeavor to "lay aside the sin which had
so easily beset him." Now the way to effect this was to put him outside
the ecclesia, in a cold, heartless world which was a satan, or an adversary to
Christ and His ecclesia and the members thereof. Any man who had enjoyed the
spiritual associations of God's people would soon realize that to him, then
cast out of the ecclesia, the world was an adversary. He would, like the
prodigal son, "come to himself." He would feel himself to be a homeless
wanderer in the enemies' land, and would seek means of return to his home. His
remorse and sincere repentance resulting from having been thus "delivered
over to satan" would prove the "destruction of the flesh" in
that particular in which the flesh had proved itself to be alive and powerful
to overcome him, when it ought to have been crucified and have died. The
apostle's command to deliver the person to satan is explained by a repetition
in a different form of words, "Therefore put away from among yourselves
that wicked person" (verse 13). That this had the desired effect seems
clear from what is said in II. Cor. 2: 6,7: "Sufficient to such a man is
this punishment, which is inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought
rather to forgive him and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be "swallowed
up with overmuch sorrow." Had they allowed the man to be
"swallowed up with overmuch sorrow" satan would have got an advantage
over them (verse 11) in that the adversary of the church, the world, would have
rejoiced over the ecclesia's loss of one of its members, a thing the world
satan is always ready to do. The delivering of this man to satan was intended
for good results and they were realized. Had he been delivered into the hands
of such a monster as the popular satan how would that have resulted in the
man's reformation? Not only is there no need for a supernatural satan, but
confusion results from entertaining such a heathen thought. Away with heathen
superstition of days of darkness, and let Scripture and enlightened reason
reign, and then truth will shine in its purity and beauty and the mind will be
emancipated from the slavery of satan in one of its most dangerous and
destructive forms--a popularized religion.
Salvation is predicated upon a belief of and obedience to
the one gospel. The gospel consists of "the things concerning the Kingdom
of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8: 5, 12). The "things of
the name" are those which involve what Jesus did and how He did it in
bringing into effect the plan of salvation; and of this it is written,
"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also
himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him
that hath the power of death, that is the devil" (Heb. 2: 14).
According to this Christ's mission was to "destroy the devil," in His
work of bringing into force the plan of salvation. Therefore, there must be a
correct understanding of what the devil is before the mission of Christ, or the
plan of salvation, can be understood.
Now, according to this passage and the Scriptures generally,
we must believe:
1. That Christ's work was and is to "destroy the
devil."
2. That He was made of the same flesh and blood as are the
children of the fallen race of Adam.
3. That this was a necessity in order that He might
"condemn sin in the flesh" and by His death "destroy
him that hath the power of death, that is the devil."
4. That the devil is destructible and will when the plan of
salvation is completed be entirely destroyed.
To believe in traditions which make the word of God of none
effect is almost equal to denial of God's word; and the applicability of this
fact to the doctrine of the devil is seen when we consider that the popular
devil is believed to be immortal and indestructible, while the destruction of
the Bible devil is the great object of the plan of salvation. Hence no one can
understand the plan of salvation who holds a false view of the devil; and since
the plan of salvation is the gospel and salvation in any case depends upon a
belief of and obedience to the gospel, the subject of the devil is one of vital
importance.
Now in conclusion, the devil primarily is "sin in the
flesh," by which is meant all the mental, moral and physical consequences,
direct and remote, of the federal sin of the race in Eden. To summarize it,
"sin in the flesh" means:
1. That inborn bent of the mind in the direction of wrong,
which has to be overcome by a will-power begotten by a realization of right and
duty as divinely revealed.
2. It is something manifested in persons who try to entice
and allure others to think falsely and to do that which is wrong.
3. It is manifested in political form in the principalities
and powers of the world, in a usurpation of power on the part of the great,
unrighteously wielded over the weak and downcast, and in the flattery, and pomp
of flesh, wherein the true God is ignored and dishonored.
4. It is, in its physical effects, to be seen in the many
diseases which afflict mankind, and which believers in the "doctrine of
demons" attribute to possession of disembodied spirits.
The devil in all these forms will be destroyed when sin and
death shall come to an end. Then there will be no lust (inordinate desire) in
the nature of the survivors of the fallen race and they will be free from
temptation from without and within. There will be no person disposed to tempt
another to think or do that which is contrary to the Divine will, which is
always the standard of right. There will be no more kingdoms of men to flatter
and gratify lust, and the Kingdom of God will be supreme. Then there will be no
more disease in the flesh, no more sorrow, pain or death--the
"devil," "satan," "demon," in every form, will
have been completely destroyed. God will manifest His strong arm of
righteousness. Christ will be the great and honored victor over all evil, and
the redeemed out of a sinful race will be forever blessed with glory, honor and
immortality, and "God shall be all in all."
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
This is a subject which is closely associated with the resurrection,
in certain aspects of it, the antagonism between good and evil, and the
ultimate destruction of the devil. A correct understanding of one will yield
the same of the others. It is a subject which has both a general and a specific
aspect, and we will investigate the former first.
The word "judgment" is variously employed in the
Scriptures; and it is translated from several different Hebrew and Greek words.
The meanings of these words are, the power of discerning, of sifting matters as
to right and wrong; discretion; punishments; ruling on a throne; judicially and
officially deciding and decreeing in matters of law; sometimes the words mean
the commandments of God; and there is one of the words which stands for throne
and judgment seat. We will examine a few examples. When Jeremiah was sent of
the Lord to condemn the wickedness of Israel, he said, "And I will utter
my judgments against them touching all their wickedness" (Jer. 1:
16). Here the word stands for God's decree of punishment. Isa. 34: 5--"For
my sword shall be bathed in heaven; behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and
upon the people of my curse, to judgment," a case where the word
means punishment to be visited. Isa. 26: 9-- "Yet, with my spirit within
me will I seek thee early; for when thy judgments are in the earth the
inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness." Here it stands for
God's righteous government through Christ, which will teach and guide the
people of his reign in the ways of the Lord. Hence the same prophet says,
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon
the throne of David, to order it and to establish it with judgment and
with justice" (chap. 9: 7). Ezek. 34: 16--"But I will destroy the fat
and the strong; I will feed them with judgment." Here the word
means vengeance or dire punishment. In this sense of the word we may view God's
proceedings against His enemies in past ages; in His judgment upon the
antediluvians, upon Sodom and Gomorrah, upon Babylon, Greece and Rome; and upon
Jerusalem. In some instances there have been special judgments upon
individuals, as in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, Herod, Ananias and Sapphira.
As it has been in the past, so it will be in the future.
God's Judgments will be poured out upon the world generally and, no doubt,
specially upon some obnoxious individuals, in the latter days of this
dispensation, when He will "bind the kings with chains, and the nobles
with fetters of iron; to execute the judgments written" (Ps. 149:
8, 9). This is the time Jesus speaks of in the words, "But as the days of
Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be" (Matt. 24: 37).
Judgments in this sense of the word have overtaken nations and people without
any definite revelation of the time or epoch wherein to look for them in
advance. From a finite point of view they seem to have depended upon
circumstances as these would arise. For instance, Abraham was told that four
hundred years would elapse before his descendants should enter the land of
promise; and the reason given is that "the iniquity of the Amorites is not
yet full." God's judgments always waited till justice and mercy could no
longer forbear; and when the iniquity of the nations became full, as the
Saviour said to the Jews, "Fill ye up the measure," then the
judgments were poured out. In some cases they would seem to come from natural
causes, as in the case of the Romans punished by the Saracens; one nation was
brought against another by some complications arising between them. Without the
aid of Scripture, such occurrences are viewed only as "in the natural
order of events;" but why does "nature" so "order" is
a question which cannot be answered with God and the Bible left out.
Upon the principle of the lesser being involved in the
greater, the apostle Peter divides the world's week into three grand periods;
first, the Antediluvian age; second, the Jewish and Gentile times; and third,
the millennium. These he speaks of as "the world that then was,"
"the heavens and the earth which are now, and the new heavens and earth
wherein dwelleth righteousness." At the end of these there is a filling up
of the measure of iniquity universally, and a consequent pouring out of divine
judgments--in addition to all the incidental visitations upon cities, nations
and individuals. A recognition of these facts and truths will show that God's
hand is always at work in the affairs of men and nations, using "natural
means" to carry out his purposes, it is true, but using them
nevertheless. While allowing nations to act according to their own volition, He
has in His own mind the limit; so that when that is reached He declares,
"Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther;" and so, like Abraham, we
may be sure that "the God of the earth will do right." Justice will
be guarded by Him who alone is the judge of what justice is, and who alone is
to be satisfied with what is done.
The degree of responsibility has been of a special character
with God's chosen people, the Jews, because He had delivered them from bondage
and entered into covenant relation with them, under a law specially imposed
upon them. Hence He says, "You only have I known of all the families of
the earth; therefore will I punish you for your iniquities" (Amos
3: 2). This high responsibility arose from the contract or covenant entered
into at Sinai (Ex. 24: 3-7). This responsibility, however, only reached the
affairs of national and natural life. It was a responsibility which belonged to
the covenant which "was added" to one of a higher character which
alone imposed responsibility to judgment beyond the present life. Every
Jew was responsible to the "added covenant" (Gal. 3: 19), and
"every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of
reward" (Heb. 2: 2); but the "everlasting covenant," which began
in Eden and was more fully revealed in the Abrahamic covenant, was of a higher
character, imposing higher responsibilities and consequent greater rewards for
faithfulness. Since the Mosaic covenant was temporal and temporary its rewards
and punishments were limited to this life; and since the Abrahamic covenant was
an "everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13: 20), its rewards and punishments
are beyond this life and are either eternal life or the "second
death," which will also be eternal.
All the children of Israel were under the Mosaic covenant;
but they were not all under the Abrahamic, for the reason that the first was a
matter of law only, imposed unconditionally upon those born under it naturally,
while the second was one of conditions predicated upon the one faith, reaching
beyond this life and dependent upon being "born again" and becoming
"new creatures," mentally, morally and relatively. The subjects of
this "everlasting covenant" were therefore under the two
covenants--the one which was a "schoolmaster" to lead to the other,
and that one which the schoolmaster led to; the former has Moses for its head,
the latter has Christ. There was no special ceremony under the Mosaic covenant
attending the passing of a person from responsibility to the law only, to that
of the Abrahamic covenant. The former brought its subjects "nigh to
God" as compared with the other nations who were "far off" (Eph.
2: 13) and they were thereby constituted His people and were commanded to
worship Him, offering prayers and singing praises for His marvelous works. This
placed them in such a relation to God as imposed obligations upon them to
accept the gospel, the Abrahamic or the "everlasting covenant" as
soon as the "schoolmaster" opened their eyes to see it; and it would
seem that this enlightenment only was what transferred them to the higher
responsibility. Hence when Jesus "came to His own" He could make a
claim of them that could not apply to those who had not been brought into the
covenant obligations which made the Jews "nigh." To them, therefore,
He says, "He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words, hath one that
judgeth him; the words that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last
day"--John 12: 48. They had been divinely forewarned and prepared by
careful instructions. The law had kept Christ before them in all its
institutions; so that all that they could ask for as evidence that Jesus was
that one who was the end of their law, their sacrifices, their all, was that he
show his credentials and give such evidence that he was "that
prophet" as could not be set aside. This demand was fully met, and
therefore Jesus said to them, "If I had not done among them the works
which none other man did, they had not had sin; but now have they both seen and
hated both me and my Father"--John 15: 24. "If I had not come and
spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their
sin"--verse 22. The result was that the nation was guilty of breaking the
Mosaic covenant and was visited with severe judgments in the fearful vengeance
which accompanied the destruction of Jerusalem; and their enlightenment being
limited to the Mosaic covenant, they received "a just recompence of reward;"
but those whose enlightenment, forced upon them though it may be, transferred
them from Moses to Christ, will yet have to pass under the judgment which
belongs to the "everlasting covenant."
"The day of judgment" is a phrase which, with most
people, means "the end of the world," when it is supposed that every
human being will be brought before the judgment seat of Christ. Even from the
popular point of view, this is very inconsistent; for if the good are separated
from the bad at death, and one is sent to heaven and the other to hell, what is
the judgment for? As Tyndall said, "If the souls be in heaven, tell me why
they be not in as good case as the angels be. And then what cause is there for
the resurrection?" And we might add, what cause is there for the judgment?
The law upon which the judgment seat of Christ is based is the gospel. This
judgment must not be confounded with the judgments to come upon the people of
the world at large, in whose case there is nothing to show that there will be a
formal judgment seat. They will be dealt with as cities and nations have in the
past. "All judgment having been committed to the Son," Jesus will be
the executor of God's will in all the judgments, whether it be in pouring out
vengeance, judicially declaring the rewards and punishments of his household,
or ruling according to judgment and justice in his kingdom. These different
judgments must be kept distinct. The largest part of the Adamic race will have
suffered the judgments of God and have gone down to the grave to come up no
more, as we have seen in a previous chapter; but the living nations that will
have filled up the measure of their iniquity at the time of Christ's return
will be the subjects of divine vengeance, and all who will not yield to the
"Son, when his wrath is kindled but a little," will be "dashed
in pieces like a potter's vessel" (Ps. 2: 9-11); while those who will
submit to the King of all the earth will be spared to be the first mortal
subjects of the kingdom of God.
There is to be "the judgment seat of Christ," at
which "the law of the spirit of life" will be the criterion. This is
entirely a different judgment from those we have been reviewing. It is not for
all the world; but for those only who have "works" good or bad to be
judged, "works" which have been done during a probationary life in
which the question involved is the reward of eternal life, or the penalty of
the "second death." The Greek word used for this judgment is
different from those employed for the judgments we have considered. It is not krima
or krisis, but it is bema. It occurs twelve times in the New
Testament. In Acts 7: 5 we have bema podus, meaning foot-step. In Acts
12: 21 it is rendered "throne"-- "Herod * * * sat upon his throne
and made an oration." In the other ten cases it is rendered
"judgment" and stands for a judgment seat, an institution for
formally trying cases according to established law.
Matt. 27: 19--"And when he (Pilate) was set down on the
judgment seat," etc.
John 19: 13--the same as the foregoing.
Acts 18: 12--"And brought him (Paul) to the judgment
seat."
Acts 18: 16--"Drove them from the judgment
seat."
Verse 17--"And beat him before the judgment
seat."
Chap. 25: 6--"Sitting on the judgment seat."
Verse 11--"I stand at Caesar's judgment seat."
Verse 17--"On the morrow I sat on the judgment
seat."
These passages clearly show the specific meaning of bema,
that it applies only to what in our days is called a court of trial. The
other two occurrences of the word are as follows:
II. Cor. 5: 10--"For we must all appear before the judgment
seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things in body, according to
that he hath done, whether good or bad."
Rom. 14: 10--"But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why
dost thou set at naught thy brother? for we must all stand before the judgment
seat of Christ."
The difference between this "judgment" and the
visitation of "judgments" upon persons and nations who have
"filled up their measure of iniquity," and who are not on probation
under the law which is to be the criterion for this "judgment seat of
Christ," may be illustrated by the customs of civilized nations. When
barbarians of uncivilized parts of the earth offend a civilized nation, by some
cruelty or depredations, the "judgment" is manifested in the
arbitrary use of the sword. Punishment is meted out, either in the destruction
of the barbarians, or in such a severe visitation of vengeance as will be
deemed sufficient intimidation against a recurrence of the offense. The
offenders are not formally brought before the "judgment seat" of the
civilized nation, for the simple reason that its law is not a criterion in such
a case. But with its subjects, who are under, and thereby responsible to, civil
law, in case of offense, there is a formal "trial at the bar," or to
use the Scripture term, "the judgment seat."
The bema, or judgment seat of Christ, may be likened
to a judge deciding the merits of contestants in a race. He watches their
conduct carefully, and when, after the race is over, they appear before him, he
decides who of those under the law of the race course have run lawfully, and
who have run unlawfully. The latter he rejects and they are driven from the
judgment seat for punishment, while the former are rewarded according to the
degrees of merit. Onlookers, or the world at large, who never entered the race,
and who therefore never passed under the law of merit or demerit within the
sphere of this institution, have no standing, either for good or for bad, before
this "judgment seat."
Now, to all who are running the race for eternal life, the
Apostle Paul says, "Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about
with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside the weight and the sin
that doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that
is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our
faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despised the
shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God."--Heb. 12:
1, 2.
The world of mankind having forsaken the ways of God, and,
like Cain, become as "fugitives and vagabonds" under the curse of
God, the plan of salvation, which reflected divine righteousness and love,
could reach only comparatively few of the fallen, wicked mass. The faculties of
the race having become debased, and the plan of salvation having been adapted
to reach the minds and hearts of such only as could and would respond, humbly,
intellectually and morally, "from the heart," it was of necessity a
question of "taking out of the nations a people for his (Jehovah's)
name"-- Acts 15: 14. In the Christian dispensation this "taking
out" is effected by belief of the gospel and baptism into Christ. Those
who comply with his law of "adoption" become "children of
God," "new creatures," "servants,"
"virgins," "saints"--all names which distinguish them from
the "world" from which they have been "taken out." They
enter upon a new life, under new conditions, the moment they are symbolically
"born again," when they are "born of (out of) water." To
these Jesus says, "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own;
but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world,
therefore the world hateth you" (John 15: 19). These are the people who
are in the world, but not of the world, and who are represented in the parables
of our Lord, for example: the parable of the nobleman (Luke 19: 12-27). Jesus
is the "nobleman;" those "taken out" of the world by the
gospel are the "servants" who are given "talents;" and it
is according to the use of the "talents" intrusted to them that they
are to be judged when the Lord returns to call "these servants" unto him.
Now it is this "judgment seat" (bema) that
is spoken of in Rom. 14: 10. "For we must all appear before
the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things in
body according to that he hath done, whether good or bad." This judgment
seat is not, of course, to enable the judge to try the subjects in order to
discover whether they are worthy or unworthy; nor is it that he might decide
the degrees of worthiness or unworthiness, for from the time their "names
are enrolled in heaven" till they have finished their probation he watches
over them tenderly, sympathizing with their infirmities, interested in their
behalf; and he is "long-suffering towards them, not willing that any
should perish." This judgment is therefore "to declare every
man's work of what sort it is."
There are two classes whose theories stand in the way of a
scriptural understanding of the doctrine of resurrection and judgment. One
class, and by far the larger, the popular class, regards the doctrine as of
universal application, and claims that in the "last day," which they
call the "end of the world," all the dead will be raised to judgment
and the final destinies of all the sons and daughters of Adam will be declared,
the wicked being consigned to a hell of eternal torture, and the righteous to a
heaven of eternal happiness. The other class believes that only the good will
be raised, and that their judgment is only to award them according to degrees
of merit. Included in this class are some who believe that only the righteous
will be raised at the coming of Christ, and that the wicked will be raised at
the end of the millennium. In order to rightly divide the word of truth in
relation to these theories, it will be necessary to carefully consider
From the fall of man in Eden, by which he passed under
"the law of sin and death," whose sentence was, "Dust thou art,
and unto dust shalt thou return," until Christ had triumphed over death
and the grave by perfect obedience to "the law of the spirit of life,"
the doctrine of resurrection and judgment was an unsolved problem, and made
dependent upon Christ. "For since by man came death, by man came
also the resurrection of the dead" (I. Cor. 15: 21). The "law of the
spirit of life" is the gospel, and the gospel is the "everlasting
covenant," or the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants combined. What is true
of the "everlasting covenant" is likewise true of the gospel, and of
"the law of the spirit of life;" for they are but different terms
expressive of the same thing.
Since it is true that the everlasting covenant could not
come into full force until it had been ratified by the shedding "of the
blood of the everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13: 20), and since the
everlasting covenant, and the law of the spirit of life, and the gospel are all
one and the same thing, it follows that the realization of the plan of
redemption, expressed in these different terms, depended upon Christ's
successful performance of his mission--his obedience through a life of
probation and his voluntary sacrificial death, which would insure his
resurrection by the Father. Jesus would thus become the resurrection (anastasis)
and the life (John 11: 25).
Now in the gospel there are first principles involving
resurrection, judgment, eternal life, and inheritance in the Kingdom of God for
the faithful, and eternal death for the unfaithful. Since the bringing into
effect of the whole depended upon Christ, necessarily the bringing into effect
of the parts depended upon Him. Had He not fulfilled His mission, resurrection
and judgment, as involved in the gospel, or the everlasting covenant, as well
as the other "first principles," would have remained practically an
unsolved problem, and it could not have been said that "By man came
also the resurrection of the dead" (I. Cor. 15: 21).
There are always two modes of Divine procedure; one is
governed by a revealed and fixed law, the other is arbitrary, incidental and
exceptional. Revealed law comprises all that God has decreed and declared to be
the rule of action in the different dispensations of the world. That part of it
which is directly related to the subject in hand is the law of faith and
obedience, which might be termed an intellectual and moral law, which is the
law of the gospel. The other mode of Divine procedure is according as the
right, the power, and the prerogative of the Creator may see fit to do at all
times with His creatures, every thing so done being necessarily right because
God's arbitrary will as seen in action, in any and all cases, is the ultimate
standard of right, since, by reason of His attributes, He can do nothing but
what is right.
To illustrate the two modes of Divine procedure, we may
observe that it is a rule of the moral and intellectual law, which is the
gospel, that natural or Adamic death will not be suspended or neutralized in
the children of God till a set time, namely, the time of the "judgment of
the quick and the dead;" and God has decreed that He will Himself observe
and act according to his rule of the law He has enacted. Nevertheless He has
made two exceptions to this rule in the cases of Enoch and Elijah. It is also a
rule of divine procedure to allow men to live this natural life without any
interference, except from disease, old age, or accident; but by His arbitrary
right God has many times interposed by that mode which we have termed
exceptional and incidental, an example of which will be seen in the sudden
infliction of death upon Ananias and Sapphira. These exceptions are variations
from the rule, and this is what we therefore term that mode of divine procedure
which is arbitrary, incidental, and exceptional.
It is necessary to distinguish between these two modes in
order to understand how God could raise some to life in past ages and yet
predicate the resurrection upon His Son being an "Holy One" as
the reason why "his soul would not be left in Hades." All such
cases of resurrection must be distinguished from and kept outside of that law
which has decreed that "since by man came death, by man was also to
come the resurrection of the dead."
Christ's emergence from the grave (his anastasis or
standing again in life) and his receiving eternal life, depended upon his
"holiness" as an intellectual and moral power wherewith to solve the
problem of resurrection, or whereby the "Key of Hades and of death"
would be formed--a key that would fit the lock hitherto never fitted since the
day the door was closed by that "key" represented in the words
"Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return;" "By man came
death." It was this moral and intellectual power, that of belief in and
perfect obedience to "the law of the spirit of life," that Jesus
meant when he said, "I have power to lay down my life and I have power
to take it again." This "power" to lay down his life did not
mean suicidal power in the physical sense; neither did the "power" to
take it again mean physical or dynamic power; for in this respect Jesus was as
powerless to raise himself from the dead as is any other dead person. "God
raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead," but he did so because Jesus had
obtained the power intellectually and morally which rendered the exercise of
the Father's miraculous power consistent with his own law upon which
resurrection "by man" was predicated. This was what constituted Jesus
"The resurrection and the life."
In proof of the principle laid down that the resurrection
and the judgment was an unsolved problem till Jesus solved it by his resurrection,
we have only to carefully examine the meaning of a few testimonies already
alluded to, but which I will here place more fully before the reader:
John 11: 25--Jesus saith unto her, I am the resurrection and
the life: he that believeth in (into) me, though he were dead, yet shall he
live.
Acts 2: 24--Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains
of death; because it was not possible that HE should be holden of it.
For David speaketh concerning him. I foresaw the Lord always before my face,
for he is on my right hand that I should not be moved: therefore did my heart
rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also, my flesh shall rest in hope, because
thou wilt not leave MY soul in hell (hades), neither wilt thou suffer thine
holy one to see corruption.
I. Cor.15:21--For since by man came death; by man
came also the resurrection of the dead.
Heb. 13: 20--Now the God of peace that brought again from
the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood
of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect, etc.
Rev. 1: 18--I am he that liveth and was dead; and behold, I
am alive for ever more, Amen; and have the key of hell (hades) and of
death.
Now the first passage must mean that Jesus is the resurrection
according to a plan and a law which did not operate in the incidental cases of
resurrection which had taken place before his time.
The second passage predicated the resurrection of Christ
upon the "impossibility of his being holden of death" on account his
being a "holy one," which was the reason why "his soul was
not left in hades," implying that if he had not been a "holy
one" his soul would have been "left in hades," and therefore the
resurrection would have remained an unsolved problem.
The third passage ignores all cases of resurrection previous
to Christ's, and must refer to the resurrection within the scope of
"The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus;" otherwise the
words, "By man came also the resurrection of the dead," would not be
true.
The fourth passage declares that Jesus was brought again
from the dead through the blood of the everlasting covenant; and this implies
that had he not voluntarily and obediently offered the blood of the everlasting
covenant there would have been a lack of that upon which his resurrection was
based, and in that case "his soul" would have been "left in
hades," and, again, the resurrection would have remained an unsolved
problem.
The fifth passage shows that the resurrection
depended upon a "key of hades," and that key was Christ's
"holiness" under "The law of the spirit of life," and that
was the key which gave Jesus the "power" to "take up his life
again" after having laid it--the same life--down; and that is the key that
will open hades for all who come within the scope of "The law of the
spirit of life in Christ Jesus" as declared in the words, "And if
Christ be not raised * * * then they also who have fallen asleep in Christ have
perished" --I. Cor. 15: 17, 18.
Now here we have a line distinctly drawn between those who
will be in the resurrection and amenable to the judgment seat according to the
law of faith and obedience, which governs the divine procedure with all who
enter upon probation, and those who are not on probation. The federal head of
the first is Christ; the federal head of the second is Adam. God's dealings
with the first are according to a revealed law of probation, judgment, rewards
and punishments; His dealings with the second are first through the
"powers that be," second by an arbitrary, incidental and exceptional
interposition. "The powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever,
therefore, resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that
resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to
good works but to the evil" (Rom. 13: 1-7).
Since God has in the past dealt with some arbitrarily,
incidentally and exceptionally, He, doubtless, will do so in the future, His
intention to do so having been clearly declared in some particulars, such, for
instance, as the visitations upon the nations which are to besiege Jerusalem;
and His special visitations may in some cases be by resurrection and subsequent
punishment, in all of which "The God of the earth will do right," His
arbitrary action necessarily being right.
The means of coming within the scope of the law of
resurrection is in the plan of "adoption" to "sonship,"
"reconciliation," "atonement," "citizenship,"
which is in Christ and not in Adam. The law of the spirit of life "is a
court," as it were, in which the sinful, figuratively called
"naked" children of Adam have no more standing, no more identity,
than has a minor in a court of law. "A minor is not known in court,"
so Adamites are not known in the court of the "law of the spirit of
life" or the gospel. That which will cause names to be enrolled in heaven,
and consequent cognizance of life as probationary for a second life or a second
death is induction into Christ who is the resurrection. The "form of
doctrine" which God has provided whereby we may become related to the law
of resurrection is a form analagous to death, burial and resurrection. Hence
the Apostle Paul earnestly appeals to us in the words, "Know ye not that
so many of you as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was
raised 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"--Rom. 6: 3-5.
Previous to the making of the one offering, provision was made for covenant
relation with God by means of typical sacrifices. The covenant was made
"firm over dead victims," whose blood had been shed sacrificially.
But since the death of Christ, the covenant sacrifice, baptism is the
"form of doctrine" which inducts "into the name of the Father,
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," "the only name given under
heaven whereby we must be saved" which is the name of Jesus Christ, who
was a manifestation of the Father by the Spirit in the Son.
Since the result of the probation of all who come into
covenant relationship with God is not declared before the time of the
"judgment of the quick and the dead," the resurrection of the
faithful and the unfaithful probationers is a necessity, as well as the
"gathering together unto him," Christ (II. Thes. 2: 1), of those who
"are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord" (I. Cor. 15: 51;
I. Thes. 4: 14). That this resurrection is confined to those who have been of
the household of God, on probation, will be seen by the parables of our Lord,
where he represents them as "virgins" wise and foolish;
"servants" faithful and unfaithful; "fish" in the gospel
net, good and bad, etc. It is these two classes the apostles write to in their
letters, not to the world at large; but to the Ecclesias (called-out ones) in
Rome, Corinth, Galatia, etc. They are the "called-out ones" because
they have come out of the world, having passed through the "waters of
separation" in baptism, in which act they have witness that they are the
children of God by the testimony of the "spirit (word), the water and the blood,"
which "agree in one" to effect the adoption of sonship (I. John
5:7-8). By "rightly dividing the word of truth" we shall thus see
that the established law of resurrection and judgment reaches those only who
have come under that law, while cases of resurrection past or future not
predicated upon the everlasting covenant must be viewed as subject to God's
action independently of that law, and for a different purpose, since the
question of judgment on the basis of probation does not belong to those who
have not passed from the constitution of death in Adam to the constitution of
life in Christ.
Now this discrimination will enable us to harmonize many
apparently conflicting passages of Scripture, some emphatically declaring that
a large part of the human family will never be raised; others declaring that
all will be raised. It is only by an observance of the word "all" and
its limitation to the law governing those it includes that the difficulty can
be removed, and the popular error of universal resurrection corrected. Any
interpretation which does not harmonize the general teachings of the Scriptures
must be faulty; for He who inspired the Scriptures is a God of law and harmony
to perfection.
The testimonies relied upon to prove universal resurrection
are the following:
Luke 20: 37--Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed
at the bush, when he called the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac
and the God of Jacob for He is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all
live unto Him.
John 5: 28--Marvel not at this; for 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 damnation.
I. Cor. 15: 21-22--For since by man came death, by man came
also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in
Christ shall all be made alive.
II. Cor. 5: 10--For we must all appear before the judgment
seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things in body, according to
that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
Rev. 20: 12--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 (hades) delivered up the dead which
were in them; and they were judged every man according to their works.
In these passages emphasis is put upon the words "all
live unto him," "all that are in the graves," "we must all
appear," "in Christ shall all be made alive," and "the
dead, small and great."
If the word "all" here pertains to the class we
have defined as under the law of the resurrection which is governed by
that mode of Divine procedure which is based upon intellectual and moral law,
wherein the subjects are on probation, then the word "all" can be
taken as absolute in that relation, and the passages will not contradict many
others which speak of a large part of the human race who will not be raised.
Following are some of the passages which so declare:
Nevertheless, man being in honor, abideth not: he is like
the beasts that perish. * * * Like sheep, they are laid in the grave: death
shall feed on them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the
morning; 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.--Psa. 49: 12-15.
O Lord, our God, other lords [rulers] beside thee have had
dominion over us: but by thee only will we make mention of thy name. 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.
Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall
they arise. Awake, and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew
of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead--Isa. 26: 14, 19.
In their heat I will make their feasts, and I will make them
drunken, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not awake, saith
the Lord of hosts.
And 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 awake, saith the King, whose name is the Lord of hosts.--Jer.
51: 39, 57.
For as many as have sinned without law shall perish without
law; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.--Rom. 2:
12.
These passages need no comment. All the reader can do is
believe them: for they cannot be "interpreted" to mean anything but
what they say. They show that those they speak of go down to hell or hades,
or the grave, to come up no more. The abnormal increase of the children of
Adam's race is the result of the curse which came by man's fall, as will be
seen by the words, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception"
(Gen. 3: 16). The sentence passed upon all those in Adam, as the federal
head of the race, was, "Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou
return;" of which the Apostle Paul says, "And so death passed upon
all men" (Rom. 5: 12), and "By man came death" (I. Cor. 15: 21).
Had man been left under this "law of sin and death" without God
interposing in his behalf, death would have been his destiny without the
possibility of escape from the grave--unless God by His arbitrary right should
see fit to make special exceptions to manifest His power, or for other
incidental reasons. But as a rule an irrevocable grave would have been man's
portion.
Since it was by a moral and intellectual test and a failure under
that test that man brought upon himself death and the grave, so it was decreed
that resurrection should be based upon a moral and intellectual test in which
there should be success. Adam the first is the federal head of all who are in
him, and return to the dust in him; but Christ is the federal head of all who
are in him, die in him, and return to the dust in him. And since he has
established, ratified, and brought into force the law of resurrection in
himself all who are in him are thereby in the resurrection or anastasis by
reason of his having become "the resurrection and the life." Hence
the words, "For as in Adam all die; even so in Christ shall all be
made alive." The "all" in each case is qualified by the
"in;" for "in Adam" men are not "in Christ,"
these being terms expressive of federal relationship; and since Adam's legacy
is death and dust, without resurrection, no one can be the subject of the resurrection
which came "by man," even Christ, unless a change of relationship has
taken place. The line is therefore drawn between "the law of sin and
death," on the one hand, and "the law of the spirit of life," on
the other, leaving any case of resurrection that might take place in the future
as outside of this in the sphere of Divine prerogative, but assured, however,
by the testimonies given that such cases will be small exceptions to those
wherein the largest part of the "multiplied conception" will like
"sheep be laid in the grave, and death shall feed on them;" and of
whom it will be true in the future as it was when the prophet Isaiah said:
"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."
By properly drawing the lines of divine law, therefore, the
seeming conflicting passages are found to be in perfect harmony, every
testimony fitting its place. But the blessed thought for us is that God has
sent His Son to be the resurrection and that He has provided a means whereby we
can have the privilege of reconciliation with Him and enter upon probation in
which, if we continue faithful to the end, there is not only resurrection, or anastasis,
but the life, the "power of an endless life." With such a
privilege there is great responsibility, because to bear the Yahweh name is to
be identified with Yahweh, and that great and glorious name will be honored by
us according as we are faithful or unfaithful. Those who continue faithful to
the end of their probationary career will finally triumph over death and
gloriously shout:
"O Death where is thy sting?
O Grave where is thy victory?"
Thanks be to God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
The other class of errorists are those who limit resurrection
to the righteous only, including those who believe that only the righteous of
the "called-out ones" will be raised at the coming of Christ; and
that they will emerge from the grave immortal; but that the unfaithful of the
"called-out ones" will be raised at the end of the thousand year's
reign of Christ, for punishment. To a large extent, scripture evidence will
apply alike to these shades of difference. They start with the assumed premise
that the righteous emerge from the grave immortal, and consequently the
judgment of these cannot be to declare them worthy or unworthy of immortality;
therefore it must be limited to the dispensation of rewards according to
degrees of merit only.
The following testimonies clearly show that the judgment of
God's household is for the separation of the good from the bad; and that,
therefore, they must necessarily all appear for judgment together; also that
immortality will be bestowed upon the approved after judgment and that,
therefore, they will not emerge from the grave immortal:
Dan. 12: 2--And many of them that sleep in the dust of the
earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting
contempt.
John 5: 28--The hour is coming when 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 damnation.
Rom. 2: 6-16--God will render to every man according to his
deeds: to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory, honor
and immortality, eternal life; but unto them that are contentious, and do not
obey the truth, indignation and wrath * * * in the day when God shall judge the
secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
I. Cor. 3: 13-15--Every man's work shall be made manifest;
for the day shall declare it of what sort it is, etc.
Rom. 8: 11--But if the spirit of Him that raised up Jesus
from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also
quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you.
II. Cor. 5: 10--For we must all appear before the judgment
seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things in body according to that
he hath done, whether good or bad.
The first passage says that both good and bad will awake
"at that time," a phrase which cannot mean two times separated by a
thousand years. One class come forth "to everlasting life" and
the other to "shame" etc., which shows that judgment intervenes
between the coming forth and the rewarding of one class and the punishing of
the other.
Since the passage in John is substantially the same, the
same remarks apply. The passage in Romans declares that eternal life is
rendered to the well-doers and wrath to the disobedient "in the day
when God will judge," etc.
In I. Cor. 3, those who are brought into the truth, and
therefore built upon the foundation, which is Christ, will be as gold, silver,
and precious stones, on the one hand; and as hay, wood and stubble on the
other. These are to be tried as by fire in "the day" that is
to "declare every man's work of what sort it is."
II. Cor. 5 shows that all who appear before the judgment
seat of Christ are to receive good or bad, according to their
works. The "good" must be eternal life in contrast with the
"bad," eternal death; for these terms could not be applied to degrees
of reward for the good only. All that the faithful will receive will be
"good," and the degrees might be expressed by good, better and best.
The passage in Rom. 8 proves that the good will first appear
in "mortal bodies," and that these will be "quickened."
This gives no place, therefore, to the theory of "immortal emergence from
the grave."
The word "resurrection" comes from the Greek word anastasis,
which means "a standing again." It is sometimes used for standing
again in mortal life; it also applies to that state to which the righteous
attain in the future life. This is its meaning in Luke 20:35, while in Acts 24:
15, where it applies to "just and unjust," it must mean a standing
again in mortal life. This distinction is observed by Jesus when he says,
"I am the resurrection (anastasis) and the life" (Zoe). He
will be the resurrection to the "just and the unjust;" but he
will be the life of the "just" only. The Greek word zoe
is nearly always used for eternal life. Again in John 5:21--"For as the
Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them; even so the Son
quickeneth whom he will."
The theory of immortal emergence is based upon a
misunderstanding of I. Cor. 15: 42--"So also is the resurrection of the
dead. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body." The word
"raised" here must not be confined to raising out of the grave only.
The analogy employed by the apostle, that of raising grain, must be kept in
mind, and the word "raised" allowed sufficient scope to comprise the
entire process, when those exalted to the glorious resurrection state will have
been "raised spiritual bodies," a process which allows for the
fulfillment of other Scriptures, which clearly show a judgment between the time
of emergence from the grave and the immortalization of the faithful. Let all,
therefore, who put on the great and fearful name of Yahweh realize the
responsibility devolving upon them in bearing that name without reproach
throughout a diligent and faithful probation, and then they may feel assured
that their appearing before the judgment seat of Christ will be to receive the
approbation of a just and merciful Judge, who to all will exclaim, "Well
done, thou good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joy of thy
Lord."
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
Here we are in a wonderful world, a glance at our surroundings
impresses us with the greatness, the fearfulness and the marvelous wisdom
manifested in creation. Mystery! mystery! everywhere; and there is system,
there is design, all inviting observation, investigation and the most profound
exercise of thought and reason. An effect is traced to its cause; that cause
proves to be another effect to be traced to another cause; all the effects and
all the causes carry the mind backward and backward and refuse to give
satisfaction till we have reached an ultimate cause, equal in power and in
wisdom to the production of all causes and effects; and there the finite mind
must stop because it has reached the infinite. It must stop and bow its head
reverently, impressed with the thought that the Great Infinite, who could
produce the wonders of the finite, has the right and the might to forbid
further pursuit. Shall the finite complain in the presence of a thousand
mysteries in its own permitted domain because the Author of the finite limits
its intellectual powers, and, upon its attempt to penetrate the illimitable
sphere of the Infinite, declares, "Stand back! thus far shalt thou go and
no farther?" or shall the finite refuse to believe in the Infinite because
it cannot understand the mode of His existence, when in the realms of its own
domains it finds facts to behold and yet not to be understood? To
reason, the very wonders of the finite world are facts which become a promise
from which it is irresistibly forced to the conclusion that the Infinite IS,
and that all creation is the marvelous work of His almighty hand.
Where there is law there must be a law-maker, a law-giver.
Where there is design there must be a designer; for the one without the other
is unthinkable, just as is effect without cause. And the fact that some things
are thinkable and some are not thinkable, is of itself another proof that the
finite creature is the product of the Infinite Creator. Limit, limit,
everywhere is characteristic of things finite, and limit declares the
existence of a Being having the right and the might to limit. Reason stands as
an ever-watchful sentinel and forbids doubt ever questioning that the mighty
forces in the heavens above and the earth beneath are the products of wisdom,
power and goodness. Wisdom cries out to her children, who re-echo her words and
send them reverberating through the vault of heaven, THERE IS A GOD, while
folly is flattered by fools who jabber, "There is no God."
Who but the fool can say "There is no God," when
confronted with the majesty and might and beauty and fearfulness of creation?
To everyone but the fool
"The spacious firmament on high,
With all the blue, ethereal sky,
And spangled heavens--a shining frame.
Their Great Original proclaim.
The ungoverned sun from day to day,
Doth his Creator's power display,
And publishes to every land,
The work of an Almighty hand."
But reason asks, Is there nothing to satisfy and gratify the
finite mind beyond the horizon of this ephemeral life? Can this great world of
many woes and wants be the end? or is it a means to an end? It cannot be that
this fickle, fleeting life is all that is possible as a reward to Reason for
reverence before the Great Infinite Creator whom she prays to lift the veil of
mystery and open to view the glories which she thinks must shine in resplendent
beauty beyond this vale of tears and death. While nature declares there is a
God, her lips are closed in stolid silence and seemingly in a tantalizing
disregard of Reason's request. But He who is the author of this stupendous
thing we call nature is found to be also the author of a Book--yea The Book,
whose lids fly open and expose to the anxious view of the diligent seeker
the words, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament
showeth His handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night
showeth knowledge. * * * The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the
Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandments of the Lord are pure, enlightening
the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the judgments of the
Lord are true and righteous altogether"--Psa. 19: 1, 9.
In this book reason is appealed to in words whose force is
irresistible. The question is asked, "He that planted the ear, shall he
not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see? He that chastiseth the
heathen, shall he not correct? He that teacheth man knowledge, shall he not
know?" (Psa. 94: 9, 10). Study the delicate formation of the eye and be
convinced that it was designed to be the organ of sight, from which it follows
that the Infinite Designer possessed the power of sight before He conceived and
formed the organ of sight in the creature. The same is true of the ear and of
the brain, the seat of thought. In the possession of the faculties of hearing,
of sight, and of mind we are enabled to examine the wonderful open Book, and
the finite mind becomes satisfied to look, though for the present as
"through a glass, darkly," because there is a future revealed therein
whose dawn will bring the glorious light in all its fullness. In the meantime
its Author extends to us the invitation, "Come and let us reason
together," and the book declares that "He that cometh to God must
believe that he is. and that he is rewarder of them that diligently seek
him"--Heb. 11: 6.
The question is asked, "Canst thou by searching find
out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection?" (Job 11: 7). We
must indeed search in vain; but he has been pleased to reveal Himself to us as
far as it is His good pleasure that we shall know Him now; and this is as far
as finite minds can comprehend. To the extent that He has revealed Himself in
the revelation of His purpose in the earth, we are required to know Him and trust
in Him; for salvation is predicated upon this knowledge. Jesus says, "This
is life eternal, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ,
whom thou hast sent" (John 17: 3). This knowledge is required because
without it idolatry is almost certain in one form or another. A fundamental
command is: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20: 3).
His unity therefore is the first thing to be observed. Heathenism has
multiplied its gods; and a perverted Christianity has made such a compromise
between the teaching of Revelation of the oneness of God and the heathen
"many gods" as to invent a theory which it claims to be too
mysterious for the comprehension of its inventors, and they have called it
"The Trinity." There was no way of escaping the clear declaration of
Scripture that there is but one God; and pagans seem to have found it
impossible to rid their minds of all their gods, so they retained the idea of
three, but to suit scripture phraseology they declared it to be a threeness in
a oneness--three to suit paganism, and yet only one, to suit
Bible words. This compromise, wherein "many gods" are reduced to
three and called a "Trinity," is no less idolatry than was the old
fiction of heathenism. The oneness of God without any compromise with an
invented threeness is clearly set forth in the following passages:
Deut. 4: 35, 39--Unto thee it was showed, that thou mightest
know that the Lord he is God; there is none else beside him. Know therefore
this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord he is God in heaven
above, and upon earth beneath: there is none else. Chap. 6: 4--Hear, O Israel,
the Lord our God is one Lord.
II. Sam. 7: 22--Wherefore thou art great, O Lord God: for
there is none like thee, neither is there any God besides thee, according to
all that we have heard with our ears. Chap. 22: 32--For who is God, save the
Lord? or who is a rock save our God?
Isa. 43: 10-12--Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my
servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand
that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after
me. I, even I, am the Lord; and besides me there is no Saviour.
Is. 46: 9--Remember the former things of old; for I am God,
and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me.
Is. 44: 6--Thus saith the Lord, the King of Israel, and his
redeemer, the Lord of Hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me
there is no God.
Mark 12: 29--And Jesus answered him, The first of all the
commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.
John 17: 3--And this is life eternal, that they may know
thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
I. Cor. 8: 4, 6--As concerning therefore the eating of those
things that are offered in sacrifice to idols, we know that an idol is nothing
in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be
that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many and
lords many), but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
things, and we by Him.
Eph. 4: 4-6--There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye
are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one
God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Gal. 3: 20--Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God
is one.
I. Tim. 2: 5--For there is one God, and one mediator between
God and man, the man Christ Jesus.
These passages entirely exclude the thought of there being
three persons in one God. The oft repeated words of modern Christians,
"God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost," can be made to
mean nothing else but three Gods, and the accepted Athanasian creed declares
the co-equality and co-eternity of the three. If this does not mean three
separate Gods, how can the comparison of "co-equality" or
"co-eternity" be made between them? One can understand how a
plurality of persons can be one in office, purpose, aim and object. In such a
case any one of the three would be a separate personality, capable of acting
separately and thinking separately, but to apply this as a comparison with the
Trinity would force the conclusion of three distinct Gods, and that they are
one only in purpose; and then how could one of these say, "Beside me there
is no God?" How could one of them address another in the words, "This
is life eternal, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus
Christ whom thou hast sent?" If there were three co-equals one
could no more have "sent" one of the others than one of the others
could have "sent" the one; and for one to tell another that He was
the "only true God" was either to refuse to countenance the existence
of the third ("God the Holy Ghost") or to imply that though he was
"God very God," he was not a "true God"; for only one is
declared to be the "true God."
Trinitarians say that the Father is co-equal, the son
co-equal, and the Holy Ghost co-equal; and consistently with this, they use the
phrase, "three persons." If there are "three persons," and if
each one is co-equal with each one of the other two, there are three co-equal
persons, and we cannot say there is only one person. If any one of the three
persons is God (either Father, Son or Holy Ghost), then there are three
personal Gods, and three personal Gods cannot be one personal God. When
Trinitarians name the three as "God the Father, God the Son and God the
Holy Ghost," and then say "yet not three but one," and then cry
out "Mystery, mystery!" mystery becomes a word to hide folly; for
there is no mystery when three co-equals are named and then it is declared
there is only one, it is a palpable absurdity and a flagrant perversion of
language. "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" are spoken of in the Bible,
but not "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost." As to
what the Son and the Spirit are, we shall find the scriptures clear when we
come to examine these under their proper headings. But since the testimonies
given establish beyond question that God is one we must accept this as a settled
fact; and be assured that nothing in the scriptures will be found to really
contradict it.
The omnipresence of Deity is difficult to understand
consistent with the idea of his being a personality, but what great truth is
there without difficulties for finite minds to understand? That God has a
dwelling place and is therefore localized is evident from the following
testimonies. Solomon at the dedication of the temple, prays: "And hearken
thou to the supplication of thy servant, and of thy people Israel, when they
shall pray towards this place; and hear thou in heaven, thy dwelling-place"
(I. Kings 8: 30). In the Lord's prayer we are not commanded to say
"Our Father who art everywhere." That He is everywhere is, of course,
true; but he is not everywhere in the same sense that he is in his
"dwelling place." Hence we are commanded to say, "Our Father who
art in heaven." Consistent with Deity's omnipresence we can
truthfully say we are always in his presence; for in him all things "live
and move and have their being" (Acts 17). Jesus was in this sense, and in
still a higher sense, in the presence of God before he ascended to heaven; yet
he said, "I go to the Father." The Apostle Paul says that Jesus
"entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God
for us" (Heb. 9: 24). In speaking of his return to the earth at the
"times of the restitution of all things" spoken by the prophets, the
apostle Peter says, "And he (God) shall send Jesus Christ"
(Acts 3: 20).
Now this localization of God, which implies his personality,
is not in conflict with his omnipresence. He is everywhere by means of his
Spirit, which radiates from his august presence and pervades the universe.
Hence the psalmist asks, "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 (sheol), behold, thou art there. If I take the
wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there
shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me" (Ps. 139: 7,
10). The sun is located in the heavens above; but he is present here by his
rays and the rays of the sun are an extension of the sun itself; a fact which
in no way conflicts with his localization as a great body of focalized light.
This helps the mind to understand, in measure, how God can be a being having a
"dwelling place," and yet be everywhere by His spirit flowing out
from himself. The idea that God is without personality and that He is a
diffusion of spirit everywhere as much as anywhere is not in harmony with the
revelation that God has been pleased to give of Himself.
It is not revealed as to what part of the universe is His
"dwelling place." He "dwells in light unapproachable" by
mortal man; and doubtless that light is the grand center of the mighty universe
and around which all the planets revolve.
In many parts of the Scriptures God is spoken of as having
been seen and conversed with; yet Jesus says, "No man hath seen God at any
time" (John 1: 18). The Apostle Paul also says: "Now to the King
eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for
ever and ever" (I. Tim. 1: 17). He also says that God "dwells in
light, which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can
see" (I. Tim. 6: 16). An apparent difficulty arises here from the fact
that we read of God appearing to Adam, Abraham, Moses and others, and of
conversations carried on, such as that with Abraham about the wickedness and
destiny of Sodom. This apparent difficulty vanishes when we compare scripture
with scripture and thereby learn that God manifested Himself through angels,
and "put His name in them," an example of which is seen in the words
spoken to Israel: "Behold, I will send an angel before thee. * * * provoke
him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions; for my name is in
him" (Ex. 23: 20, 21). This appearance of God to men by manifestation
in angels and men is seen also in His special manifestation in Jesus, who is
spoken of as "God manifested in the flesh, justified in spirit, seen of
angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into
glory" (I. Tim. 3: 16). When Philip said to Jesus, Show us the Father,
Jesus answered, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not
known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14: 8,
9). This passage is sometimes quoted to prove the Trinity, on the grounds that
Jesus is supposed here to claim identity with God. But in that sense it proves
too much; if it proves that Jesus was one of three persons of the Godhead it
proves that, instead of being "God the Son," he was "God the
Father"; for his words are, "He that hath seen me hath seen the
Father." We are therefore forced to the idea that Jesus was a
manifestation of the Father, and that therefore his meaning is "He that
hath seen me hath seen the Father" manifested in the Son.
God is therefore one and invisible; dwelling in heaven, in
light unapproachable, whom no mortal man hath seen or can see, and He is
omnipresent and omniscient by His spirit which flows out from His glorious
presence and fills immensity.
God is immortal, from all eternity and to all eternity.
"God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and
in truth" (John 4: 24). "Now unto the King eternal, immortal,
invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever, Amen."
He only hath immortality underived. His nature is therefore holy because it is
immortal, and to that holy and glorious nature angels and Christ have attained;
and men are exhorted to seek for immortality by a patient continuance in
well-doing (Rom. 2: 7).
He is holy; therefore men should strive to be like Him as
nearly as it is possible for the finite to be like the Infinite; for He says,
"I am the Lord, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King" (Is.
43: 15). And of Him it is said, "Thou art of purer eyes than to behold
evil, and canst not look on iniquity" (Hab. 1: 13).
He is just; therefore men should strive to do justly in all
things, for "He is the Rock; his work is perfect, for all His ways are
judgment; a God of truth and without iniquity; just and right is He"
(Deut. 32: 4). "Doth God pervert judgment? or doth the Almighty pervert
justice?" (Job 8: 3).
He is a God of love; therefore men should love Him with all
their hearts; for "he that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is
love" (I. John 4: 8).
He is good; therefore "O give thanks unto the Lord; for
He is good; for His mercy endureth forever" (I. Chron. 16: 34). His love,
His greatness and goodness must fill the hearts of all who know Him as He is
revealed in His blessed word. O that all the world would with reverence, with
godly fear and with genuine, heavenly love exclaim:
"Thou the great, eternal God,
Art high above our thoughts:
Worthy to be feared, adored--
By all Thy hands have wrought.
None can with Thyself compare,
Thy glory fills the earth and sky;
We, and all thy creatures, are
As nothing in thine eye."
We have already seen that the spirit of God is everywhere.
By it he is omnipresent, and by it he upholds the universe; as the rays of the
sun are an extension of the sun itself, so God being a spirit, his spirit is an
extension of himself in various forms according as he wills. The fixed laws of
nature teach us that all things are governed by one Great Mind which is in
communication with every part of the mighty universe. That mind is God,
"out of whom all things have been evolved." Wonderful it is, of
course, but the wonder is in measure lessened by revelation. The apostle Paul
eloquently cries out, "O 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 counselor?
or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For
of him (ek anton--out of him), and through him, and to him, are all
things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen" (Rom. 11: 33, 36). The popular
theory of creation is that "all things were made out of nothing."
This is a contradiction of terms; for it is unthinkable that something can come
out of nothing; and he who has given man thinking powers, though he may not
fully reveal his wonderful works, does not ask us to try to think the
unthinkable. The words "out of whom are all things" give us a glimpse
which for the present affords the mind satisfaction in the assurance that by
the will of the Creator the substantial universe was evolved out of something
more substantial than "nothing"; for out of nothing nothing comes. Is
it unreasonable to believe that what is called matter is but the grosser forms
of spirit; and that the world of matter was spoken into its forms, and mode of
existence, out of the spirit by the Great Eternal Spirit, the Deity? It is a
thinkable thought, to say the least, while it is not thinkable that all things
came from nothing.
Without presuming to venture too far into the marvelous
works of Deity by reason alone, we can safely follow the paths of revelation.
That which has been done by Deity through his spirit we may get a faint idea of
from the following scriptures:
Gen. 1: 2--And the earth was without form and void: and
darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the
face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.
Ps. 104: 30--Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are
created; and thou renewest the face of the earth.
Job 26: 13--By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his
hand hath formed the crooked serpent.
Ps, 33: 6--By the word of the Lord were the heavens made;
and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
Job 33: 4--The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of
the Almighty hath given me life.
Ps. 36: 9--For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy
light shall we see light.
Job 12: 10--In those hands is the soul of every living
thing, and the breath of all mankind.
Is. 42: 5--God giveth breath unto the people upon the earth,
and spirit to them that walk therein.
Ps. 51: 12--Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and
uphold me with thy free spirit.
From these testimonies we learn that all things are evolved
out of Deity's spirit, that his "free spirit" is the substratum of
all things, the medium of life of every creature. Since Deity's "free
spirit" flows out from himself as the Great Center and fills immensity his
mind is co-extensive therewith and by means of his spirit he is therefore
omnipresent and omniscient--en rapport, as it were, with all creation.
This "free spirit" is the vital force of all forms
of life. In some men it is susceptible of being centered and focused by
extraordinary will power, a fact which is to be seen in the art of mesmerism,
hypnotism, and what is called spiritualism. For these phenomena we need look no
further than the spirit of the flesh, that spirit by which creatures live and
move and have their being; and which enables them to perform the various
functions of life. But if God were to "gather unto himself his spirit and
his breath, all flesh would perish together, and man would turn again unto
dust" (Job 34: 14).
It is evident that there is but one spirit, though its forms
of manifestation are innumerable. Hence we read, "Now there are diversities
of gifts; but the same spirit" (I. Cor. 12: 4). There being but one
God, who is a spirit, and he the creator and sustainer of all things by means
of his spirit, there can be but one spirit, irradiating from him as the center
of the mighty universe. The psalmist prayed to be upheld with God's "free
spirit," and here are words that discriminate between the manifestation of
spirit as "free spirit" and "Holy Spirit." The word
"holy" frequently means a setting apart of one thing for a special
purpose. The first born son in every family of Israel was "holy unto the
Lord"; yet this did not necessarily mean that the first born was more pure
in flesh, heart or mind than the second born; but they were set apart for God,
to be a memorial of the redemption of the first born of Israel on the night
when those of the Egyptians were destroyed. "Holy spirit" therefore
is the one spirit of Deity specially directed by his will power for a special
purpose, to inspire holy men to speak or write; to impart miraculous power to men
to confirm the words they spoke, and to demonstrate that they were men sent of
God. When we read that "holy men of old spake as they were moved by the
Holy Spirit," it is the same as if it read that they were moved by the one
God and Father of all; for it was he who moved them by means of his spirit.
Hence "Holy Spirit" frequently means God himself.
That the "Holy Spirit" is not the third person of
a trinity is evident from the following scriptures:
Matt. 3: 11--I indeed baptize you with water unto
repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am
not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, and with fire.
Luke 2: 26--And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Spirit,
that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
John 1: 33--Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending
and remaining upon him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit.
John 14: 26--But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit,
whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, etc.
John 20: 22--And when he had said this, he breathed on them,
and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit.
Acts 1: 1, 2--* * * Of all that Jesus began both to do and
teach, until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy
Spirit had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen.
Acts 1: 5--For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall
be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence.
Verse 8--But ye shall receive power after that the Holy
Spirit is come upon you.
Verse 16--Men and brethren, this Scripture must needs have
been fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit by the mouth of David spake before
concerning Judas.
Acts 2: 33--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.
Verse 38--Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 4: 8--Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said
unto them, etc.
Acts 10: 38--How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the
Holy Spirit and with power.
Acts 10: 44, 45--While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy
Spirit fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision
which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the
Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit.
These passages are examples of how the Holy Spirit is spoken
of in the New Testament. It is:
1. That with which persons are baptized.
2. That which is the means by which God reveals his will to
men.
3. That which descends upon men on special occasions in
bearing witness of important truths.
4. That which is sent to comfort and help the memory of
those who were specially appointed to be witnesses of the work, death and
resurrection of Christ.
5. That which is imparted to the disciples by Jesus
breathing on them.
6. That through which Jesus is said to have given
commandments unto his apostles.
7. That by means of which the apostles were to receive
power.
8. That which inspired David and all the prophets of old.
9. That which Jesus received according to promise and which
was "shed forth" upon the apostles.
10. That with which God anointed Jesus.
11. That which was "poured out" upon the Gentiles
of the house of Cornelius.
12. That with which many were filled as a means of imparting
to the recipients miraculous gifts.
Now if the Holy Spirit be viewed as the effluence proceeding
from God and the vehicle of his power to men, these facts are easily
understood; but if one has in mind a "third person" who is God along
with two other persons, it is impossible to understand the passages given. How
could persons be baptized with Holy Spirit if it were a person? If, however, it
is spirit in diffusion, we can understand how baptism can take place in it or
with it as easily as we can understand baptism with, or in, water and with
fire. If fire or water were a person it would be absurd to speak of being
"baptized with fire," and "with water."
Then, again, "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the
Holy Spirit." That with which anointing takes place must be in diffusion,
capable of being poured out. Hence the Holy Spirit is said to have been
"poured out," and "shed forth." This too implies that it is
subject to the will and power of the one who "pours" or
"sheds" it forth. So likewise when it is said to be "sent"
and "received" and "breathed." It is shown to be a means
under the control of One who has the power to "send" it, to
"breathe" it, to "pour" it and "shed" it forth.
The results of all this are "gifts" of various kinds, and
enlightenment from God, from one Mind which controls all. The very thought of
three co-equals performing various parts by their own volition renders all
confusion. But if Jesus was subject to God, and the Holy Spirit an effluence
emanating from Him under the power of His will, there being only one supreme
will begetting, guiding and controlling in the work of redemption, then we may
repeat with the greatest emphasis possible the words of our Lord, "This is
life eternal, that they may know thee the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom
thou hast sent." We may say that whatever Deity does he does by his
power; but power can only be exercised and manifested by or through a
medium, a vehicle. God being omnipresent by means of his spirit flowing out
from his personal presence, his power is universal in upholding all things in
the natural world. For the performance of a work that is supernatural and
sacred the same spirit by special concentration of the divine will becomes Holy
Spirit for the holy or sacred work determined to be done. When Jesus promised
to send the Holy Spirit as a Comforter, he surely did not intend us to
understand that one person intended sending another person to
take the first person's place. But God having given Jesus the Holy Spirit
without measure, had thereby imparted it to him with authority and power to
impart it to others, making it subject to his will as well as to his Father's
will. When Jesus fulfilled his promise the Comforter came by being "poured
out" and "shed forth." It was caused to pervade the persons to
whom it was given, influencing their minds in refreshing their memories and in
inspiring their tongues to speak divine truth. Who will say that these results
were the work of one person who had taken the place of the other who had, for
the time, left his followers? Is it not that the One God, from whom all
blessings flow, imparted power to His only begotten Son, and the Son, who owes
his existence to and is, and always will be, subordinate to the Father imparted
it to his faithful followers, the Spirit of God being the effluence, influence,
or vehicle, through which the "power" or "gifts" were
transmitted? Thus it will be seen that Jesus was God's offspring by means of
his power through his Holy Spirit, and therefore he was God manifested in the
flesh by the Spirit. Thus "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto
himself," and Jesus thereby being the Father in manifestation by the
Spirit became the One (not three) "name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit;" and so it could be said of him, "Neither
is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven
given among men whereby we must be saved."--Acts 4: 12.
In conclusion then we may safely say:
1. That when the Holy Spirit is spoken of as that with which
people were baptized, it was the Spirit of God under the divine will through
Christ, enveloping and overwhelming the subjects within its halo.
2. That when it is spoken of as the means of revelation to
men, it is the vehicle which conveys the One Mind of One God to the minds of
men, and not that one of three Gods by his volition performs a work specially
in which the other two are not engaged except indirectly.
3. That when the Holy Spirit is said to descend upon men, it
is not a personality that so descends, but an unction from the Father, compared
in the Scriptures to the "early and the latter rain" descending upon
the earth.
4. That the Holy Spirit is not a person, that is in any
sense a "Comforter," more than, or different from, or separate from,
God, but is the means by which God in special cases, sometimes through Christ,
so influences the minds of his people as to fill them with joy and strength and
courage for the performance of work of a special and extremely difficult
character.
5. That for Jesus to breathe upon his disciples and to say,
"Receive ye the Holy Spirit," was not an act of introducing to them a
third person; but a means of enthusing their whole beings with an extraordinary
thrill of life and courage, such as was needed to bear them up under the severe
trials awaiting them.
6. That for Jesus to give commandments through the Holy
Spirit was not for one "co-equal" to command by the authority of
another "co-equal;" but it was that Jesus received all his
instructions, power and authority from the Father by inspiration, the Holy
Spirit being the means of bringing his mind en rapport with the mind of his
Father. Therefore as he said, his words were not his, but the Father's who sent
him.
7. When the apostles are said to have received the power of
the Holy Spirit, it was not that the power came from a third co-equal, but that
God imparted power to them by means of the Holy Spirit, which placed the
recipients of the special power in special communion with the One only source
of power.
8. When David prophesied by the Holy Spirit, it was not that
the mind of a third "co-equal" moved his mind to foresee and his pen
to foretell what would happen, but it was with him like all the prophets,
"God in sundry times, and in divers manners spake in times past unto the
fathers by the prophets;" and God did this by causing "holy men of
old to speak as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" of God, the Spirit
being God's means of breathing upon men whose minds thus affected became
"God-breathed."
9. It would be absurd to say that Jesus, when he received
the Holy Spirit according to promise, did so as one second "co-equal"
receiving another third "co-equal" God. He was filled with it while
in the flesh; but when he was "fashioned into a glorious body" he
became Holy Spirit in bodily form, a glorious, immortal nature which was the
"joy set before him" for which he endured the cross and despised the
shame of a malefactor's death.
10. For Jesus to be anointed with the Holy Spirit was not
for one "co-equal" person to anoint a second "co-equal"
person with a third "co-equal" person, an absurdity which the Trinity
is reducible to. It was for God, after the custom of anointing with oil, to
pour out upon Jesus and to envelop him in a special and copious concentration
of spirit, through which he spake the words, "This is my (not our) beloved
Son in whom I (not we) am well pleased." "The head of every man is
Christ, the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."--I
Cor. 11: 3. God, being the head of Christ, could appropriately utter the words
"in whom I am well pleased," leaving no room for a third
"coequal" to have anything to say in the matter. There was,
therefore, only one Great Mind to please.
11. To use the words "poured out" implies an actor
and an instrument passive in his hands; and that which was "poured
out" could not, of course, be a person. So again we have Deity, the source
of all power pouring out his Spirit as the means of manifesting his acceptance
of the Gentiles.
12. It is God that miraculously strengthens minds and
muscles, though he has given his Son power and authority to use divine power.
Thus for this purpose many were filled with the Holy Spirit and so enabled to
confirm God's words "with signs and wonders, and divers miracles and gifts
of the Holy Spirit."
Some depend upon the fact that the Comforter, which is the
Holy Spirit, is represented by the personal pronoun, masculine gender, as proof
of the Spirit's separate personality. This is a very slender thread to hang on.
If the personal pronoun in this case proves the separate personality of the
Spirit, then upon the same principle obedience and sin could be proved to be
persons. Paul says, "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?"--Rom. 6: 16. That which
emanates from and whose existence depends upon a person is sometimes
personified, the personality being derived from the source whence the power or
influence or act proceeds. To illustrate: The sun is often personified, and the
pronouns are used in the masculine gender-- "his heat," "his
light," "his rays." An admirer might say of a
beautiful sun-set, "See him sink behind a glowing horizon" The
light of the sun is often spoken of as if it were the sun itself. This because
the light or sun's rays emanate from the sun, are an extension of the sun and
can have no existence apart from it. In phraseology the personality attaches to
the sun proper and follows, as it were, its extention in its rays.
This will help us to trace the personal pronoun when applied
to the Holy Spirit of God back to its source in Deity himself from whom Holy
Spirit proceeds and apart from whom it has no existence There is often a noun implied
in language, though not expressed. We may in using the words of the Saviour
safely think of the real personality involved even to the extent of
mentally supplying the noun when the pronoun is used. For instance, who can
object to the following? "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit (of
God) whom the Father will send in my name, he (God through his Spirit) shall
teach you all things" The person and gender attach to God, and follows, as
it were, the Spirit which emanates from him; for truly God is the
"Comforter" in the case; and it is the meaning we must seek, not
words without meaning. In the illustration given from Paul, the person and
gender attach to the "sinner" and the "obedient," and
follows on to the act of "sin" and "obedience;" and no one
would for a moment sever the acts from the actor in order to establish a theory
of the personality of the acts. Then, again, the word Spirit sometimes is used
for God. Several of the letters to the churches in the book of Revelation end
with the words "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit
sayeth unto the churches."--Rev. 2: 17, 29; 3: 6, 22. Who is it that
"saith unto the churches" what is revealed in this wonderful book? Is
it the supposed third person of the Trinity? Absurd! It is none other than God
himself, though speaking by means of his Spirit through Christ. Hence the book
begins with the words "The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto
him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he
sent and signified it unto his servant John, who bear record of the word
of God," etc.
Again, Paul writes Timothy, "Now the Spirit
speaketh expressly."--1 Tim. 4: 1. If there had been occasion to use a
pronoun here, it might well have been personal and masculine gender, yet who
would have construed it to mean that the "Spirit" was a third person
of the Trinity? "Spirit" here clearly stands for the one and only
"true God" who has distinctly declared, "I am the Lord (Yahweh),
and there is none else, there is no God beside me."--Isa. 45: 5. I once
heard a minister argue that the Holy Spirit must be a separate person because
Jesus taught that sin against God and against Christ could be forgiven, but sin
against the Holy Spirit could not. If this "argument" were true it
would be strange indeed, a strangeness which the gentleman's zeal for a theory
failed to see. It would mean that God the Father would forgive a sin against
him; and "God the Son" would forgive a sin against him; but "God
the Holy Ghost" would not forgive a sin against him; and thus we should
have one God differing to quite a degree from the other two in this one
respect; and if in one, why not in many? And so it would be God against God,
similar to heathenism, which had a god for each of the forces of nature, one
contending against the other. The passage referred to is Luke 12: 10: "And
whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him;
but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven
him." Now it is not said here that "whosoever shall blaspheme"
God it shall be forgiven him. So that God's willingness is not put in contrast with
the unwillingness of the Holy Spirit. Still it may be said that God does
forgive sin against him. Yes, some sins; but "there is a sin unto
death," and surely that is a sin against God. The blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit in the passage is evidently a specially heinous sin against God.
The difference between this sin and ordinary forgivable sins is in the fact
that the latter is what all men are prone to naturally when unaided in any
special way by the Holy Spirit, while the former was one that would be
necessarily the most willful and presumptuous in face of acts performed under
the actual cognizance of the senses, and where the sinners had "tasted of
the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and
tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to
come."--Heb. 6: 4, 5. Now in such a case will any one, even a
Trinitarian, presume to say that there was a sin committed against one God and
not against the other two--a sin which two of them would forgive, while one of
them would not? To say so would almost be the sin of blasphemy itself. One
beholding with the natural eye the wonderful works of the Holy Spirit through
Christ and his apostles, works which the observers must necessarily know were
the works of God and could not be otherwise; and one conscious of being
possessed of the Holy Spirit and of the "powers of the world to
come," and still attribute such works to the "prince of demons"
or denying the power--surely this would be a sin against God, the source of all
power, which deserved no mercy and therefore "a sin unto death." Let
not man therefore suppose a God other than the One--a God who can withhold
forgiveness where others would grant it; for this is setting up another God and
ignoring the words of the One and only true God who has said, "Thou shalt
have no gods before me. * * * For I the Lord thy God am a jealous
God."--Ex. 20: 3-5. "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy
Ghost" are the words of paganized Christianity and not of the Scriptures
of truth, either in word or meaning. "There is one God and one Mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."--I. Tim. 2: 5. So we
have one God, the Spirit of God emanating from him; and one Lord Jesus Christ,
begotten of him by means of his Spirit.
The Hebrew word ruach and the Greek word pueuma are
used for breath, mind, spirit, influence, a state of feeling and wind; they
also stand for a being and beings. If all things have been evolved out of
spirit, which proceeds from Deity and under the power of His will were spoken
into the various forms which compose the universe, then all creation may be
said to be spirit in various forms of manifestation. The word matter would
then be expressive of spirit in its grosser form, while spirit would
represent the more attenuated parts of the universe.
Since God is a Spirit, we may conclude that Spirit in its
primeval state is perfect. When evolved into the various forms which we call
nature, it must be viewed as of a lower degree of perfection. Out of this
creatures were formed, the highest of which in our planet is man, to whom is
imparted moral and intellectual powers and consequently a degree of
responsibility to the Creator. Man's exaltation to a higher state in the
universe, or his fall to a lower was made dependent upon the use he would make
of the mental and moral powers he was made the possessor of. He fell to a lower
state; and out of this the plan of salvation proposes to redeem him and exalt
him to the highest state, that state which, in contrast with matter, is
called spirit, in which he will be a spirit being, an immortal
being. A spirit being is spirit in corporeal, intelligent form; while spirit in
the attenuated from is spirit in diffusion, "free spirit," filling
immensity and upholding all things according to the will of Deity, who is the
Great Spirit Being "out of whom are all things" (Rom. 11: 36).
The divine order in relation to man is "First that
which is natural, afterwards that which is spiritual." The
"natural" we know to some extent by experience and observation; but
the "spiritual," in the sense of being, we can only know in our day
by what the Scriptures reveal concerning
Of angels the apostle Paul says, "But of which of the
angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy
footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister
for them who shall be heirs of salvation?"--Heb. 1: 13, 14. Reasoning from
analogy we may conclude that angels are the survivors of a pre-Adamic race, who
have attained to their immortality, glory and honor by faithfulness under
probation. Since man, who is said to have been "made lower than," or
"a little while inferior to" the angels (Heb. 2: 9), is on probation
for to be "made equal unto the angels" (Luke 20: 36), we may reason
that their previous state was "lower," and that their present state
is the result of probationary merit.
There are some who imagine that angels are the
"disembodied souls" or spirits of men; but since when man was made he
was "made lower than," and in the "image" (form) "of
angels," it follows that they existed before man's formation, and that
they therefore belonged to a previous age. Then again, men and angels are held
in contrast in respect of dominion--the faithful of the former destined to be
rulers in the "world to come," of which the apostle Paul says,
"For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to
come"--Heb. 2: 5, implying that the world present is, in some sense,
controlled by them under God and Christ.
A correct view of the relation of angels to God will prevent
misunderstanding of apparent contradictions in the Scriptures. We are
distinctly told that "no man hath seen God at any time"--Jno. 1: 18;
"whom no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see"--I.
Tim. 6: 16. Yet in Gen. 18: 1 we read, "And the Lord appeared unto him
(Abraham) in the plains of Mamre"; and in Ex. 33: 11--"And the Lord
spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." This
apparent discrepancy is removed when we recognize the fact that angels were
manifestations of Deity, bearing his name, a fact which is borne out by the
words of Stephen, in Acts 7: 35, where he says, "This Moses whom they
refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to
be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to
him in the bush." As to the passage in Genesis, the verses which follow
show that "the Lord appeared" in three angels, whom He sent to
destroy Sodom, and whom Abraham "entertained unawares," supposing
them at first to be men. One of them spoke for the rest, and possibly was of
greater honor and authority; and of the arrival of two of them in Sodom it is
said, "And there came two angels to Sodom at even"--chap. 19: 1. That
it was not God Himself personally is clear from the fact that the leader of the
"three men" says, "I will go down now, and see whether they have
done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not,
I will know"--verse 21. This could not be said of God; angels are beings
of limited knowledge, and in the performance of their missions they were
interested, if we may not say anxious, observers of the results to be effected
through them by Him who was their strength and authority. Hence the apostle Peter
writes of "the salvation of which the prophets have enquired and searched
diligently," when "they testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ
and the glory that should follow," and "which things the angels
desire to look into"--I. Pet. 1: 10-12. The reason angels are spoken
of as God is given in Ex. 23: 20, 21--"Behold I send an Angel before thee,
to keep thee." * * * "Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him
not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in
him." Bearing God's name, they are called God.
It was through the instrumentality of angels that God
created man; and it was in the "image," or form, of angels man
was made. The similarity of corporeal form was what caused Abraham to regard
the three angels who visited him as "three men." Commissioned and
empowered of God to perform His work in man's creation, they said, "Let us
make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have
dominion," etc.--Gen. 1: 26. Trinitarians quote this passage to prove the
Trinity, because of the use of the plural pronoun; but it requires an
extraordinary stretch of imagination to make the little word "us"
declare the most "mysterious" theory ever heard of and at the same
time perform the feat of counting exactly three. Without a controlling
desire of proving an assumed and preconceived theory, one would view the little
plural "us" as meaning any number above one. The words "LORD
God" (chap. 2: 7) are Yahweh Elohim and mean "the strength of
the mighty ones." The "mighty ones" performing the work are the
angels, and their "strength" or the power and authority by which they
do it is Yahweh--"He who will be", will be manifested in the
Son of Man, of whom John the Baptist said, "Prepare ye the way of
Yahweh," when God was about to be manifested in the flesh by His Spirit,
in the person of Jesus, who was Immanuel.
The word angel comes from the Greek word angelos, and
means messenger. It is sometimes applied to mortal men. John is called an angel
in the words, "Behold I send my messenger" (angelos) (Matt.
11: 10). The word is rendered "messengers" also in the following
passages: Mark 1: 2; Luke 7: 24-27; 9: 52; II. Cor. 12: 7; Jas. 2: 25. So the
question of whether natural or supernatural beings are meant in any passage
must be determined by the context, which is not difficult. If the text
concerning John had been rendered, "Behold, I send my angel before
thy face," it would have been clear that a mortal man was meant. On the
other hand, if Matt. 1: 20 had been rendered, "Behold, the messenger of
the Lord appeared to him (Joseph) in a dream," it would have been clear
that a supernatural being was meant.
Angels are glorious, powerful and immortal beings; and what
a blessing and an honor God has conferred upon us in rendering it possible to
be made "like unto the angels, to die no more"--Luke 20: 36. The
words "corporeal spirit" appear to the advocates of the popular
theory of "immaterial spirits" as a contradiction of terms. The word spirit
is supposed to mean the opposite of corporeality, and when used for a
person in the supposed "disembodied state" it is declared to be
"without body and parts." To speak of a person or a being without
body and parts is surely a contradiction of words; for how can we imagine such
a thing as a personality devoid of form and parts and corporeality? To attach
an arbitrary meaning to words to suit a theological theory will not serve the
purpose of truth. Whether or not there are spirit beings--real, substantial,
personal, corporeal beings--can be decided only by the Scriptures. We
have seen that Abraham mistook angels for men; we have also seen that the
Scriptures call angels "ministering spirits." Spirits
therefore appeared like men. Abraham said to those who visited him "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: for therefore are ye come to your
servant. And they said, So do as thou hast said"--Gen. 18:
4, 5. These "spirits" were real beings with bodies and parts,
having feet that could be washed, and who could eat of material food.
It is evident that Jesus was immortalized on the day of his
resurrection, and an immortal being is a spirit being. To Mary Jesus said,
"Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my
brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; unto my
God and to your God"--John 20: 17. This could not refer to his
ascent to heaven, which did not take place for forty days afterwards; and there
would be no reason for sending a messenger to inform them of his ascent to
heaven forty days hence, seeing he would be with his brethren during the
interval. The "ascent" was therefore something that was to occur
between the time he sent the message by Mary and the time he would meet his
brethren himself. It is quite reasonable, therefore, to conclude that Jesus
meant his ascent in nature--from the lower nature (mortality) to the higher
nature (immortality). He would then be a spirit being. Yet, when Thomas
doubted, Jesus said to him, "See my hands and my feet, that I am he;
handle me and be convinced"--Luke 24: 39 (Diaglott rendering). If the
objection is offered that he said, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones as
ye see me have," it is worthy of note that Griesbach's Greek text has the
word phantasma in the margin (phantom) here, not pneuma, corresponding
with Mark 6: 49.
Now Paul says, that Jesus "shall change our vile body,
that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Phil. 3:
21); and John says that at his appearing "we shall be like him; for we
shall see him as he is"--I. John 3: 2. Now since Jesus could be seen and
handled and was therefore a substantial corporeal being before he ascended, and
will be at his return (Rev. 1: 7; Zech. 12:10); and since we shall be made like
him, and "like unto the angels"; and since this will be when
"this mortal shall put on immortality," it follows that angels are
substantial, corporeal beings and yet they are "spirits." Therefore,
instead of spirits being disembodied, immaterial beings, without body and
parts, they are real, corporeal spirits, and the two words, corporeal and
spirit, are not inconsistent with each other, as is generally supposed.
If this is objected to on the ground that the argument
largely depends upon whether Jesus was in the changed state when he told Thomas
to handle him; and if it is questioned whether the words "I ascend to my
Father," etc., are a positive proof of a change of nature, then we ask the
objectors to explain these words upon any other hypothesis, without suggesting
the unlikely thing, not to say the absurdity, of Jesus hastening Mary to tell
his brethren of an event forty days hence, when he knew he would have many
opportunities of telling them himself before the time arrived. According to the
type of the firstfruits, the day he spoke the words to Mary was the day when he
should become the first-fruits of the harvest of immortality; and there is
nothing to show that he was changed subsequently, That he was immortal when he
ascended to heaven is evident from the fact that the garments of the High
Priest under Moses typified the garment of immortality; and the Most Holy Place
was not to be entered without the high priestly robe. This in relation to
Jesus, as the antitype, is clearly shown in Zech. 3: 3-8. In perhaps still
clearer language it is proved in Heb. 9: 12--"Neither by the blood of
goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having
obtained eternal redemption" ("for us" is supplied by the
translators, and should be omitted). "Eternal redemption" is
"redemption of the body" (Rom. 8: 23). Therefore "having
obtained eternal redemption [of the body] he entered in once into the holy
place," "even into heaven itself"--verse 24.
1. Jesus in the immortal state is a substantial, corporeal
being.
2. The redeemed will be made like him by a change of the
mortal body to an immortal body, which is a "spiritual body."
3. They will then be like unto the angels.
4. Angels are in form like unto men, and have been mistaken
for men.
5. Since Jesus in the immortal state is a corporeal being;
and since men are to be made like unto him, and thereby like unto the angels,
it follows that angels, who are spirits, are yet real substantial, corporeal
spirit beings, and not disembodied, immaterial entities "without body or
parts."
As to the question of their origin, we may summarize the matter
as follows:
1. Man when he was formed was "made lower than the
angels."
2. Man when he is redeemed and made immortal is to be
"equal unto the angels."
3. Since man was made lower than the angels, it follows that
angels preceded man; and since man when redeemed at the resurrection is to be
like unto the angels, we may conclude that angels are now, and have been since
before the creation of man, immortal beings or spirit beings, as the result of
successful probation in a pre-Adamic age.
4. Therefore, since all things are evolved out of the spirit
of Deity by His supreme and omnipotent power and under the control of His will,
we may conclude that all intelligent and moral creatures are first spirit
evolved into flesh, "very good," whose physical, mental and moral
status is made dependent upon obedience to divine law. That any fall from this
"very good" status is always the consequence of breaking such law;
and that redemption therefrom is the result of God's mercy in adapting a law of
redemption to the needs and capabilities of his fallen creatures, by faith in
and obedience to which, flesh may be changed into spirit in the form of spirit
beings, which is the ideal state of perfection.
5. To this spirit state angels had already attained before
man was created; and to this Jesus attained (after his resurrection) by a
perfect obedience, even unto the death of the cross; and through him men may
attain to the same--"every man in his own order, Christ the firstfruits,
afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming."
It is supposed that there are two classes of supernatural
beings, or angels--one "evil spirits"; the other "good
spirits." If spirit in its primeval state is perfect, it is impossible for
there to be evil personal spirits, for the spirit state, which is the immortal
state, is the goal to which righteousness leads, and therefore to which
wickedness cannot attain. There can be no evil supernatural spirit, therefore.
The only evil spirits, in the personal sense of "spirits," are false
prophets and wicked men; but they are all natural, of the flesh, and not
supernatural. Hence John says, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try
the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are
gone out into the world"--I. John 4: 1. Of course, in the sense of
influence, the word spirit may be used for good or bad; but a spirit being,
consubstantial with God, can no more exert a bad or wicked influence than can
God Himself; for out of spirit in its primeval, perfect state nothing bad can
emanate. We have the spirit of pride, the spirit of covetousness, the spirit of
envy, etc.; but these all emanate from the flesh in its fallen, sinful state.
Hence "the works of the flesh are manifest," says Paul; and then he
enumerates what fallen flesh naturally, when unchecked by the influence of the
spirit, yields. See Gal. 5: 19-21. On the other hand, he enumerates the
"fruit of the spirit" as all good (verses 22-26). Now if the spirit
will yield nothing but good, even in "earthen vessels" such as fallen
mortal sin-perverted man is now, how can it be possible for spirit beings, who
are spirit condensed into pure divine personalities--how can it be possible
that they can be wicked? "Fallen angels," in the sense popularly
understood, that is, immortal beings who have fallen, cannot be, any more than
there can be an immortal "devil"; for that which is immortal is like
God in nature; and the perfect nature of immortality can no more sin than can
the "King immortal, invisible, the only wise God." The idea that
there are multitudes of evil, personal, immortal spirits contending against
multitudes of holy angels, the one as personal and immortal as the other, is of
pagan origin, and finds no support in the Word of God.
It is generally supposed that the angels spoken of in II.
Pet. 2: 4 and Jude 6 are of a pre-Adamic race, and many believe them to be
immortal. Jude says, "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." "Chains" are a
symbol of bondage; and there is nothing darker than death and the grave.
Solomon says, "Whoso curseth his father or his mother, his lamp [life]
shall be put out in obscure darkness"--Pro. 20: 20. Job 10:
22-22.--"Are not my days few? cease then, and let me alone, and I may take
comfort a little, before I go whence I shall not return, even to the land of darkness
and the shadow of death; a land of darkness, as darkness itself; and of the
shadow of death, without any order, and where the light is as darkness."
Ps. 88: 5.--"Free among the dead, like the slain that lie in the grave. *
* * Thou hast laid me in the pit, in darkness, in the deeps."
"Chains under darkness" are words quite expressive
of death and the grave; and these angels are "reserved" in death and
the grave "unto the judgment of the great day." They are not,
therefore, the supposed "evil spirits" roaming around in the air
watching for opportunities to antagonize the angels who are "ministering
spirits for them who are heirs of salvation;" for they are fastened in
chains, and reserved in darkness. If they are of pre-Adamic times, and are the
fallen of the race out of which the angels of God are the redeemed, the
question arises, Why are they reserved for judgment from a previous age to
another age; while their successful contemporaries are enjoying their rewards?
Would not the judgment which rewarded the faithful also be executed upon the
unfaithful? Why bring over to another age part of a race who lived under the
laws, and should be judged by the laws, of the age they lived in? There is
confusion here. The criterion revealed gives us to understand that when God
judges and gives rewards to the faithful, He judges and punishes the
unfaithful.
Since the word angel is applied to mortal men and means
messenger, it is reasonable to regard the words of Jude as applicable to men,
especially in view of his saying that it was an event of which he would
"put them in remembrance, though ye once knew this"--verse 5.
How could they know of angels of a pre-Adamic age? But of angels, or
messengers, who were sent to take formal possession of Israel's first estate and
who "left the habitation" which God had promised them, and gave a
false report, they could know from the history of God "having saved the
people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed
not." The unfaithful messengers, being select men of intelligence, would
be responsible, not only to the law of Moses but to the law of the spirit of
life, and they are therefore reserved to be judged by Him who shall "Judge
the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom."
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
(Continued)
The first promise of Jesus in the Scriptures is in Genesis
3:15--"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy
seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt
bruise his heel." From prophecies and promises which came after this
throughout the Old Testament, it is evident that the words "seed of the
woman" were intended to be emphasized as meaning that the promised seed
would not be begotten according to the ordinary laws of nature, but that he
would be the seed of the woman through supernatural interposition; and
therefore, in a special sense, the Son of God. His mother being of the human
race, he would be the "Son of Man" only in the sense of being of
human nature inherited from his mother. Hence, when it is said of him that he
was "made of the seed of David, according to the flesh"--(Rom.
1: 3) and called the Son of David, it is evident that this relationship
was not by direct paternity, but only by maternity. It is only by keeping this
in view that we can understand the two classes of scripture which speak of
him--one in which he is called the Son of Man; the other in which he is called
the Son of God, the "only begotten Son."
The special and emphatic manner in which he is frequently
called the Son of God clearly shows that he was of divine begettal; and when we
keep in mind that he was "made of a woman" and that he originated by
the power of God through the Holy Spirit, we shall be able to properly
understand how he could be divine and yet human; each aspect will be seen in its
true light as combined in one who could be a Saviour indeed and a mediator
between God and men--the direct offspring of God as a means of manifesting the
divine attributes; and "made like unto his brethren" in nature in
order that he might be "touched with the feeling of our infirmities"
and thus be a "merciful high priest," as the result of experiencing
the suffering of mankind.
The following testimonies show him to be the Son of God:
Jer. 23: 5--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.
Is. 7: 14--Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Matt. 1: 23--Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall
bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which being
interpreted is, God with us.
Mark. 1: 1--The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the
Son of God.
Mark 9: 7--And there was a cloud that overshadowed them; and
a voice came out of the cloud saying, This is my beloved Son, hear him.
Luke 1: 35--Therefore that holy thing which shall be born of
thee shall be called the Son of God.
John 5: 17-36--But Jesus answered them, My Father
worketh hitherto, and I work, etc.
Luke 1: 31-32--And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb,
and bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great,
and shall be called the Son of the Highest.
Gal. 4: 4--But when the fulness of time was come, God sent
forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.
Eph. 3: 14--For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ.
Heb. 1: 2--Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his
Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom he made the worlds.
Heb. 3: 5, 6--And Moses verily was faithful in all his house
as a servant; for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;
but Christ as a son over his own house.
Heb. 5: 5-8--Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee.
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.
I. John 4: 15--Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son
of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
I. John 5: 5--Who is he that overcometh the world, but he
that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
Acts 3: 13--The God of our fathers hath glorified his Son
Jesus, whom ye delivered up.
Jesus refers to himself in the two relationships when
declaring himself the saviour of mankind, in John 3: 14, 18--"And
as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of
Man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but
have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the
world; but that the world through him might be saved." The two
relationships are here presented in a manner to show how completely Jesus was
qualified to meet the requirements of the fallen race. A "son of man"
merely had never been found, during four thousand years, who could accomplish
the work; and yet the redeemer must be son of man in order to practically and
representatively redeem fallen human nature by overcoming its sin-produced
proclivities. But a son of man merely was not equal to the task; and had such
an one done so there would not thereby have been a manifestation of God's love
and the glory due to Him as the Saviour. Therefore Jesus must be "the only
begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1: 14) as well as
the "Son of man" according to the flesh in order that the work of
redemption might be possible.
Those who deny that Jesus was the Son of God by miraculous
begettal, endeavor to prove that those passages which speak of his begettal by
the Holy Spirit are spurious. But the evidence when fairly viewed will not
sustain their claims. We cannot here enter into a critical examination of the
authenticity of such passages. Even if they could be fairly expunged from the
New Testament the proof of the divine sonship of Jesus would still be clear
throughout the Scriptures. That he is called the Son of God in passages about
whose authenticity there is no question, even by those who believe him to be
the son of Joseph, all will admit. But it is claimed that it is sonship in the
same sense as God's people all become His children, by "the spirit of
adoption." If this were the only sense in which Jesus was the Son of God,
there would be no force in Paul's words in speaking of Moses as a servant as
compared with Jesus as a son; for in the sense of adoption Moses was
a son. Then, too, our Lord's argument which silenced his enemies, when he
asked how could David call Jesus Lord, if the question had involved the matter
of spiritual sonship only, would not have silenced the cavilers. They could
have answered that Jesus was more righteous than David and therefore exalted to
become his Lord. But they knew he did not mean a spiritual sonship; and so the
difficult question then was, as it is now, viz.: If Jesus was a mere son of man
by begettal, how could a father call him Lord? The answer is to be found only
in that which Jesus' argument proved--that though he was the son of David by
descent according to the flesh, yet he was the Son of God by direct begettal
and therefore David could rightly call him Lord.
The spiritual relationship of sonship to God throughout the
Scriptures as applied to men has always been dependent upon Christ, and therefore
secondary in relation to his sonship. Jesus as the saviour was the prospective
means by which all became the children of God from Adam to Christ; and the
retrospective means from his death down to our day. Had he been a mere man this
could not have been the case; for there has never been a mere man who could
redeem himself and give to God a ransom.
The fallacy of limiting the divine sonship of Jesus to that
of the spiritual relation which subsists between God and his people through Christ
reduces the Redeemer to equality with the redeemed, and thereby makes
redemption impossible. The Redeemer must be able to render what the redeemed
cannot render. That which was required was a perfect sinless character
developed in the fallen nature of the race; and no man of both human paternity
and human maternity could meet the demands; while one of divine paternity would
be possessed of power which, if faithfully exercised, would meet the
requirements of the law of the spirit of life. In this manner God would be the
Saviour in "laying help upon one made mighty," and yet the most
strenuous moral efforts would be necessary on the part of the Son so begotten
to utilize the imparted latent power in order to work out redemption by a life
of perfect holiness. This beautiful arrangement gives God the glory for the
manifestation of his love in begetting a Son capable of accomplishing the
required end; and it also allows for the merit due to Jesus for the proper
exercise of his mental and moral powers under the most severe trials.
To see how utterly impossible it is reasonably to apply the
words of scripture which declare the sonship of Jesus to that spiritual sonship
which subsists in God's people generally, it is only necessary to read some of
the passages given and suppose them applicable to mere men. The Apostle Paul
was a son of God by adoption; but where would be the force of the following
words if applied to him?--"Though he were a son, yet learned he obedience
by the things which he suffered." Sonship here must, to give any force to
the words, mean more than sonship in relation to Paul or any other spiritual
son. If the sonship is of the same character, why not read, "Whosoever
shall confess that Paul is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he
in God?" "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth
that Paul is the Son of God." And yet Paul was a son of God. Is it
not evident that the sonship of Jesus is of a different character, and that
salvation is predicated upon belief in such a sonship because it gives the
glory and honor to him to whom it belongs, in that he "so loved the world
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have everlasting life." Here is a sonship which is
the foundation of the spiritual sonship of all God's people, and one with which
no other is comparable.
The words "only begotten Son" cannot mean
sonship in the sense that all of God's people are called "sons of
God." There is an attempt by some to confine these words to Christ after
his resurrection, basing the claim on Rom. 1: 4--emphasizing the words,
"according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the
dead," as if these prove that he was "the only begotten Son"
from the dead to eternal life only. But in John 3: 16-18 he is called the
"only begotten Son" before his resurrection. The passage in Romans
does not say that he became the Son of God by resurrection; but it is
"concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the
seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God
with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the
dead." The Diaglott is more emphatic yet; "concerning that son of
his, who was born of the Posterity of David as to the flesh; who was designated
the Son of God in Power as to the spirit of holiness, by his Resurrection from
the Dead." It is not that he was constituted Son of God by his
resurrection; but his resurrection was a fact which declared the truth of his
previous claim to divine sonship; for only a Son of God in the sense that Jesus
was could triumph over death and the grave, this depending upon a "holy
one" which four thousand years had failed to produce among mere men.
To teach that Jesus was the son of Joseph by begettal is to
put trust for salvation in an arm of flesh instead of in the "arm of the
Lord" (Is. 53: 1). In every case where he is spoken of as the son of
Joseph it is "as was supposed," or in the legal sense of sonship. The
genealogies in Matthew and Luke show that Joseph was the natural son of Jacob,
and the son-in-law of Heli, Mary's name being omitted according to Jewish
custom, and the link reaching from Joseph to her father; which makes Joseph the
putative father of Jesus. The two genealogies trace Jesus back to David through
two lines--one in the legal sense through Joseph, and the other in the natural
sense through Mary. By this, his right to David's throne was rendered
indisputable and the mouths of his enemies were stopped; for, taking them on
their own claim, that Jesus was the son of Joseph, there was the pedigree
complete, though in fact it was a legal pedigree. On the other hand, on his
mother's side the descent was without a broken link. Moreover, since David's
throne was "the throne of the Lord," the divine begettal of Jesus
constituted him the "Son" of whom the parable represents his enemies
as saying, "This is the heir;" and by this also he had the divine right
to "the throne of the Lord over Israel." From every point of view,
therefore, Jesus' right to the throne was complete; a fact which David foresaw
and which divine inspiration testified to beforehand, when David in spirit
called Jesus Lord, and yet knowing that he would be his son.
In John 6: 32-58, Jesus declares himself to be the
antitypical manna; and says that his flesh was the bread which came down from
heaven. The bread which the children of Israel ordinarily subsisted on came
from God in the sense that He is the giver of all things to all creatures.
This, however, is the provision God has made for the necessities of his
creatures through the means of natural laws; but the manna in the
wilderness was provided by supernatural power, and it thus came from God in a
special sense, i. e. in the sense that special power from heaven
produced from things material on the earth the bread which was called manna.
This manner of speaking of things coming from heaven is illustrated by the
"house which is from heaven" (II. Cor. 5: 2), with which the worthy
saints will be "clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of
life" (verse 4). It is not to be supposed that the "house" here
means a literal, immortal body that will come down from heaven; but the power,
through the vehicle of God's spirit, will specially and supernaturally operate
in causing "mortality to be swallowed up of life." In this sense the
immortalized saints are represented as a corporate body in the symbol of
"the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven,
prepared as a bride adorned for her husband" (Rev. 21:1, 2). Supernatural
power, therefore, operating upon natural things through the Holy Spirit,
effects divine or heavenly results; and these results, whether bread to sustain
natural life, as in the manna; the immortal bodies of the individual saints
when redeemed; or all of them as a corporate body--all these are spoken of as
coming from God or from heaven.
Now apply these illustrations of Scripture phraseology to
the words of Jesus in John 6: 33, 38, 51 and his divine sonship is clearly
proved. Bread generated out of nature's substances by the direct power of God
is, in scripture phraseology, bread or manna from heaven. A mortal body
changed into an immortal body by direct and supernatural power is a "house
from heaven" The company of the redeemed, immortalized and
energized by spirit power, are represented as a "city coming down from God
out of heaven," an occurrence which is otherwise described as the result
of the Saviour coming from heaven to earth to "change our vile body, that
it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working
(energy) whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself" (Phil. 3:
20, 21). Upon the same principle the "fruit of David's loins" in the
flesh of Mary, formed and energized by the Holy Spirit, became "that holy
thing" conceived in her which was the Son of God; and the "word that
was thus made flesh" and "dwelt among men" as "the only
begotten of the Father" was the true manna that came down from heaven;
because the doctrine of his divine sonship and consequently his triumph in the
grand work of redemption, believed, or mentally eaten and digested, is the true
manna, the bread of life to all who "confess that Jesus is the Son of
God."
When Jesus asked his disciples, "Whom say ye that I
am?" and Peter answered, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the
living God" (Matt. 16: 15, 16), who will presume to say that
this sonship was nothing more than that of Peter's, who was one of those to
whom he "gave power to become the sons of God" (John 1: 12)? Was
Peter confessing for Jesus a sonship which he could as well confess for himself
and all other believers? To answer affirmatively would be to lose the blessing
pronounced upon Peter--"Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and
blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father (your Father in the
same sense?) which is in heaven." Let us put our trust in the "arm of
the Lord" stretched out in Jesus to save mankind, giving God the glory,
yet honoring Jesus for his fidelity, faithfulness and love; believing with all
our hearts that "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal
life."
Men are prone to go to extremes. The popular doctrine of the
Trinity, as one extreme, would seem to be responsible for the other--that of
Jesus being a mere man by natural begettal. The truth lies between these
extremes.
The phrase "the divinity of Jesus" means,
popularly, that he was "God very God"--the second person of the
Trinity; and to dispute the Trinity is regarded as a denial of the divinity of
Christ. The Scriptures teach the divinity of Christ as well as his humanity;
but not such a divinity as is meant by the Trinity. The Trinity is virtually a
denial of the true God and Jesus Christ, and it inculcates a theory of a
fictitious Christ; one who, if co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father,
could not be a Saviour, because he could not die. God cannot die. If Jesus was
as eternal and immortal as God he could not have died. It does not help the
matter to say that his body died; for if he was one of the Gods of the Trinity,
he existed as a living being before his bodily existence in the flesh; and for
him to forsake his body and continue living as really as he had lived from all
eternity could not in any sense be termed death. The real Christ would escape
death, and a helpless body of flesh, which had no consciousness apart from its
supposed temporary occupant, could not be the Christ; and therefore Christ
would not die and we should have no Saviour at all. Let the word of inspiration
be true regardless of consequences to creeds, and let us, upon such a basis,
accept the right conclusions. The positive declaration of scripture is that
"Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he
was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the
scriptures"--I. Cor. 15: 3, 4. "He poured out his soul unto
death"--Is. 53: 12. "His soul was not left in hell" (hades, the
grave)--Acts 2: 31. His soul was delivered from the power of the grave--Ps. 49:
15. The Apostle Paul says that if Christ had not been raised from the grave all
would have been lost, and we might as well "eat and drink, for tomorrow we
die" (I. Cor. 15). But if he was God, eternal and immortal, and did not
die and go into the grave, we should have a living Christ regardless of whether
or not he was raised from the dead; and Paul's argument would be without force.
It is evident, therefore, that the true Christ was mortal like unto those he
came to redeem; that he had no personal existence before his conception and
birth; and that when he died he was dead, absolutely dead, and not alive; and
that had not "God raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead," we should
have had no living Christ and therefore no saviour.
To see the fallacy of the Trinitarian theory it is only
necessary to reason carefully on the conclusions to which that theory leads.
Let no one cry out that it is wrong to reason upon such a solemn subject; for
God says, "Come, let us reason together." There is no subject too
solemn to reason upon; and the use of our faculties in an honest endeavor to
understand what God has been pleased to reveal to us is well pleasing in his
sight. Hence we are commanded to "prove all things;" and to
"earnestly contend for the faith." If a theory is false, there is no
solemnity attached to it; and it is right to expose and condemn it, though it
be a theory concerning God or Christ; and on the nature of Christ we have a
distinct and special command in the words of John--"Beloved, believe not
every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false
prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every
spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and
every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not
of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it
should come; and even now already is it in the world"--I. John 4: 1-3.
From this it is clear that, not only have we the right to
reason upon this question, but it is our duty; and intelligent men will not be
frightened away from the subject by a cry of "Mystery" by those who
ask us to believe in a theory which needs such a policy as will repudiate the
injunction to "Try the spirits."
To accept the theory that Jesus was the second person of a
Trinity, and that he existed as "God very God" from all eternity, we
must believe that his power and knowledge were equal to those of the Father.
From eternity up to his conception and birth his knowledge of the past, present
and future would be absolute. There would be nothing he would not know, as much
so as the Father, and therefore there would be nothing upon which he could be
instructed. Now it is evident that when Jesus was born in Bethlehem, he was an
infant requiring a mother's care and nurture; and that he depended upon those
who had charge of him for instruction and education in order that he might
"grow in wisdom and stature." He also depended upon the Father for
the "wisdom that cometh from above." His knowledge was all derived,
and therefore he could not have been an "eternal Son." That what
knowledge and power Jesus came to be possessed of were acquired after his birth
and growth is evident from the following testimonies:
Is. 7: 14-16--Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a
sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name
Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the
evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse,
etc.
Is. 11: 2--And the Spirit of God 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.
Luke 2: 40--And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit,
filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon him.
Verse 52--And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in
favor with God and man.
John 5: 26--For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he
given to the Son to have life in himself.
John 13: 3--Jesus knowing that the Father had given all
things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God, etc.
John 17: 24--Father, I will that they also, whom thou
hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which
thou hast given me; for thou lovedst me before the foundation
of the world.
Luke 10: 22--All things are delivered to me of my Father.
John 8: 29--And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath
not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
John 6: 38--For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own
will, but the will of him that sent me.
John 7: 16--Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is
not mine, but his that sent me.
John 5: 19--Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily,
verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he
seeth the Father do.
Verse 30--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.
Acts 10: 38--How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the
Holy Spirit and with power; who went about doing good, and healing all
that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
Heb. 5: 7--Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered
up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him
who was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared.
Mark 13: 32--But of that day and that hour knoweth no man,
no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
We might add largely to these testimonies, but these will be
sufficient to show beyond a doubt that all the knowledge and power which Jesus
possessed he derived from the Father; and that even when nearing the end of his
probation, the time of his second advent was hid from him. When the time came
to reveal the future as outlined in the Book of Revelation, it is recorded that
"God gave it unto Jesus Christ to show unto his servants," etc. (Rev.
1: 1).
Now in view of the fact that Jesus entered upon life as a
babe, without knowledge till he grew in stature and wisdom, what conclusion
does the Trinitarian theory drive us to? If previous to his birth Christ was
"co-equal and co-eternal with God," then we must believe that all his
knowledge forsook him; and that as a God--a person--the "second person of
the Trinity," he was born devoid of knowledge and power, these having to
be acquired by natural and supernatural means! Such a thing cannot be believed.
God has not endowed man with faculties capable of believing such an absurdity.
There is no "mystery" in it, no profundity--it is palpably foolish,
and would never have been thought of had not heathen theories of
"Theosophy," "transmigration" and "incarnation"
poisoned the minds of the men who combined pagan fiction with so-called
christianity, and thus developed the anti-christian delusions foretold by Christ
and his apostles.
The testimonies given show that God begat Jesus by
the power of the Holy Spirit; and therefore he had no existence as a person
till he was begotten. The very word son implies this; and to speak of
"eternal sonship" is to use words which are mutually contradictory; and
why confuse the mind with such things when, by accepting the matter as it is
revealed, we are enabled to recognize the love, power and glory of God; and the
real merit of His only begotten Son? If the only begotten Son was "made of
a woman, made under the law" (Gal. 4: 4), and passed through a life of
real trial and temptation and became victorious, then we have a reality; but if
he was co-equal and co-eternal with God, he could not be tempted, he could not
experience our sufferings--his life in the flesh was a sham; an appearance of
being tempted, suffering and doing what was not real. When he seemed to be
tempted, he was not tempted; when he seemed to suffer, he did not suffer; when
he seemed to die, he did not die; when he seemed to be buried and to be raised
from the dead, he was not. Did Christ die or did he not? Yes, will be the
answer of all--even the Trinitarian. But did he die? Did he who was from
eternity, and who was as deathless as God--did he die? Do not answer by
saying that his body died; for that is no answer at all; it is only playing
with words. If he existed as an immortal person, an immortal God from
all eternity, then he was not his body, neither was his body he; and for his
body to die and be buried was not for him to die and be buried; and to pretend
that he died when he did not, only his body, is to offer us a
sham instead of a reality. The testimony is that Christ died, and was
buried, and rose again; and this cannot be true of a deathless, co-equal,
co-eternal God; while it can be true of the Christ of the Scriptures, who,
begotten specially by the power of God, was "made in all points like unto
his brethren" (Heb. 2: 17), of the same flesh and blood. So he did die;
and when he was dead he was not alive, but "God raised Jesus of Nazareth
from the dead," and then, as a reward for his victory over the flesh and
all the evils of the world, gave him immortality, the power of an endless life,
in order that he might live eternally.
Popular tradition represents God as enraged with mankind and
about to vent His wrath upon them, when "God the Son" interposed to
appease His wrath. Here are two co-equal Gods, or two "persons of the
Trinity," opposed to each other, one in wrath and the other in love; so
that if they were "one in essence and substance," they were not one
in mind and object toward fallen man. It must have become the desire of one to
redeem before it was the desire of the other; and the one must have changed the
mind of the other. What a fearful misrepresentation of God this is! How different
from Him who "So loved the world that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life." It was God, in His love, who was our Saviour. He and He only,
without consulting one, or two, or a thousand others, devised the great plan of
salvation and carried it out by sending His only begotten Son to practically
and experimentally effect it, and to become in reality the way out of the
fallen state of humanity into the redeemed and heavenly state.
There are several passages of scripture which, superficially
viewed, seem to sustain the popular theory of the co-equality and pre-existence
of Christ; and the subject would not be fairly treated without an explanation
of these, to show that they do not sustain the popular theory, but that they
are, when carefully examined, in harmony with what we have set forth and with
the Scriptures we have given.
The first passage we will consider will be I. John 5: 7,
8--"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, the water, and the blood; and these three agree
in one."
It would not be necessary to deal with this passage if
people generally kept themselves informed in Bible matters; for those who do so
know that the part of this passage which seems to teach the Trinity is an
interpolation. It had been known to be such long before the Revised Version was
published; and that Version, following the example of other translators who had
long revealed the spurious character of it, omitted it. Had not the imposition
been discovered, this text would, in opposition to all the rest of the
Scriptures, have set forth the Trinity, and we would have been left to wonder
how one text could so nullify the general tenor of the Bible on the subject.
The Revised Version reads as follows:
"For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, the
water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
The Emphatic Diaglott, which was published in 1864, reads:
"For there are THREE which TESTIFY; the SPIRIT, and the
WATER, and the BLOOD; and these THREE are for ONE."
In a footnote the following explanation is given:
This text concerning the heavenly witnesses is not contained
in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifth century. It is
not cited by any of the Greek ecclesiastical writers; nor by any of the early
Latin fathers, even when the subjects upon which they treat would naturally
have led them to appeal to this authority. It is therefore evidently spurious;
and was first cited (though not as it now reads) by Vigilius Tapsensis, a Latin
writer of no credit, in the latter end of the fifth century; but by whom
forged, is of no great moment, as the design must be obvious to all.--Improved
Version.
A passage quoted to prove that Christ was equal with God is
Phil. 2: 5-8--"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus;
who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but
made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was
made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled
himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
Now before we examine the improved translations of this
verse, let us consider what the apostle's exhortation is. He is exhorting the
Philippians to be of humble mind, and he gives the Saviour as an example; but
if he said what the translation of the Authorized Version represents him as
saying, how would the alleged assumption of equality with God be an example of
humility? Then, too, if it was an understood thing that Christ was, and always
had been, co-equal with God, why speak of his not "thinking it robbery to
be equal with Him?" Would any one ever think of saying that God thought it
not robbery to be equal with Christ, or with the Holy Spirit? Yet, if they are
three co-equals, why may not the same be said of any one as of either of the
other two? It is supposed that the words "form of God" mean identity
of nature; but if so then the language could be used for either of the supposed
three persons of the Trinity, which would prove too much for trinitarianism.
The translation in the Authorized Version turns what the apostle really did say
into confusion; for it represents him as exhorting men to take an instance
wherein there was a claim of equality with God as an example of humility; and
thereby he is made to stultify his own words. Had we no help from other translations,
any reasonable mind would be compelled to conclude that the apostle had been
misrepresented in the Common Version.
The Revised Version reads as follows:
"Having this mind in you, which was also in Christ; who
being in a form of God, counted it not a prize (margin, 'not a thing to be
grasped') to be on an equality with God, but emptied himself, taking the form
of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as
a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, yea, the death of the
cross."
The Emphatic Diaglott rendering is still better:
"Let this disposition be in you, which was also in
Christ Jesus, who, though being in God's form, yet did not meditate a
usurpation to be like God, but divested himself, taking a bondman's form,
having been made in the likeness of men; and being in condition as a Man, he
humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the
cross."
In a footnote the following is given:
Harpagmon, being a word of very rare occurrence, a great variety of
translations have been given. The following may serve as examples:
"Who--did not think it a matter to be desired"--Clarke. "Did not
earnestly affect"--Cyprian. "Did not think of eagerly
retaining"--Wakefield. "Did not regard--as an object of solicitous
desire"--Stuart. "Thought not--a thing to be seized"--Sharpe.
"Did not eagerly grasp"--Kneeland. "Did not violently
strive"--Dickinson. "Did not meditate a usurpation"--Turnbull.
To see the force of the apostle's words we must recognize
Christ as the Son of God, and as a manifestation in character and, to a limited
extent, in power. A realization by Jesus of this honor and power was capable of
being used or abused. Had he yielded to the promptings of the flesh when he was
"tempted in all points like unto his brethren," he would have become
vain and ambitious in his claims instead of humble, meek and submissive as he
was; and in that case he would have manifested the vanity of the flesh as the
popes of Rome have done in pretending to be the viceregent of Christ; and they
have claimed equality with God. What Christ "thought not a thing to be
grasped," or claimed, the popes have claimed; and in this we have an
illustration of truth and humility in the true Christ; and of falsehood and self-exaltation
in the antichrist. Honored with divine Sonship, possessed of miraculous power,
which might be used to gratify the flesh, yet did our Saviour refuse the brief
gratification the misuse of his honor and power would have yielded, and meek,
humble and submissive, he lived the life of a servant. "For the joy that
was set before him, he endured the cross and despised the shame," knowing
that the honor and popularity which a misuse of his relationship and power
would have brought him would be but short, while an obedient life would bring
him endless joy and power and honor. Hence the apostle follows on from the
words we have been considering by saying, "Wherefore also God highly
exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; that in the
name of Jesus every knee should bow." In concluding the examination of
this passage, we would again ask, Could one co-equal "highly exalt"
and give a name above every other name to another co-equal?
is a statement often quoted to prove the pre-existence of
Christ; but it must be borne in mind that Christ is the principal subject
matter of the Bible, and the Alpha and Omega of God's plan in relation to this
planet. He is present every where in all parts of the Bible. In this plan he
was "a lamb slain from the foundation of the world"--Rev. 13: 8. He
was from the beginning as the Logos, in God, out of whom he came by
begettal, and all that God has done for man has been by, in the sense of
because of, Christ. When we say, "he is present every where in the
Bible," no one will take us to mean personal presence; but present as the
subject of what is revealed, present as a purpose in the divine plan. In this
sense he could say to the caviling Jews, "Before Abraham was I am."
The Diaglott renders these words, "Before Abraham was born, I am he."
Suppose we ask, Who? The answer would be, "I am he that was promised as
the seed of the woman; as the lamb which Abel by faith offered; as the ark
which saved; as the real Melchizedec," etc.--He was there in all the
promises, types and symbols, and without him these were as nothing. With this
in view the words in question are seen not to mean that as a person he existed
before Abraham was born; but that they had a meaning which gave them great force
as against the Jews who were looking for the coming of their Messiah, the
"he who was for to come," but who failed to recognize him in Christ
when he did come. If it be said that the words are ambiguous, let it be
remembered that Jesus, knowing the evil motives of the persecuting Jews,
frequently resorted to ambiguity, in the form of parables and otherwise, as he
expressly says, "that seeing they may see and not perceive; and hearing
they may hear and not understand." This because they "drew nigh to
him with their lips, while their hearts were far from him."
In the same connection, because the Jews boasted of being
children of Abraham, yet rejected Jesus, he said, "Abraham rejoiced to see
my day: and he saw it and was glad" (verse 56). Only a superficial mind
would quote these words to prove the pre-existence of Christ. All that is
required to see the meaning is to notice the words "my day"--a
special day, a promised day of blessing for Abraham and all of Abraham's faith.
That day is "the day of the Lord," when "the Lord shall be king
over all the earth; in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name
one"--Zec. 14: 9. This day Abraham "saw afar off" (Heb. 11: 13),
and rejoiced in the prospect.
These words of the Saviour are supposed to teach the
preexistence of Christ. The passage is as follows: "And now, O Father,
glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee
before the world was." To make this passage serve the purpose of
Trinitarianism, we should have to believe that "before the world was"
Christ was the second person of the Trinity, co-equal with God the Father and
"God the Holy Ghost," and having the same glory which these other two
persons of the Trinity had. Now the question would be, what power would any one
of these three co-equals have to take the glory from any one of the others? If
"God the Son" was actually in possession of equal glory with the
other two "before the world was," how came that glory to be taken
from him for a time; and who made its return to him dependent upon his
probation? and how came any one co-equal to have the power and the right to put
another co-equal on probation at all? Nothing but confusion arises from any
attempt to explain the passage upon Trinitarian grounds. But upon Scripture
grounds it is simple enough. "Before the world was" God had purposed
to beget Jesus and empower him, under severe trial, to overcome the world and
all its evils and temptations; and as a reward for his becoming the
"Captain of our salvation through suffering" he purposed to glorify
his Son with himself--with His own glorious nature. Jesus as "God
manifested in the flesh" had manifested the attributes of his Father in a
life of perfect holiness; and he had given all the glory to God, in that he had
made it clear that "of his own self he could do nothing." This was
foreordained of God and the plan of redemption had been arranged accordingly.
In the days of David, God had said of Jesus, "In suffering for 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.
7: 14-16. Jesus now having "suffered for iniquity," and been
"chastened with the rod of men," the time of his reward had come.
Therefore he says, "I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished
the work which thou gavest me to do." And now had come the time when he
was to receive in fact that glory which he had in promise and in the purpose of
the Father before the world was.
If Christ could, in the purpose of God, be "A lamb
slain from the foundation of the world," and yet not actually be slain
for, say, four thousand years, why may he not in the purpose of the Father have
glory before the world was, and yet not come actually into the possession of that
glory till four thousand years had passed, and he had fulfilled the
requirements upon which the bestowal of the glory had depended? First appearing
as "a man of sorrow and acquainted with grief;" "made in all
points like unto his brethren," of the same flesh and blood, mortal
nature, he worked out the "way" and became "the way, the
truth and the life;" and for this the "Giver of good" glorified
him with himself by giving him the divine nature and exalting him to His own
right hand.
Some quote the words, "All power is given unto me in
heaven and in earth" to prove that Jesus was Almighty God. That he was
Almighty God by being constituted a manifestation of God, in the sense of the
"arm of the Lord" stretched out, is gloriously true. That he was a
manifestation of God in a sense that no other being ever was is true; but
whatever he was was due to God as the source of all power and authority.
Hence the words now in question are, "All power is given unto
me." The giver was God; the recipient was Jesus, the Christ of God.
The words of John 1: 1 are supposed to teach the
pre-existence of Christ. The passage reads as follows: "In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in
the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not
any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of
men." Verse 14--"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and
we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of
grace and truth."
The Diaglott renders the passage as follows: "In a
beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.
This was in the beginning with God. Through it everything was done; and without
it not even one thing was done. In it was life; and the LIFE was the LIGHT OF
MEN." Verse 14--"And the LOGOS became flesh, and dwelt among us,--and
we beheld his GLORY, the Glory as of an Only-begotten from a Father,--full of
Favor and Truth." A footnote on verse 13 reads, "Griesbach notes a
different reading of this verse. Instead of hoi. . . egenneetheesan
he has hos . . . egeneethee; the singular pronoun and
verb for the plural, which would make the passage read: 'Who was not begotten
of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God;'
thus referring it directly to the physical generation of Messiah, by the
spirit of God, rather than to the moral regeneration of believers."
This reminds us of that part of the subject we have already
treated of in which Jesus is seen to be undoubtedly the Son of God by
miraculous begettal. Indeed, apart from this critical note by a very learned
man, the words of John in the first part of his Gospel cannot be applied to the
production of a mere man; nor to the spiritual sonship of such a man. Verses 12
and 13 would read as follows, according to Griesbach's note, and the Diaglott
rendering: "But to 'as many as received him, he gave authority to become
children of God, to those believing into his name' [the name of him] who was
begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man,
but of God."
In this passage again, it is necessary to avoid the two
extremes, and allow for the divine and human sonship of Jesus without falling
into the absurdity of the Trinity or into the Josephite theory. It must be
admitted that the words are not easily understood. They require a greater
effort of mind than do the literal and simple words throughout the Scriptures
generally. No interpretation of them should be accepted for a moment that does
not harmonize with the teachings of the more simple parts of scripture.
Parables and difficult statements must be governed by the clearly revealed
truths, and not the reverse. It is difficult to see why Trinitarians seek refuge
in this scripture; and as for Josephites, it is utterly opposed to their
theory. That divinity is the very essence of the words is clear; but divinity
in what sense is the question to be decided. If the inspired apostle had the
Trinity in mind, we must conclude that he failed to give an intelligent
expression of it. Something like the following would have been more in harmony
with that theory: In the beginning was the second person of the Godhead, and
the second person of the Godhead was with the other two persons of the Godhead,
and the second person of the Godhead was part of God. Verse 14--And the second
person of the Godhead entered into a body and flesh and dwelt among men.
This is very different to the words employed by the
apostles, and to any reasonable meaning to be derived from them. One must
imagine that "the Word" was a second person of the Trinity, for it
does not so state; and as for the statement that "the Word was made
flesh" it would have to be denied, and changed to say that the Word came
personally down from heaven in immortal nature; and, instead of "becoming
flesh," continued to be spirit as much as it ever had been from all
eternity; and, as a spirit, a person, a God--the second co-equal God--inhabited
a flesh body until that body was nailed to the tree, when that same spirit,
immortal being--that co-equal God, very God--forsook the body and continued in
an immortal living, personal existence until that same second person of the
Trinity re-entered the body, changed it into a like immortal nature with
itself, and ascended in that body to heaven; where, since then, there are two
co-equal Gods without bodies, and one co-equal God with a body. This is the
theory in plain words; and from this reason turns away, and asks for a solution
that is reasonable, and prays not to be tormented with absurd, unthinkable
theories which dishonor God, nullify His word, and bewilder and bewitch
mankind. The first question to be considered is the "beginning"
mentioned in verse 1. All things have a beginning except God, out of whom all
things have been evolved by his will and power; but all things have not the
same beginning. The Authorized Version conveys the idea that the
"beginning" was when this terrestrial world was made, and that this
is the "world" referred to in the tenth verse, and that since the
words are, "He was in the world, and the world was made by him," it
is claimed that Christ existed as God before the creation and that he made this
terrestrial world. Now it is evident that if there are three persons in the
Godhead, the work of creation was not the work of one of them as distinct from
the other two. There is only one Creator, and to make verse 10 mean that
"God the Son" made the world would be to teach that he alone created
it. In all difficult passages of scripture there are clues to help the
understanding, if we but search diligently for them. In this case we are helped
to decide what "world" is meant by the latter clause of verse
10--"And the world knew him not;" followed immediately by the
statement, "He came to his own, and his own received him not ("knew
him not"). But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become
the sons of God." This shows that the "world" that "knew
him not" and which he was in when they knew him not was the Mosaic world
to which he appeared as the "King of the Jews." The Greek word for
world here is not aeon (age), but kosmos, which means order of,
or constitution of, things. The Mosaic "world," which was composed of
rulers, ruled and laws, etc., was a part of another "world" or order
of things, having been "added" to it "because of transgression
till the seed should come to whom the promise was made" (Gal. 3: 19). This
"world" was arranged in the purpose of God long before the Mosaic law
was added to it. It exists now as the plan of the ages, with some of the
material prepared, and as a reality fully completed it is the "world to
come, whereof we (the apostles) speak"--Heb. 2: 5. This is the age (world)
to come, and the kosmos (world) to come, when the habitable or earth (world)
will be filled with the glory of the Lord.
Now Christ is the Alpha and Omega of this world. He is "in
this world" in all its parts, and without him it cannot be considered;
he, in the Father's plan and beautiful arrangement, is the reason of all things
pertaining to it, since he was predetermined to be the medium of the
manifestation of God's power and glory. In this work Christ is first the reason
of what the Father through various instrumentalities has done; and after he
came into personal existence he was active in effecting the great work of
framing this world, or kosmos. So that in these two aspects he is spoken
of in verse 10 thus, in the Diaglott rendering: "He was in the world, and
the world was (enlightened) through him; and yet the world knew him not,"
that is, that part of it which was a "schoolmaster to bring us to
Christ," consisting of the Jews who "knew not the day of their
visitation," and who were "his own" who "received him not."
Every man who "cometh into the world" which Christ is the subject of,
the means of, the all of, he lighteth; but he is not a light to every one who
cometh into this Adamic world, of which the Authorized Version makes him appear
the creator, in rendering verse 3 as follows: "All things were made by
him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." The Diaglott
rendering puts this in quite a different light: "Through it [the Logos]
every thing was done; and without it not even one thing was done, which was
done." The Doer was God, "through" or because of, and afterwards
by means of, Christ. A footnote on the Greek word rendered in the A. V.
"made" and in the Diaglott "done," says:
Ginomai occurs upwards of seven hundred times in the New Testament,
but never in the sense of create, yet in most versions it is translated
as though the word was ktizo. The word occurs fifty-three times in this
Gospel, and signifies to be, to come, to become, to come to pass; also, to be
done or transacted. All things in the Christian dispensation were done by Christ,
i. e., by his authority, and according to his direction; and in
the ministry committed to his apostles, nothing has been done without his
warrant.
When a plan is made of any thing to be done, the completion
of the plan is the end in view; which becomes the cause of all that is done in
reaching the end. In this sense everything from the beginning to the end is
done through, or by, in the sense of because of, the end in view, the end to be
accomplished. If a father should plan to effect some great enterprise in behalf
of his son; and if he should fail and become a bankrupt, suffering many serious
results, one might say to the son, "It was all through you." Even
before the son were able to actually do any thing in helping to effect the
plan, it could be said of what was being done that "all things were done
by (in the sense of because of) him." This evidently is the sense in which
all things were done by Christ before his personal existence; for no one can actually
do any thing before he has an existence. Now as to the
"beginning," it was the beginning of the "world" which God
purposed to develop through Christ, a "world" expressed by various
terms in scripture, such as "a city which hath foundations,"
"the world to come," "new heavens and new earth," "all
things new," "new creation," "eternal plan," etc.
Christ was in this in its divine conception--in its beginning and will
be to its completion; but he was not in it in its beginning in the same sense
that he is now and will be in its completion. In one sense he was in this
world in the beginning as a "lamb slain;" but not actually slain
till he became a personality; for in the very nature of things there could be
no personality to be slain till he was begotten and born. Therefore the passage
under consideration does not say, "In the beginning was Jesus;" nor,
"In the beginning was Christ;" nor does it say, "In the
beginning was God the Son." But it says, "In the beginning was the
Word," or Logos; and now we must seek for the meaning of
this word Logos. In the Diaglott the Greek word is transferred, not translated;
and a footnote gives the following reason for this:
In this (verse 1) and the fourteenth verse logos has
been transferred, rather than translated. Dr. A. Clarke remarks, "This
term should be left untranslated, for the very same reasons why the names Jesus
and Christ are left untranslated. As every appellative of the
Saviour of the world was descriptive of some excellence in his person,
nature, or work, so the epithet Logos, which signifies a word
spoken, speech, eloquence, doctrine, reason, or the faculty of reasoning, is
very properly applied to him."
By some the Logos has been regarded as meaning Wisdom, the
word being personified as in Prov. 8: 22, without entertaining the idea of it
meaning a person--the second person of the Trinity; and perhaps
"wisdom" is a word which the most nearly expresses the thought,
though it is questionable if any one word will fully express the meaning.
Perhaps a few questions and answers will help in the case:
What does Logos mean as a mere word?--A word spoken,
speech, doctrine, reason, thought expressed, and wisdom.
What does it seem to refer to in John 1: 1?--It seems to
refer to a plan or purpose which the Theos, or Deity, arranged, and
partly revealed as "doctrine," by which to enlighten mankind upon the
purposed salvation of the world through or by means of a manifestation of
Himself in a Son begotten by Him and born of the flesh and blood common to
mankind, who would be the Logos, or "Word made flesh."
What shall we understand by the statement: "And the
Word (Logos) was with God"?--We shall be helped to understand how the Logos
was with God, without regarding it as a person, by the manner in which
wisdom is spoken of in the Scriptures, for example, Prov. 8. In verse 22 we
read: "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works
of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth
was." Also in verse 30--"Then I was by him as one brought
up with him; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before
him." Wisdom here, though personified, is not supposed to be a person, but
is an attribute of Deity--the Wise One who is the Creator of all things. The
language of the entire chapter is very forcible in declaring that all things have
been created by the wisdom of the one, and only one Great Creator, and not by
three, nor by any one of three.
Is the Wisdom of this scripture the same as the Logos
of John?--In the sense that the wonders of both originate in Deity they are
the same; Wisdom in the first instance seems to relate to creation in a general
sense, while the Logos seems to have a special application to the plan
of salvation and the "restitution of all things spoken by the mouth of all
the holy prophets since the world began."
It not only says that the Logos was with God;
but that "the Logos was God." What does this mean?--Both Wisdom
and the Logos were with God; but if God had never expressed,
or revealed, His wisdom and the doctrine embodied in the Logos, we
should never have known any thing about either. It is through His Spirit that
God expresses His plans, purposes and doctrines; and to have these in our minds
is to have the Word "dwell in us richly." "My words are
spirit," says Jesus. If the words are spirit, and
spirit is God and God is spirit, then it could be said that the Logos was
God as well as that the spirit was or is God; for the Spirit of God is that
which flows out from Himself as the rays of the sun is the sun in extension and
in diffusion.
Now let us try to paraphrase the matter: In the beginning,
when God had determined upon that part of His vast and mighty work--the
evolution of the Adamic world, or order of things, and the ultimate blessing of
its righteous survivors, was the Logos--a plan conceived and
partly revealed, spoken or expressed by means of Deity's Spirit, He being a
spirit, and spirit therefore being an emanation from Him. And the Logos, as
wisdom, in relation to his great plan, was with God in the same sense that
Wisdom is said to have been by and with Him before creation (Prov. 8:), and the
Logos, being divine wisdom, and that wisdom expressed or
revealed, concerning the great plan, by means of spirit, which is God, the Logos
was the Theos, or God. It being the essence, the Alpha and Omega, of
the great plan, that the divine purpose should be made dependent upon the moral
achievements of a divine Son begotten in the flesh and blood nature of the
fallen race of Adam, a time, a "due time," was arranged for when the
purpose would, by divine power, assume a personal and tangible form, the plan
become materialized, as it were; and therefore "the Word (Logos)
was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as
of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth." Therefore
"that which was (as the Logos) from the beginning, which (as the Logos
made flesh) we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have
looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life" (I. John 1:
1). This was Jesus, "God with us;" and He having achieved the great
end in view in the Father's purpose, experienced the immortalization of that
flesh which the Logos became, and is therefore now the "Word of God"
(Rev. 19: 13) or the Spirit of God in personal, corporeal, glorious form;
having been "God manifest in the flesh," or a manifestation of God,
mentally and morally in the flesh, he is now, and will shortly so appear on the
earth, and will be eternally, a glorious manifestation of God in the spirit
nature--the final end that was in view from "the beginning," by
which, through which, because of which, or account of which every thing was
done that was done concerning the world, or kosmos, that will
eternally glorify God, honor His Son and bless the righteous survivors of all mankind.
These words, in John 10: 30, are supposed to support the
theory of Christ's eternal co-equality with God as assumed by Trinitarians. But
if there are three co-equals the expression of Jesus is a strange one, in that
it ignores the supposed third person of the Trinity--"God the Holy
Ghost." Had Jesus believed that there was a "third person of the
Godhead," he would have said, "I and my Father and the Holy Spirit
are one"--"three in one and one in three." Now that Jesus in the
days of his flesh was not one in substance with the Father is evident
from the fact that he "was made lower than the angels" (Heb. 2: 9),
and angels are of divine nature. It was not until he was glorified and
immortalized that he became one in substance with the Father; and even
this fact does not prove his co-equality and co-eternity, because all his
redeemed ones are to be "made like him" in substance by a
"change of the vile body," and yet no one claims their
consubstantiality means any thing approaching the Trinitarian theory of
co-equality.
There is no excuse for the false interpretation of the words
in question; they are not difficult of understanding. The previous verse is
clearly opposed to the popular claims. How could one co-equal say of another,
"My Father, which gave them me, IS GREATER THAN ALL?" Here is
an acknowledgment of the Father's supremacy and of the Son's obligation to the
Father. The oneness consisted in the fact that the Father manifested
himself in the Son, and thereby identified himself with him in such a way that
what the Son spake and did, was the Father speaking and doing through the Son,
because Jesus did always the things which pleased the Father. In this sense he
was the Father brought down within reach of human capacity, so that the
Infinite could be seen in righteous action upon the human plane, and thus show
mankind "the way, the truth and the life," practically and
experimentally.
Naturally there was in Jesus the human will; but
supernaturally he was also embued with the divine will. The end to be achieved
was the actual, practical supremacy of the divine over the human by a mental
and moral struggle that was realistic, involving merit on the one hand, and the
bestowing of reward on the other. The climax of the struggle seems to have been
reached when Jesus exclaimed, "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup
from me; nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be
done" (Luke 22: 42). Had Jesus yielded to his own will ("my
will") the oneness would have been broken. Hence it is clear that
it was a oneness of purpose, aim and end in carrying out the great and eternal
plan of Deity. This oneness maintained throughout the probationary trial, in an
"obedience unto death," oneness of nature would be the reward; and
then Jesus could exclaim, "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and behold,
I am alive for evermore."
Now this same oneness must obtain between God's people,
Jesus, and God; first, to the degree possible for mere men, in the mental and
moral sense. Then the oneness of nature will follow as the reward, when we
shall be "made like unto the angels to die no more;" and, as the
Apostle John says, "we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he
is" at his coming again to earth. Therefore Jesus prays for his disciples,
"Keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may
be one as we are"--John 17: 11. In verses 21-23 he further prays,
"That they may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that
they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent
me." "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that
they may be one even as we are one."
We come now to consider Col. 1: 15-19. This passage is supposed
to teach that Jesus was God from all eternity because it is assumed that it
declares him to be the Creator of the universe. Let the eye glance over the
four verses and it will immediately see phrases that will set aside the
Trinitarian theory--"the firstborn of every creature;"
"For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness
dwell." He was not the "firstborn" in the flesh; therefore his
birth of Mary is not what is referred to. On the Trinitarian hypothesis it
would be quite as appropriate to speak of the Father, or the Holy Spirit, as
the "firstborn" as it is to so speak of the Son; for the three are
said to be "co-eternal." Can one who never had a beginning be a
"firstborn?"
"It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness
dwell." Why this, if the Father was not supreme and the Son subordinate?
There are two creations, first the natural, afterwards the
spiritual. God is the One and Only Creator of the natural world--the universe; and
He through Christ is the Creator of the spiritual world--the "world to
come." As regards the inhabitants of this planet, during the Adamic age,
they are "natural bodies;" and in "the world to come," they
are to be "spiritual bodies" (I. Cor. 15: 44). Adam was the first of
the "natural body" state; and Christ was the first of the
"spiritual body" state. These states may be termed the old creation,
and the new creation. Of the new creation Jesus is the "firstborn from the
dead" (verse 18). Hence Paul declares that according to Moses and the
prophets, Christ was to be "the first that should rise from the dead"
(Acts 26: 23). In I. Cor. 15: 23 he calls Christ the firstfruits of them
that sleep." In Rev. 1: 5, the Apostle John delivers his message as
"from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten
from the dead." In relation to the subject of the "Revelation of
Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants,"
Jesus says, "I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, which
is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty;" and of this new
creation he says in Rev. 3: 14, that he is "the beginning of the
creation of God."
It is evident that Paul in the passage under consideration
is not referring to the creation of the terrestrial world, but to the
celestial, which will be composed of "new heavens and new earth wherein
dwelleth righteousness"--II. Pet. 3: 13. It was by, in the sense of,
because of, Christ that the new creation was planned, revealed and commenced in
the beginning, and when he was begotten, born and grew in wisdom and stature,
he became personally and actively, in God's hands, the creator of the new
creation. Since the new creation consists of a spiritual state, "spiritual
bodies," etc., Jesus, as the result of the faithful work performed, became
the firstborn of the new creation of God by resurrection to the spiritual
nature. We may therefore read the passage thus: "Who is the moral image of
the invisible God, the firstborn to immortality of every creature of the new
creation; for on account of him were all things pertaining to the new creation
created that are in the political heavens and earth, whether they be thrones,
or dominions, or principalities or powers; all such things were created on account
of him and for him; and he is, in eminence and in the divine purpose, before
all such things, and because of him all such things consist. And he is the head
of the body, the Church; who is the beginning of the immortal state in respect
to all of Adam's race, the first-born from the dead; that in all things
pertaining to both creations, in their mutual relations, he might have the
pre-eminence. For on account of his faithfulness and victory under severe
trial, it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell."
We call special attention to the fact that the apostle does
not leave the least excuse for imagining that he is referring to the creation
of the natural universe; for he is careful to define the nature of the
"all things created" by throwing in the explanatory
clause--"whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or
powers"--all these things were created with a view to him
and for him. Therefore, since his triumph, the kingdoms of the world are under
his control, and he is guiding them all to that final end, when the seventh
angel shall sound the seventh or "last trump," and it shall be
proclaimed that "the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdom of our
Lord and his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever"--Rev. 11: 15.
When he shall have "reigned till he hath put down all enemies under his
feet," the new creation, of which he is the "firstborn," the
"firstfruits," the "beginning," the "Alpha and the
Omega," will be complete to the glory of the Creator and the well being of
His creatures. Meanwhile, the gradation of rank is, "The head of every man
is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is
God"--I. Cor. 11: 3. God's supremacy and Christ's faithfulness are
kept clearly before us throughout the entire work. Hence Paul declares,
"For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things
are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted which DID PUT ALL
THINGS UNDER HIM. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the
Son also himself be subject to him that put all things under him THAT
GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL"--I. Cor. 15: 27, 28.
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
It is generally supposed that to teach that Christ was of
divine nature in the days of his flesh is to honor him; and to carry this error
further, with a view, it would seem, of honoring him as to his fleshly nature
also, the theory of "Immaculate Conception" was invented. Instead of
this theory of dual nature, perfect on the one hand by being of divine
substance; and perfect on the other by a miraculous transformation of the flesh
of his mother from "sinful flesh" to "immaculate flesh,"
honoring him, it robs him entirely of merit and consequently of honor as the
result of merit. If He had been immortal before he inhabited a flesh body, and
was so during his bodily existence, he could not have died; for that which is
immortal (deathless) cannot die. And if his body was immaculate it was free
from the power of that death which came upon mankind through the sin of Adam;
and in that case his body ought not to have died.
Supposing the theory of duality of nature--one immortal, the
other immaculate flesh--during his earthly life, it will be admitted by all
that both the personality which is supposed to have preceded the begettal of
the body and the body itself are now immortal and therefore immaculate. Is there
any revealed principle of law or justice upon which (supposing it were possible
for an immortal person to die) Jesus could be required to die now? Certainly
not, and why not? Because he stands in no sense related to any law of death;
and therefore, according to the law of death which God has revealed and which
he honors, it would be unlawful for Christ to die. Now if this law is
carried back to Jesus in the days of his flesh, if his supposed immortal
personality (which, it is claimed, pre-existed), and his fleshly body were both
free from any law of death, then his death was unlawful; and how shall we
account for a "very God" doing, or submitting himself to, an unlawful
thing? Moreover, how shall we account for the other two co-equal parts of the
Trinity allowing, yea requiring, death on the part of one who, according to the
divine law of death, ought not to have died? The further we press these
questions the more evident it becomes that instead of it being any honor to
Christ to teach that he was composed of a personal, immortal entity, and an
immaculate body, we dishonor him and the Deity, in that, according to Deity's
own law--and we have no other governing the case--an unlawful thing was
required by two supposed persons of the Godhead, and an unlawful thing was done
by the other supposed person of the Trinity.
There are revealed facts on this subject which cannot be
ignored, and which must shape our course in deciding the question of the nature
of Christ and how salvation was exemplified in him.
1. It is a fact that God devised his plan of salvation in
such a way as to depend upon the death of Christ.
2. It is a fact that Jesus realized that he must die a sacrificial death in
obedience to the law of the spirit of life, or the gospel.
3. God has revealed it as His law that death cannot take place by His approval
unless the subject is in some manner involved in the "law of sin and
death."
Now it must be evident that an immortal Christ could not be
in any sense related to the law of sin and death; neither could an immaculate
Christ be subject thereto. In order, therefore, to really believe in the actual
death of Christ we must believe that he was of a nature capable of dying, and
that he was so related to the law of sin and death that his death, as required
by the plan of salvation, should not conflict with any revealed law of God but
rather be in accordance with it; I use the words, "really believe in the
actual death of Christ," because one holding that Jesus was the second
person of the Trinity, deathless and co-equal with God, cannot really believe
that Jesus actually died. He must, when he says that Christ died, hold in
mental reserve the thought that he who was "God very God"
could not and did not die; but he will quiet his conscience with the thought
that he does believe that his body died, and so with this compromise he lets it
go at that, which is but a sort of a bargain made with a solemn, serious
subject. But even to admit that Christ's body died, there must be an admission
that his body, instead of being immaculate, was involved in the law of sin and
death, under the same Adamic condemnation which all descendants of Adam are
under; otherwise the belief in the death of even his body, only, would
be in direct conflict with the law and justice of God as revealed in his Word.
To believe that Jesus was mortal, under the law of sin and death in common with
those he came to redeem, and that notwithstanding this he lived a perfect life,
triumphed over sin and death and hades and thus merited the honor and glory he
now enjoys, is to honor him in the highest sense; while to believe that he was
God, immortal and immaculate, and that he therefore could not sin, is to
regard his temptation, suffering and death as unreal, a mere sham, in which
there could be no merit, no honor, no glory.
But we must be sure that the three propositions we have
submitted are sound, and the Scriptures must be our authority.
1. That God's plan of salvation was made dependent
upon the death of Christ is evident from the following scriptures:
Gen. 3: 15--And I will put enmity between thee and the
woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head and thou
shalt bruise his heel.
Gen. 15: 8, 9--And he (Abraham) said, Lord God, whereby
shall I know that I shall inherit it? And he said unto him, Take me an heifer
of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years
old, and a turtle dove, and a young pigeon. [All these were sacrifices typical
of Christ.]
Numb. 21: 9--And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it
upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he
beheld the serpent of brass he lived.
John 3: 14, 15--And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth
in him should not perish, but have eternal life
II. Sam. 7: 14--I will be his father, and he shall be my
son. In suffering for iniquity I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with
the stripes of the children of men.
Isa. 53: 10-12--Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he
hath put him to grief; when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he
shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord
shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear
their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he
shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul
unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bear the sin of
many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Dan. 9: 26--And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah
be cut off, but not for himself [or because of any sin of his own committing].
Zec. 9: 11--As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I
have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein there is no water.
Phil. 2: 8--And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled
himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Matt. 26: 39--O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup
pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Acts 2: 23--Him being delivered by the determinate counsel
and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and
slain.
Heb. 12: 2--Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of
our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, etc.
Heb. 13: 20, 21--Now the God of peace, that brought again
from the dead our Lord Jesus that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the
blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect, etc.
These testimonies are sufficient to prove our first
proposition, that the death of Christ was a necessity in the plan of salvation,
and that this was God's arrangement "according to his determinate counsel
and foreknowledge." Whether we can ever see the reason for this or not,
the fact remains the same, the testimony is clear and emphatic. "Thou shalt
bruise his heel;" thou Abraham shalt receive thine everlasting
inheritance by means of the sacrifice typified by the offerings which I command
thee to make, which is my answer to thy question, "Lord God, whereby shall
I know that I shall inherit it?" "As Moses lifted up the serpent even
so must the Son of Man be lifted up;" by "making his soul an
offering for sin" he should cause "the pleasure of the Lord to
prosper in his hand;" "Messiah shall be cut off" as a
means of "bringing in everlasting righteousness;" "by the blood
of thy covenant shall the prisoners be sent forth out of the pit or the
grave." In dying Jesus was obedient unto death and therefore
commanded of his Father. In drinking the cup, it is "thy will" that
is done. For the joy of his reward he must endure the cross. Through the blood
of the everlasting covenant, Jesus is brought out of death.
The entire plan of salvation is expressed in the word
"covenant;" and of this covenant the Apostle Paul says, as the
Authorized Version gives it: "For where a testament is, there must of
necessity be the death of the testator." Properly rendered, as in the
Diaglott, this is, "For where a covenant exists, the death of that which
ratified it is necessary to be produced." All is therefore predicated upon
the death of Christ as the Covenant sacrifice--a necessity according to
"the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God." This is a
divinely revealed truth; and we must accept it as the foundation upon which,
and in harmony with which, all our reasoning and conclusions must be based.
2. That Jesus realized that, according to the Father's
plan, he must die a sacrificial death is evident from the following
testimonies:
Matt. 16: 21--From that time forth began Jesus to show unto
his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of
the elders and chief priests and rulers, and be killed, and be raised again the
third day.
John 3: 14--And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up.
John 12: 32--And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will
draw all men unto me.
Luke 22: 15--And he said unto them, With desire I have
desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.
Verse 20--This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is
shed for you.
Luke 24: 26--Ought not Christ to have suffered these things,
and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he
expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Heb. 7: 27--Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to
offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this
he did once, when he offered up himself.
Heb. 9: 23--It was therefore necessary that the patterns of
things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things
themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Heb. 10: 4-7--For it is impossible that the blood of bulls
and goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he
saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared
me: In burnt offering and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then
said I, Lo I come to do thy will, O God.
Heb. 9: 22--* * * without the shedding of blood is no
remission.
Heb. 12: 2--* * * who for the joy that was set before him
endured the cross.
Heb. 5: 7--Who in the days of his flesh, when he offered up
prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able
to save him from [out of] death, and was heard in that he feared.
From these scriptures it will be seen that Jesus realized
that the redemption of fallen man depended upon the fulfillment of his mission,
in enduring great temptation and trial and developing a character "holy,
harmless and undefiled and separate from sinners," crowned with an
obedient sacrificial death upon the cross. Why God so arranged his plan as to
make this a necessity we shall consider further along; it is sufficient now
(and indeed it is a fact whether we can ever discover why or not) that we
accept the testimony declaring that it is so. This was so important a matter in
the gospel which Paul preached that he writes the Corinthian brethren that
"he delivered to them among the chief things how that Christ died, and was
buried, and rose again." And, he further declares, "If Christ be not
raised (which, of course, implies his acceptable death), your faith is vain; ye
are yet in your sins, and we are found false witnesses of God;" and,
moreover, if Christ has not been raised in attestation of the acceptability of
his sacrificial death, "then they also who have fallen asleep in Christ
are perished."
Now, since we see that God so arranged his plan of
redemption as to require and depend upon the death of Christ; and that Jesus so
understood the matter and performed all that his Father's plan required, as a
means to the attainment of the "joy that was set before him" beyond
the cross, the next question to be considered is that of our third proposition.
3. God has revealed it as his law that death cannot
take place by His approval unless the subject is in some manner involved in the
law of sin and death.
In a previous chapter we have shown that death is the great
enemy of mankind, which came by sin. If it sometimes appears to be a welcome
visitor, it is only when of two evils it is the lesser. In view of the fact
that men are prone to wickedness in this present fallen state, it is well that
the wisdom of God has caused death to limit human life, both as to the extent
of the "multiplication of sorrow and conception," and as to men's
length of days. But the evil which necessitated this consequent evil is back of
all this; and when we discover the primary cause of death we shall see the
divine law which governs the inception and its continuance in the world. Death
had a beginning in relation to man; and it will have an end. Its beginning is
shown by the following: "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the
world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men for that all have
sinned"--Rom. 5: 12. Its end is declared as follows: "The last enemy
shall be destroyed, death"--I. Cor. 15: 26. The cause of death's beginning
was sin; the cause of its ending will be righteousness. It follows therefore
that death is the result always of sin, either directly or remotely; and that
apart from sin it can no more take place than there can be effect without
cause.
Following are a few scriptures as proof of this:
Gen. 2: 17--But of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou
shalt surely die.
Gen. 3: 17--And unto Adam he said, 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 bring forth unto thee; and thou shalt eat of 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.
Rom. 5: 12, 17, 18--Wherefore as by one man sin entered into
the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all
have sinned. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they
which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign
in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came
upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift
came upon all men unto justification of life.
Rom. 6: 23--For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of
God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
I. Cor. 15: 21, 56--For since by man came death, by man came
also the resurrection of the dead. The sting of death is sin; and the strength
of sin is the law.
From this testimony we learn that man is in bondage to death
and the grave as the result of sin; and that redemption from the power of death
is the work to be accomplished by the plan of salvation which God in his love
devised. But deliverance from death is predicated upon death; and here is the
question, How can death deliver from death? The death of an actual sinner would
only fasten the claims of death more tightly upon the victim; and since all
mere men, from Adam to Christ, were, in some degree, actual sinners, no man
could redeem his brother nor give to God a ransom. Supposing the possibility of
an angel dying, that would not redeem, because, since angels do not belong to
the race of mankind and therefore stand in no sense related to the law of death
under which man is held, it would be contrary to God's law of death for an
angel to die; and that which is contrary to God's law is unlawful and one
unlawful act could not redeem from the effects of another unlawful act. To
discriminate between what is lawful and unlawful we must be governed by the
revealed law of God. Since He made death dependent upon sin in the law given to
Adam, it follows that God's law was, If you sin you shall die; if you do not
sin you shall not die. If you sin it will be lawful for me to impose death upon
you; if you do not sin it will be (according to my law) unlawful for me to
impose death upon you. God cannot oppose himself. He cannot break his own law.
Moreover, angels having become spirit beings are forever
free from death--they cannot, according to God's law, die. So it will be with
the redeemed of mankind when they are made "like unto the angels to die no
more." An angel, therefore, could not be a redeemer of the fallen race of
Adam, because God's plan predicated redemption upon a sacrificial death, which
must be consistent with and not opposed to His law that death cannot justly
take place unless there is a relation in some sense to sin. To substitute the
death of a being of another race would be unjust, because it would require the
death of one who ought not to die for one who ought; and now it becomes still
more clear that if Christ were, as to himself, immortal; and, as to his body,
immaculate, it would have been unjust for God to have required him to die, and
it would have been unlawful for Jesus to voluntarily offer himself a victim to
death. We are therefore driven by God's revealed law and by all that is just,
reasonable and right to conclude that a saviour that would meet all the
requirements of the case must be one whose nature was capable of dying; one
whose death would be consistent with God's revealed law of sin and death, and
therefore one whose death would be in accordance with divine justice; and yet
he must be one who, in character, is free from sin, "holy, harmless,
undefiled and separate from sinners." This would necessitate
1. That the Redeemer should be in nature mortal, like unto
those he would redeem.
2. That he should by inheritance, according to God's law as expressed in the
words "And so death passed upon all men," be included with all those
of whom it is said, "By the offence of one judgment came upon all men to
condemnation."
3. That he should bear the infirmities, temptations and trials of the race and
suffer the inherited effects of the sin which brought sorrow, pain and death
upon the race, and yet be personally, as to character, without sin, and
practically a manifestation of the righteousness of God.
In this way God "would be just and the justifier of all
who would believe in the Redeemer." In this way, too, the glory would be
to God, in that He would produce one out of the race vested with the mental and
moral powers necessary to accomplish the work; merit and honor would be due to
Christ, in that he faithfully used the powers he possessed and completely
triumphed; and the blessing would be to the redeemed, in that they would be
delivered from death and the grave, and could finally exclaim triumphantly,
"O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? Thanks be to
God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."
But now we have three propositions to prove again in order
that what we have set forth may be shown to rest upon the impregnable rock of
divine truth. These may be reduced to the form of three questions;
1. Was Christ mortal like unto those he came to redeem?
2. Did he inherit the death which "passed upon all men;" and was he
born under the results of that "judgment which came upon all men unto
condemnation?"
3. Did he bear the infirmities, temptations and trials of the fallen race and
suffer the effects of that sin which brought sorrow, pain and death upon the
race; and yet develop a character absolutely spotless?
Now when we say that Jesus was mortal, let it not be said
that all so-called Christians believe that he was mortal as to his body; for
that only evades the real question. We are dealing with that person called
Jesus, as to what he was; and we are not separating Jesus from his body
and allowing for himself one nature, and for his body another. As a personality
Jesus cannot be thought of nor spoken of apart from bodily existence.
Therefore, what he was in nature he was bodily and there is no other
personality to be considered. When, therefore, we read that Jesus "was
made," etc., we are not reading of what the place of his
habitation was made of, as if he was one thing and the body was another. We are
reading of what the very person, the only person who was Jesus or Christ--what he
"was made," whether flesh or spirit; whether mortal or immortal;
whether maculate or immaculate. There has been so much play upon words in an
endeavor to separate "spirit entity" from body in relation to man
generally, and "Divine substance" from body in relation to Jesus,
that it is necessary that terms should be defined, so that when we read or
employ the terms "his body" we may not quibble and endeavor to
establish a theory of the "his" being a separate entity from the
"body," any more than when we speak of the floors, walls, roof, etc.,
of the house--every thing of the house, we mean that the house is a separate
thing of itself independently of the component parts named. When one employs
the terms concerning Jesus, "His body, his spirit, his being, his
nature," etc., it would be the part of a quibbler to argue that the
possessive pronoun "his" is a separate personality from the component
parts named. Now let us consider our propositions:
That Jesus was, in the days of his flesh, mortal like all
descendants of Adam, inheriting the death which passed upon the race; and born
under the condemnation which all "sins' flesh" is under, bearing our
infirmities, etc., we submit the following proofs:
The same testimonies will apply to what our three
propositions set forth:
Gen. 3: 15--And I will put enmity between thee and the
woman, and between thy seed and her seed.
Gen. 22: 17--* * * And thy seed shall possess the
gate of his enemies.
II. Sam. 7: 12 * * * I will set up thy seed after
thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
Isa. 53: 2, 3--For he shall grow up before him as a tender
plant, and as a root out of dry ground. * * * He was despised and rejected of
men; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
John 1: 14--And the word was made flesh.
Gal. 3: 16--. . . he saith not, And to seeds, as of many;
but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal. 4: 4--But when the fulness of time was come, God sent
forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that
were under the law.
I. Tim. 3: 16--And without controversy, great is the mystery
of Godliness; God was manifest in flesh, justified in the spirit, etc.
Heb. 2: 9--But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower
than the angels. . . For it became him, for whom are all things and
by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain
of our salvation perfect through suffering.
Verse 14--Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of
flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that
through death he might destroy him that hath the power of death, that is, the
devil.
Verses 16-18--For verily he took not on him the nature of
angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all
things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might
be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make
reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath
suffered, being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.
Heb. 4: 15--For we have not an high priest which cannot be
touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like
as we are, yet without sin.
I. Peter 2: 24--Who his own self bore our sins in his own
body on the tree.
I. John 4: 2, 3--Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every
spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is
not of God.
Rom. 5: 12--. . . And so death passed upon all men.
Verse 18--Therefore by the offence of one judgment came upon
all men to condemnation.
Rom. 6: 6, 7--Knowing this, that our old man is crucified
WITH HIM, that the body of sin might be destroyed. For he that died
is freed from sin [or the "body of sin"].
II. Cor. 5: 21--For he hath made him to be sin for us, who
knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
After the fall of our first parents their nature was
the same as before, that is, flesh and blood, of the earth earthy; but there
was a change in its condition, in that it was no longer "very good,"
but it was sin-stricken, death-stricken, and had become "sin's flesh"
in which had been begotten the diabolos proclivities. Now for Jesus to be the
"seed of the woman" he must be of the same flesh and blood in the
same condition; and his work was to overcome the flesh proclivities, redeem
himself thereby, and thus become the "Captain of our salvation."
Hence if we compare him with Adam before sin "entered into the world"
we shall see the reason why Adam was not a "man of sorrow," while
Jesus was. Sorrow, suffering and death came as the result of Adam's sin; and
these became inherent in man's nature. Therefore Jesus, by being made of the
"seed of Abraham," had these to contend with in his nature and to
overcome. Therefore the serpent in the form of sin "bruised his
heel;" but he, when he finally destroys sin and all its effects and even
death itself, will bruise the serpent's head. For this purpose he was the Word made
flesh-- "sin's flesh;" "made of a woman;"
"made lower than the angels;" "partook of the same flesh
and blood that he might destroy the devil" (diabolos) or "sin
in the flesh;" "made like unto his brethren;" "tempted in
all points like unto his brethren;" among those included in the words
"death passed upon all men;" and with those of whom it is said
that, "By one offence judgment came upon all men unto
condemnation," sin's flesh being under condemnation hereditarily; our old
man was crucified with him, when he was crucified, sin's flesh being an
embodiment of the "old man" (Adam's) sin, a sin state needing restitution
and redemption; "made sin" or sin nature for us, so as to be an
exemplification of redemption out of sin-nature, the fallen state, which
"redemption of the body" God's people are "waiting for."
The great question involved is, Did Jesus experience salvation?
Some are shocked at the very thought of such a question, because they are
prejudiced by the theory of the divinity and "immaculate conception."
If Jesus did not experience salvation, then his life in the flesh was a sham;
for he is represented as suffering, tempted, dying, being raised, and rewarded.
We are not to be driven from facts by the amazement of superstition. The
testimony we have given shows that Jesus was born into the fallen state into
which the sin of our first parents plunged the race. Man's fallen state was
that of his very nature, in which "the whole creation groaneth;" and
how could Jesus "come in the flesh" without partaking
of the same fallen nature? If he did not inherit a nature which caused or
necessitated his life of suffering and his death, then all that he suffered was
directly imposed upon him without an adequate cause, and in that case according
to God's revealed law of sin, suffering and death, there was injustice. A
substitutionary saviour would be the suffering and death of one for whose
suffering and death there was no law, and that would be unlawful. We see
infants suffering, and we know that it is according to "the law of sin and
death." Sin took effect in the beginning, the stream was poisoned at the
fountain. Recognizing the laws of God in Nature and in Revelation, we
can trace the effects to a lawful cause. Now apply this to Jesus, and we are
compelled to attribute his suffering and death to the one primary cause of the world's
evils. Upon this principle of divine law Jesus really, in his nature, bore the
burden of mankind; and the reason that burden did not crush him and hold him
under its ponderous weight in death and hades was because he accomplished what
no man ever had been able to accomplish; and which no mere man ever could have
accomplished, namely, a life of perfect holiness despite the heavy burden of a
sin-stricken, tempting nature in which diabolos dwelt, but, in His case, to be
destroyed.
Some people object to this and ask, Why should Jesus suffer
as the result of the sin of Adam? We may answer by asking, Why do all Adam's
descendants suffer from that cause? If the rejoinder is, We suffer because we
sin ourselves, then we ask, Do we not suffer before we commit personal sin; and
do not thousands die without having committed a single sin? To what shall we
trace the cause? "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;
and so death passed upon all men." To cry out that our fallen state
into which we are born is not "our fault" will not help the matter.
If it is not "our fault" it is our fact, and it is the fact we
must deal with whether all can see the adequate cause of the fact or not. But
all nature is a lesson to show the discerning mind that defects or
"faults," call them by what name we will, are transmitted, naturally
too, now since sin has thrown a "very good" state into an
abnormal state. Now let us view the entire race as down in the "valley of
the shadow of death" as the inherited effect of sin; and let us realize
that God's plan of redemption requires that one of the race shall climb to the
top of the mountain without stumbling or falling. Not one is found able to
perform the task. To send an angel to do it would be no task and therefore no
merit to the angel. To send a "co-equal god" to do it would be
trifling; for it would be nothing but a sham. But for one burdened with the
nature of fallen humanity it would be a task--yes a task which no mere man
could accomplish. What must be done then? Is there no hope for these fallen
ones down in this "valley of the shadow of death?" No hope if they
are left to find help of themselves. The arm of the Lord must reach down and
come to the rescue. But how? By miraculously and suddenly lifting them all to
the mountain top? God could have done that, of course, so far as power was
concerned; but then there would have been no merit to any one. Here is the
beauty of the divine plan, then, in that God in His love does his part of
helpless man; and yet there is a part to be performed in one of the fallen
which shall be a wonderful achievement on his part and by which he merits
reward; and yet there is a part for all the rest who will be benefited to
perform in order to partake of the results of the triumph of the one who
accomplishes the work. The hand divine reaches down and produces one "made
in all points like unto his brethren;" but he is begotten in the valley,
not on the mountain top. The difference between him and "his
brethren" is not a difference of nature; for his first work is to redeem
his own nature before he can be the "captain of the salvation" of
"his brethren." The difference is that by divine begettal, and by
special guardianship, providentially as to human environments, and divinely by
Holy Spirit and angelic ministration, in all of which the love of God shines
gloriously as primarily our Saviour. Then Jesus, with these divine helps, does
his part with human nature tested and tried to its utmost limit, in which his
temptation, sufferings and death are real; and so he carries the heavy
load and yet ascends the mountain-top to be the Redeemer of all who identify
themselves with him in the appointed way. Thus was salvation exemplified
really, practically and experimentally in the person of Jesus the Christ.
To present the matter in a different form, we may view Jesus
as commencing his work where Adam left us, not in that state wherein Adam was
created "very good." There was no life of "sorrow and
suffering" between Adam and the tree of life; Jesus was "a man of
sorrow and acquainted with grief," without any personal fault of his own.
Adam before he sinned was in paradise: Jesus was born into a lost paradise.
There was no cross between Adam and the tree of life; Jesus was born into a
state in which there was no access to life eternal and the crown of glory,
except by way of Calvary. Why this difference? The only answer is that Jesus
inherited and suffered the consequences of Adam's fall. But thanks be to God,
He had so wisely arranged His plan of redemption that to him who would suffer
in himself the results of sin without himself committing sin should at last
triumph over sin, over death and over the grave; and thus prepare a basis upon
which reconciliation between God and men might take place in Christ in a manner
allowing of God being just and yet the justifier of fallen man.
How beautiful the plan, that, since Adam's fall (and the
fall of the race in him, Jesus included) was first mental, second moral, third
physical, redemption through Christ was, first mental, unison with God; second,
moral, harmony with the divine attributes, third, physical, redemption of body,
or consubstantiality with Deity. Thus Jesus became "the fulness of the
Godhead bodily," and the "only name given under heaven whereby we
must be saved." Man's relation to Adam and the fallen state he caused, is
expressed by the words "in Adam;" our relation to Christ and the
reconciled state he effected is expressed by the phrase "in Christ."
Since this has been effected by means of God manifested in the flesh by the
Spirit, Jesus is the one name in focal manifestation. He is the Father
manifested by the Spirit; and therefore to be in Christ is to be "in the name
(one name) of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
Now there are some who try to evade the force of those
passages which prove that Jesus was "made in all points like unto his
brethren" and that he took part of "the same" flesh and blood as
the race, by claiming that he was not actually of mortal, sinful flesh, but
that he was "sent in the likeness of sinful flesh," emphasizing the
word "likeness" as if it meant something similar to, but not the same
thing. If this were true we should still have the same incongruity of one dying
who, according to God's law, ought not to die. The passage referred to is Rom.
8: 3--"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the
flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,
condemned sin in the flesh." The latter part of the verse shows the object
to be attained, namely, "to condemn sin in the flesh." "The
flesh," says the apostle in another place, "lusteth against the
Spirit." That is, the lustfulness of flesh, which was propagated by the
sin of our first parents, makes it "sinful flesh," and a state which,
uncleansed by whatever law God gives as a means of cleansing, first
provisionally, and second absolutely, is under divine condemnation and unfit
for reconciliation to Him. This inherent lustfulness was the diabolos to be
overcome and finally destroyed, by a life that would be a curbing, checking and
condemning of all the fleshly proclivities. This would be to practically
"condemn sin in the flesh," which the passage says was the object in
view in God's sending Jesus Christ "in the likeness of sinful flesh."
It will therefore be readily seen that one coming in another sort of flesh
could not condemn sin in the flesh in which was the diabolos to be overcome and
destroyed. The one fitted for the work must have the flesh in which inhered the
Adamically-produced sin-proclivities in order that he might "condemn sin
in the very flesh" in which lust in the sense of inordinate desire had
come to exist as the result of sin. For God to send Jesus in "the likeness
of sinful flesh" was for him to send him in sinful flesh itself.
If there be still a disposition to play upon the word
"likeness," let it be remembered that a writer's use of any word must
be governed by the sense in which he uses it; and no one has a right to assume
for the writer a meaning to suit a theory. It happens that this same apostle
Paul uses a similar word in another letter; and a comparison can therefore be
made and a clue to his meaning be found. In I. Cor. 15: 49 he
says, "And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall bear
the image of the heavenly." There is no room here for a difference
of opinion on the meaning of the word "image." To "bear the
image of the earthy" is to be actually "of the earth, earthy"
(verse 47); and so with the "heavenly." In like manner, for Jesus to
come in "the likeness of sinful flesh" was for him to come in that
very nature itself.
There is another way in which some attempt to construe
scripture to suit the theory that Jesus was a separate personality from his
body. It is by quoting the words of Heb. 2: 16--"For verily he took
(margin, taketh) not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed
of Abraham." The claim is made that the "he" who
"took" existed as a person before "he took on him the seed of
Abraham." This claim arises from a dwarfed understanding of the use of
words. It is similar to the argument based upon the words "his body"
which seeks to separate the "his" from the body, as meaning a
separate immortal entity; but the apostle speaks of "the bodies of those
beasts" in Heb. 13: 11, in which case the "disputer about words to no
profit" will see the absurdity to which his premises lead. He will hardly
be prepared to claim for the beasts a separate existence from their bodies
because the apostle uses the phrase "bodies of the beasts."
Suppose one should say to one building a house, "Your
house begins to assume a handsome appearance" no one would conclude that
the house was a pre-existent thing, and that it must actually exist before it
could begin to assume a handsome appearance; nor could any one conclude that
the house was an active agent in so assuming. One is compelled to use the noun
which stands for that which is to be a completed thing before there is a
beginning to produce it.
Now the fact is that God begat Jesus, and that he was
"born of a woman" whose nature was sinful flesh and blood. In the
very nature of things Jesus could not be an active agent in bringing about his
own existence. For the apostle to say that "he took on him the seed of
Abraham" is, therefore, to say that he was made in the nature of Abraham,
and this is so explained in the very next verse, which begins with
"Wherefore." It is as if the apostle had said, "Jesus took on
him the nature of Abraham in the sense of being made or constituted of the same
flesh and blood that Abraham was--wherefore in all things (as to nature)
it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a
merciful and faithful high priest; for had he been of any other flesh or
nature, he could not have been touched with the feeling of our
infirmities," nor tempted in such a manner as to be able to "succor
them that are tempted."
Again it happens that a clue is given us in this case. Verse
14 reads, "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and
blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." In the
same sense that the children were partakers, he was a partaker of "the
same" flesh and blood. In the same sense that Jesus partook of
"the same flesh and blood," the children partook of it. If the
words "took part" mean that Jesus must have existed before he
"took part," then the word "partakers" must mean that
"the children" existed before they could be "partakers."
The truth leaves no way of escape from its real meaning. The human family
constitute the totality of "flesh and blood;" each individual
partakes, or is a partaker; and Jesus was no exception. Therefore the Apostle
John is very emphatic in declaring that he that denieth that Jesus came in the
flesh is antichrist. The reason is because such a contention distorts the
entire plan of redemption as it was exemplified in Christ; it makes God appear
unjust and Jesus unworthy of the great reward he attained to; while the truth,
harmonious, glorious truth, presents to our view a beautiful system which
manifests the love and the justice of God; the faithfulness, fidelity and
marvelous triumph of His glorious Son; and consequent blessing brought within
the reach of poor fallen man. Let it be noted that the apostle in Heb. 2: 14
not only declares that Jesus was a partaker of flesh and blood; but he informs
us why it was necessary that this should be so. "He also, himself,
likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that
hath the power of death, that is, the devil" (diabolos). Of course
the devil here is not the imaginary immortal personal being of
"orthodox" creeds. To be made of flesh and blood in order to die
would be the way to fail utterly to destroy such a devil. The passage
identifies the devil with flesh and blood, and his destruction required that he
be dealt with in his native element. The serpent became a sign of sin; and when
Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, there was a type of the lifting
up of sin's flesh upon the cross, whereby the devil was destroyed so far as
related to Jesus personally, and Jesus obtained the power to ultimately destroy
him entirely. The flesh of sin impaled upon the cross was the result of an
obedience of Jesus to the Father's requirements; it was, on his part, a
voluntary sacrificial offering up to death of sin's flesh and thereby a public
acknowledgment of the Father's justice in the condemnation of sin's flesh. Then
the Father forsook the impaled flesh body for a moment, when the Son cried out,
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" There was nothing in
Jesus as to character to cause the Father to forsake him; the reason must be
sought for in the fact that God took this means of manifesting the unfitness of
fallen flesh and blood nature to be his permanent habitation as regards men.
Had Jesus been a flesh and blood being devoid of a holy character, the
forsaking would have been permanent. As it was, it was the divine frown upon
the flesh of sin, while the Father's love smiled upon His Son as to his holy
character, and soon changed him from being a "heavenly treasure in an
earthly vessel" to a heavenly treasure in a heavenly vessel--a nature
immortal, resplendent and glorious. God had "made him to be sin (sin's
flesh) for us, who knew no sin;" and now the work was complete in him as the
nucleus of the grand redemption of the Christ body multitudinous, which will be
"a habitation of God through the Spirit to all eternity."
Another aspect of this subject is Christ's relation to the
law of Moses. This law had been "added" to the Abrahamic covenant
"till the seed should come to whom the promise was made"--Gal. 3: 19.
It served the double purpose of restraining sin in Israel for the time being,
and of being "a school master" to lead to Christ.
There were two classes under Moses' law, which may be termed
men of sight and men of faith. The former submitted to the law as a law only,
by which they were to be governed in temporal matters; the latter did all that
the former did, but they, being men of faith, saw through the types of the law
him who was its end--Jesus. One of these classes stood related to Moses, on the
one hand, and the other to Moses and Jesus. To the men of faith the ceremonies,
sacrifices, etc., of the law were temporary and provisional means by which they
could receive in advance certain blessings and immunities, pending their
confirmation by Jesus. Among these blessings were reconciliation to God,
protection of life in infancy and during special occasions of worship, and
immunity from diseases of the surrounding nations. Their "days were long
in the land" proportionately to their obedience to the law. When a man of
sight only offered his sacrifice to God, he received only the temporal
blessings which the law vouchsafed to him; but when the man of faith offered
his sacrifice he received both the temporal benefits and the heavenly which
depended for their eternal fulfillment upon the fulfillment of the law by
Jesus, who was its Alpha and Omega. Had Jesus failed to fulfill his mission all
benefits of the law would have been temporary only; and all who "died in
faith" or fell "asleep in Christ" would have
"perished" (I. Cor. 15: 18). The law of Moses was really a
specification of the mission of Christ. It was Christ enfolded, while when his
work was done, he was the law unfolded; the specification was laid aside and
the work, which was the specification carried out, stood out in bold relief as
a manifestation of the wisdom and goodness of God.
The Apostle Paul says, "If there had been a law given
which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the
law"--Gal. 3: 21. While the law was powerful in restraining sin, it was
too perfect for mere mortals to keep. It was too high for them to reach. It was
never intended that any one of its mere mortal subjects should keep it to
perfection--indeed, its aim was to show them what they were incompetent to do,
and thus impress upon them the "weakness of the flesh." The law was
good--too good for weak, fallen man. Therefore "what the law could not do because
of the weakness of flesh," God did through Christ. There was no
injustice in God's giving Israel a law that was too good for them to keep. It
may appear unjust to a superficial view of the subject; but when the reason is
discerned God's wisdom is seen in it, in that he devised a law that would accomplish
three things.
1. It would restrain sin in the nation of Israel and
manifest Israel's God to the world at large.
2. It would show its subjects their weakness and inability to earn eternal life
by a law of such righteous demands.
3. It would point them from themselves to the only one whom God had provided as
able to accomplish the task.
When the law had fully shown man's inability to reach the
blessings of life eternal by means of it, because of the "weakness of the
flesh," the "body prepared" was ready. Hence the apostle says,
"When we were without strength, in due time Christ died for the
ungodly"--Rom. 5: 6. To the Judaizers who desired to cling to the
shadow and ignore the substance, Peter said, "Now therefore why tempt ye
God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers
nor we were able to bear"--Acts 15: 10.
Now here is another evidence of the necessity of the Divine
sonship of Christ. He must be one prepared of God; for the work to be done had
been proved by four thousand years of experience, and made certain by a law of
God, to be beyond the power of mere man: no mere man could meet the
requirements. The arm of the Lord must be stretched out or all was for ever
lost.
Not only was the law of Moses a means by which to prepare a
national body for the work of God in the earth, but it was a means in the hands
of God of preparing him who said, "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest
not, but a body hast thou prepared me.* * * Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.
He taketh away the first that he may establish the second"--Heb. 10: 5. In
the national body there was being prepared the body of Jesus, which would be
the only permanent sacrifice for sin.
The result of this preparation was that Jesus was born under
a law already prepared to be a guardian of his life in the hands of those who
would be careful custodians of the precious one entrusted in their hands. Their
careful observance of the law in its relation to mother and child would insure
the protection of the child from death by disease or accident till he would
become capable of voluntarily doing his Father's will. At twelve years of age
he realized that he must "be about his Father's business." At thirty
years of age he declares that to "fulfill all righteousness" he must
be baptized. Then, after three and a half years, the end of his probationary
life had come, and although he had fulfilled the law that far, the law seized
him in its condemnation and made him "a curse" by finding him hung
upon a tree--"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being
made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a
tree"--Gal. 3: 13. Here was a clause in the law that cursed every one that
should hang on a tree; but here was also a victim who had done nothing amiss.
What must be done? Repeal the law? No. The law is always righteous that will
condemn and curse sinful flesh; because sinful flesh is the result of sin, and
it is unfit for God's eternal purpose and "cannot inherit the kingdom of
God." It would never have been possible for any law to find any one hung
on a tree had it not been for that sin which made flesh sinful. Therefore it is
lawful that the law shall curse any thing that was the product and result of
sin; and that is what flesh is now in its sinful state. But is it not a
calamity for the law to so seize upon one who in character is righteous? It
would be so if no provision was made to finally recognize that character. In
the hands of men, with God shut out from view, it would be a most heart-rending
tragedy; but here, as always, we can "trust Him for His grace, behind a
frowning Providence He hides a smiling face." So he lets the law take its
course, in imposing its curse upon the flesh of sin. It is only for a moment.
All is safe in His hands. Wait just a moment, and the law will have finished
the work of manifesting its condemnation of sinful flesh. God's justice, and
His abhorrence of any thing that is a product of sin, are testified to before
the gaze of the world. The sad part of the work of redemption, made sad by sin,
is done. Echoing from the cross of Calvary and reverberating throughout the
wide world we hear the words, IT IS FINISHED! A few fleeting moments fly away,
and the love of a loving Father presents to a fallen race the Redeemer, redeemed
from the curse of Eden's law of sin and death, and snatched as a brand plucked
from the burning of that law which had been faithfully fulfilled and made
honorable; and God is again shown to be just and the justifier of all who come
unto him through Jesus Christ our Lord. Thus Jesus was by Divine interposition
produced under the law of sin and death of Eden, which condemned to death
sinful flesh; and under the law of Moses, which reflected the same divine
condemnation of sinful flesh, in order that, by a perfectly righteous character
and a perfect obedience to the Mosaic law, he might be "the way" of
redemption practically carried out; and thereby he became the means and the
only means of salvation to men. As in their loss and fall they are identified
with Adam the first, so in their gain and rise to eternal redemption they must
depend upon identification with Adam the second. How this identification is
effected we will endeavor to show in our next chapter.
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
The investigation of the Scriptures upon the various subjects
we have considered must not be regarded as merely interesting study. These
subjects are revealed to us as the constitution of God's plan of redemption, so
that all who desire to share in that plan may comply with the requirements, and
that they may do so intelligently, and thus bring their minds into unison with
God's mind in the great work they are privileged to participate in with a view
of sharing its proffered blessings. A state of ignorance upon the fundamental
doctrines of the plan of redemption is a state of alienation from God. It is
only by becoming at one with him in mind that we can really be in the atonement
He has graciously provided in Christ.
This is a most reasonable requirement; for how would
multitudes of ignorant creatures preserved eternally be any honor to God? In
the common affairs of life we are expected to inform ourselves, so that
whatever we embark in we may do so intelligently, earnestly endeavoring to know
and do the right and avoiding the wrong. Our actions are governed by our
belief. If our belief is wrong, our actions will be wrong. If one believes it
will be profitable to spend money in or bestow labor upon a certain enterprise,
he will act accordingly; and if his belief is without evidence, or based upon
false evidence, his actions will likewise be false and end in failure and
disappointment. Had not God required intelligence in those He purposed to
receive as His children, there would have been no need for the wonderful
revelation He has given us; and this revelation is evidence that God requires
His people to be instructed, corrected, reproved and exhorted, all as the means
of enabling them to walk in the way of righteousness which alone leads to the
great redemption. It is therefore folly for people to cry out that in religious
matters they have a right to their own opinion. As between man and man they
have; but the absurdity of such a claim in relation to God will be manifest
when we ask, How could man ever form an opinion that would be worth a moment's
consideration, concerning a future life, without a revelation from God? The
rule laid down is, "To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not
according to this word, it is because there is no light in them"--Isa. 8:
20. Many deceive themselves with the plausible idea that it does not matter
what our creed is if we are morally good; but the question is, What is moral
goodness? Can one be morally good in the sight of God who does not believe God?
God has spoken, and the first thing to do in order to be morally good is to
hear, understand and believe what He has spoken; then let actions follow
consistently with the proper belief, and God will be well pleased.
To his apostles Jesus said, "Go teach all
nations." There were doctrines to be taught, and salvation was predicated
upon a belief of the doctrines taught and obedience to the commandments,
inculcated. In the case of Cornelius, we have a devout, praying, alms-giving
man. Yet he was told to send for Peter who would tell him words whereby
he should be saved. Evidently it was after he believed the "words"
and was baptized that his good qualities would be divinely recognized as part
of the means of salvation, in the sense of adding lustre to the crown which
induction into Christ by belief of the foundation doctrines and baptism
entitled him to.
On the other hand, there are some who deny that any act is
necessary to salvation, and they glibly cry out, "Only believe! only
believe!" by which they mean a "belief" which comes
instantaneously in the form of a peculiar feeling which comes over them when
under the excitement and hypnotic influence of a shouting revival meeting. In
attempting to support this delusion by scripture, they quote the words,
"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." But to repeat
words without discerning their meaning will do us no more good than the prattle
of a parrot. The question is, What is it to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ?
Study the meaning of "Jesus" and "Christ," and they will
open up to the view the entire plan of salvation. So that to believe in what
the apostle said to the Philippian jailer is to believe the gospel. This is
made quite evident by the record of Philip's going down to Samaria to preach
Christ--Acts 8: 5. What was it for him to "preach Christ?" The answer
is found in verse 12--"But when they believed Philip preaching the things
concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were
baptized, both men and women." In the word Christ were involved the things
of the kingdom of God, the things of the name of Christ, which would be
"Jesus Christ and him crucified;" and baptism as a means of adoption
into the one body--all this was brought out in elaborating the word Christ or
king or anointed one.
Let it be observed, too, that it is important that the belief
be in the things, not things concerning a kingdom which is not the
kingdom of God; not a belief in a Christ which is not the true
Christ of God. It is "the truth that shall make you free, then
shall ye be free indeed." A kingdom in the sky, or in the heart, or in the
church is not the kingdom of God preached, promised, and of which God's people
are now heirs. And so we may say of every branch of the truth, error will not
serve the purpose of truth, however earnestly it may be believed. It must be
the true God, the true Spirit, the true Christ, the true kingdom, the true
resurrection, the true immortality, the true baptism--a combination of truths
making the Truth, the one faith, the one gospel, which alone will save, and which
will save only the believer. Hence the words of our Lord, "Go ye into all
the world and preach the gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned"--Mark
16: 16. And Paul says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it
is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth"--Rom.
1: 16. And further, "Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other
gospel unto you than that which we have preached, let him be accursed"--Gal.
1: 8. Let no one complain that God is too strict. In offering mankind the great
and unspeakable blessings of the Gospel He has the right to offer them upon His
own terms. But it is not even a matter of God's right only; but what God requires
is for man's best good.
Now in order to realize the great importance of salvation we
must understand our real state--what we need salvation from and to. This has
already been shown in a broad sense in dealing with man's mortality and
promised immortality; but it will be well now to consider the matter of man's
relationship to God in a specific sense. The first question is, When did
salvation become a necessity and from what cause? This will take us back again
to Eden, where we shall first find the parents of the race in sweet communion
with God and blessed with the glories of paradise; no sin, sickness, pain,
sorrow nor death. It was possible for them to ascend from that "very
good" state to a better one, and a best one, but that could not have been termed
salvation, redemption, nor restitution. Before these terms could become
applicable man must become a lost creature, cast out of paradise, a subject of
sorrow, pain and death. Then he would need salvation. When did man fall into
this state? As soon as our first parents sinned and were cast out of paradise,
then they were in the lost state; then they needed salvation. Here we are at
the head of the stream, right at the cause of the trouble. A curse was
pronounced, which the apostle says, "passed upon all men." So we may
say that, since Adam was the federal head of the race, when he fell, all fell;
when he became an outcast from Eden, all became outcasts; when he became
alienated from God, all the race became alienated; for what is the race but a
multiplication of Adam and Eve--not in the "very good" state of
creation, but in the lost state? The sin which caused this fall of the race has
woefully "abounded" during nearly six thousand years, and the whole
world lieth in wickedness before God. Our inherited condition as well as our
own personal sinfulness is therefore described by the Apostle Paul in Eph. 2:
1--"* * * dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in times 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, and were by nature
children of wrath, even as others." Then in verses 11, 12 he adds,
"Wherefore remember, that ye being in times past Gentiles in the flesh,
who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the
flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens
from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise,
having no hope and without God in the world." Here is a full and explicit
description of man's lost state, and this is the state of all in Adam because
in him they inherit this state as the consequence of his fall.
This alienated state is declared to be the lot of all who
are "without Christ"; and this brings to mind the two relations man
is found in, expressed by the words, "in Adam" and "in
Christ." The former represents the dominion or constitution of sin and
death: the latter the dominion or constitution of righteousness and life. So
long as we remain in the former relation, all we can hope for is what sin's
dominion can give us; and that is a sorrowful life of alienation from God ending
in death and an irrevocable grave. But if we change our relationship we thereby
"pass from [the constitution of] death to [the constitution of]
life." "putting off the old man with his deeds, and putting on the
new man to walk in newness of life."
The "covenants of promise" are the covenants God
has made with men since the fall in Eden, first in the promise that the seed of
the woman should bruise the serpent's head: second, the covenant with Abraham,
and third, the covenant with David. These all embodied the gospel. To be a
stranger to these is to be "without hope and without God in the
world." God will not become reconciled to man in Adam. He was "in
Christ" reconciling the world unto himself; "and it is in Christ only
we can be in at-one-ment with God. Therefore the Apostle Paul says, "But
God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be
saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled
to God by the death of his son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved
by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom we have received the atonement"--Rom. 5: 8,11. In Christ
then is the atonement, and only in the relationship expressed by the phrase
"in Christ" will God accept of us as his children. Natural birth
confers no title to future life, hence the words of Jesus. "Ye must be
born again." This new birth, which may be said to be an introduction unto
a new mental and moral state first, and finally into a new
nature--immortality--constitutes us "new creatures," or members of
the "new creation" of which Jesus is the beginning. Therefore the
apostle says, "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things
[pertaining to the Adamic lost state] have passed away; behold, all things have
become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by
Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation"--II Cor.
5: 17, 18. The phrase "new creature" suggests two creations--the old
and the new. Had not the old been blighted by sin, re-creation, reconciliation,
redemption, restitution, restoration would have been meaningless words in
Scripture vocabulary. But since man was started upon his career in a state of
conciliation with God, and then fell from that state, these words became
pregnant with all that the gospel means and is intended to accomplish. Since,
when we open our eyes to a realization of our existence in the world we find
that we have been born into a lost state, and then, if possible, riveted the
shackles of sin and death more firmly upon ourselves by actual personal sins,
we see that the defects, disabilities and misfortunes of our birth make it necessary
that we be "born again" in order to renounce allegiance to the old
constitution of sin and death, and become identified with the new creation or
constitution of righteousness and life.
Now the question arises, What means has God provided by
which this change can be effected? How can we pass from Adam to Christ, from
alienation to reconciliation and citizenship--how can we become the sons and
daughters of the Lord God Almighty? What must follow our belief as a means of
effecting the transition?
The Apostle Paul says that a special revelation had been
made for Gentiles explaining how they may become "fellow heirs, and of the
same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel" (Eph. 3:
1-6). When Gentiles have availed themselves of this provision he says,
"Now therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow
citizens with the saints and of the household of God; and are built upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief
cornerstone; in whom the whole building fitly framed together groweth into an
holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation
of God through the spirit"--Eph. 2:19-22.
The most prominent feature of the means of reconciliation
with God is the remission of sin through the blood of Christ. "Without the
shedding of blood there is no remission" is a truth which the sacrifices
of the law had set forth and emphasized most fully; and this reminds us that
the penalty resting upon us is death and that God required death in which there
was the shedding of blood by one who personally was sinless, as a means of
redemption. Hence the abundance of scripture which predicates salvation upon
the blood of Christ. The Apostle Paul says, "If one died for all, then were
all dead." All were under the sentence of death, and the necessity in the
case was that "one die for all." If the "all" had been
alike, without any exception, then all must have for ever remained under
death's domination, and "Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou
return" would have been the eternal destiny of all mankind. But if there
could be an exception and one could come to the rescue who would voluntarily
render to death all that it could lawfully claim, by suffering a violent death
in which there would be a sacrificial shedding of blood, and allowing death to
take its victim down into its prison house, the grave, then death's rights and
claims would end there--because the law of sin and death had no further claim.
It was the sin of the race, federally in Adam, that gave the law of sin and
death its power to take its victims into dust; but when this demand had been
met voluntarily and sacrificially by one who had rendered to God a perfect life
of holiness, the law of sin and death had no further claim, and therefore the
bands were unloosed, the shackles opened. "He that died was now freed from
sin's dominion" and "Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more;
death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin
once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God"--Rom. 6: 7-10. There was
only one kind of death, therefore, that would meet the requirements of the
case; and there was only one kind of person whose death would do. The kind of
death must be a voluntary one by the shedding of blood; and the kind of person
to die such a death must be one possessed of an absolutely holy character.
Therefore there never was and never will be salvation in any other than in
Christ; there never was redeeming efficacy in any other blood than the blood of
Christ; for he alone used the life of the blood of sin's flesh, with every
heart-beat of his fleshly existence, to render complete service to God, even to
the extent of shedding the blood of sin's flesh and relying upon his Father for
restoration to life to die no more, by virtue of being a "holy one".
As in the case of Christ, so with every one that will be saved, "He that
dies is freed from [the dominion of] sin." But a literal death of a
personal sinner will not free from sin. A death that will free from sin must in
some manner connect itself with the only death that was equal to all the
requirements in the case, and it must derive its sin-freeing and sin-remitting
efficacy from that one death, even the death of Christ. Like the death which first
"freed from sin," every death that depends upon that must be
voluntary; and all who die such a death can no more be permanently held in the
grave than could Christ. Hence the apostle says, "Know ye not, that so
many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized 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."
In this scriptural mode of conversion the three essential
witnesses must testify--the "Spirit (word), the water and the blood."
The Spirit through and in the word leads the believer to the water; and there,
and no where else, the cleansing efficacy of the blood operates. The three must
meet and agree in one in transforming a child of the world and of the flesh
into a child of God. This brings us to the subject of Baptism and its relation
to salvation, which we will consider in the next chapter.
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
There has been very much written on the subject of baptism,
perhaps more in an endeavor to evade the force of New Testament teachings than
in support of them. The very fact that so much skill has been employed on the
negative side of the question is a strong proof of the truth of the affirmative
side. One glancing over the New Testament statements, implications and
inferences on the subject cannot but be impressed with the boldness, not to say
the presumption, of that undertaking which seeks to make the sprinkling of
water in the face of a babe or an adult answer the purpose of baptism; nor is
it any less surprising that there should be an effort to treat the subject as
one of indifference,--as a doctrine which is not a vital part of the plan of
salvation.
The carnal mind is responsible for these evils. It reasons
with itself, asking, "What difference can it make as to the quantity of
water; or whether one is sprinkled with a few drops, or immersed in a quantity
sufficient for that purpose?" In others the same carnal mind asks,
"What virtue can there be in water to save one from sin and death? Why
should salvation be made dependent upon the use of water at all? It is the
blood of Christ that saves; and surely one can receive the benefit of the
precious blood of Christ without going to a pond or a river. Suppose one should
be where there is no pond or river? Why, if you say baptism is a saving
ordinance, then you make out that salvation is in a pond or in a river or in a
bath tub," etc., etc.
Reasoning (?) thus the carnal mind can easily satisfy
itself, because when the wish is father to the thought, "the way may seem
right unto a man," while "the end thereof is the way of death;"
and it is quite as easy for the same fleshly mind to carry the same argument to
the matter of belief (which many do) and to the efficacy of the blood of
Christ. Leave God and His revealed plan of salvation, with all its
requirements, out of the question, and the natural man, the man of mere sight
without scripturally-produced faith, can assume premises from which to reason
and reason, to his own conceited satisfaction, yet ignorant all the time of the
fact that he is sowing to the wind only to reap the whirlwind, and knowing not
that God has declared that "Your thoughts are not my thoughts; neither are
your ways my ways." The "wisdom" of the natural man is
foolishness with God, and "the world by [its own] wisdom knew not
God." The really wise man, he who desires to know and do the right and to
obtain salvation, will seek to know what God hath spoken and required; then he
will find that he is not required to obey blindly; but he will see why it is
so, and the real fitness of God's requirements will be manifest to him and
command his admiration and true devotion.
The word "baptism" has been very troublesome to
those "scholars" whose denominational theory has substituted
sprinkling for baptism. It has proven to be a most unfortunate word for them.
What a vast amount of trouble they would have been spared had the inspired
writers used a word to suit their theory, or even some vague, indefinite word
that would have left the matter so obscure as to allow of the "learned"
quieting the consciences of the "unlearned." The earnest among the
"unlearned," knowing that sprinkling is not baptizing, will ask the
pulpit questions, awkward questions, to which the creed of the pulpit will not
admit of satisfactory answers. To make even the shadow of a show the meaning of
the word must be evaded and a little sermon must be preached about the
unreasonableness of attaching importance to the quantity of water, or even to
water at all. The "learned" are compelled to take this course to save
the reputation of their "scholarship," for which many of them have
more respect than they have for the clear and unmistakable declarations of
God's word. This may seem a bold assertion, but since so many are trying to
make believe that sprinkling will do, and yet none of them have ever dared to
translate the Greek word (bapto) by the word sprinkle or pour, what
other conclusion can we come to? If the original word finds its meaning in the
act of sprinkling, why not translate it by the word sprinkle? For many years
the declaration of the author of the Emphatic Diaglott has been before the
world, and no one that we have ever heard of has challenged it. In his
Alphabetical Appendix, he gives the following:
BAPTIZE, bapto, baptizo. Bapto occurs 3 times, Luke 16:
24; John 13: 26; Rev. 19: 13, and is always translated dip in the common
version. Baptizo occurs 79 times; of these, 77 times it is not
translated at all, but transferred; and twice, viz. Mark 7: 4; Luke 11: 38, it
is translated wash, without regard to the manner in which it was done.
All lexicographers translate it by the word immerse, dip or plunge, not
one by sprinkle or pour. No translator has ever ventured to
render these words by sprinkle or pour in any version. In the
Septuagint version we have pour, dip and sprinkle occurring in
Lev. 14: 15, 16--"He shall pour the oil, he shall dip his
finger in it, and he shall sprinkle the oil." Here we have cheo,
to pour; raino, to sprinkle, and bapto, to dip.
BAPTISM, baptisma, baptismos. These words are never
translated sprinkling or pouring in any version. Baptisma occurs
29 times, and baptismos 4 times.
Here we have the whole matter, so far as the meaning of the
original words is concerned, reduced to a small compass, and no room is left
for dispute; and now how do we find baptism presented in the New Testament? It
confronts us everywhere, in plain language and by implication and inference; it
is either the principal subject of discourse or introduced incidentally.
Prominently, forcibly, essentially it stands out in the entire book. John the
Baptist came to prepare a people for the Lord by preaching "the baptism of
repentance for the remission of sins." "Then went out unto him
Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan; and they were
baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." A greater
than John, even Jesus himself, came and demanded baptism at the hands of John;
and when John remonstrated, Jesus said, "Thus it becometh us to fulfill
all righteousness." The Father expressed his pleasure at this by causing
the Holy Spirit to descend upon him and by saying, "This is my beloved Son
in whom I am well pleased."
Then Jesus himself preached baptism, and it is said that
"Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John" (John 4:
1). This continued till Jesus exemplified the meaning of baptism by his death,
burial and resurrection. After his resurrection and just before his ascension
Jesus gave his commission to his apostles: "Go ye into all the world, and preach
the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;
and he that believeth not shall be damned"--Mark 16: 15, 16. Here are the
only authoritative terms of salvation, which show that baptism is as essential
as belief; and that belief is as essential as baptism--no salvation by one
without the other, no salvation without both.
By this command and by this authority the apostles went
forth upon their mission. About eight days after the departure of their Lord
they began their work, when, according to their Lord's promise, the Holy Spirit
came upon them when assembled on the day of Pentecost. The Spirit was to
"guide them into all truth;" and it equipped them with authority from
heaven, and endowed with the Holy Spirit they proceeded to preach the gospel,
resulting in a conviction which caused the people to cry out, "What shall
we do?" the answer to which, true to the Lord's commission, was,
"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (or
unto) the remission of your sins"--Acts 2: 38, 39. What followed? Was
there any quibbling about whether sprinkling would do, or whether belief
without baptism or baptism without belief, or whether baptism and belief could
be dispensed with? No, no. "Then they that gladly received the word were
baptized; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand
souls"--verse 41. So we may follow the course of the apostles and
disciples throughout their entire ministry until the New Testament is left in
our hands with the doctrine of baptism taught, proved and practiced as one of
the vital principles of essential truth.
No man could preach Christ without preaching baptism. In
Acts 8: 5 we have the simple words, "Then Philip went down to the city of
Samaria, and preached Christ unto them." Then in verse 12 we read,
"But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom
of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and
women." Why were they baptized, if the preaching of baptism was not a part
of the work of "preaching Christ?"
Why was not Cornelius a saved man, seeing he was devout and
God-fearing, and alms-giving and a praying man? See Acts 10:1, 2. That he was
not is evident from the fact that he was commanded to send to Joppa for Peter,
"who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be
saved"--Chap. 11: 14. The words of the gospel were preached by Peter, and
upon a belief of those words "he commanded them to be baptized in the name
of the Lord"--chap. 10: 48. It is needless to continue. Everywhere we go
we find the doctrine of baptism wherever in the New Testament we find the
gospel preached and obeyed. We may summarize the subject as follows:
Mark 16: 15, 16--And he (Jesus) said unto them, Go ye into
all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Acts 2: 38--Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be
baptized every one of you for the remission of sins.
Acts 10: 47, 48--Can any man forbid water that these
should not be baptized, seeing that they have received the Holy Spirit as
well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus.
John 3: 5--Jesus answered, Verily I say unto thee, except a
man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter the
kingdom of God.
Acts 2: 41--Then they that gladly received his (Peter's)
words were baptized.
Acts 18: 8--And many of the Corinthians hearing, believed
and were baptized.
Acts 8: 12--And when they believed Philip * * * they were
baptized, both men and women.
Acts 8: 38--Philip baptized the eunuch.
Acts 16: 15--Lydia was baptized and her household.
Acts 16: 33--The keeper of the prison was baptized, he and
all his straightway.
Acts 19: 5--When they (twelve men at Ephesus) heard this,
they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 2: 38--Be baptized for the remission of your sins.
Acts 22: 16--Be baptized and wash away thy sins.
I. Pet. 3: 21--Baptism doth also now save us--by the answer
of a good conscience.
II. Pet. 1: 9--Purged from his old sins.
Eph. 5: 26--The washing of water by the word.
Acts 8: 36--See here is water; what doth hinder me to
be baptized?
Acts 10: 47--Can any man forbid water that these
should not be baptized?
John 3: 23--John was baptizing in AEnon near to Salim,
because there was much water there.
Rom. 6: 3-5--We are buried with him by baptism into
death * * * planted together in the likeness of his death.
Col. 2: 12--Buried with him in baptism, wherein also
ye are risen with him.
John 3: 5--Born of (Greek, out of) water.
In other cases where the word baptism is used, it is with
the idea of complete covering over with the thing or element it is related to.
Proof: Acts 1: 5; 2: 2--Baptized with the Holy Spirit * * *
it filled all the house where they were sitting.
I. Cor. 10: 2--Israel baptized in the cloud and in the sea.
Luke 12: 50--Christ's baptism of suffering: it overwhelmed
him.
The matter may be the more easily discerned by keeping in
mind that a saving relationship to Christ is expressed in the New Testament by
the phrase "in Christ." He is the "name of the Lord" which
is a "strong tower, into which the righteous runneth and is
safe"--Prov. 18: 10. "Neither is there salvation in any other; for
there is none other name," etc.--Acts 4: 12. "In whom we
have redemption through his blood"--Eph. 1: 7. "But now in Christ
Jesus, ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of
Christ"--Eph. 2: 13. "If any man be in Christ Jesus he is a
new creature"--II. Cor. 5: 17. Now there is only one way by which a
believer can come into this relation, and that one way is made most clear and
unmistakable by the Scriptures. Writing to the Galatians the Apostle Paul says,
"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus"--Chap.
3: 26. No one is a child of God who is not "in Christ Jesus," and
it is by means of the one faith that such a relationship is effected. The one
faith is dead without the one baptism (Jas. 2: 20). The conditions are,
"He that believeth and is baptized." Now let the same apostle
settle how the faith inducts one "into Christ:" "For as many of
you as have been baptized 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. 3: 27-29. The matter stands thus then: No salvation out of
Christ; no way unto Christ but by belief of the gospel and baptism.
No one will waste time speculating about the doctrine of
baptism who understands the plan of salvation. There is a fitness which
impresses one with its consistency, its beauty, yet its divine philosophy,
which so satisfies the humble mind as to reduce the speculations of those who
oppose baptism or pervert its meaning to an absurdity undeserving of a moment's
consideration. An understanding of the mode and meaning of baptism comes as a
natural sequence to an understanding of "Jesus Christ and him
crucified." Let the seeker after saving truth come to see the true gospel,
and it will be unnecessary to impress upon his mind the necessity of baptism.
He, like the eunuch, will cry out, "Here is water, what doth hinder me to
be baptized?" In order to see the consistency and beauty of baptism, and
that acceptable obedience to it is not by ignorantly submitting to it as an
arbitrary command, it will be well to take a wider view than we have hitherto
taken. Let us therefore retrace our steps and then come down through other
channels of thought.
At first sight the subject of baptism seems to be abruptly
introduced in the New Testament. The first we read of it is in Matt. 3: 5.
6--"Then went out to him (John) Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the
region round about Jordan, and were baptized by him in Jordan, confessing their
sins." There is no introduction to this, no explanation of the reason for
John baptizing the people; yet, as the record is, the people seemed to accept
of it without questioning why, or finding fault with it as an innovation. No
doubt many things were said and done that are not recorded; and the required
explanations were given; but in a sense baptism was not a new thing to Israel.
The Apostle Paul says that the first tabernacle was "a figure for the time
then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices," and in
which there were "meats and drinks and divers washings (baptisms) and
carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation"--Heb. 9:
8-19.
The fearful disease of leprosy is a symbol of the death
which we are all under. Under the law of Moses, a leper when cleansed must
"bathe himself in water;" so with one who touched a running issue of
the flesh; and with those who accidentally or otherwise touched a dead body.
There were washings for physical cleanliness and for legal and spiritual
cleanness. The latter was represented by the former, the spiritual by the
natural; as one who had become physically unclean was unfit to mingle in
society until he was bathed, washed or baptized; so one who had become
offensive to the law was unfit to enter the camp till his legal defilement was
washed away by bathing in water.
Israel had to be baptized as a means of consecration to the
Lord; and so did Aaron and his sons upon their consecration to the priesthood.
The "divers washings," therefore, were the means of a change from a
legal or moral uncleanness to a state of cleanness in the eyes of God's law.
All this arose from the fact that sin was in the world. A "dead body"
is always an evidence that sin is in the world, and therefore the reason of its
uncleanness and the legal defilement of any one who came in contact with it. In
this case the "bathings," "washings" or baptism was
associated with death, as a requirement arising from the fact of death. One
being bathed in water to cleanse himself from defilement incurred by touching a
corpse was one who was baptized for (because of) the dead--a death whose origin
was in the sin of our first parents. The entire Adamic body is a dead body in
the eyes of the law; and on this account every individual part of that body is
defiled by contact with death. In various ways God has always kept the
uncleanness of this death state before the eyes of his people and of those who
would become his people. Primarily therefore the "divers washings" or
baptisms, of the law had their origin in the law of sin and death in Eden. The
law of Moses reached one hand back to the sin and fall of Eden; and it
stretched the other hand down to Jesus on the cross. The "divers
washings" made necessary by sin and death as a means of legal cleansing
and of consecration to the Lord were preparatory to and typical of the baptism that
would come in the time of and as a means to "the reformation." Hence
the reason for its seemingly abrupt introduction by John and of the people
accepting it as a matter of course, though it assumed a somewhat different
form, and partaking more of a spiritual aspect additional to the hitherto legal
aspect under the law. What is salvation but a cleansing from the defilement of
sin. And, pray, where did sin and consequent defilement begin? One cannot for a
moment think about the means of cleansing God has provided, whether in the
word, the water or the blood, without mentally going back to the origin of the
world's evil and its consequent uncleanness in the sight of God. And when this
divinely philosophical view is taken, the mode of baptism will readily
be understood in the clear light of its design. Study its design, and
the fitness of its form or mode will be thereby discerned without wading
through the long philological disquisitions of those who have harped upon the
words bapto and baptizo in a multitude of words to no profit. The
reader's mind is already prepared for this. Let him ask, What is our trouble?
Answer, Sin has brought a sentence of death and return to dust upon us. What do
we need in view of this? We need resurrection. How has that been made possible?
By our Lord and Saviour dying the death required and going down into the grave
as the sentence demanded, and then with the "key" of a holy life
opening the door and triumphantly coming out. What can we do to participate in
the benefits of his triumph? Die with him, be buried with him, be raised with
him. But how can we do that? "Obey from the heart that form of doctrine"
(Rom. 6:17) analogous to his death, burial and resurrection, and you will
thereby be regarded by the law of the Spirit of life as having died with him,
been crucified with him, risen with him, and the uncleanness of sin will be
washed away and your consecration to the Lord and to a new legal, mental and
moral life will be complete pending a physical completeness at the coming of
Christ. This understood, the mode of baptism, if it were possible for it to
have more than one mode, and its necessity is settled and the words of the
apostle come with all their truthful, consistent and logical force, "Know
ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into
his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death;
that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even
so we also should walk in newness of life"--Rom. 6: 2-4. "And we are complete
in him, which is the head of all principality and power; in whom also ye
are circumcized 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, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and
the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having
forgiven you all trespasses"--Col. 2: 10-13. Who would ever dream of
baptism consisting of sprinkling water in one's face in view of this? Is there
any room left for a shadow of doubt as to the mode and meaning of baptism here?
Now these truths lead up to the baptism of Jesus. Why was he
baptized? Some are satisfied with the simple answer that it was because God
required it. This answer is correct, of course, and it is good enough so far as
it goes; but we must remember that God always has a good reason for his
requirements; and he invites us to "Come and let us reason together."
"He that hath an ear, let him hear." "Blessed is he that
heareth," etc. The reason why the offerings of Israel became offensive to
God was because of a lack of intelligent faith, and a failure to discern their
typical meaning. Slavish, or ignorant, obedience is not what God is well
pleased with when he has condescended to give the reasons why he requires
obedience. It is evident that Jesus understood his baptism in a deeper sense
than a mere act of obedience to an arbitrary command. He regarded it as a
"form of doctrine" which signified the "fulfilling of all
righteousness," whereby alone there would be deliverance from death and
the grave. And here we are face to face again with evidence of Christ's relation
to the law of sin and death. If he was part of the same flesh of the fallen
race, then, Mosaically speaking, he had touched a dead body and must needs be
cleansed by baptism in water.
But how would baptism "fulfill all righteousness?"
What is "all righteousness?" What is "God's righteousness,"
which some, "going about to establish their own righteousness,
forsook?" Is it not evident that the phrase stands for a system, like the
words "Truth," "Gospel," and "Faith?" The "righteousness
of God" represents God's plan upon which is predicated salvation. If the
"all righteousness," or "God's righteousness" had never
been fulfilled and really exemplified in actual life under trial and
temptation, His plan of salvation would have failed. Jesus was the one and the
only one who could exemplify "God's righteousness," or "all
righteousness." Now all that Jesus did is focused, as it were, in his
death, so that when we read of being saved by the death of Christ, all that
leads up to his death as an acceptable sacrifice is implied, involved in, and
represented by his death. In this sense, then, we may say that "God's
righteousness" and "all righteousness," or God's right ways of
saving men, was fulfilled in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ; and
thereby salvation became possible.
But if "all righteousness" was fulfilled thus, by
the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. how could Jesus apply the phrase
"all righteousness" to baptism, as he did when he said to John,
"Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfill all
righteousness?" The answer is that baptism is a "form of
doctrine" analogous to and symbolic of the death, burial and resurrection
of Christ; and it is a provisional death, burial and resurrection which reaches
forward to the real and permanent one and partakes for the time being of part
of its virtue or efficacy, sufficiently to justify one or put one so in unison
with God as to be regarded as clean in his sight to the extent of allowing a
oneness, legally, mentally and morally, pending the absolute cleansing which
will take place when the "vile body is changed and made like unto his
glorious body." Therefore, as soon as Jesus emerged from the water, the
voice of God declared, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well
pleased." And this was part of that work described by the Apostle Paul in
the words, "Great is the mystery of Godliness: God was manifest in the
flesh (Christ), justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto
the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory"--I. Tim.
3: 16.
Jesus having "fulfilled all righteousness,"
typified by the law, for instance, after the type of Aaron when he was bathed
as a means of preparing him for the priesthood--he was consecrated to the Lord
as a priest in behalf of his brethren. And since Aaron's sons had also to pass
through the water of consecration, we must do the same, in order that we may
have access to the throne of grace, to offer our "bodies living
sacrifices, holy (having been provisionally cleansed or spiritually washed) and
acceptable unto God, which is our religious service." Christ has become
our righteousness, by means of having "fulfilled all righteousness;"
but he is not ours, he is not a garment, a "tower," a
"name," a "tabernacle," a "temple," to us until
we have put him on as a garment, entered into him by doing our part in
"fulfilling all righteousness" after the example he has given us. Of
baptism therefore we may also say, "Thus it becometh us to fulfill all
righteousness," and if we do not perform all of our part we shall not be
consecrated to the Lord, we shall be "without Christ, aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel, strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope
and without God in the world"--Eph. 2:12. But if we have been baptized
into Christ's death, we are in Christ, and the words will apply to us:
"But now in Christ Jesus, ye who sometimes were far off are made
nigh by the blood of Christ"--verse 13. But the blood will not touch us
without the word and the water; for the three meet in testimony of our becoming
children of God. Hence we read, "There are three that bear witness, the
Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one,"
not separately. The Spirit (through the word) reveals to us the virtue of the
blood of Christ and it teaches us how we may receive of its virtue. It
therefore leads us into the water of consecration, where we come within the
scope of the cleansing blood and thus, "If any man be in Christ Jesus he
is a new creature." Noah and his family were saved by going into the ark. "The
like figure whereunto baptism doth also now save us"--I. Pet. 3:
21. The "figure" is, that out of the ark, no salvation; in the ark,
there is salvation, Christ is our ark. How can we enter? "Eight souls were
saved by water;" so by the waters of baptism we may enter the ark and thus
"baptism doth also now save us," not the washing away of the filth of
the flesh; but "the answering of a good conscience towards God." Let
us not, therefore, deceive ourselves. We cannot have a "good
conscience" without complying with the conditions God has given us. Let us
become quickened into a new life by a symbolic death, burial and resurrection;
and then it will be ours, if faithful to the end of our probationary life, to
be quickened in life eternal; "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 thenceforth we should not serve sin; for he who died
has been freed from sin"--Rom. 6: 6-7.
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
Those who have believed the gospel and been baptized
into Christ are God’s “workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works,
which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them”-Eph. 2: 10. Simeon
said that “God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name”-Acts 15:
14. And the apostate religions of the world, headed up in Rome, are
represented as Babylon and as intoxicated with false doctrine, when a voice
from heaven says, “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her
plagues”-Rev. 18: 4. They are no longer of the world, though they must for a
time be in it. They are “strangers scattered abroad,” saints, or separated
ones, and strangers and pilgrims in a crooked and perverse world. Light cannot
dwell with darkness; “ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of
demons,” nor have any “fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.” God’s
people are a “peculiar people,” and it is their duty to keep the house of God
free from the doctrinal and moral corruptions of the world. As a body, they are
an ecclesia-called-out-ones; and while it is their duty, individually and
collectively, to endeavor to spread the truth and bring their fellow men and
women into the one fold, they must not countenance doctrines and societies of
the world which are based upon that “mystery of iniquity” which “worked” till
it had caused the “falling away from the truth and giving heed unto fables.”
Some in Galatia had departed from the simplicity of the
true gospel, and Paul said he marveled that they would yield to those whose
doctrines were a perversion of the gospel of Christ. “O foolish Galatians,” he
said, “who hath bewitched you?”-Chap. 3: 1.
Having come to a knowledge of the true gospel, and become
part of the body of Christ, the duty of all such is concisely stated by the
Apostle Peter. He says: “And besides all this, giving all diligence, add to
your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to
temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly
kindness; and to brotherly kindness love”-II. Peter 1: 5-7. This will produce
wise, virtuous, temperate, patient, godly, brotherly, kind, loving people; and
of such the apostle says, “An entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly
into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”
Now for God’s people there is one special duty, or
rather privilege, laid down, and that is to remember their Lord’s death till he
come; and for this purpose Jesus gave a most impressive institution to be
observed, one that would “stir up pure minds by way of remembrance” of the
cross as the means by which God’s blessing of salvation has come to the fallen
race; and to carry the mind forward to the return of their departed Lord to
bestow upon his faithful people the actual blessings of salvation. What could
be more beautiful than an institution of this sort? This institution is that of
breaking bread and drinking wine upon every first day of the week.
This was instituted on the night of our Lord’s
betrayal. “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake
it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he
took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying. Drink ye all of it;
for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the
remission of sins. But I say unto you. I will not drink henceforth of this
fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in my Father’s
kingdom”-Matt. 26: 26-29. Who would not heartily do this in remembrance of him
who suffered so much and died for us? How ungrateful would such an one be!
Christ is as a bridegroom gone away for a time, and he has left his espoused a
keepsake, as it were, which represents the fact that he has died for her. In
view of this pathetic fact can she neglect this keepsake? Can she forget what
he has done for her, and that he will return to her again to take her to
himself as his own? Now the espoused of Christ is a company of people, and each
one has a part to perform in order that the church or ecclesia might be as a
faithful spouse. Hence the plain duty of every child of God is to remember the
Lord’s death and look forward to his coming by means of the institution of the
breaking of bread upon every first day of the week.
It would seem that Jesus was careful to have this
institution delivered to his people who would be taken out from among the
Gentiles as well as to those from the Jews, lest, perhaps, some may say that it
was a Jewish matter only. So Paul the apostle of the Gentiles, says, “For I
have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord
Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given
thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for
you; this do in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink
this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall
eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of
the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself; and so let him
eat of that bread, and drink of that cup”-I. Cor. 11: 23-28.
This institution bridges over the time from the
resurrection of Christ till he shall come again; and not only is the observance
of it a duty and privilege to be observed by the household of God; but it shows
that the salvation to be obtained through the death and resurrection of Christ
depends upon his return for its realization. How fitting it is, therefore, as a
means to help in a weekly special remembrance of the past and the future in
respect to the two most important events which concern the salvation of men.
It is therefore recorded that, “Then they that gladly
received his word were baptized; and the same day there were added unto them
about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’
doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking
of bread, and in prayers”-Acts 2: 41, 42. “And upon the first day of the
week, when the disciples came together to break bread. Paul preached unto
them”-Acts 20: 7. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion
of tile body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we
are all partakers of that one bread”-I. Cor. 10: 16, 17. It was at this
First-day weekly meeting that free-will offerings were made for the poor: and
so the Apostle Paul writes the Corinthians:
“Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to
the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let
every one of you lay by him in store, as God has prospered but, that there be
no gatherings when I come”-I. Cor. 16: 1, 2.
When one is baptized into Christ, he is “free from
sin,” in the sense that he is no longer a servant of sin; and since all his
sins are “washed away,” he is “clean through the word.” But only the Lord Jesus
was able to live a life of absolute holiness. It is by virtue of his having
become the “Captain of our salvation” by a life of absolute holiness that he
becomes to us, as it were, a garment of righteousness which fits us for
reconciliation and communion with God. So that he gives us a clean start on our
probation in him. Hence the Apostle Paul says, “There is therefore now no
condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus; for the law of the spirit of
life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death”-Rom. 8:
1, 2. If ever those who have been freed from condemnation, come under another
condemnation, they will have no one to blame but themselves. But the question
arises, how can weak mortals escape condemnation?
Answer, by not becoming sinful. There is a difference
between one who is sinful and one in whose life sin is the exception. Those who
are “born of God” do not “walk in sin;” but if they say they have no sin they
deceive themselves. See I John 1. God knows our weaknesses, and He is a
merciful God. Therefore he has given its His Son as our High Priest who “ever
liveth to make intercession for us.” Having “been touched with the feeling of
our infirmities,” he will have compassion upon all who strive to do the right,
but who through weakness or lack of knowledge may stumble.
On the other hand, those who fall away and never
repent and recover themselves, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for them;”
their end is destruction at the final judgment. Those of God’s people who will
do their best and look to God through Christ for mercy to be extended towards
their weaknesses, can cherish the sweet thought that God “will never leave them
nor forsake them,” through His Apostle John; therefore, He affectionately
appeals to us, “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin
not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the
righteous”-I. John 2: 1. Then in chap.1:9 he says, “If we confess our sins, he
is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness.” God has therefore met every need of poor fallen man, and
given us a plan of salvation that is infinitely complete. Why then will men
die?-why will they perish with the divine hand of love within their reach ready
to rescue them if they will but grasp it amid hold fast to the end? Compared
with every wicked way that leads to death, the “yoke is easy and the burden is
light;” for the happiest life to live, if it were only for this life, is that
of which Jesus has set us an example. It is a happy life because it yields a
conscience void of offense-a real inward satisfaction which is not to be
compared with the effervescent pleasures of this fleeting world. But when we
consider that beyond the happiness which a righteous life enjoys here, it
yields a glorious and everlasting hereafter, what folly it is to neglect it.
And now, in conclusion, dear reader, my prayer is
that the humble effort put forth in this book may be helpful in bringing many
into the path of life whom we may meet in the presence of our Lord, returned to
earth again, to receive his smiles and approbation, which shall fill our hearts
with eternal joy and thrill us with the ecstasies of that life which shall know
no sickness, sorrow, pain or death.
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents
Now, dear reader, it is very probable that you, like the
writer, have been trained up from infancy in the popular belief; and, after
reading what we have written and the many Scripture proofs given, you will
probably say to yourself, "Well, this appears clear enough and it seems to
be well sustained by testimony from the Scriptures, but there are some passages
that occur to me that seem to teach the opposite view. What is to be done with
these?" Now come let us reason together a little further.
You cannot help but see from the numerous texts we have
given that the general tenor of the Scriptures is set forth in what we have
placed before you. This being the case, if there are a few texts that seem to
you to contradict the evident teaching of the many texts given, what would be a
wise course for you to pursue? Of course you are not prepared to believe that
the Bible contradicts itself. If it has the appearance of doing so, you may
depend upon it the reason is to be found in taking a wrong view of the few
passages that seem to oppose the many. In solving the difficulty it would be
very unwise to ignore the general tenor of Scripture teaching and risk your
eternal destiny upon a superficial view of a few texts. I have heard some
foolishly say, "Well, I cannot decide this question; but the old belief
was good enough for my forefathers, and what was good enough for them is good
enough for me." The folly of this you will easily see; if we go back
farther in the line of our "forefathers" we shall not go very far
till we find them all in a wild, barbarous state; and surely no sane person
will seriously say, "What was good enough for them is good enough for
me." Beside, the prophet, in speaking of the latter days, says that
"in the days of affliction the Gentiles shall come from the ends of the
earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity,
and things wherein there is no profit"--Jer. 16: 19.
Now just pause and think and ask yourself the question, How
many passages are there that seem to oppose the multitude of testimonies quoted
in this book? to which, remember, many more might be added. You will find that
they can all be counted on your fingers. Here they are: Elijah restoring the
soul of the child; "Her soul was in departing;" the "spirit
shall return to God who gave it;" "cannot kill the soul;"
"souls under the altar;" the rich man and Lazarus; the thief on the
cross; Paul's desire to depart; Stephen's prayer.
Now when you come to read these just as they are you will be
surprised to find how far they are from teaching the popular notions of
"immortal soul" and "heaven-going at death." But even if
they were as strongly in favor of these notions as some think them to be it
would not do to risk our eternal destiny upon these nine cases in an utter
disregard of the general tenor of the Bible.
Let us therefore examine the few texts that are supposed to
teach opposite views from those we have set forth.
I. Kings 17: 21--And he stretched himself upon the child
three times, and cried unto the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, I pray thee, let
this child's soul come into him again.
You will see from what we have said on pages 256-277 that
the word nephesh, which is in this text rendered soul, is frequently
used for life. The word is translated life in the following places: Gen. 9: 4,
Lev. 17: 11, Deut. 12: 23, where you will see it cannot have any other meaning.
The Greek word psuche, which means the same as nephesh in the
Hebrew, occurs in Matt. 2: 20, where it is said, "They are dead which
sought the young child's life to destroy it." The word life is from
psuche also in Matt. 6: 25--"Take no thought for your life."
In these cases, as in all others, the context shows how absurd it is to attach
the meaning of "immortal soul" to the words. Just imagine the Saviour
saying, "Take no thought for your immortal soul," and you will at
once see that believers in the popular notions have not thought out the
subject. Soul in these texts clearly means life.
Now let us return to Elijah and the child with this
Scripture information on the use of the word soul, and by comparing Scripture
with Scripture a proper conclusion--the only possible conclusion the premises
admit of--will be easily reached. What was the trouble with this child? It was
dead. What had caused it to become dead? The loss of its life. How might
it be made alive again? By restoring its life to it. Was this what Elijah did?
Yes; for he prayed that the child's soul (life) might "come into him
again," and "the soul of the child came into him again, and
he"--the child--"revived." Now remember that it was not the
child that had departed; neither was it the child that returned. The child was
there all the time, but its life had gone out, and in answer to the prophet's
prayer the child's life was restored. So here we have a child that was once
alive, then dead, then alive again.
Now another thought. Did the prophet do a good thing or a
bad thing in restoring life to this child? Popular tradition strangely claims
that when a child dies it does not die, but leaves its body and is sure to go
directly to a place of bliss. According to this it is a fortunate thing for a
child to die and a very unfortunate thing to compel it to come back to life
again. If this child had, by death, escaped the mortal coil at a time when it
was sure of eternal bliss, how can we regard the prophet as doing a good thing
in calling back the child from its blissful home and compelling it to reinhabit
its "mortal coil," in which it might grow up to years of
accountability and thus place in jeopardy the possibility of ever getting back
to those realms of joy it had only had a taste of? You must see, dear reader,
there is no soundness in this theory. The case simply stands thus, as expressed
in the Septuagint rendering of the verse: "And when he had breathed on the
child three times * * * he said, Let this child's life be restored to
him."
Gen. 35: 18 is sometimes quoted for the same purpose as the
text we have just considered; but what we have said applies also to this text.
You have only to remember that it is said, "for she died."
Some, however, will ask the question, Where does the life go
when it departs? as if it must be a conscious entity after it has gone. To see
that because it speaks of the life departing it does not follow that it is an
entity, you have only to ask, Where did our life come from when it entered our
being? Was it an entity before it entered? If not, then why should it be an
entity after it has gone out into life's great ocean whence it came? Life is a
condition of being; when that condition is destroyed we say the life is gone.
The light of a candle is a condition. Blow out the light and you destroy the
condition; and when you say the light is gone out you do not suppose that it
exists as a light separate and independent of the candle. So in the use of such
terms as "my sight is gone," "my hearing is gone."
It may be well for me to illustrate here how the meaning of
the word soul in the Bible can be determined by the context. We find it says:
"And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to
battle, one soul of five hundred, of the persons and of the beeves, and
of the asses, and of the sheep" (Numb. 31: 28). Here the reader is bound
to see that the word means creature or being, both man and beast. In Job 12: 10
it says: "In whose hand is the soul of every living thing and the
breath of all mankind." In this case it must be seen that soul
applies to the life of the beasts; so that in one instance it stands for
the animal itself and in the other for the life of the animal, it being
impossible to misunderstand its application; and no one thinks of attaching the
meaning of immortal entity to the word. Now carry the same reason to cases
where the word stands sometimes for the man and at other times for the life of
the man and the texts are clear to a mind willing to be reasonable and
scriptural that immortal entity is out of the question. It is said that Zilpah
bare unto Jacob sixteen souls (Gen. 46: 18); and here "souls" stands
for the persons, while in Ex. 4: 19, where it says, "All the men are dead which
sought thy life" (nephesh, soul) it is clear that it means
life, and the translators so rendered it, as they did also the Greek word psuche
in Matt. 2: 20, where it says, "They are dead which sought the young
child's life." If the translators had given soul here, as they
have in many places, the reader would have seen by the very nature of the case
that the word stood for life.
In Matt 16: 26 we have a striking case where the translators
have shown their bias in favor of this theory, and yet it only exposes the
fallacy of it: "What is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world
and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"
Many quote this in support of the great value of the soul in view of its
supposed immortality. A little thought, however, will show that such a theory
was far removed from the Saviour's mind, and make clear that the word psuche
here rendered soul means life. The context in this case enables us to easily
see this; for the fact is that in verse 25 the same word as is rendered soul
in verse 26 is rendered life. The way those who contend for the popular
theory would like to read the 26th verse is this: "For what shall a man
profit if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own immortal soul? or what
shall a man give in exchange for his immortal soul?" To suit this
contention they have to add the word "immortal." Now since the
Saviour used the very same word in verse 25 that He did in verse 26, and since
the theorist is determined to have "immortal soul" in verse 26 we have
only to read it the same way in both verses to see the fallacy of the popular
view. This is how it would read: "For whosoever will save his immortal
soul shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his immortal soul for my sake
shall find it."
This at once condemns the popular meaning of soul and shows
that the Saviour uses it here for life.
It happens that the famous commentator, Dr. Adam Clarke,
bears testimony to the truth upon this portion of Scripture. He says: "On
what authority many have translated the word psuche in the 25th verse life,
and in this verse (26th) soul I know not; but I am certain it means life
in both cases."
In the Revised Version, too, life is used in both
verses.
Of all the texts in which the word soul occurs, Matt. 10: 28
is the one most confidently relied upon in support of the immortality of the
soul. It is thought that this text fully refutes the idea of the soul being
destructible and sustains the theory of its never dying and indestructible
nature. The phrase "cannot kill the soul" is seized and loaded down,
as it were, with the claim that it is not only out of the power of man to kill
the soul, but that it is, by reason of its nature, absolutely indestructible
and must live for ever. Now, dear reader, you have only to take heed to one
word in this verse to see that the soul here is not the supposed immortal,
indestructible soul of popular belief. That word is destroy. "Fear
him that is able to destroy both body and soul in hell" (Gehenna).
Please notice that the one word destroy is used to describe what God
will do with the body in Gehenna and what He will do with the soul
in the same place. Gehenna was known by the Jews to be a place of
destruction--destruction of life and destruction of carcasses or bodies after
they had been deprived of life. When the great day of God's judgments and wrath
comes Gehenna will again be a valley of slaughter, where God will
destroy His enemies and those who are unworthy. The life that will be given to
those who are raised from the dead to appear before Christ as the Judge of the
quick and the dead will not be in the power of men to take. The life of the
condemned will be in the hands of the judicial power of God, who will
administer "few or many stripes" according to deserts, and at the
last destroy totally and eternally every vestige of the life of the unworthy
and every particle of the body in Gehenna, when the words of the
Psalmist will be fulfilled, "The wicked shall not be; yea thou shalt
diligently consider his place and it shall not be"--Psa. 37: 10.
Different views are taken of the sense in which soul is used
in this verse; but even if the real sense in which our Saviour used it is never
known, we can be sure that a soul that is as destructible as the body, as this
is, is not the "immortal soul" of the Platonic theory.
We think a careful observance of the context in this case,
with an understanding of the meaning of the two words in the verse in
question--"kill" and "destroy"--will disclose the true
meaning of our Saviour's encouragement to His disciples. He had been
foretelling them of the persecutions His true followers would suffer at the
hands of enemies. They would be as "sheep in the midst of wolves; they
would be delivered up to the councils and be scourged." "The brother,"
he says, "shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child;
and the children shall rise up against their parents and cause them to be put
to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake; but he that
endureth to the end shall be saved" (verses 18-22). Read also verses
23-27. From this it will be seen that our Lord was preparing His disciples for
the ordeal they were to pass through, so that in the persecution and torment
they would endure they might keep their minds stedfastly fixed upon God and the
hope set before them. In other words, that though they would be subjected to
great bodily pain and suffering, they must maintain that composure of mind that
can be sustained only by a strong and unswerving faith.
Now with these thoughts let us examine the two words
"kill" and "destroy." The word "kill" is from the
Greek word apokteino, which Donnegan's Lexicon defines to kill, torture,
torment, render miserable or wretched, to destroy, condemn to death. The word
"destroy" in the verse is from apollumi, and this word is
defined by the same author to mean to destroy totally, to be lost, to perish;
and by some authors the word annihilated is added as a meaning. The word destroy
is therefore from a word which is much stronger than that from which the word kill
comes.
Again let me remind you that the word psuche,
rendered soul in this verse, is sometimes rendered mind. For example:
Acts 14: 2; Phil. 1: 27; Heb. 12: 3. And now, with these facts in mind, we hear
the Saviour saying: Fear not them which torture, torment, render miserable the
body (as the persecutors did by thumbscrews, etc.), but are not able to
torture, torment, render miserable, the psuche, mind. For the mind would
be fixed upon the hope of the gospel, even when the body was being tortured by
the many wicked devices the tormentors of the Christians invented. The case of
Polycarp is an illustration of this, when he assured his persecutors they need
not tie him to the stake, for he could stand there to be burned and yet maintain
that composure of mind that a faith such as his only could exemplify. It was a mind
such as this, burning with confidence, hope and joy in the promises of God,
whose fiery zeal could not be quenched by all the bodily torture they might
inflict. Therefore fear not them who will torture the body but cannot torture
or harass the mind. Fear not men in the sufferings you will be called upon to
receive at their hands. Be faithful, be calm and steadfast. Then He tells them
whom they should fear. "Fear him who is able to destroy"--here
is the stronger word, meaning to destroy totally, to be lost, to perish, to
be annihilated. Fear Him who is able to thus destroy both body and mind--the
entire being--in Gehenna.
This view of the matter brings out in full the encouragement
and the warning of our Saviour's words to those whom He knew stood in need of
much fortitude to withstand the terrible sufferings they were to pass through.
Rev. 6: 9, l0 are the only texts that remain to be examined
as a stronghold of the popular theory of the immortality of the soul--that is,
of those texts in which the word soul is found; others we shall examine under
their proper headings. Superficial, indeed, must be the mind that cannot see
that, instead of this portion of Scripture favoring the immortality and
immateriality of the soul, it is directly opposed to such a theory. One would
think that the fact of these souls being under an altar, and of them having
blood would be sufficient to show that they are not immortal or immaterial.
Suppose the words are taken in the most literal sense, we should, standing
beside the Apostle John, see a heathen priest place a person on an altar, slay
the person or soul, who in the struggles with death falls from the altar and under
it cries out, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and
avenge our blood (which we see running from the wounded soul) on them that
dwell on the earth?" What! Slay a soul! cries out the astonished
immaterialist. How can you slay that which is immaterial? If it has no size,
weight or dimension; if it cannot be seen or felt, how can it be put on an
altar and slain and how can it be said to have blood? We grant the force of the
questions; but they are all based upon "if the soul is immortal or
immaterial;" and if that were true the texts would be inexplicable. But
that is just where the evil is--in reading the verse with the preconceived
dogma in the mind, and therefore allowing a distorted imagination to take the
place of reason and Scripture. The apostle was not speaking of immortal,
immaterial, bloodless souls. Such souls were only found in the myths of those
who slew upon the altar souls that were real and substantial. Why be astonished
at the idea of souls being slain, when it is said that "Joshua took
Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he
utterly destroyed, them and all the souls that were therein" (Josh.
10: 28, 39)? Why should it be thought incredible that souls have blood, when the
prophet Jeremiah says: "In thy skirts is found the blood of the souls
of the poor innocents" (chapter 2: 34)? To a mind in harmony with and
familiarized with the Word of God the texts in question present no difficulty
whatever in the way of the materiality, and mortality of the soul. Neither is
there anything in the fact of their crying out to prove that they were
disembodied entities. We would ask the immaterialist, Have the souls of your
theory blood? Can they be slain upon an altar? and the answer is, No. Then you
have nothing to do with Rev. 6: 9, 10--in fact you have nothing to do with the
souls of the Scriptures. Your sphere is in the realms of pagan and Roman myths,
whose heavens are filled with imaginary dead men's ghosts.
Now as to the real meaning of the verses in question, we
have to take our stand along with the Apostle John before we can discern it. We
must remember that the things John is seeing are "signified"
to him--that is, they are shown by signs. In this way he is shown things before
they actually come to pass. "I will show thee things which must be
hereafter," says the Spirit to John (chapter 4: 1). In this way he saw the
resurrection of the dead, and heard the redeemed sing the song of Moses and the
Lamb after they had been raised; and he saw them live and reign on the
earth with Christ for one thousand years (chapters 5: 7-12; 20: 4). So in the
verses in question he is relating the signs of what was to take place under the
fifth seal, when the Roman persecution and martyrdom of the saints filled to
overflowing the pit, as it were, under the altar with the blood of the
innocents and faithful. John himself knew from experience that the cruel hand
of persecution and death would be imbrued in the blood of his brethren, and his
anxiety was to know the outcome. He first sees the scroll sealed with seven
seals; and when he hears that no man is worthy to open the book, he says:
"I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the
book" (chapter 5: 1-4). Now the actual breaking of the seals and unrolling
of the scroll are to be seen in the actual events that have transpired and will
yet transpire in the work from John's time down to the fulfillment of the
promise, "Behold, I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give to
every man according as his work shall be" (chapter 22: 12). John, hoping
to be one of those to be rewarded, and knowing that the reward could not be
received till the coming of the Lord, it is no wonder he was so anxious to know
the course of events during the interval. His anxiety is soon ended by the
information that the "Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, had
prevailed to open the book and to loose the seals thereof" (chapter 5: 5).
Thus by signs he is shown what would take place--not in heaven, God's holy
habitation, but in the earth and the political heavens thereof. To signify what
would be the treatment his brethren would receive at the hands of Roman
persecution, of whose cruelty he was himself a victim, the Spirit causes a
panoramic view to pass before his vision, showing him that faithful souls would
be slain upon the altars of Romish superstition, whose blood would cry to
heaven for just vengeance upon the enemies of God, His truth and His people. To
show John that there would be a grand sequel to the dreadful drama that was
being performed before his eyes, as the canvas, as it were, passes, a vision
appears of those souls being given white robes, indicative of the glorious
reward of immortality, to be bestowed upon them by Him who declared,
"Behold I come quickly and my reward is with me, to give every man (or
every soul) as his work shall be."
The only shadow at which the believer in the immortality of
the soul can snatch in this case is, that the souls are represented as crying
out. "Can dead souls speak?", they triumphantly ask. To which it
would be excusable to retort, "Can blood speak" (Gen. 4: 10; Heb. 12:
24)? Can the earth sing? Can fir trees and cedar trees rejoice (Isa. 14: 7, 8)?
The common sense that can see in a parable or a symbol how blood can speak, the
earth sing, trees rejoice and clap their hands, will have no difficulty in
understanding how souls, though dead, can be represented as crying out for to
be justly avenged of the cruelty of which they have been the victims.
There are some, however, who are possessed of common sense
in common things, but who seem to be destitute of it when their cherished myths
are in question. So long as men allow themselves to be intoxicated with the
spirits of pagan and Roman beverages they can see nothing in this Scripture
except disembodied souls in a conscious state--alive and conscious because they
are represented as speaking. But when the attention is called to the fact that
John saw the "dead, small and great, stand before God" at the judgment
day; and that he heard them sing the song of Moses and the Lamb (Rev. 20: 12;
5: 9), they are able to see that men can be represented as having real bodily
existence and as singing while they are dead--some of them, too, before they
are born; for in the view that John had of the resurrection there must have
been a representation of all that would die up to the time when the
resurrection takes place.
Those who so stubbornly resist the Truth and so tenaciously
cling to hoary superstition may be asked, Where is this altar under which these
souls are seen? If you say heaven, then we ask, Is there an altar in heaven
upon which souls are slain and under which they cry for vengeance? Perhaps, if
reason and Scripture will not persuade you of the folly of such a foolish
thing, the prestige of a famous "orthodox" commentator might have
some weight. Dr. Adam Clarke, in commenting upon this text, says: "A
symbolical vision was exhibited in which he saw an altar, and under it the
souls of those who had been slain for the Word of God, martyred for their
attachment to Christianity, are represented as being newly slain as victims to
idolatry and superstition. The altar is upon earth, not in heaven."
The words of Eccles. 12: 7 are relied upon to sustain the
belief in the flight of the spirit to heaven at death, where it is supposed to
enter upon its eternal inheritance; although it seems always to be forgotten
that "we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that everyone
may receive the things done in body, according to that he hath done, whether
good or bad" (II. Cor. 5: 10). What such a judgment could be for if men go
to their rewards and punishments at death is inconceivable to a rational mind.
Now the first thing we would call the reader's attention to
in the verse in question is the fact that Solomon makes no difference between
good and bad men, but speaks without qualification of the spirit returning at
death to God who gave it. Whatever the spirit here spoken of is, all will agree
that all men good and bad, are in possession of it, and that at death the same
spirit forsakes the good and the bad alike; and since it is said it returns
to God who gave it, it follows that it came from God.
The fact that the spirit here spoken of is given to all men
alike and that at death it returns to God whence it came, clearly shows that it
is not the man himself, good or bad; for no believer in the popular theory will
admit that the supposed spirit entity of bad men goes to God at death. For this
text to be made to suit the theory of disembodied conscious existence and
heaven-going at death it must be changed considerably. Solomon must be reminded
that he made quite a mistake in not guarding his words so as to say that at
death the spirit of the good man only goes to God, while that of the bad man
goes in an opposite direction --not to God, but to the devil.
You, dear reader, will not be willing to allow that Solomon
made a mistake. You will rather be disposed to conclude that the popular theory
is so much out of harmony with inspiration that Scripture words must undergo
much changing in order to make them appear to suit the dogmas of theological
schools.
Please take notice, that the spirit here spoken of returns
to God who gave it. God gave it. It is an "it" that God
gave to something or some being. It is that which was given to the being, and
it is not the being to whom it was given. It is therefore not the man but
something that was given to the man, which at death leaves the man to whom it
was given and returns to Him who gave it.
Now let me ask you, dear reader, to read again what we have
said and the texts we have given on the question of the spirit on pages
277-283. You will then see that the word spirit is frequently used for
life--both with reference to man and beasts. The word spirit in the verse in
question is from the Hebrew word ruach. Solomon used this same word in
this same book in chapter 3: 19; but our translators gave us "breath"
there and "spirit" here. There it is said of man and beasts,
"Yea they have all one breath" (ruach). Now what did
God give to man when He made him alive? The answer is given in Gen. 2: 7: He
"breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." What takes
place when a man dies? "His breath goes forth; he returneth to his
earth; and in that very day his thoughts perish"-- Psa. 146: 4. When we
breathe we inhale the air that surrounds us, which God has, in his mysterious
ways, impregnated with the principle of life. When by disease or accident we
are prevented from breathing, our breath goes out, life goes out and we are
left as lifeless as Adam was before God breathed the breath of life into his
nostrils. God is the only source of life--the life of all living creatures.
Life came from Him. When death takes place it returns to Him. The life that God
gave to Adam was not an immortal entity. Surely it was not a conscious entity
that God breathed into Adam's nostrils. Neither is it a conscious entity when
it returns to God who gave it.
Moreover, the spirit or life of all men and all animals
comes from God; but man came out of the dust. "The Lord God formed man
of the dust of the ground" (Gen. 2: 7). "The first man is
(out) of the earth, earthy" (I. Cor. 15: 47). The man came out of the dust;
his life, or spirit of life or breath of life came from God. When death takes
place there is a returning of things. The man that came out of the
ground returns to the ground, and the life that was given to make him a
living man returns to God who gave it. To make a living man, formation and
impartation of life took place. For that same man to die is for the life to be
withdrawn and for the man to be left for dissolution.
This is what our text says of death: "The dust returns
to the earth as it was, and the spirit (life) returns to God who
gave it." And what is true in this respect of man is true of the beasts;
for Solomon says of both: "As the one dieth so dieth the other; * * * all
are of the dust and all turn to dust again" (chapter 3: 19, 20). Men that
are no better than the beasts "are like the beasts that perish; like sheep
they are laid in the grave" (Psa. 49: 12, 13, 20). But the man that
ascends above the beasts in the intellectual and moral scale and becomes
responsible to God will come forth to life again--a re-surrection (anastasis--standing
again) will take place to "receive the things in body according to that he
hath done, whether good or bad" (II. Cor. 5: 10).
What we have said in the foregoing will fully prepare the reader's
mind to understand the words of Stephen as regarded in Acts 7: 59. Under this
heading therefore little need be said.
Suppose we read this verse as theorists would have it; it
would be: "Lord Jesus, receive my immortal entity." This would not
suit the theory, for it would not prove that Stephen continued to live after he
was dead, since the next verse says: "He (Stephen) fell asleep."
Reading the verse just as it is, with the mind freed from a false tradition, it
is very easy to understand. When Stephen's spirit had left him he was a dead
man; but he is in the resurrection to be made a living man again. To make him a
living man his spirit will be returned to him. Left without the spirit he is a
dead man; because "the body without the spirit (breath, see margin) is
dead" (Jas. 2: 26). In the possession of the spirit he will be a living
man again.
Now, to state the same facts in other words, when Stephen's life
returned to God who gave it he died. When the time arrives to raise him
from the dead to live again his life will be returned to him. Stephen,
therefore, in the hour of death, with the hope of living again,
commended his life into the hands of him who is the resurrection and the
life, and who said, "He that believeth in me, though he were dead,
yet shall he live."
From God the spirits of all flesh came (Numb. 16: 22; Job
34: 14), and in death to God they all return; for it is in Him all creatures
"live and move and have their being." Spirit, therefore, in the text
under consideration stands for life, without which thought the words cannot be
properly understood.
The same is true also of our Saviour's dying words,
"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (Luke 23: 46). Having
uttered these words it is said, "He gave up the ghost." To give up
the ghost is defined by lexicographers as to "breathe out," to
"gasp out," or "to expire." When Jesus had given up His
spirit or life He was dead, having "poured out his soul unto death."
But God raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 3: 15), and therefore returned to Him
His spirit or life.
With the understanding that the word spirit in the Bible
represents influence, disposition, mind, state of feeling, air, breath and
life, its meaning in any particular text can readily be seen by keeping in view
the context; and in those we have been considering it is clear that life is
meant.
Phil. 1: 21-23--"For me to live is Christ, and to die
is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labor; yet what I
shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to
depart and to be with Christ, which is far better."
With the sense in which the word "depart" is used
by those who view death as a release of the person from the body, this verse,
as it appears in the Authorized Version, seems to support the theory of
heaven-going at death. Since there is so much dependence put upon the word
"depart," let us, dear reader, consider its use in connection with
other words related to it. I need not tell you that no language has a separate
word for each thought. Thoughts are so numerous and of such various shades and
degrees that it is impossible to have a separate word for each thought, shade
or degree of thought. One illustration will suffice to impress this fact upon
our minds. Take the word raise. You sometimes say, Raise that chair,
raise that stove, raise the carpet. The act represented by the word raise in
these cases would be capable of instant literal performance and would not be
misunderstood. Now suppose you were to say to a person, You shall go on my farm
and raise a crop this year, would not the word convey quite a different
thought? So with the phrases, "raise a garden," "raise a
family," "raise stock," etc.
In the first use of the word you have the chair right before
your eyes before it is raised the same as it is after it is raised; but not so
with a crop, a family, etc. In these cases the raising involves bringing them
into existence.
Now suppose you say, That comfortable chair I used to have
is gone--some one stole it. In this case the word "gone"
represents the fact that the chair has been taken from one place to another and
it may still exist as a chair. But suppose when your crop is ripe a cyclone or
a fire destroys it, and you say, O dear, my fine crop is all gone! would
not the thought here be quite different? If you were asked of the chair, Gone
where? you might be able to say gone to such a place; but if asked the same
question in relation to the crop you could only answer, Gone to destruction, or
ceased to be.
Now we speak of ourselves as having come into this world!
but we do not thereby mean that we existed in some other world and literally
and bodily came into this. If we were asked the question, Where were you before
you came into this world, we could only answer, Nowhere. The meaning of the
phrase "came into this world" is that we were begotten, formed and
born--a process that took place in this world; but we as conscious
beings are the result, and of this we say, We came into this world. Now suppose
we reverse this and contemplate death, in which we lose our life, dissolve or
waste away and thus cease to be, is there not a return to non-being? and in
such a case, since we say we came into this life, may we not say that in death
or dissolution we go out of this world or out of life, and still not
mean that we exist after we have gone, any more than we mean that we
existed before we came.
Now instead of the word gone we may use the word
departed; to go out of life might be expressed by the words depart out of life.
This thought is expressed in the words of Job, when he says, "Naked came I
out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither." The
original "womb" of the race of Adam is the dust, and this is the womb
to which we return in death, which fact is expressed in the words, "Out of
it (the dust) wast thou taken and unto dust shalt thou return." Before we
came out of the dust we had no personal existence in the dust, and when we have
returned to the dust we shall have no personal existence; the one is our coming,
the other is our going. Thus we come and thus we depart.
Literally speaking the coming of Adam into the world was his formation
and animation, causing him to become a being; and his going out was the dissolution
of his being. He thus came and departed, and many of his descendants came and
have departed for ever. "They are dead, they shall not live; they are
deceased and they shall not rise, therefore hast thou visited and destroyed
them and made all their memory to perish"--Isa. 26: 14. On the other hand,
some of Adam's descendants who have departed will return; for the
same prophet exclaims: "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead
body shall they arise; * * * the earth shall cast out the dead"--verse 19.
When Abraham was "gathered to his fathers" he departed out of life
into death; but he will return to life again when resurrection takes place. So
we may say to depart from life is to go into death, and to depart from death is
to return to life.
With this in view we can understand the words of Paul when
he says, "For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure
is at hand"--II. Tim. 4: 6. When the apostle would be a subject of this
"departure" dissolution would take place, and, indeed, dissolution is
the word used in the Diaglott instead of departure. That Paul did not use the
word here in the sense it is used by those who believe in departing from earth
to heaven at death is clear, from the fact that he says in the same connection,
"Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which
the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day" (not this
day, the day of my death); "and not to me only, but unto all them also
that love his appearing"--II. Tim. 4: 8. You will see, dear reader,
that Paul expected no reward before the appearing of Christ as the righteous
Judge, of which he had made mention in the first verse in the words, "I
charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge
the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom." At this
appearing the Lord would find some dead--not "quick" or alive, and
others he would find "quick" or alive. When Paul would take his
departure (verse 6) he would pass from the "quick" to the "dead,"
knowing which he said his desire was to be "found in him (Christ), * * *
that I might know him, and the power of his resurrection, * * * if by
any means I might attain unto the resurrection from among the dead"--Phil.
3: 10, 11.
Now let us return to Phil. 1: 23. Supposing that the word
"depart" here is a proper rendering; if Paul means the same here that
he does by the word "departure" in II. Tim. 4: 6, it would only
express his desire to depart from life (with its extreme suffering he was then
experiencing) and go into death, to await his desired resurrection from among
the dead, in which he expresses his hope in this same letter (chapter 3: 10,
11). That Paul's hope was not in death, but in the coming of Christ, you will
clearly see from these testimonies; the first of which is in this very letter.
Phil. 3: 20, 21--"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"
etc.
Col. 3: 3, 4--"Ye are dead, and 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."
To these testimonies many more might be added; but as we
have shown from II. Tim. 4 that when Paul was about to die the coming of the
righteous Judge to give him his crown of righteousness was his only hope,
through resurrection, this is sufficient.
But perhaps the reader will ask, Why did Paul say he desired
to depart and be with Christ? It would seem that the being with Christ
would immediately follow his departure, it will be urged. In what we have said
so far we are admitting that "depart" is the proper word in this
text; but this admission is only for the sake of showing that even making such
allowance the words do not sustain the theory that Paul expected to go to
heaven when he died. When Paul said he desired to depart, that was one thing;
and that he desired to be with Christ, that was another thing; for, as we have
seen, many have departed never to return, being dead, never to live, and
deceased, never to rise. Though the two things are spoken of together, it does
not follow that the one immediately follows the other. This same apostle says:
"It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment;"
but he shows elsewhere that the judgment in some cases is hundreds of years
after the death. When we depart from life and pass into death our
"thoughts perish" (Psa. 146: 4), and "the dead know not
anything" (Eccles. 9: 5). Knowing not anything thousands of years is to
them but the flash of a moment. So far as their experience goes they close
their eyes in death and the same moment open them in life, though as an actual
fact thousands of years pass between the death and the life. Had Paul meant,
then, a desire to die and to be with Christ, the two events would be to his
consciousness facts of a moment, while in reality they are facts separated by
hundreds of years.
From Paul's general teaching we may therefore paraphrase his
words in the text in question thus: I have a desire to depart out of this life
into death; for such would be gain to me, since I am a prisoner in bonds and
continually suffering almost beyond endurance. My desire is, too, to be with
Christ when He shall appear as "the resurrection and the life" and
cause me with others who shall then have departed out of life into death
to return out of death into life.
While what we have here said explains the meaning of depart
as applied to death, and leaves no room for the popular theory of heaven-going
in the verses in question, we do not believe that depart is the proper
word here, and we will give our reasons; for without a good reason our opinion
would be worthless.
Now, dear reader, let us go to the verse and see whether
this word "depart" is the proper word here. The Greek word of which
this purports to be a translation is only found in one other place in the New
Testament, and by comparing the two places we shall be able to decide its
meaning. The word is analusia, and the other place where it is found is
in Luke 12: 36--"And (be) ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their
lord, when he shall return from the wedding, that when he cometh and
knocketh, they may open unto him immediately." Here our translators have
given us the word return for the word analusia, while in the text
under consideration they have given us depart.
Let it not be forgotten that the translators of the
Authorized Version were believers in the popular theory, and in many instances
they have shown a strong bias in their translations, so much so that even men
of their own school have been compelled to condemn their work in many cases.
Now in Luke 12: 36 it was impossible for them to use the word depart,
for the context would in no way allow of it. The word return is the most
important word in the text. Substitute the word depart and you make the
Saviour's command ridiculous. Look, dear reader, at the situation. The lord of
the servants has gone from home to marry and return with the bride of his choice.
What could possibly escape the eye of his lordship when approaching and
entering his home in company for the first time with her whom he delighted to
honor and please? This return of the lord is the most extraordinary return, and
what servant would be lax in preparing for such an event as this? Now what is
the point of the Saviour's words? Was it not that, since He was to "call
his servants together" and as "the nobleman" take leave of them
and go "into the far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return."
He wished them to obey His command, "Occupy till I come" (Luke 19)?
Was it not that, since He, their lord, would return and call His servants to
account, He wished them to prepare for His return as faithfully and as
anxiously as servants would prepare for the return of their lord from the
wedding in company with his bride? Are not the two most important thoughts of
the command expressed in the words "return" and "be ye
like"? which mean, "Be ye ready; for in such an hour as ye think
not the Son of man cometh." "Return" (analusia),
then, can mean nothing else here but return--the return of Christ, which, as we
have seen, was Paul's inspiring hope.
Now it would be strange, indeed, if the word analusia
had two opposite meanings--one depart and the other return; and
is it not much more in harmony with Paul's general teaching to view him in the
text in question as desiring the return of Christ rather than death?
Let us examine the apostle's words carefully and see if this
is not his meaning. Mark you, dear reader, there are two things between
which he is "in a strait," and of which he says, "what I
shall choose I wot not." Whatever these two things are they cannot
be the thing he says he desired; for he is in no strait about the
desired thing which he says "is far better." There are
therefore three things in contemplation. First, to live and continue to
preach Christ, second, to die and thus be freed from his sufferings; and third,
the thing, whatever it was, that he desired. So far as a comparison
between the first and second was concerned it would be gain to him to die and
be relieved of his bonds and affliction; "nevertheless to abide in the
flesh was more needful for them." But about the third thing he was in no
strait; it was "far better" than anything else and it was his "desire."
What was it? It was the return of Christ, when Paul hoped to be with
him; yes, with Him in the highest sense of the term. To admit of this
meaning, however, we must give analusia the same rendering here it has
in Luke, and this is what is done in the Emphatic Diaglott, which translation
is as follows:
Phil. 1: 19-24--"And I know that this will result in my
deliverance, through your entreaty, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus
Christ, according to my earnest expectation and hope, that in nothing I shall
be ashamed; but with all confidence, as at all times, also now Christ will be
magnified in my body, whether it be by life or by death.
Therefore for me to live is Christ and to die is gain. But if I live
in the flesh, this is to me a fruit of my labor; and what I shall choose I
do not know. I am, indeed, hard-pressed by the two things (I have a desire for
the returning, and being with Christ, since it is very much to be
preferred); but to remain in the flesh is more needful for you."
This makes the matter clear and saves us from making Paul
contradict himself and the general teachings of the Scriptures. How strange,
you will say, that the translators should give us the word depart instead of
its opposite, return! In answer to which we may remark that the literal meaning
of analusia is said to be "loose again;" and it was a word
employed in reference to ships loosing anchor; and in this somewhat of an
apology is offered for the apparent anomaly of rendering the same word depart
and return. If the ship is in the harbor of the speaker's standpoint analusia
would mean to "loose anchor" that it might depart and go; if
it is in a harbor of a foreign land away from the stand-point of the speaker,
the word would mean "loose anchor" in order that it might return
home; to do which it must depart from the harbor in which it is
anchored. Now Paul's hope was in Christ--"anchored within the veil."
He was hoping for Him to be "loosed again" from heaven, which would
be His departure from heaven and His return to the earth, of
which the same apostle says: "To them that look for him shall he appear
the second time without sin unto salvation." (1)
(1) It is asserted by certain immortal-soulists, who profess
to be scholars, that the language of Paul will not bear the grammatical
construction required by the above explanation. Perhaps it would not unless we
recognize that the third thing which "is very much to be preferred"
is parenthetical, and should be in parenthesis, as it is in the Diaglott. This
makes all perfectly correct. There were certainly three things mentioned by
Paul: to remain as he was, suffering but continuing to labor in behalf of the
brethren; to fall asleep to peacefully await the resurrection; and something
far better--the immediate return of Christ. Paul was in no strait whatever
about this third thing; for how could one be in a strait or "hard
pressed" to decide as to the desirability of something which is "far
better," or "very much to be preferred"?
The Scriptures clearly teach that man had no existence
before he was "formed of the dust of the ground." That when formed
that which was formed was the man. That when the breath of life was breathed
into the nostrils of the dust-formed man that man, that form
became a living soul, a living man, a living form. This is the man and
not the house in which the man lives, and which he may vacate and live
somewhere else without. It is not the body of man as something separate from
the man that the apostle Paul says was "out of the earth, earthy;"
but he is very emphatic in saying. "The first man is of the earth,
earthy" (I. Cor. 15: 47). When this man who "is formed out of the
earth, earthy" is dissolved in death, he is said to return to the
dust: "For out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art and
unto dust shalt thou RETURN" (Gen. 3: 19). In other words,
"His breath (that was breathed into his nostrils) goeth forth; he
(who was formed of the dust of the ground) returneth to his earth, and
in that very day his thoughts perish" (Psa. 146: 4). In this state
it is said of him that he has no power for "work, nor device, no
knowledge, nor wisdom;" for there is no power to perform any of these
"in the grave whither thou goest" (Eccl. 9: 10). The fact is, man in
death has returned to the dust from whence he was taken; and while "the
living know that they shall die, the dead know not anything" (Eccl.
9: 5). Man had none of the powers or functions above named before he was a
formed, living being. Therefore when he goes back into the formlessness and
lifelessness that preceded his creation there is nothing--there are no
organs--from which "work, device, knowledge and wisdom" can be
manifested. So that man in death has no more personal, conscious existence than
he had before he was formed. All that remains of him is the memory his friends
may have of him; and, if he was responsible to the law that shall judge the
just and the unjust, there remains an impress, as it were, of his character in
the Divine memory, which, when re-formation, or resurrection takes
place, will be re-impressed upon him, which will either prove him to be worthy
of eternal life or of eternal death. Disembodied existence, then, finds no room
in Scripture nor in reason.
But what shall we do with II. Cor. 12: 1-4, where Paul
speaks of not knowing whether he was "in the body or out of the
body?" the reader will ask. Well, what would you do with it? You
certainly would not make a matter about which even Paul himself says, "I
cannot tell" (verse 3) of so much importance as to establish you in the
belief of a theory that is found in direct opposition to the general teachings
of Scripture. Even if you were compelled to say of the meaning of this small
portion of the Word "I cannot tell" you would not repudiate the many
clear statements concerning man, his nature, his condition in life and in
death. You may examine the writings of this apostle, in which he speaks in
unmistakable terms, and see what he sets forth on the subject of man's nature
and the state of the dead. That should settle the chief question, even if you
have to conclude that there are a few obscure statements which, as the apostle
Peter says, "are hard to be understood." Now we have seen that the
apostle Paul teaches that man is out of the earth, earthy. In the same chapter
he tells us that, instead of there being inside this corruptible body an
incorruptible soul, as popularly taught, "corruption doth not inherit
incorruption" (I. Cor. 15: 50). He clearly shows that man's nature is not
part spirit from heaven and part flesh from the dust now in this life; but that
he is first (in this life) a natural, earthy or flesh and blood being;
and afterward (in the future life) he will be "that which is
spiritual," that is, when he in the resurrection is "raised a
spiritual body." Of those who are dead he says, in verses 17, 18 that if
there is no resurrection through Christ all are perished. This shows that he
did not believe they were living "out of their bodies" in happiness
or misery; for if he had believed that, the non-resurrection of their bodies as
houses they could live without just as well as--yea better than--within would
in no way cause them to perish. So we see that Paul held no such idea as
disembodied existence.
Now the words "in the body or out of the body" to
believers in disembodied existence must mean, that Paul did not know whether he
left his body and went away from his body or not. From their point of view what
would it have been if Paul had literally gone out of his body and left it in
one place while he was in another place? In other words, by what means could he
have left his body? What happens when one leaves his body? The only answer is,
Death. Death, according to popular tradition, is the only thing that can take a
man out of his body; and when he is out of his body that is death, they say.
Here is how they
express their theory of death in poetry:
"Burdened with this weight of clay
We groan beneath the load:
Waiting the hour that sets us free
And brings us home to God."
"Know that when the soul unclothed
Shall from the body fly,
'Twill animate a purer frame
With life that cannot die."
Now is it seriously to be supposed for a moment that Paul
when he said, "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in
the body I cannot tell; or out of the body I cannot tell; God knoweth)"
meant that he could not tell whether he died "above fourteen years
ago?" Was it death he had in view when he used the words "in the
body" and "out of the body"? Absurd, you will say. Yes indeed,
absurd I say too. But if he meant by "out of the body" what this text
is quoted to prove by theologians, then the absurdity is charged to Paul.
Whatever the apostle meant by these phrases it is clear from his expressed view
of death and from all reason in the case that he did not mean that he did not
know whether or not he died "above fourteen years ago" and therefore
might have been literally out of his body.
Now this is not the only place where Paul used phraseology
of this kind. For instance, in Col. 2: 5 he says, "For though I be
absent in flesh, yet am I with you in spirit, joying and beholding
your order." Who would suppose that the apostle meant by these words that
his "flesh" was absent from them; but he--the spirit, as is
claimed--was actually present? For this to have been the case literally Paul
would have had to forsake his body and go to Colosse bodiless; and since
"the body without the spirit is dead" (James 2: 26), Paul would have
been dead in the sense of popular tradition. What Paul meant by these words is
clear to common sense, namely, that although he was not actually present, in
mind or thought he was with them, which literally means that he was thinking
about them. He was picturing their conduct, as it were, in his mind. Similar
phraseology is in common use among us in these days. When we write friends at a
distance, "I am far away from you in body, but I am with you in
mind," we are never supposed by reasonable people to mean that we are
literally out of our bodies.
Now that the apostle is not speaking literally in the verses
in question is evident from his prefacing his remarks by "I will come to visions
and revelations of God." On account of some having spoken evil of him and
tried to belittle him it was necessary for him to defend himself and claim what
honor was justly due him. He did not like to boast of himself in a direct way,
and to maintain his rights with as much modesty as possible he spoke of himself
as another man--a "man he knew above fourteen years ago." "Of
such an one will I glory," he says (verse 5). In a sense he left himself,
and talked about a man he knew; and yet he was the man. That enemies of Paul
were at work in the body at Corinth will be seen from chap. 11: 4, 13. Some of
these had evidently gone to the extent of trying to make him out a
"fool," as will be seen by his remarks in verse 16: "I say
again, Let no man think me a fool." Also in chap. 12: 6, "For though
I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool." Also verse 11, "I am
become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me."
Now it is very often said of a foolish person that "he
is beside himself." If this were literally construed it would be
that he is outside of himself, an impossible thing in the literal sense.
Of the prodigal son coming to his senses it is said, "And when he came
to himself he said, I will arise and go to my father." Not that he had
literally been away from himself; that, no one is absurd enough to believe now,
although these phrases may have had their origin in the old Egyptian and
Grecian theory of transmigration of souls. The words "came to
himself" imply that, as we sometimes say, "he was not himself."
"He was out of his head." Now it so happens that Paul uses the words
"beside ourselves" in this very letter; and that too in reference to
the attempt that had been made to make him appear a "fool." He says,
in chap. 5: 13, "For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God;
or whether we be sober, it is for your cause." Now put these words
all together: "fools," "beside ourselves," "out of the
body," "in the body," and the one will explain the other. What
the apostle says in chap. 12: 1-6 is in substance this: Some have belittled me
and said I am a "fool," "beside myself," "out of my
body," etc. Well, it is not expedient for me to glory. "I will come
to visions and revelations of the Lord." I will show you a man who can
glory, because he has been favored with "visions and revelations of the
Lord." I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, whether beside
himself, as you say, whether a fool, as you say--whether beside himself or not
beside himself, whether in the body or out of the body, I cannot tell; God
knoweth. I won't argue that question with you. You have said I was beside
myself, out of the body; that I will leave to God. This, however, I will glory
in, that such an one was so favored of God as to be caught up to the third
heaven--to paradise, and was favored with a revelation of God's grand purpose
to restore paradise, and with a view, in vision, of what that paradise will be
in all its glory. Of such an one as that I will glory, leaving you to judge
from these favors bestowed upon him whether the recipient was a fool, beside
himself, or out of the body. Here was a home thrust, a powerful argument in
Paul's own behalf that was calculated most effectually to put to silence his
enemies and bring those to their senses who were wavering and inclining toward
the troublers in their midst. Marvelous tact is manifested in the method Paul
adopted in throwing himself, as it were, in the third person and then
proceeding to show how that person was favored of God. A destructive blow was
masterfully dealt his enemies when he left them to determine whether such a
favored person was a "fool," "beside himself," or "out
of his body." "God knoweth," he says. As much as to say, It is
not likely that God, who knoweth, would so favor one that was a
"fool," "beside himself," or "out of his body."
In all this we have the work of a master in polemics, one who could justly
boast and yet be modest; who could maintain his honor and due justice and yet
use cutting irony on those who deserved it; who, in short, could slay his
enemies with the very sword they had sharpened for him.
Now, dear reader, you will see that by comparing scripture
with scripture a difficult passage becomes clear and wonderfully forcible. And
you will now see that the words that tradition uses, or rather misuses, to
prove disembodied existence have no reference whatever to such a theory. The
words, indeed, "out of the body" and "beside himself" may be
fitly applied to the delusive state of popular theologians, evidence of which
is not wanting in the fact that they seriously apply such words to a fabulous
disembodied state.
You may ask, What about being caught up to the third
heaven--to paradise? Heaven and earth are used in the Scriptures to represent
political and social conditions. "Hear, O heavens and give ear O
earth" are words addressed to rulers and ruled. "How art thou fallen
from heaven?" are words addressed to the King of Babylon upon the occasion
of his fall from power and dominion. Now the Apostle Peter divides the history
of man on the earth into three parts--first the antediluvian; second the Jewish
and Gentile down to the millennium; third the glorious reign of Christ on the
earth, when righteousness will be the stability of the times. The first he
calls "the world (Greek, kosmos, or order of things) that then
was," consisting of "the heavens that were of old, and the
earth," that by the waters of the flood perished (II. Pet. 3: 4-6). The second
he calls "the heavens and the earth which are now" (verse 7). This
world, or order of things political, religious and social, is to pass away with
a great noise. The system, with all the works that are therein--all the details
of evils that go to make up the combustible aggregation are to pass away, melt
with a fervent heat--the heat of God's just vengeance upon a wicked world; and
then will come the third, which Peter says "we, according to his promise,
look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness."
The first was an unrighteous world and was swept away with the flood of God's
anger; the second is unrighteous and will be burned up with the fervent heat of
God's wrath; but the third will be a righteous world wherein everything will be
"very good" as in paradise before sin cursed and blighted it; and
that third heaven will be paradise restored.
In "vision" and "by revelation of the
Lord" (II. Cor. 12: 1) Paul was "caught up," or, as the Diaglott
better renders it, "conveyed away" and was permitted to see a drama,
as it were, of what this glorious future will be. Its glory and splendor were
so great that it was, in its intensity, "unspeakable" and "not
possible for a man to utter" (see margin verse 4). That glorious state is
so overwhelmingly grand, that, as another apostle writes, "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 3: 2).
This third heaven or paradise is what will obtain in the
"Lord's day" into which John, when on the isle that is called Patmos,
was also caught away in spirit, and which he was allowed to give a revelation
of, so far as it was possible to reveal to mortal man the effulgent glory of
such transcendant beauty as will bless the day in which the earth will be full
of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.
The words of the Apostle Paul in II. Cor. 5: 1-9 are
supposed to teach that the apostle expected that when he died he would go into
the presence of the Lord in a disembodied state. To those who have the idea
rooted in their minds from infancy that every man exists as a conscious entity
bodiless after death a superficial view of this scripture would seem to be a
support. In determining what the apostle meant in this chapter we must be
governed by his general teachings; it will not do to array one part of his
writings against all others. If Paul here expected to go to Christ when he died
his other teachings ought to show the same expectation. What are the facts in
the case? Instead of hoping and striving to go to Christ at death he strove to
be worthy of a resurrection from among the dead. He gives expression to his
hope as follows: "I count all things but loss, * * * that I may know him
and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings,
being be made conformable unto his death, if by any means I might attain
unto the resurrection of (or from among) the dead"--Phil. 3:
8-11. It is evident from this that Paul had no idea of disembodied bliss in the
presence of Christ as soon as he died. Indeed, disembodied existence with Paul
was out of the question; for he says that if there is no resurrection of the
dead his faith is vain (I. Cor. 15: 13, 14), showing that he predicated all
upon the resurrection and therefore ignored the Platonic theory of a happy
state for disembodied ghosts independent of resurrection. Of those who had died
he said: "If the dead rise not, then is Christ not raised; and if Christ
be not raised your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also
which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished"--I. Cor. 15: 16-18.
From II. Tim. 4: 1-8 it will be seen that the apostle expected no reward till Christ
would appear to judge the quick and the dead; and that from the time of his
death till that appearing Paul's "crown of righteousness" would be
"laid up" (verse 8). Having now Paul's own words as to when he
expected to be present with the Lord, we shall have little difficulty in
understanding him in the chapter in question.
In this present state of things, "which is
temporal" or temporary (II. Cor. 4: 18) and in this mortal body we groan;
and the desire is for that state to be ushered in that shall be eternal, when
we shall be delivered from this "wretched body of death" (Rom. 7: 24)
by a change into likeness to Christ's "glorious body" (Phil. 3: 21).
So long as we are "at home in the body"--in our present mortal
state--"we are absent from the Lord;" and the desire of all who have
Paul's hope is to be "absent from the body"--this mortality in which
"we groan"--"and to be present with the Lord," when we
shall "be like him;" for we know that when he shall appear we
shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is" (I. John 3: 2).
To be "absent from the body" and to be present
with the Lord is therefore not be absent from bodily existence, it is to be
absent from the "vile body" and present with the Lord in the
"glorious body" like His (Phil. 3: 21). This will be realized when
"mortality is swallowed up of life" (verse 4). For the present
"we walk by faith and not by sight" (verse 7). "Wherefore we
labor that, whether present or absent (whether now or then, here or there, at
the judgment-seat) we may be accepted of him" (acceptable to
him.--Diaglott).
The words "not that I would be unclothed" and
"we shall not be found naked" are made to serve the purpose of those
who teach disembodied existence. They never stop to think that if the apostle used
the words in the sense they do, he said "Not that I would go to Christ's
presence in heaven." To be unclothed with them is to "shuffle off
this mortal coil" and go to heaven, a thing to be desired, surely.
Whatever Paul meant by "unclothed" and "naked" it was a
condition he did not desire. If he used these terms in the physical sense they
represent death; if in the moral sense they represent a sinful state--nakedness
being used frequently as a figure of sinfulness (Rev. 16: 15; 3: 4, 18; II. Cor.
5:3). In either case it was a thing Paul desired not. The words may apply in
the physical sense and yet not imply a disembodied state. Our Saviour speaks of
God "clothing the grass of the field" (Matt. 6: 30). If He could
speak of grass being clothed He could also speak of it being unclothed; for the
former implies the latter. Who is there foolish enough to think of a
disembodied state of grass because the word clothed is applied to it in fact
and "unclothed" by implication? For the grass to be "clothed"
is for it to have life; for it to be unclothed is for it to die. Apply this to
life and death in relation to man and common-sense will readily see the
conclusion.
It is not impossible that the apostle used the word in both
a physical and moral sense; for physical nakedness in the sense explained is
the direct result of sin. Hence the following paraphrase from the pen of Dr.
Thomas seems to embrace what the apostle means:
"For we know that if our mortal body be dissolved in
the dust we are to receive a new body and a new habitation, a building from
God, a home not made with hands, enduring in the new heavens. For in the midst
of the things which are seen we groan, earnestly desiring that our habitation
which is from heaven may be clothed upon us; if so be that being raised and
appearing before the tribunal of Christ we shall not be found naked or
destitute of the wedding-garment. For we that are surrounded by the things seen
and temporal do groan, being burdened; not that we desire to enter the death
state by being unclothed or divested even of mortal life, but clothed upon by
putting on immortality, that mortality may be swallowed up of life. Now he that
has begotten in us this earnest hope is God, who has given us the spirit as the
earnest of what we shall receive at the coming of the Lord. We are therefore
always confident, having full assurance of faith, knowing that whilst we who
believe are mortal we are absent from the Lord (for whilst absent we walk by
faith, not by sight); we are full of hope, I say, and rejoice rather to be
delivered from mortality and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labor
that, whether present at His tribunal or absent from it, we may be accepted of
Him. For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that everyone
may receive the things in body, according to that he hath done, whether good or
bad."
This is a portion of Scripture used, or rather misused, for
two purposes: First, to prove the existence of disembodied conscious spirits;
and, second, the personal pre-existence of Christ. The mistake in regard to the
first case grows out of the preconceived idea that the word "spirits"
means bodiless entities commonly called "immortal souls." In I. John
4: 1 the word "spirits" is used as the equivalent, of
"prophets:" "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try
the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets
are gone out into the world." Now it must be clear to an unprejudiced mind
that the word here means persons assuming to be prophets. It is a warning
against evil persons; and the same thought is conveyed if we substitute person
for spirit in the verse. If Christ had preached to these
"spirits" He would have preached to persons of bodily forms, not to
disembodied ghosts.
Now this understanding of the use of the word
"spirits" will enable us to see that "the spirits in
prison" who were preached to were real persons. How absurd it must seem to
thinking people that Christ would go to the fictitious hell of popular theory to
preach to immortal souls! How could poor creatures maddened by indescribable
torture and writhing in the pangs and pains of such a place be expected to
listen to preaching that would require sober thought and calm obedience? Then
again, if this passage is made to apply to such a view, why was the preaching
confined to the disobedient of the "days of Noah?" Why not allow all
the supposed unfortunate inhabitants of the so-called "infernal
regions" to be preached to? If some must be followed even into a horrid
hell after this life and be given an opportunity of hearing the gospel, why not
follow all? It is only a mind bewildered by pagan delusions of departed ghosts
that reads such folly into this passage of Scripture.
The "spirits" or persons who were preached to were
the antediluvians, and the time they were preached to was "when once
the long-suffering of God waited IN THE DAYS OF NOAH" (verse 20). It
does not say that Christ personally visited them, but that He did so by the
Spirit--"quickened by the Spirit, by which also he went and
preached." The Spirit here is the Spirit of God; and since Christ is the
offspring of that Spirit by direct begettal, and was filled with it, raised
from the dead and "quickened by it" into immortality it is called the
"Spirit of Christ," which was in the prophets (chapter 1: 11). This
Spirit was in Noah when he preached to the disobedient of his time.
Some find a difficulty in understanding the phrase "in
prison;" but the prison in which the antediluvians were when Peter wrote
was the grave. Chapter 4: 6 explains the matter: "For this cause was the
gospel preached also to them that are dead." Not that they were
dead when the gospel was preached to them; for "the dead know not
anything"--Eccl. 9: 5. The gospel was preached to them that are now
dead and in the "prison" of death--the grave. But should this view be
objected to and it be claimed that they were dead and in prison when they were
preached to, it would only follow that they were dead in trespasses and sins (Eph.
2: 1); and in this sense all men are prisoners till the "law of the spirit
of life in Christ Jesus makes them free from the law of sin and death"
(Rom. 8: 2). First, we know that the gospel was preached to the antediluvians
when they were alive, in the days of Noah; and we know they were dead, and not
alive, when Peter wrote. With this knowledge we can read chapter 4: 6 thus:
"For this cause was the gospel preached to them that are
(now) dead." And we can also read chapter 3: 19 thus: "By which
(Spirit) also he went (in the days of Noah) and preached unto the spirits (now)
in prison." With this view we can feel sure that we are in harmony with
truth; for the facts sustain us. If, in the second case, they are viewed as
"dead in trespasses and sins," and in this sense are in
"prison" or bondage, we know that this sense will scripturally apply
to those who were preached to, and that in this view we are in no danger of
violating Scripture rules of interpretation. On the other hand, there is
nothing to warrant us in accepting the absurd idea that Jesus when he was dead
went to hell to preach to spirits who--if they were in such a place at all as
hell is supposed to be--were there as a punishment for disobedience in this
life, their destiny therefore having been determined as exemplified in the fact
that they were there. With this view we should contradict the plainest
testimony on all important phases of fundamental truth. We should deny that
Christ was dead when the Scriptures say He was dead and buried. We should deny
that the antediluvians were dead and that the "dead know not
anything." These dangerous consequences would follow such unwarranted and
assumed premises, to say nothing of the consequent erroneous positions such a
view would lead us into on the question of what and where "hell" is
and on the baseless theory of probation after death.
In showing how the text speaks of Christ's preaching to the
antediluvians--that is, that the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ, etc.,
we have shown that, since He did not visit them and preach to them in person,
the theory of His pre-existence as a person is in no way supported by the
passage. On account of Christ being the Alpha and Omega of God's plan in
relation to the human race on the earth, all things are said to be done by Him
or on account of Him. The Spirit that caused Noah and all the prophets to
preach the Truth was the Spirit of God which was to overshadow the virgin,
beget the Son of God and dwell in Him, manifesting God in and through Him
mentally and morally and by wonderful works performed. Everything that was done
in the world before He was begotten had direct relation to Him and centered in
Him. He, as the purpose of God was, as it were, the power that operated in and
through all things. His personal existence is no more proven by this than the
personal existence of Levi is proven by his being represented as having paid
tithes in Abraham before he was born. In this case what was done by Abraham is
shown to have been done, in a sense, by Levi. Yet no one supposes from this
that Levi personally pre-existed.
When the fact that the Scriptures teach the unconsciousness
of man in death is shown to those who believe in the immortality of the soul,
they generally ask, "What about the thief on the cross?" On account
of their preconceived idea of heaven-going at death they conclude, without
investigation, that the words, "Verily I say unto thee to-day, shalt thou
be with me in paradise," mean that that very day the thief would be with Christ
in heaven.
It is very necessary for us to guard against the power of
prejudice; it is very apt to influence us to infer that certain texts mean so
and so, when upon close investigation they are found to have no such meaning.
Remove from the mind the prejudice in favor of the popular theory of man's
disembodied conscious existence in death, and then, before a conclusion would
be reached as to the meaning of the words of our Lord to the thief, a
thoughtful mind would ask, What was the request of the thief? Did the thief die
inside that very day? Did our Saviour go to heaven that very day, or did He
really die? If his soul is considered apart from Himself, did His soul go to
heaven, and if so, how shall I understand the scripture that says "He
poured out his soul unto death" (Isa. 53: 12)? How could His soul
be in heaven, or, supposing paradise to be some other place than heaven, how
could His soul be in paradise, when it is declared that His soul was not
left in hell (hades or the grave)?--Acts 2: 31. All these questions would
arise before a thoughtful mind would be satisfied on the meaning of the text.
The Scriptures teach that Christ died, that He was buried,
and that He rose from the dead (I. Cor. 15: 3, 4); that His soul was
"poured out unto death;" that His soul was in hell (hades; the
same word is rendered grave in I. Cor 15: 55). In view of this, how
could He be in heaven on the day He spake the words in question to the thief?
Consider, dear reader, Did Christ die? To this question the popular
teachers of the people, who "cause them to err," answer, "His
soul did not die," thus denying the Word of God, which declares that
"He poured out his soul unto death." Press the question, Did Christ
die? and the answer you will receive will be, "His body died;" an
answer that means, No, Christ did not die, only his body--the house He
dwelt in died, but He did not. This is a denial of the death of Christ; for to
say that the body He inhabited died is to say that something else other than
Himself died.
It will be seen therefore that the theory that would send
Christ to heaven, or to any other place of conscious existence with the thief
the very day He uttered the promise necessitates a denial of His death. So that
the matter resolves itself into the question, Which is wrong; the theory that
says Christ that very day was alive with the thief in paradise, or the
Scriptures that declare that He died? "The Scripture cannot be
broken;" therefore the theory must be wrong. Nothing that nullifies the
plain statements of God's Word, that Christ really died, and that the same
Christ that died was buried, and that if He had not been raised there would
have been no living Christ (see I. Cor. 15)--nothing, I say, that nullifies
these positive facts can be entertained by a thoughtful, God-fearing person.
That Christ did not go to heaven the day He uttered the
promise to the thief is a subject of positive proof. Three days afterwards,
upon His resurrection from the tomb, He met Mary, and said: "Touch me not;
for I am not yet ascended to my Father" (John 20: 17). The reader
will readily see that the theory that sends Christ to heaven with the thief the
day of His death is a flat contradiction of the Lord's words uttered at His
resurrection three days after His death. The "I" who spoke to the
thief is surely the same "I" who addressed Mary. How could this
"I" say on one day I will be in heaven this day, and three days after
say I am not yet ascended to heaven? The theory that so misrepresents the
Saviour, whose words are infallible, is, of course, wrong; and now with that
theory "weighed in the balances and found wanting;" what can we do
with it but cast it aside. Free from its deceptive influence, let us carefully
examine the narrative of "the thief on the cross," and see whether it
is not fully in harmony with man's unconsciousness between death and
resurrection, and with the teaching that the reward of the righteous is not at
death, but at the resurrection from the dead.
To understand the Saviour's answer to the thief we must keep
in view the latter's request. He did not say Lord remember me when thou goest
to heaven; but "Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."
Was this request in accord with what our Lord had taught His disciples to hope
for? It certainly was; for in the parable of the nobleman (Luke 19) He had
shown that He would go to heaven and return; that during His absence the
duty of His disciples would be, not to expect to follow Him, but to "Occupy
till I come;" and that it would be when He would return, "having
received the kingdom," he would call His servants before Him for judgment,
reward and punishment according to their works. In unmistakable language he
declared, "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
glory" (Matt. 25: 31); and to those on His right hand at that time he will
say, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared,"
etc. Referring to this time, and in full accord with this teaching, the thief
asked, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom"--the
very time when, as the Apostle Paul says, "Christ shall judge the quick
and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom" (II. Tim. 4: 1).
Now is it not reasonable to believe that our Saviour's
answer to this dying penitent man was in accord with the request and with His
teachings as shown above? What is the kingdom but paradise restored? When
"the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdom of our Lord and of his
Christ" (Rev. 11: 15) the earth will be paradise restored. The prophet has
said, "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"--Isa. 51: 3. The fulfillment of this will be when the kingdom
of God is fully established in the earth and "the Lord shall be King over all
the earth"--Zech. 14: 9. Christ will then have come into his
kingdom and His promise to the thief will be fulfilled.
Now as to the form of the words in the promise as it appears
in our translation, it must not be forgotten that the translators were biased
in favor of the popular theory, and may therefore sincerely but mistakenly have
placed the words in the form in which we find them in the C. V. Punctuation is
of comparatively recent date, and translators often differ in their use of it,
as well as in the positions of the various words composing a sentence. In the
word-for-word translation in the Diaglott the promise to the thief reads as
follows: "Indeed I say to thee, to-day with me thou shalt be in the
paradise." In the text of the same translation it reads, "Indeed I
say to thee, This day thou shalt be with me in paradise." That is, this
day referred to by the thief's request, namely, the day when Christ would
come into His kingdom. We would particularly call attention to the fact that
here it is "thou shalt" instead of "shalt thou," as in the
King James' translation. The text therefore is in perfect harmony with the
facts and truths of Scripture we have called attention to when read thus:
"Verily I say unto thee to-day, Thou shalt be with me in paradise."
It was a hearty and emphatic reply to the request of penitence in a most trying
and solemn moment. Hence the "verily" and "to-day," as if
one in our times would say "Mark you, I tell you this moment, that measure
will prove disastrous to the nation." The "mark you" and the
"this moment" give emphasis to the statement. So with the
"verily" and the "to-day." The time when the promise is to
be fulfilled is defined by the words in the request, "when thou comest
into thy kingdom".
A case very similar to this are the words of Zech. 9:
12--"Turn you to the stronghold, ye prisoners of hope; even to-day do I
declare I will render double unto you." The "even" and the
"to-day" give emphasis; and instead of "to-day" defining
the time when the promise would be fulfilled, it defines the day the promise
was made. The "rendering double" would be long afterwards.
Some excuse their disregard of baptism upon the assumption
that the case of the thief was one of salvation without baptism; but the
inference is all the other way. There is no statement to the effect that he was
or was not baptized; but his understanding of the gospel is shown by his
request: for in that is implied a knowledge of the resurrection, ascension and
return of Christ into His kingdom. Who will be bold enough to affirm that such
a degree of intelligence in the gospel had not yielded obedience in baptism?
The blessing of being in the kingdom with Christ is predicated upon baptism
based upon belief of the Truth; and since our Lord promised the thief he should
be with him in paradise, or the kingdom, it follows that baptism had been
submitted to. "But he was a thief!" some exclaim. Yes; that is
against him his crime being a very grievous one. But God's "merciful
kindness is great towards us." If it were not so, hopeless would be our
case. In this matter it is not in evidence that the man was habitually a thief.
As to the degree of his crime the Saviour was a better judge than the Roman
government was and than we can be. In any event there was penitence in the
case, and what could be a more beautiful finish to the natural life of the
"man of sorrow" than an extraordinary manifestation and exercise of
Divine mercy of which He was and is the very embodiment?
In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, recorded in Luke
16: 19-31, the believer in disembodied existence after death in torture or
happiness--"heaven or hell"--thinks he finds positive proof of his
theory. It is with this passage of Scripture the same as with the few others
that seem, superficially viewed, to sustain the popular dogmas. There are
preconceived notions that cause readers to read into the Scriptures what is in
their minds but what is not in the texts themselves. Instead of reading the
words of the text there is a reading "between the lines." To avoid
this mistake--a mistake that many make unconsciously--it is necessary to have
in mind the general teachings of the Scriptures upon the subjects involved. One
with the popular theory of the nature of man and the state of the dead in his
mind will read into this parable "immortal soul" and
"never-dying spirit," without perceiving that no such words are
there. "The rich man died," they will read in their minds, "The
body of the rich man died." "In hell he lifted up his eyes" to
them is, "In hell his immortal soul lifted up its eyes," forgetting
that their theory says the soul is immaterial without parts, and therefore has
no eyes to "lift up." Throughout the entire parable there is this
same reading in of terms and phrases that are only in the mind of the reader,
and thus a false conclusion is reached by a false method of reading. If it were
remembered that "immortal soul" is a phrase of pagan invention and not
found in the Bible the folly of supplying it in the text would be seen. With
the Scripture definition of death in the mind and Platonic fiction out of the
mind the words, "The rich man died" and "The beggar died,"
would be accepted in harmony with the fact that when a man dies "his
breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth and in that very day his thoughts
perish" (Psa. 146: 4) and "the dead know not anything" (Eccl. 9:
5).
Feeling very confident that this parable supports their
theory, some are very bold to demand that it "be read just as it is,
literally," as a statement of facts and not as a parable. To satisfy such
that they are mistaken we frequently have to respond, "Come along then and
let us read it literally in the light of positive Scripture definitions of the
words employed." We will begin with the statement, "The beggar
died." Do you believe this? O, it means that his body died, is the answer
we receive. It says "the beggar died." Do you believe it? Here we
have a beggar who died. Is he dead now or is he alive? Stick to the
words literally. Before this beggar died he was alive and not dead; now he is
dead and not alive. If he is alive now, what is the difference between his
condition now, after he has died, and his condition then, before he died? O, the
difference is that before he died he was alive in his body; now he is alive out
of his body. Indeed, then he was alive and is still alive, and therefore you
deny the first statement we read, "The beggar died." Come, come,
stick to your proposition to read this literally, "The beggar died."
If you want to define what it is to die you must do it scripturally, not
theologically. Here is a Scripture definition of death for you: "His
breath goeth forth; he returneth to his earth; and in that very day his
thoughts perish" (Psa. 146: 4). Now then with this definition let us
again read, "The beggar died"--that is, "his breath went forth;
he returneth to his earth; and in that very day (the day he died) his thoughts
perish." Do you believe this?
Now of man after he is dead the Scriptures say, "The
dead know not anything" (Eccl. 9: 5). The first statement we have read
"literally" is, "The beggar died;" and inspiration says
"the dead know not anything." So we have before us a dead man that
knows not anything. But you are trying to go beyond the testimony to make out
your theory that the man is not dead, only his body; that instead of not
knowing anything, he knows more when he is dead than he did when he was alive.
Stick to the text, "The beggar died."
Now in the same scriptural manner we may also read,
"The rich man also died." Keeping inside of the boundary lines of
what is literally said in these two statements, we have before us two dead men,
who "know not anything;" and we must not assume the right to break
over these lines for the sake of sustaining a theory we may have in our minds
and not in the texts.
Now what is the next statement concerning this dead man? It
is, "and was buried." Do not add again that "only his
body was buried," and deny the statement that the man died and was buried.
Stick to the text, and we then have a dead man buried, not a living man in
torture. Yes, you will say, but it says he was in torment. While he was dead
and buried? It is literally true that death closes our eyes, destroys the power
of sight. When the rich man died he closed his eyes in death. And does
it not say that after he was dead and buried he "lifted up his eyes?"
And what would that be for a dead and buried man but resurrection, an opening
of his eyes in life after having closed them in death? Now keep this
fact before your mind, and you will see that if you take this scripture
literally you have death, burial and resurrection; and it is in the
resurrection that "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye
shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of
God, and you (those addressed) thrust out." Abraham will be there then.
"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 13:
28, 29). It is then that the righteous will "sit down with Abraham and
Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 8: 11); and therefore it
is then, if you must have it literal, that Lazarus and his class will be
"carried by angels into Abraham's bosom."
"But the rich man lifted up his eyes in hell,"
some exclaim. Well, what of that? Was not Christ in hell--even His soul (Acts
2: 31)? Will not all these redeemed from death and hades--the grave--"lift
up their eyes in hell" (hades) before they will exclaim, "O
grave! where is thy victory" (I. Cor. 15: 55)? In the margin of this
text you have "hell" from the Greek word hades, which is
properly translated grave in the text. Since Christ was in hell, but "was
not left" there, could it not be said of Him that when raised from the
dead "He lifted up His eyes in hell;" and would not that be another
way of speaking of His resurrection? It is a mistaken, preconceived idea of what
hades is that causes the trouble with the words. The dead are all, good
and bad, in sheol, or hades until they are raised; and
resurrection means a standing again in life of men who have been dead and
buried. With the truth and the facts thus before us there is no trouble, and we
may put the matter in the form of questions that the Scriptures will clearly
answer.
1. The beggar and the rich man died. What is death?
Ans. "His breath goeth forth; he returneth to his
earth; and in that very day his thoughts perish."--Psa. 146: 4.
2. After they died they were dead. Is man conscious when
dead?
Ans. "The dead know not anything."--Eccles. 9: 5.
3. The beggar, after he died, was carried by angels into
Abraham's bosom. When will angels gather the righteous?
Ans. "And they shall see the Son of man coming in the
clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels
with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather his elect"--Matt.
24: 30, 31.
4. When will the righteous be with Abraham, or "in
Abraham's bosom?" and when will the wicked suffer torment?
Ans. "There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth,
when ye shall see Abraham and Isaac, and Jacob and all the prophets in the
kingdom of God."--Luke 13: 28.
5. When will Abraham and all the righteous be in the kingdom
of God?
Ans. "When the Son of man shall come in his
glory, and all his holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the
throne of his glory. * * * Then shall the King say unto them on his
right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared
for you from the foundation of the world"--Matt. 25: 31, 34.
From this it will be seen that if we take the scripture in
question literally we shall have death and burial, and after that, at the time
appointed, there will be resurrection, and then the rich man will be punished
and Lazarus will be with Abraham in a happy state. As to how long the
"torment" of the rich man will last that must be determined by other
scripture, since in the account of the rich man's case no time is given. That
it will not be endless we may be sure, from the fact that many proofs are given
of the utter destruction of the wicked.
Now if we take this scripture literally and try to make it
fit the popular theory, we shall find it will not do. It would represent the
"damned in hell" as penitent and prayerful; whereas it is claimed
that they continue to curse God every moment of eternity. And this supposed
continuous rebellion is what is relied on as an excuse for the eternity of the
torture. It would bring "heaven" and "hell" into such close
proximity that conversation could be had between the "damned" and the
"blessed." It would put tender mothers in eternal bliss and yet in
sight of the wretchedness of their children, and within hearing of their groans
and moans and hopeless prayers for release. It would therefore represent them
in "heaven" as possessed of natures that could take sweet and eternal
enjoyment, with their children before their eyes writhing in the most terrible
torture, a spectacle no sane person could in this life look upon for a moment
without being pained and horrified. How long, my friend, would you enjoy the
sight of a spectacle not one thousandth part as bad in this life? Could you
enjoy it at all? No, is your answer. Then is your nature in the future to be
such as will be capable of enjoying what now is the most horrifying? Away with
such a savage fiction. Hurl it back to the dark recesses of the savage heart of
heathenism, whence it came, and "come and let us reason together" on
this parable; for a parable it is, as we shall now prove.
We have dealt with the subject upon the supposition of its
literality to show that even when so viewed it in no sense sustains the popular
theory. But that it is a parable cannot be questioned. In chapter 15: 3 we have
the parable of the lost sheep; verse 8 of the lost piece of silver; verse 11 of
the prodigal son. Chapter 16: 1 of the steward; then follows the one in
question. Some offer as an objection the fact that the first words are:
"There was a certain rich man," claiming that the form of words shows
the sense to be a literal narrative; but the objection vanishes when it is
remembered that the parable of the steward begins in precisely the same words,
and that of the prodigal in nearly the same.
The audience addressed is shown in chapter 15: 1, 2 to be
publicans, sinners, Pharisees and scribes. That which directly called forth the
words in question is shown in chapter 16: 14--"And the Pharisees also, who
were covetous, heard all these things, and they derided him." To the
multitude composed of those named He spoke; and of this fact it is said,
"And without a parable spake he not unto them" (Matt. 13: 34). The
Pharisees who derided Him came not to seek information, but to try and entangle
Him. He did not, therefore, trouble to enlighten them as He did His disciples.
Hence He says to the latter, "It is given to you to know the mysteries of
the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given"--Matt. 13: 11.
And when they were alone he expounded all things to his
disciples"--Mark 4: 34. The deriding Pharisees were a self-righteous class
who considered themselves "not as other men" (Luke 18: 9-13), but as
being "whole" and "righteous." Our Lord did not always take
the time to tell them what they were, but for the sake of argument granted them
their claims and gave them an ironical answer. Hence, perceiving their thoughts
when they said, Who is this that speaketh blasphemies? who can forgive sins but
God? and when they found fault because He ate with "publicans and sinners,"
He said: "They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are
sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance"--Luke
5: 31, 32. The reason why He so answered them and spake to them in parables He
said was because "in them was fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which
saith, By hearing ye shall hear and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall
see and shall not perceive. For this people's heart is waxed gross and their
ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed," etc.--Matt. 13:
14, 15.
The Pharisees had departed from the Truth and accepted the
Platonic and Egyptian theory of the immortality of the soul and of the
existence of disembodied souls in hades, which they believed to be a
place of torment, and in Abraham's bosom, a place they supposed to be one of
happiness. When denouncing them for their departure from the Truth our Saviour
said: "Ye are of your father the devil;" * * * he 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 8: 44, 45.
"He was a murderer from the beginning" are words, no doubt, referring
to the first lie ever told, which caused the death of our first parents, and
through them became the "murderer" of the whole race, in that by the
first lie told "death passed upon all men." Now to be children of the
devil in the sense our Saviour speaks when He says, "Ye are of your father
the devil," is to be the "seed of the serpent" in a spiritual
sense--that is, to believe the lie the serpent told. What was that lie? It was,
"Ye shall not surely die," the very thing the Pharisees believed that
made them of their father the devil. They having accepted the doctrine that men
are as gods (angels), immortal, or "immortal souls;" believed that
"There is no death, but change;" that men do not die, but go to a
place of eternal life of either misery or happiness. For the reasons given our
Lord did not, when He spake the parable in question, stop to show them the fallacy
of their belief, but used it against them, in showing what their destiny as a
nation was to be. Should it be claimed that He committed Himself to their
belief by using it as a parable, it has only to be remembered that when He was
charged with casting out demons by Beelzebub, He did not stop to show them that
there was no such a heathen deity as the "lord of the fly," which
they supposed to be supreme over evil spirits. He left them in the superstition
and retorted: "If I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your children
cast them out?" If our Lord could use the terms "Beelzebub,"
"whole" and "righteous" without indorsing their views
represented by these terms, He could also use their theory of departed spirits
in "hades" and "Abraham's bosom" without indorsing it.
If a man well known to be a non-believer in the same popular theory in our day
were to use that theory as a parable of some thought he wished to impress he
could not reasonably be charged with believing the theory; he would only be
indorsing that which he would be illustrating, not the thing used to
illustrate. Here then are the very religious Pharisees deriding the Saviour.
They represent the nation of Israel as it then existed in Judea. They were
puffed up over having Abraham as their father and as being God's favored
people, having "no dealings with the Samaritans" nor with the
Gentiles. All such to them were "dogs." They alone were the great and
the mighty, the holy and favored people. Inflated with a degree of pride and
vanity unbearable they derided the Son of God. He turns upon them and proceeds
to paint a picture of them, using familiar national colors to identify them,
and seizing upon their theory of a future state to show them that "pride
cometh before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall." A rich man
is pictured upon the canvas, as it were, clothed with purple and fine linen,
the priestly robe of the nation they represented (Ex. 25: 5; 39: 27-29). He is
faring sumptuously every day, representing the nation that had been "blessed
in basket and store," in things temporal and spiritual, and separated from
all other nations. He is a son of Abraham, and prides himself in being so, and
cries out, "Father Abraham!" Who can this peculiar man be? One who
can recognize in the familiar picture of "Uncle Sam" a representation
of the American republic will not fail to see that this rich man is a fitting
symbol of the nation of Israel, or that part of it represented by the rulers of
the Jews, the Pharisees whom our Saviour is addressing.
In contrast with this a poor beggar is painted as being
outside the rich man's gate ("outer court of the Gentiles") full of
sores (not "whole needing not a physician"), associated with dogs.
This is a striking symbol of how the Jews regarded the Gentiles. Dogs they were
to them, a fact that is shown in the conversation our Saviour had with the
Syrophenecian woman when He said, in answer to her entreaty that her daughter
be healed, "It is not meet to take the children's bread and to cast it to
dogs." The woman knowing that His words expressed the Jews' estimation of
Gentiles, replied, beseechingly, "Yes, Lord; yet the dogs under the table
eat of the children's crumbs." Then He granted her request. In the
parable, then, the beggar associated with dogs is a symbol of the Gentiles.
Now to show these Pharisees that their days of feasting were
soon to end and the favor that belonged to Abraham's children was to be
bestowed upon the Gentiles, the two men are, as it were, transported into the
fictitious future state of the Pharisees, where the rich man is represented as
in torment, while the beggar is in "Abraham's bosom." As the rich man
of the parable died, so the nation represented by him died as a nation. It is
to this national death the Apostle Paul alludes when he says: "For 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. 11: 15)? As, according to
the belief of the Pharisees--a belief that made them the children of the
devil-- wicked men when they died went to "hades," to them a
place of torment, so the nation of Israel, upon its death, was fearfully
tormented in the siege of Jerusalem and have been in torment ever since.
Lazarus died and was carried by angels (messengers) into Abraham's bosom, a fitting
representation of the death that Gentiles must die when they pass out of Adam
into Christ by baptism and thus become children of Abraham (Gal. 3: 7). Being
Christ's they are "Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise"
(verse 29), and are, in the words of the parable, in Abraham's bosom, a phrase
expressing the favored position in the reclining posture of Eastern custom, as
shown in the case of John (Jno. 13: 23). Also in Jno. 1: 18--* * * "the
only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father."
Since the revolt of the ten tribes under Jeroboam Israel has
been divided; and in the days of our Saviour only the two tribes--Judah and
Benjamin--were represented by "the rulers of the Jews." These two
tribes only are represented by the rich man; and of them it is said concerning
their return from captivity in Babylon, that "the children of Israel
gathered themselves together as one man to Jerusalem" (Ezra 3: 1).
When, therefore, the "one man" is represented as crying to
"Father Abraham" to send Lazarus to his five brethren, reference, no
doubt, is had to the ten tribes. The fitness of things require that, since two
tribes are represented in the parable by one man; in the same ratio ten tribes
would be represented by five brethren. To the Jews, Paul says, "were
committed the oracles of God;" and Abraham's reply to the rich man's
entreaties in behalf of his five brethren is, "They have Moses and the
prophets, let them hear them." His words, "If they hear not Moses and
the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the
dead," were a home thrust at the Pharisees and the rich man class in
general; for notwithstanding that one was raised from the dead, even Christ
Himself--and in this they had the sign of the Prophet Jonah--they refused to
hear or believe.
It was not long after this parable was spoken till the
rich-man-nation realized its dreadful truth in the most horrible experience
that history records: and ever since then they have been tormented and kept
continually calling out for water to cool the parched tongue; for what has
Israel not suffered since the "measure of their fathers was filled"
in killing the Prince of Life? After the measure had been filled up the angels
or messengers of the gospel were sent to the Gentile "dogs;" and the
Apostle Paul, who was specially an apostle to the Gentiles, exclaimed:
"Seeing ye put it from you and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting
life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles"--Acts 13: 46. Thus the words of John,
"God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham" (Luke
3: 8) in a sense found exemplification. As a nation Israel are now "cast
away," and between them and the Gentiles, of whom Paul speaks when he
says, "Ye died (Revised Version) and your life is hid with Christ in
God," and who are children of Abraham by adoption, there is a "great
gulf fixed"--the gulf of unbelief in Israel, to whom "blindness in
part hath happened till the fullness of the Gentiles be come in"--(Rom.
11: 25).
Taking this view of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus,
instead of limiting its scope to a supposed individual destiny of two men, and
of forcing the Saviour into a oneness of belief with men who, because of their
acceptance of the Platonic fiction of the "immortality of the soul"
and the serpent's falsehood that "there is no death," were "of
their father the devil," we have a volume of truth condensed into a few
words--a characteristic of the Bible that to the diligent student is seen to be
an indelible stamp of divinity.
Back
to Home
Back
to Contents