15. 1. AS TO LITERARY FORM (PUNCTUATION)

forth, but certainly not "rivers." With these preliminary observations we would punctuate it as suggested by Stier,¹ as follows:—

"If any man thirst, let him come unto Me; and let him drink, who believeth in Me! Even as the Scripture [concerning Me] hath said 'Rivers out of HIM shall flow, of living water.'"

It is not the one who drinks of Him who becomes the fountain; he is the receiver and not the giver. The Fountain is the one whom Scripture had already designated as the source of pneuma, and the channel whereby the rivers of spiritual grace and blessing should flow. It is not the individual believer who is the subject of the Old Testament prophecies; he, at the best, could only send forth one tiny stream of what he had himself first received; but it is Christ in whom are all our springs, who alone can say, "I will give unto him that is athirst, of the fountain of water of life, freely" (Rev. xxi. 6). The River proceeds "out of the throne of God and of the Lamb" (Rev. xxii. 1). In Christ are the hidden reservoirs of blessing, out of whose abundant flow believers receive their graces and gifts.

Not until Christ had risen from the dead, and ascended into glory, could these gifts be given. Hence, the explanation which is added in verse 39.

The Scriptures are many which speak of Messiah as the giver of these spiritual blessings. (Compare Isa. xii. 3; lv. 1. Ezek. xlvii. 1. Joel iii. 18. Zech. xiii. 1; xiv. 8.) These "rivers" of blessing flow not from the believer, but from the throne of God, from Zion, and from Him who there will sit as king.

The pneuma, or water, of which Christ is the giver, will be "in HIM" a well of springing water springing up, and flowing out as a supply for others (John iv. 14). The individual believer receives only enough for his own needs. He has no reservoirs from which rivers can flow forth for the supply of others.

John xii. 27, "Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour, but for this cause came I unto this hour."

¹ Words of the Lord Jesus, in loco.

D 2

'III. RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD

We would translate and punctuate this as follows:

"Now am I¹ troubled; and why² should I say, 'Father, save me from this hour?' But for this cause came I unto this hour."

John xiv. 2, "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you.³ I go to prepare a place for you."

But why would He have told them about it if it were not so. The whole statement seems so inconsequent. But, if we punctuate it as a question, and take out the full stop after "you," we get a beautiful confirmation of what He had said and a further assurance of its truth: "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, Would I have told you I go to prepare a place for you?"

John xvii. 24. Is it clear as to which was "before the foundation of the world"? Was it the gift, or the love? Punctuated as in the A.V. it is the latter. But may it not well be rendered? "I will that they also whom Thou hast given me may be with me where I am: that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me, because thou lovedst me, before the foundation of the world." The sentence "because thou lovedst me" thus becomes the basis of the whole petition; and ὅτι (hoti) gets its usual consequential meaning, because.

Acts xv. 17, 18, should be punctuated, and translated as follows, according to all the critical Greek texts, with which the R.V., J. N. Darby, Rotherham, and other translators agree:

"That the residue of men may seek after the Lord.

And all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called,

Saith the Lord who maketh these things known⁴ from the beginning of the world."

From this punctuation we learn that the mystery is not the subject here; for it was not "made known from

¹ The Perfect Tense: "I have been and am."

² So τί (ἰ) is rendered 66 times in N.T.

³ So the current editions. The 1611 edition has a colon after "you."

⁴ Margin: "or, who doeth these things which were known." The words "unto God are all his works" are omitted by all the critical Greek texts.

I. AS TO LITERARY FORM (PUNCTUATION)

the beginning of the world"; but was the secret "hid in God," until specially revealed to the Apostle Paul.¹

Acts xxiii. 8, "The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit." The comma after "angel" in the editions from 1611 to 1630, having been removed in editions from 1629 to 1743, was restored in 1762; and should be retained.

Rom. viii. 32, 33, "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? Shall God that justifieth? Who is he that condemneth? Shall Christ Jesus that died?"

Here again the R.V. thus amends the punctuation of the A.V. and sets an example which we follow in

1 Cor. xv. 29. Our revised punctuation will enable the translation to be made more literal and more in agreement with the sense. A wrong punctuation often leads to wrong translation and necessitates liberties which have to be taken in order to make sense.

"Else what are they doing who are being baptized? [It is] for dead [bodies, or corpses²], if the dead rise not at all. Why are they then being baptized for dead [bodies]?"

The argument is here continued and taken up from verse 19, after the digression about resurrection, viz., that if there be no resurrection baptism is worse than meaningless. It was merely baptizing dying bodies instead of believers who were going to live again in resurrection: it was only incurring trouble and suffering and persecution and risk of this life for nothing, if there be no resurrection. This illustration, therefore, takes its place with the other illustrations by which the argument is enforced in the following verses:—the "jeopardy" of verse 30 and the "fighting with beasts at Ephesus" of verse 32, connecting these three illustrations of the "misery" of verse 19.

There are other improvements which might be suggested, of less importance perhaps, but still serving to show the wide range which our subject covers.

Eph. iv. 12 has been punctuated in all the editions, "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ."

¹ See The Mystery, by the same author and publisher.

² si recogni (hoi nekroi) with the article, as here, denotes dead bodies; without the article it means dead people. See The Rich Man and Lazarus, pp. 34, 35, by the same author and publisher.

This would be quite correct if the word "for" represented the same Greek word in each of the three clauses. But the first is πρός (pros), for, marking the subjective purpose originating the gifts; the second and third are εἰς (eis), for, marking the objective end for which the gifts were designed.

The commas after the words "saints" and "ministry" hide this beautiful distinction, and make three objects instead of one (which is twofold). The punctuation should be as follows: "For the perfecting of the saints, with a view to the work of the ministry, with a [further] view to the building up of the body of Christ."

So that, instead of three separate propositions, we have only one—"The perfecting of the saints." And this one is with a twofold end, viz., the work of the ministry; and this work has, for its ultimate end, the building up of "God's building," which is the spiritual body of Christ. (Compare ch. ii. 21, 22 with ch. iv. 2, 3.)

Hebrews x. 12 presents a peculiarly difficult example. In the A.V. from 1611—1630 it read, "But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God." But in 1638 the comma was removed, and placed after the word "sins," and it read "for ever sat down," thus going back to the punctuation of the Bishops' Bible of 1568. This is the punctuation in the Book of Common Prayer to this day,¹ though the Cambridge Bible of 1858 restored the punctuation of 1611 ("for ever, sat down").

There is something to be said for the older punctuation: "after he had offered one sacrifice of sins, for ever sat down." This expression, translated "for ever," is not the usual εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (eis ton aiōna), for the age, or for ever, but it is εἰς τὸ διγνεκές (eis to diōnekes), for a continuance, in distinction from interruptedly.² It is connected not with the offering of "sacrifice," but with "sat down."

It asserts the fact that Christ's work as a Priest is finished. He has not to stand up again to carry it on

¹ The Epistle for Good Friday is so punctuated in the original MS, attached to the Act of Uniformity of 1662, and now preserved in the House of Lords.

² The expression occurs only in Heb. vii. 3, "abideth a priest continually"; ch. x. 1, "offered year by year continually"; ch. x. 12, for ever sat down" (where it should clearly be continually); and verse 14, "hath perfected for ever" (where it should be continually).

i. AS TO LITERARY FORM (PUNCTUATION)

and continue it. Earthly priests "stood daily" and all day long, for there were *no seats* in the Tabernacle or Temple for the priests; but Christ has "sat down" not to rise up again for the purpose of sacrifice, for, having borne the sins of many, He will appear the second time without any reference to sin, but for the complete salvation of His people. Heb. x. 12 does not contradict Heb. ix. 28. The scope of Heb. x. 12 is not the coming of Christ, but the sacrifice of Christ; and this leads us to the conclusion that the older punctuation is right, which was, as we have said: "But this man, having offered one sacrifice for sins, sat down for a continuance on the right hand of God" (*i.e.*, "took His seat once for all" in contrast with the standing of *v.* 11).

This agrees with the scope¹ of the passage, which is the contrast between the ineffectual sacrifices of the Law and the effectual Sacrifice of Christ; between the "daily standing" of the priests with the continual session of Christ. This may be seen from

*The Structure*² of Heb. ix. 25—x. 18.

A¹ ix. 25. Yearly sacrifices ineffectual, because "offered often" (πολλάκις, *pollakis*).

B¹ ix. 26—28. Christ's sacrifice effectual, because offered "once for all" (ἅπαξ, *hapax*).

A² x. 1—4. Yearly sacrifices ineffectual, because offered "continually" (εἰς τὸ διηγέκες, *eis to diēnekes*), for a continuance.

B² x. 5—10. Christ's sacrifice effectual, because offered "once for all" (ἐφάπαξ, *ephapax*), *v.* 10.

A³ x. 11. Daily sacrifices ineffectual, because the priest "standeth daily" (καθ' ἡμέραν, *kath hēmeran*), "offering oftentimes" (πολλάκις, *pollakis*).

B³ x. 12—18. Christ's sacrifice effectual, because having offered "one" (μίαν, *mian*), He sat down "continually" (εἰς τὸ διηγέκες, *eis to diēnekes*), for a continuance.

¹ See below, Part II., Canon I.

² See below, Part II., Canon II.

'III. RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD

Thus, in the members marked A we have what is ineffectual because temporary, set in contrast with the members marked B, in which we have what is effectual because permanent.

In the A members we have the priests, their sacrifices, and standing

"often"

"continually"

"daily"

In the B members we have Christ, His sacrifice, and session

"once"

"once for all"

"continually."

Indeed, the offering of sacrifices eis to diōnckes (ch. x. 1) is put in direct contrast with Christ's having sat down eis to diōnckes, in verse 12.

2 Pet. ii. 22. It makes all the difference whether we put a comma after the word "and." If we omit it we make one proverb; if we insert it we get two proverbs. "It is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and, The sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." The A.V. and R.V. and all the editions have no comma after the word "and"; and thus make only one proverb.

In any case, the contrast is between the washed sow at the end of 2 Pet. ii. and the stray sheep at the end of 1 Pet. ii. Both "return"; but the sheep, however dirty it has become, returns to its shepherd; while the sow, however clean it is washed, returns to her mire.

(f) Parentheses.—The Edition of 1611 abounded in parentheses. In the subsequent editions there has been an increasing tendency to discard them; and to supply their place by commas; or to ignore them altogether.

But parentheses are a means of increasing the emphasis of ordinary punctuation; and, on that account, they require more careful consideration, rather than less; as i. AS TO LITERARY FORM (PARENTHESES)

the meaning can be either destroyed, changed, or made more clear by their use.

We shall class all under one head, without regard to the changes in the various editions; though we will note the changes where we can discover when they were made.

Many are already so marked, so that there is no need for us to notice them. (See Deut. i. 2. Matt. ix. 6. John ii. 9; iv. 8. Acts i. 15. Rom. iii. 8; v. 13-17¹; x. 6, 7. Eph. ii. 5. Phil. iii. 18, 19. Col. ii. 21, 22.)

The true Parenthesis is an addition by way of explanation, and is complete in itself.

When it is not by way of explanation, but is an independent additional statement, complete in itself, the Greeks called it Parembole or Insertion; because it is more in the nature of a digression.

When it was by way of feeling they called it Interjection. (Ps. xlii. 2. Ezek. xvi. 23, 24.)

When it was by way of a wish or prayer, they called it Ejaculation. (Hos. ix. 14.)

When it was by way of apology or excuse they called it Hypotimesis, or under-estimating. (Rom. iii. 5. 2 Cor. xi. 23.)

When it was by way of detraction they called it Anæresis.

When it was by way of sudden exclamation they called it Cataploce. (Ezek. xvi. 23, 24. Rom. ix. 3.)

All these parenthetical additions are complete in themselves.

But when the addition is thrown in, as it were, casually, and is not complete in itself, the Greeks called it Epitrechon, or Running along.²

In many instances the Structures of Scripture practically place the member in a parenthesis between the two corresponding members; and this, whether it be a large complex member, or whether it be a single sentence.

¹ This was first so marked in the edition of 1769, and is continued in all the subsequent editions, though both the English and American Revised Versions reject it.

² See Figures of Speech, p. 470, etc., by the same author and publisher.

For example:—

In Gen. xv. 13, the words “(and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them)” should be in a parenthesis, as is clear from the Structure.

a “Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not their’s;

b and shall serve them;

and they shall afflict them;

a four hundred years.”

Here, in the extremes, “a” and “a” we have the sojourn and strangership as a whole, while in “b” and “b” we have the servitude in Egypt. It is this servitude which is thrown in parenthetically (“Epitrechon”; i.e., running along); so that the sense reads on from “a” to “a”; and the time is not affected by the addition of what will happen to them in any part of that time.

Gen. xlvi. 26, “All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt (which came out of his loins) besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, all the souls were threescore and six.” This Epitrechon is thrown in to explain the difference between this number (66) and the number 75 in Acts vii. 14, which included “all his kindred,” and was necessarily a larger number than that of Jacob’s direct descendants.

Exod. xii. 40, “Now the sojourning of the children of Israel (who dwelt in Egypt) was four hundred and thirty years.” This is an Epitrechon or remark thrown in as an additional fact to explain exactly who these people were. It thus saves us from making the mistake of thinking that they were in Egypt during all those 430 years.

Josh. vi. 1 is a true parenthesis or an independent statement complete in itself, conveying an additional fact; but inserted in order to explain and introduce the words of the Captain of Jehovah’s host, which are continued in verse 2.

1 Kings vii. 19 is a parenthesis and helps us to connect verses 18 and 20.

In 1 Kings viii. 39 and 42 we have two complete and separate parentheses.

In 1 Kings xii. 32 the words “so did he in Bethel” should be marked as a parenthesis, as they were down to 1769. It is the Figure Epitrechon.

i. AS TO LITERARY FORM (PARENTHESES)

1 Kings xxi. 25, 26, is a true Parembole, as is

Job xxxi. 30, which was rightly marked as such from 1611 to 1744. The brackets were removed in 1762.

In Ps. lxviii. 18 we have an Epitrechon—"yea, for the rebellious also"—which marks and magnifies the free grace of God, bestowed not merely on the unworthy, but on those who were rebellious.

In Ps. cix., verses 6 to 19 are to be included in a parenthesis as being the utterances of "the mouth of the wicked," and the words spoken with a lying tongue; and "the words of hatred" (vv. 2, 3).

Then, verse 20 takes up verse 5 and says of all this:—

"This is the work¹ of mine adversaries (from the LORD)

And of them that speak evil against me (Heb. my soul)."

In Isa. xxii., verses 21—24 are to be included within a parenthesis; carrying on the thought to Him of whom Eliakim is only a type; and returning to the type and the history in verse 25.

The Structure of Isaiah shows that chapters xxxvi.—xxxix. are a parenthetical parenthesis, being the history of HEZEKIAH'S siege and sickness; corresponding with chapters vii.—xii., which are also a parenthesis, being historic events and prophecies connected with AHAZ.²

Matt. ix. 20—22 is more an Episode than a Parembole. But it was marked as a parenthesis down to 1762. The Edition of 1762 rejected it.

Luke i., verses 55 and 70 should each be placed in a parenthesis.

Rom. viii. 20. The words "not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same" are an Epitrechon.

The Ellipsis must be supplied by the repetition of the verb "waiteth," in verse 20 from verse 19.

¹ The Hebrew is פְּעָלָה (p'ullah), work, labour, acts, deeds. Not seeing the parenthesis of verses 6—19, both the A.V. and R.V. are driven to render it "reward." The fact that it is rendered "reward" in no other place shows that our contention is correct. (See all the other occurrences of the word:—lev. xix. 13. 2 Chron. xv. 7. Ps. xvii. 4; xxviii. 5. Prov. x. 15; xl. 18. Isa. xi. 10; xlix. 4; lxi. 8; lxii. 11; lxv. 7. Jer. xxxi. 16. Ezek. xxix. 20.)

² See The Vision of Isaiah, by the same author and publisher, pp. 18, 29.

This is shown by

*The Structure of Rom.* viii. 19–21.

a | 19. Expectation.

b | 20-. The reason: Creation made subject.

a | -20. Expectation.

b | 21. Reason: Creation delivered.

This will be seen more clearly if it is set out in full, as follows:—

Rom. viii. 19–21.

a | “19. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. } Expectation.

b 20-. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same: } Reason.

a | -20. [waiteth, I say] in hope, } Expectation.

b 21. Because the creature itself shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” } Reason.

Rom. ix. 2, 3. *The Epitrechon* should be punctuated as follows; noting that ἄγνεον (ēūchomen) is put, by the Figure *Hyperbaton*, out of its place, in order to attract and call our attention to the fact that it is in the Imperfect Tense, which is generally well Englished by our word “used,” *i.e.*, “used to wish” (*Lit.*, “was wishing”):

“I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart (for I used to wish, even I myself,¹ to be accursed from Christ) for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” This shows us that Paul’s sorrow was on account of his brethren; and the *Epitrechon* is thrown in to explain why he had this great heaviness and continual sorrow. As much as to say, it was because he knew

¹ The Pronoun, here, is very emphatic.

i. AS TO LITERARY FORM (PARENTHESES)

from his own experience their terrible position; for when he was in their condition he knew what he "used to wish."

In 1 Cor. x. 3-5 there is a true parenthesis; an explanation of what precedes, and it is complete in itself.

"And all ate the same spiritual meat, and all drank the same spiritual drink. (For they drank of that spiritual rock following [it]; but the rock was Christ). Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased."

Here, there is nothing about following "them," as in the A.V. and R.V. and most translations (some putting it in brackets).

Two miracles are referred to: (1) The giving of the manna (related in Exod. xvi. 14); and (2) the gift of the water in the FOLLOWING event, or chapter (Exod. xvii. 5, 6).

This is clearly the obvious meaning of the Greek, both logically, grammatically, and historically. There is no occasion to go back to the Ancient Jewish but childish tradition; nor to charge the Apostle with so doing, as though he were not inspired.

In a succession of miracles, one is mentioned, and then that which followed it.

The verb ἀκολουθέω (akoloutheō) is used of any kind of following; and of every mode of sequence. It is used of logical sequence; Aristotle says "If there are two, it follows (ἀκολουθεῖ, akolouthei) that there must be one."

Longinus, speaking of the Figure Hyperbaton, says, "It is a removal of words or thoughts out of their consecutive (ἀκολουθία) order."

Thus, it is the miracle and drinking of the water, which followed the miracle and eating of the manna; and not the water following the people of Israel throughout their journey. That would be no point in the Apostle's argument which called for the parenthetical explanation which he gives. His point was that both miracles taught spiritual truths, which their fathers did not see, either then, or in the days of John (John vi. 47-59).

1 As Alford does, but not Ellicott.

2 De Subl. a. xxii., p. 56, Toup. See also Plato, Rep. 332. IL

1 Cor. xv. 20—28 is a true *Parembole*, almost amounting to a digression. It must be carefully noted in order that we may closely connect verses 19 and 20, further consequences being stated if there be no resurrection. (See above, page 53).

2 Cor. iii. 7—16 is a *Parembole* or Digression, concerning the Old and New Covenants, in which the subject is broken off from verse 6 and continued in verse 17. This subject was the fact that "as the body without the *pneuma* (or spirit) is dead" (Jas. ii. 26), so the "letter" (or old Covenant) is dead without Christ; for "the Lord (Christ) is its *pneuma*."¹

Eph. ii. 1 takes up the words in the middle of ch. j. 19, which does away with the necessity of all the italics in ch. ii. 1. If we observe this parenthesis concerning the fact and results of Christ's resurrection (in ch. i. 19—23) we connect ch. ii. 1 with i. 19-, and preserve the truth and teaching of the whole passage, thus:— i. 19-, "That ye may know . . . what is the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe (. . .)," ii. 1, "even you who were dead in trespasses and sins."

Eph. iii. The whole of this chapter is parenthetical; and is a true *Parembole*, being complete in itself. This should be carefully noted, so that we may connect the "Therefore" of ch. iv. 1 with ch. ii. 22.

There is a smaller parenthesis within the third chapter, *viz.* from verses 1—13, verse 14 taking up the subject (which was broken off in v. 1) and repeating the words "For this cause."

Eph. iv. 9, 10 are also two parenthetical verses.

Phil. i. 23 is a true parenthesis, which is an addition by way of *explanation* to show why the Apostle did not know which to choose, "living" or "dying." The reason was that there was a third alternative, better than either, *viz.*, "the Return" of Christ (τὸ ἀναλύσαι) (*to analusai*), when he would be with Christ. But, as to the other two (which he returns to in verse 21), he concludes that it would be better for him to remain in the flesh than to die; but not better than Christ's Return.

1 See The Giver and His Gifts, pages 138-141.

A2 i. AS TO LITERARY FORM (PARENTHESES)

We must put verse 23 in a parenthesis, and render it. "For I am being pressed out of (ἐκ, ek) the two, having an earnest desire for the Return (see Luke xii. 36¹) and to be with Christ, for it is far, far better [than either]," and read on from verse 22 to 24.

Phil. ii. should commence with verse 27 of ch. i.; ch. i. 27-29 being a parenthesis.

Phil. iii. 2-14 is also a parenthesis, the fifteenth verse taking up the subject of the first verse.

Phil. iii. 8-10 is a Parembole within the parenthesis, and commences with the words "for whom I have suffered the loss of all things," etc., down to the end of verse 10. All this is a digression to show what he had gained in Christ Jesus his Lord as compared with what he had lost in giving up the Jews' Religion. Verse 11 would then read on from the middle of verse 8, thus:

"8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: (. . . .) 11 If by any means I might become partaker² of the out-resurrection from among the dead."

From what we have said under Division iv., Section 6, below, the Apostle may be referring to a fresh revelation of truth, which he received while in prison in Rome, concerning the prize of our "calling on high," and our removal thither; and this may be either explanatory of 1 Thess. iv. 13-18 or an additional and subsequent revelation pointing to a prior removal (as implied in the word ex-anastasis).

In any case, it shows that Paul was not desiring to obtain this, or any other advantage, by holiness of life, but by believing God concerning this calling on high (not "upward calling").

Col. ii. 21 and part of 22 are already rightly printed within a parenthesis, which should be carefully noted.

1 Tim. iii. parts of verses 14 and 15 should be read, "These things write I unto thee (. . .) that thou mayest know," etc.

¹ These are the only two occurrences of the verb ἀναλύω (anatuo), to return. The noun ἀναλύω (anatusis) occurs in 2 Tim. iv. 6, and is rendered departure; but the sense is the same, return, viz., the return of the body to dust and of the spirit to God; as in Gen. iii. 19. Eccles. xii. 7. See The Rich Man and Lazarus, pp. 30-33; The Church Epistles, p. 157, 158.

² See note on Phil. 1. 21, Canon IV. Div. 2, below.

Hebrews i., ii., presents us with a beautiful example of the manner in which the Structure of a passage puts its various members into their respective parentheses, showing the true connections and logical continuations.

a | i. 1, 2. God speaking.

b | i. 2-14. The Son: God. "better than angels."

a | ii. 1-4. God speaking.

b | ii. 5-18. The Son: Man. "lower than angels."

It will be seen from this that the member "b" (vv. 2-14) is practically a digression, concerning the Son of whom God had spoken in v. 1.

Similarly, the member "a" (ch. ii. 1-4) is a parenthesis standing between ch. i. 14 and ch. ii. 5. So that ch. ii. 1 (the word "therefore") reads on from the word "Son" in ch. i. 2. And ch. ii. 5 (the word "for") reads on from the word "salvation" in ch. i. 14.¹

The study of the Structure of God's Word is therefore necessary, if we would discover its logical divisions, as well as the perfection of its literary divisions.

Heb. ii. 9, "But we see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels (for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour) that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."

This parenthesis teaches us that the Lord Jesus was crowned with glory and honour for the suffering of death. At His Transfiguration we see Him so crowned (2 Pet. i. 17).²

We have already included this passage under the former division on Punctuation (see page 42, above).

1 Pet. i. 3-5. These verses are parenthetical, verse 6 being the continuation of verse 2.

In 2 Pet. i. 19 the Epitrechon should be thus carefully marked: "Whereunto (i.e., to the prophetic Word) ye do well that ye take heed (as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the Day dawn and the Day-star arise) in your hearts."

¹ See Part II., Canon II., below.

² Without distinction, not without exception: this epistle being written to Hebrew believers.

³ See separate pamphlet on The Transfiguration, by the same author and publisher.

ii. AS TO ITS SUBJECT-MATTER

The words "in your hearts" must be connected with the words "ye do well to take heed," and not with the dawning of the coming Day or with the rising of the Morning Star. That rising will not be in our hearts, but it will be Christ's glorious manifestation to Israel and to the world (Luke i. 78. Rev. xxii. 16).

This world is a dark place, and the prophetic word is the only light in it to which we do well to "take heed in our hearts."

Tradition says that Prophecy is a dark place, and that we do well to avoid it. But this only proves the truth of the Scripture in which Jehovah declares, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD" (Isa. lv. 8).

These examples will be sufficient to show the importance of this branch of "rightly dividing the Word of truth," as to its Literary Form.

ii. RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD AS TO ITS SUBJECT-MATTER.

It is the common belief that every part of the Bible is to be interpreted directly as referring to the Church of God; or as pertaining to every person, at every stage of the world's history.

This neglect of the precept to rightly divide it is an effectual bar to the right understanding of it, and to our enjoyment in its study.

This non-understanding of the Word is the explanation of its neglect, and this neglect is the reason why so many who should be feeding on the spiritual food of the Word are so ill-fed in themselves; and so ill-furnished for every good work (2 Tim. iii. 17).

While the Word of God is written FOR all persons, and FOR all time, yet it is as true that not every part of it is addressed TO all persons or ABOUT all persons IN all time.

1. The Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church of God.—Every word is "written FOR our learning," and contains what all ought to know: yet, its subject-matter is written according to the principle involved in 1 Cor. x. 32,

E and is written concerning one or other of three distinct classes of persons, separately or combined:—

"The Jews,

The Gentiles, and

The Church of God."

According to the general belief, everything that goes to make up the subject-matter of the Word of God is about only one of these three: and, whatever may be said about the other two (the Jews and the Gentiles), all is to be interpreted of only the one, viz., the Church of God.

This comes of that inbred selfishness which pertains to human nature: which, doing with this as with all beside, is ever ready to appropriate that which belongs to others.

But no greater impediment to a right understanding of the Word could possibly be devised.

We are quite aware that, in saying this, we lay ourselves open to the charge which has been made by some, that we are "robbing them of their Bible."

But the charge is groundless; and it arises from a total misapprehension of what we mean, or from a perversion of what we have said.

It is necessary, therefore, for us to repeat, and to state categorically our belief that every word from Genesis to Revelation is written FOR the Church of God. There is not one word that we can do without: not one word that we can dispense with, without loss.

We deprive no one of any portion of the Word of Truth.

We protest against robbery in this sphere, as in all others.

It is not we who rob the Church of God; but it is they who rob the Jews and the Gentiles. We would fain restore stolen property to the rightful owners; property which has been stolen by the very persons who charge us with robbery!

We may indeed retort in the words of Rom. ii. 21: "Thou that preachest a man should not steal, Dost thou steal?"

We are prepared to make this counter-charge, and to sustain it.

ii. AS TO ITS SUBJECT-MATTER

The charge against us we disclaim; while those who make it are themselves guilty of the very offence for which they condemn us.

We hold that what is written to and about the Jew, belongs to and must be interpreted of the Jew.

We hold that what is written of and about the Gentile, belongs to and must be interpreted of the Gentile.

We hold that what is written to and about the Church of God, belongs to and must be interpreted of the Church of God.

Is this robbery? or, Is it justice?

Is it stealing? or, Is it restitution?

Evidence of the misappropriation (to use a milder term) is furnished by the Bible which lies open before us, to which we have already referred in speaking of the page-headings of Isa. xxix. and xxx, in our current editions of the English Bibles, in which the former is declared to be "Judgment upon Jerusalem"; and the latter, "God's mercies to his church." (See page 28.)

What is this but not only wrongly dividing the Word of truth, but the introduction of error, by robbing Jerusalem of her promised "mercies" and appropriating these stolen mercies to the Church? while the "judgments" are left for Jerusalem, just as burglars take away what is portable, and leave behind what they do not want or cannot carry away.

We believe God when He says that the Visions shown to Isaiah were "CONCERNING Judah and Jerusalem" (Isa. i. 1).

True, they were written FOR us; and "for our learning" (Rom. xv. 4); but they are not addressed TO us, or written CONCERNING us, but "concerning Judah and Jerusalem."

It would be an act of dishonesty, therefore, for us thus to appropriate, by interpreting of ourselves, that which was spoken of Israel.

In like manner, if we take, as some do, the words of the Epistle to the Ephesians as though they were written to or concerning the Gentiles (or the unconverted world), then we not only rob the Church of God of its most precious heritage, but we teach the "universal Fatherhood of God" instead of His Fatherhood of only those who are His children in Christ Jesus.

E 2

It will thus be seen that unless we rightly divide the subject-matter of the Word of truth we shall not get the truth, but shall get error instead.

Every part of the Bible is written "concerning" one or other of these three divisions, or classes of persons.

Sometimes in the same passage or book there may be that which is concerning all three.

Sometimes a whole book may be concerning only one of these three, and the other two be altogether excluded. We may all three learn much from what is written of only the one; for the inspired, God-breathed Word is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction," FOR all who shall read it (2 Tim. iii. 16). That which happened to Israel happened unto THEM for ensamples; "and they are written for OUR admonition" (1 Cor. x. 11). "Whatsoever was written aforetime was written FOR our learning" (Rom. xv. 4).

But while this is so, and remains true; what we mean is that every Scripture is written CONCERNING one or other of these three classes; and is specially addressed TO that particular class. This class has therefore the prior claim to that Scripture. The interpretation of it belongs to that class; while the other two may apply it to themselves, and are to learn from it. But, inasmuch as it is only an application and not THE interpretation, such application must be made only so far as it agrees with the interpretation of those Scriptures which are specially addressed to and relate to such class. Otherwise we shall find ourselves using one truth to upset another truth; we shall be setting what is true of one class in opposition to what is true of another class.¹

All that we are concerned with now is the right dividing of the subject-matter of the Bible, which is three-fold. And the great requirement of the Word as to this is, that we should, and must, whenever we study any portion of the Word of God, ask the question,