======================================================================== WRITINGS OF JAMES M GRAY - VOLUME 1 by James M. Gray ======================================================================== A collection of theological writings, sermons, and essays by James M. Gray (Volume 1), compiled for study and devotional reading. Chapters: 98 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TABLE OF CONTENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. 01.00.1. A Picture of the Resurrection 2. 01.00.3. Foreward 3. 01.00.4. Table Of Contents 4. 01.01. Introduction 5. 01.02. The Resurrection Of Christ 6. 01.03. The Resurrection Of The Race 7. 01.04. The Order Of The Resurrection 8. 01.05. The Nature Of The Resurrection Body 9. 01.06. If Not Resurrection, Then Translation 10. 01.07. Our Ground Of Victory 11. 01.08. Our Obligaton And Opportunity 12. 02.00. A Text-Book on Prophecy 13. 02.0000. Contents 14. 02.00000. The Book and How to Use It 15. 02.01. The Seed of the Woman, or the First Promise of Redemption 16. 02.02. God's Covenant with Abraham, or Why He Chose Israel 17. 02.03. God's Covenant with David, or the Coming Kingdom 18. 02.04. The "Times of the Gentiles" and the Impending Judgments 19. 02.05. Israel Restored and Renewed 20. 02.06. The Place of the Church in the Plan of Redemption 21. 02.07. How the Kingdom and the Church Differ 22. 02.08. The Antichrist, His History and His Doom 23. 02.09. Why the Pope is Not the Antichrist 24. 02.10. Babylon: Her Coming Restoration and Her Fall 25. 02.11. The Day of the Lord - When it Comes and What it Means 26. 02.12. Does the Bible Teach a General Judgment? 27. 02.13. The Millennium: When, What and Where? 28. 02.14. Christ's Future Earthly Reign 29. 02.15. The Age and its Apostasy 30. 02.16. Glossary of Prophetic Words 31. 02.17. The End of the Age and How to Meet It 32. 02.18. Why Germany Cannot Rule the World 33. 02.19. Prophecy Changing the Map of Europe 34. 02.20. Is the Kaiser the Antichrist? 35. 02.21. What the Biible Teaches About Russia 36. 02.22. Jerusalem's Capture in the Light of Prophecy 37. 02.23. Why Christians Should Study Prophecy 38. 03.00.1. Great Epochs Of Sacred History, 39. 03.00.2. Preface 40. 03.00.3. Table Of Contents 41. 03.00.4. Preforatory Note 42. 03.01. When The World Was Made 43. 03.02. When Sin Entered The World 44. 03.03. When The First City Was Built 45. 03.04. When The Flood Came 46. 03.05. When The First World-Monarchy Began 47. 03.06. When The Last World-Monarchy Shall Appear 48. 04.0.1. HOW TO MASTER THE ENGLISH BIBLE 49. 04.0.2. Note By The Publishers Of The British Edition 50. 04.0.3. Note By The Publishers Of The American Edition 51. 04.0.4. Module Prepared by BibleSupport.com 52. 04.1. The Story Of The Case 53. 04.2. Explanation Of The Method 54. 04.3. The Plan At Work 55. 04.4. Results In The Pulpit 56. 04.5. Expository Outlines 57. 05.0. THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 58. 05.1. Definition of Inspiration 59. 05.2. Extent of Inspiration 60. 05.3. Proof of Inspiration 61. 05.4. Difficulties and Objections 62. 06.0.1. Primers of The Faith 63. 06.0.2. Publisher's Note 64. 06.0.3. A Foreword 65. 06.0.4. Prepared by BibleSupport.com 66. 06.01. How We Know the Bible is Genuine 67. 06.02. The Names of the Bible 68. 06.03. Tracing the Records 69. 06.04. Examining the Text 70. 06.05. The English Versions 71. 06.06. How the Books Came Together 72. 06.07. Why I Believe Moses Wrote the Pentateuch 73. 06.08. Why Question the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch? 74. 06.09. Answering the Critics 75. 06.10. The Early Historical Books 76. 06.11. Two Isaiahs, or One? 77. 06.12. The Other Major Prophets 78. 06.13. "Daniel in the Critics Den" 79. 06.14. The Minor Prophets 80. 06.15. Is Jonah Historic? 81. 06.16. The "Holy Writings" 82. 06.17. The Poetical Books 83. 06.18. The Titles of the Psalms 84. 06.19. The Wisdom Literature 85. 06.20. The Old Testament Apocrypha 86. 06.21. The New Testament Canon 87. 06.22. Why Four Gospels? 88. 06.23. The Story of the Synoptics 89. 06.24. Did the Apostle John Write the Fourth Gospel? 90. 06.25. Internal Evidences of John's Gospel 91. 06.26. The Book of the Acts 92. 06.27. Paul's Epistles--the First and Second Groups 93. 06.28. Paul's Epistles--the Third Group 94. 06.29. The Pastoral Epistles 95. 06.30. The Epistle to the Hebrews 96. 06.31. The General Epistle of James 97. 06.32. The General Epistles of Peter and Jude 98. 06.33. The Epistles and Revelation of John ======================================================================== CHAPTER 1: 01.00.1. A PICTURE OF THE RESURRECTION ======================================================================== A Picture of the Resurrection An Exposition of the Fifteenth Chapter of First Corinthians By James M. Gray Copyright 1917 This book is in the Public Domain ======================================================================== CHAPTER 2: 01.00.3. FOREWARD ======================================================================== Foreword WHERE the following Exposition has been given from the platform, people have spoken of it as a "picture of the Resurrection," which has suggested the title. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 3: 01.00.4. TABLE OF CONTENTS ======================================================================== Table Of Contents 1. Introduction 2. The Resurrection Of Christ 3. The Resurrection Of The Race 4. The Order Of The Resurrection 5. The Nature Of The Resurrection Body 6. If Not Resurrection, Then Translation 7. Our Ground Of Victory 8. Our Obligation And Opportunity ======================================================================== CHAPTER 4: 01.01. INTRODUCTION ======================================================================== Chapter 1 - Introduction An "honest doubter" said recently that ministers were all wrong. Instead of presenting facts and arguments to prove the Bible true, they were preaching the Bible as if it were true. He thought the process should be reversed. But he was mistaken. Christian evidences are of great value in their place, but it is a question whether that place is before a man is converted to Jesus Christ or after it. There is no use in presenting facts and arguments to dead men, and unconverted men are dead men, "dead in trespasses and sins." What they need before evidence is life. And the "Word of God is life, and begets life". It is "living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intent of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12). "Of His own will begat He us with the Word of truth," says James, writing to the Christians of his day (James 1:18); and that is normally the way in which all men are begotten, or obtain life. The application never was more pertinent than when we come to consider the enchanting subject of physical resurrection. Every Christian preacher fitted for his calling knows that this is as much a fact as physical creation; and he is a wise master-builder if he brings all the force of that conviction to bear upon his fellow men. He does this only when he expounds the Scripture just as it is. "The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream," saith the Lord; "and he that hath My word, let him speak My word faithfully" (Jeremiah 23:28). There were some in the young church at Corinth, led astray by false teachers, who denied the resurrection of the body. They were not questioning the immortality of the soul which even paganism taught; but, like them of Athens, they were ready to mock at the resurrection from the dead. "We may be thankful for this error because of the good that has come out of it, for", as Dean Alford says, "we have thus obtained one of the grandest and most precious portions of the apostolic writings". To quote his words: "For record of the appearances of our Lord after His resurrection; for cogent argument binding His resurrection to ours; for assertion and implication of the great doctrine of His inclusive humanity; for revelation of holy mysteries imparted by special inspiration; for triumphant application of the phenomena and analogies of nature; no extant writing can compare with this chapter in its value to the Church; its power of convincing the mind and awakening Christian hope; and its far-seeing confutation of the cavils and scoffs of all after-ages against the doctrine of the resurrection." {1} {1} "How to Study the New Testament," pp, 94. 95. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 5: 01.02. THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST ======================================================================== Chapter 2 - The Resurrection Of Christ "I delivered unto you, first of all, that which I also received, how 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;" "And that He was seen of Cephas; then of the twelve;" "After that, He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep." "After that He was seen of James ; then of all the apostles." "And last of all He was seen of me also, as one born out of due time." "Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead ?" (1 Corinthians 15:3-12). Thus Paul first proves that there is such a thing: as resurrection from the dead. Just now he is not concerned with your resurrection or mine, but with resurrection itself as a historic fact. It is for this reason he brings forward the resurrection of Christ. If He arose from the dead, then resurrection cannot be denied, nor can the caviller longer say, "We know nothing of the next life, for no one has ever come back to tell us about it." Nor is it a little singular that his first witness to the resurrection of Christ should be the Holy Scriptures. Some apologists would have presented this last as a kind of appendage, if they had considered it at all. Affrighted by the charge of "reasoning in a circle," they would have marshalled every material fact before drawing on one of so spiritual and "impractical" a character. But to the inspired apostle this was of the chiefest importance. And in so far his example confirms what was said about the relation of the Christian evidences to spiritual life. Present the living word of the Living God to the soul first, and when that soul has been quickened by it, then is he able to appreciate its confirmation in other ways. But the mystery deepens when we consider that the Scriptures Paul speaks of are those of the Old Testament! The New Testament (the Gospels, at least) was not then in circulation, nor had it attained the distinction of such a title. "Where does the Old Testament speak of the resurrection of Christ ? How difficult for the average student, to say nothing of the casual reader of the Bible, to discover such a revelation there ? And yet the second psalm testifies to His resurrection, and the sixteenth psalm, and the prophet Isaiah (53), and the prophet Hosea (6), and how many more we cannot say. Oh, how we should like to have been with the disciples on that first day of the week, when Christ opened "their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, ’Thus it is written, and thus it behove Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day’" (Luke 24:45-46). But the resurrection of Christ having thus been proven by the Scripture revelation that it would take place, it is in order to corroborate that revelation by the testimony of historic fact, and in so doing the apostle produces no less than 514 witnesses! These are Cephas, or Peter; the whole apostolate; five hundred brethren at once; James, and lastly, Paul himself. One man may be deceived, or even two or three, or a score let us say, but five hundred! This is unlikely. And especially so, when the appearances were not limited to a passing moment or even a single day, but when they covered many days, six weeks in fact, and were in the daylight as well as in the night. It is to be remembered also that the most gracious intimacy was accorded several of these witnesses; who were permitted to eat and drink with Jesus, to walk and talk with Him, to observe the print of the nails in His hands and in His feet, and as in the case of Thomas, to thrust their hand into the wound of the spear in His side. And who were these witnesses? Consider the competency of men like James the brother of our Lord, and the eleven apostles who were not only qualified by their long and close acquaintanceship with Jesus, but by their great intelligence as well. We speak of them as humble fishermen and the like, but we forget that they were able by their preaching to turn "the world upside down," the world of the proud Augustan period; and that their writings still five as the most potent in the history of mankind. These were not ordinary witnesses. And the time at which their testimony was borne is of great importance, since it was practically contemporaneous with the event. It was a hundred years after Mohammed died before any miracles were claimed for him, and about as long after the death of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits. Paganism was equally careful to affirm no wonders of its saints until a sufficient period had elapsed to render the detection of a fraud impossible. But not so in the case of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. "The greater part of the five hundred brethren are still alive," says Paul to the Corinthians; "you can easily discover them and cross-examine them as to the things they saw and heard." And Paul is offering this challenge to a church in which there existed a party that contested the truth of which he spake. Think you not they would have improved this opportunity to ascertain the facts if they doubted them? As answering that question, we do not read that Paul, or any of his fellow-apostles ever discontinued their preaching of the resurrection. They proclaimed it almost daily even unto the end of their earthly life. They stood accused at the bar of justice for it. They made long, hazardous and manifold journeys on its account. They mentioned it in their letters and private conversation. They defended it. They suffered for it. They died for it. "Were such men as these either deceived or deceivers?" To doubt all this evidence, and much more that might be named, is to annul the whole science of history. As a modern apologist says: "Once admit that witnesses of the character and discernment of the apostles could be repeatedly, and in good faith, so grossly deceived about an event so easily determinable as the resurrection of Jesus, and any sophist will be able in the same way with ease to get rid of any fact of history that he finds convenient." {1} {1} Ludwig von Gerdtell, " Have We Satisfactory Evidence of the New Testament Miracles? " ======================================================================== CHAPTER 6: 01.03. THE RESURRECTION OF THE RACE ======================================================================== Chapter 3 - The Resurrection Of The Race "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept. "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" (1 Corinthians 15:20-22). Paul’s conclusion in the premises must be ours, when he says: "Now is Christ risen from the dead." But what of the inference he draws? Here apply Dean Alford’s words about Christ’s "inclusive humanity," and "the revelation of holy mysteries imparted by special inspiration." From history alone Paul might have known that Christ arose, but without revelation how could he have known that Christ was "the firstfruits of them that slept," and how could he have made the peculiar application of it which he does? By the "first-fruits" is meant the earnest or pledge that the whole resurrection harvest will follow. There is some reason to believe that this epistle was written about the time of the passover (1 Corinthians 15:7), while the day after the Passover Sabbath was that for the offering of the first-fruits (Leviticus 23:10-11). As the same was the day of Christ’s resurrection, we perceive the appropriateness of the image. There were indeed those who rose from the dead before Christ, as the man whose corpse touched the bones of Elisha (2 Kings 13:21), or those whom Christ Himself raised from the dead, and others who came out of their graves at the time of His crucifixion. But in all these cases there was a return to the grave afterwards, and hence no resurrection in the sense that they never saw death again. He was the first-fruits of them that slept and who now are alive forevermore! But how shall we explain the words that follow? "We know that by man came death," for this we are taught in the story of Eden and the comment upon it in Romans 5. And we know that " by man came also the resurrection of the dead," for, as we have seen, through Christ this great blessing has been received. And yet the meaning of the word "all" is not clear. "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Does it have the same significance in both cases? We know that all men without exception die in Adam, but do all men without exception rise in Christ? This may be accepted without danger if we keep in mind that there are two kinds of resurrection-a resurrection of the just and of the unjust, a resurrection unto life, and a resurrection unto condemnation (Luke 14:14; John 5:29). Indeed it strengthens the Gospel position to insist that because Christ has risen from the dead, every man shall rise, both the wicked and the righteous, whether he will or not, to receive the things done in his body whether they be good or bad. But instead of emphasizing the word "all" we might emphasize the word "in," and then the teaching would be that only those who are in Christ, i. e., believing on Him, and saved by Him, are thus referred to. Of course, this would not exclude the thought just spoken of, that the wicked as well as the righteous are to rise, but only limit our attention for the moment to the latter. What a wonderful thought then this is, and how comforting and assuring to Christian faith, that "because He lives, we shall live also" (John 14:19)! Our spiritual life now (to us who believe on Him), and our eternal life hereafter, are both secured by His life. To accommodate the figure used in this and other of the epistles, He is the head of His body, the Church, of which we are the members, and hence His life guarantees our life. My head cannot rise from the dead without including the rising of my whole body, and in like manner, Christ’s resurrection is incomplete without that of His people who are united to Him (1 Corinthians 12:12-13; Romans 6:8-11; Ephesians 3:4-7; Colossians 2:9-12). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 7: 01.04. THE ORDER OF THE RESURRECTION ======================================================================== Chapter 4 - The Order Of The Resurrection "But every man in his own order; Christ the first-fruits; afterwards they that are Christ’s at His coming. "Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God even the Father" (1 Corinthians 15:23-24). The word translated "order" in verse twenty-three (1 Corinthians 15:23) suggests a military figure, and might be rendered by "cohort " or "rank." You have some time stood by the side of a broad boulevard watching a procession pass. A battalion has gone by, and there has followed an interval or space. Then a second battalion has come into view and another interval or space; and then a third, and so on to the end. This is the picture set before us in this verse. The first division of the resurrection host has already appeared. It consisted of the Person of Jesus Christ who has "passed into the heavens." There has been an interval of 2,000 years, and how much longer it may be no one can prophesy. But at its close the second division will appear. It will consist of them that are His, i. e., who are united unto Him by faith, and it will come into view when He Himself shall "appear the second time without sin unto salvation" (Hebrews 9:28). "Then cometh the end." That is, after another interval, and, as some believe, after the period covered by the millennial reign, the third and last division shall appear. It will consist of "the rest of the dead" (Revelation 20:5), i. e., all, except those who will have been raised and glorified with Christ. "The end" is not specially considered in this chapter, which confines its attention chiefly to the resurrection of the saints at the coming of Christ and the glory that shall follow. And yet it tells us that at "the end" Christ "shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father." All through His millennial reign when His Church is reigning with Him, He will be putting " down all rule, and all authority and power," i. e., all such rule, authority and power as is opposed to Him and to His God and Father, Whom, as Mediatorial King, He represents. The last enemy thus to be put down is death, which, as "the wages of sin" (Romans 6:23), must exist as long as sin exists. It is only when sin is ended that what we know as death, the separation of soul and body, the dissolution of the complex nature of man into its constituent elements, shall henceforth cease to be.{1} And then when sin ceases, and death ceases, when the last enemy is destroyed, when all things are put under the Son, the latter will deliver up the kingdom, the Mediatorial Kingdom over which He has thus reigned, to God, the Father; and He Himself, as the Son, will be subject unto Him, God being "all in all." "The restoration of God’s Kingdom over the moral and spiritual part of man was the object of Christ’s mission on earth; for this He is called ’the door,’ and ’the way,’ because by Him are we brought nigh to God. Thus in the end each believer will have immediate and individual relations not only with the Man Christ Jesus, but with the Whole of the Blessed Trinity." {1} Cambridge Bible, ======================================================================== CHAPTER 8: 01.05. THE NATURE OF THE RESURRECTION BODY ======================================================================== Chapter 5 - The Nature Of The Resurrection Body "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come? "Thou fool, that which thou so west is not quickened, except it die; "And that which thou so west, thou so west not that body that shall be, but a bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain; but God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him, and to every seed his own body. "So also is the resurrection of the dead. "It is sown in corruption ; it is raised in incorruption; "It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body " (1 Corinthians 15:35-44). The question put into the mouth of the objector at the beginning of this section does not refer to the possibility of the resurrection but the character of the resurrection body. The skepticism here is expressed in the thought that "this poor, suffering and corrupt flesh of ours could not harmonize with the employments and splendours of the eternal life." It could not be competent for the functions and demands of an exalted spiritual state. "A wide-spread doctrine of the ancient philosophers was that the body is the prison of the soul, a foul enclosure, a drag, an enemy," and the thought that it should share the experiences of heaven seemed a scandal. They erred, not knowing the nature of the resurrection body. Paul seeks to remove this ignorance by a threefold analogy from nature: (a) "That which thou sowest is not quickened except it die." The death of the seed is absolutely necessary to the production of the plant, and indeed that death is part of the process of its own quickening. It is the same in the death of the human body. There is a process of quickening in that death, a process of change and of growth. To use the language of another, "death is not the mere inertness of a state of dissolution, but there is in it what is analogous to the germ principle of the seed." Whatever that is, it only "waits for the favourable environment of God’s appointed time to burst forth into developed life." And in doing so it lays hold of new particles and weaves them into a new tissue and a new fabric. (b) "That which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but a bare grain; . . . but God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him." In other words the resurrection body is a different one from that which died. The bare grain, the naked corn you deposit in the earth is a tiny thing, dry and uninteresting in appearance. But it comes forth a blade, an ear, a full corn in the ear, charmingly beautiful, and satisfying you with its fruit. So with the human body. The body that dies is not the body that shall be. Its pains and aches will not be experienced then. "The lusts which rage here shall not kindle their baleful fires there. The weariness of the flesh which so dogs our mental efforts, nothing of this shall characterize the risen body." As Paul says, what is sown in corruption shall be raised in incorruption; what is sown in dishonour shall be raised in honour; what is sown in weakness shall be raised in power; what is sown a natural body shall be raised a spiritual body. "Spiritual," as Bishop W. E. Nicholson reminds us, "not as regards its substance, for it will be matter still, but spiritual as regards its use. This present body could by no means accompany and sustain our spirits under the energy of the eternal life; but that future body will be the easy companion of the Christian soul in his farthest and highest explorations, a companion to the soul as wings are to the bird, as light is to the heat, as fragrance is to the breeze." God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him (c) "And to every seed its own body," or as the Revised Version expresses it, "to each seed a body of its own." In other words, while the resurrection body is not the same as to its particles it is still the same as to continuity and identity. The matter of our present bodies is always changing, and in that sense we have not the same body of seven years ago, and yet we have the same body nevertheless, and we are conscious of it beyond a doubt. To refer to the analogy, the seed imbedded in the ground and the plant produced by it are not the same and yet they are the same. Without that particular seed, that particular plant would not have been, and if the seed could be imagined as possessing self-consciousness, it would declare in the plant, "This is I myself." And so, quoting Bishop Nicholson again, "Our consciousness in the resurrection will tell us that the body we then inhabit is the one in which the deeds of our former life were done. That hand, then so powerful and so graceful in the beauty of heaven, will be the same that gave the cup of cold water here to a Christian brother. That tongue, then the very rival of Gabriel’s, will be the same which here sang of Jesus, and spake a word in season to him that was weary. Your own identity, from infancy through your earthly decease, onward into the splendours of the eternal life will lie before you as an unbroken scene. You will say, ’It is I myself.’" Thus "as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." In the present life we are like the first Adam; in the next we shall be like the second Adam. "For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:29). "For our citizenship is in heaven; from whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of His glory" (Php 3:21). "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" (1 John 3:2). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 9: 01.06. IF NOT RESURRECTION, THEN TRANSLATION ======================================================================== Chapter 6 - If Not Resurrection, Then Translation "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. "Behold I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed" (1 Corinthians 15:50-52). "The kingdom of God" here does not mean that which some day will be established in the earth, and in which Israel and the Gentile nations converted to God will be the subjects; but as another says, "the kingdom in glory," "the kingdom on the other side of death." To "inherit" it is the same as entering into it and partaking of its glory and its endless life. "Flesh and blood" cannot inherit it, because that is just another name for our human nature as it is, and Paul has already taught us that a change is necessary. Some of the early heretics made so much of this expression "flesh and blood" as to jump at the conclusion that it disposed of a material resurrection altogether. As if Paul would so flatly contradict himself almost in the same breath! But the early fathers of the Church opposed them, and cited as an argument the words of Jesus in Luke 24:39, where He attested His own resurrection by saying to His disciples, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." Evidently "flesh and bones" and "flesh and blood" are not identical terms. Quoting the Numerical Bible, "the blood applies to the present life. It is the vehicle of change. It is that which implies the need of continual sustenance and renewal. A body which needs no renewal cannot need blood to renew it." Was it for this reason that Jesus spake of Himself not as having "flesh and blood," but "flesh and bones"? He had poured out His blood, and left it with the earthly life that He had lived. But now He had entered on a new sphere, retaining all that made Him truly man, but not the conditions of the old earthly life. Is this what Paul means? May we say that "flesh and blood" shall not inherit the kingdom of God in this sense of it? But now comes the "mystery." The Scofield Bible on Matthew 13:11 defines a mystery in Scripture as "a previously hidden truth now divinely revealed, but in which a supernatural element still remains despite the revelation." There are eleven of these mysteries in the New Testament, but perhaps the most "spectacular" of them all is this: "We shall not all sleep," i. e., there is one generation of believers who shall never see death. And this same apostle, in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18, tells us who they will be. "For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven, . . . and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air ; and so shall we ever be with the Lord." We recall his words about the order of the resurrection. The second cohort of the resurrection army will consist of them "that are Christ’s at His coming." But with them will be another band not of raised ones, but of changed ones. "The dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." The "we" identifies those believers who will be alive and remaining on the earth in the flesh when Jesus comes. They shall be caught up. Paul expected to be one of these, hence the "we." "In a moment." The literal meaning is "that which is so small as to be actually indivisible." "Changed." Not entirely destroyed and created again, but receiving an addition of qualities which were not possessed before. "This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." In his second epistle to this church (2 Corinthians 5:4), Paul furnishes an interesting comment on this last statement. He says, "We that are in this tabernacle (this bodily frame) do groan, being burdened; not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life." And Murdock’s Literal Translation from the Syriac Peshitto Version renders it, "We groan under its burden; yet ye desire, not to throw it off, but to be clothed over it, so that its mortality may be absorbed in life." The idea is that the Christian is groaning not with the desire for death, but the glory of translation when the Lord comes. It is a picture of the saint ascending in his body of humiliation, and as he enters the clouds, being " clothed over " with his body of glory. Thus that part of him which is mortal is "swallowed up" in that which is immortal. What a blessed and glorious hope! "O, joy! O, delight! should we go without dying, No sickness, no sadness, no dread and no crying, Caught up through the clouds with our Lord into glory, When Jesus receives His own!" ======================================================================== CHAPTER 10: 01.07. OUR GROUND OF VICTORY ======================================================================== Chapter 7 - Our Ground Of Victory "O, death, where is thy victory? O, death, where is thy sting? "The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. "But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ’’ (1 Corinthians 15:55-57). The apostle concluded the previous verse by saying, "Death is swallowed up in victory." A remarkable expression this, taken from the Old Testament, "denoting the swallowing up of the all-swallower," as Vitringa said. And now he follows it by a triumphal song, in which he seems "transported to the moment of the grand consummation." Death is likened by the apostle to a venomous beast armed with a deadly poison (the serpent of the garden of Eden comes into mind), and by the Holy Spirit he taunts him with his defeat. On the morning of July 4, 1898, a boy of five was awakened by the rejoicings of his elders over the destruction of the Spanish fleet by Admiral Sampson, in Santiago Harbour. He listened intently to the thrilling tale while standing in his little crib. Afterwards he was urged to dress and begin his sport with the torpedoes and firecrackers given him for Independence day, but he spurned them with the remark, "Who could set off torpedoes and firecrackers on a day like this! This is a victory worth while!" And so when death is emptied of its conquests on the resurrection morning, there will be "a victory worth while," in whose contemplation the fleeting vanities of the world may well be set aside. That the "sting of death is sin" is very easy to understand. "Who would fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life, But that the dread of something after death, The undiscovered country from whose bourn No traveller returns, puzzles the will, And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience doth make cowards of us all". It is not so easy, however, to understand the saying that "the strength of sin is the law." Yet it evidently means that what gives sin its power is that it is the transgression of the righteous law of an all-wise, all-loving and all-holy God before "Whom, in all our spiritual nakedness, we shall soon stand." "But thanks be to God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." How the victory? One summer day the writer went to console a farmer who had been seriously stung by a bee. "Well," said the farmer, "one thing gives me satisfaction; that bee ’ill never sting another man." "Oh," it was replied, "you killed it, did you?" "No," said he, with some disdain. "Don’t you know that a bee has only one sting, and that when he stings a man he leaves his sting in him? He may alight upon another man but he has no sting for him." Oh, blessed and holy truth! Death alighted upon Jesus Christ, and left its sting in Him. He tasted death for every man (Hebrews 2:9). "Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree" (1 Peter 2:24). Death may alight on us who believe on Him, but it has no fatal power. In other words, the mortal part of us may pass through the experience of death, but our spiritual part is safe. Christ has fulfilled the demands of the law on our behalf. He has satisfied divine justice. He is our righteousness, our sanctification and our redemption. He new creates our souls. He rescues our bodies from the grave. He gives us the victory in the fullest and completest sense, for "when Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall we also appear with Him in glory" (Colossians 3:4). This is a gift. God "giveth us the victory." He gives it to us through "our Lord Jesus Christ." They who take Christ take this gift. "He that hath the Son hath life" (1 John 6:12). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 11: 01.08. OUR OBLIGATON AND OPPORTUNITY ======================================================================== Chapter 8 - Our Obligation And Opportunity "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 15:58). The Holy Spirit is always practical in His teaching, but that is not to say that this magnificent chapter comes to a "tame conclusion" as some would have it. It is the very opposite indeed, since the conclusion links up so vitally the daily experiences of life "with the glory that shall be revealed in us" (Romans 8:18). "Therefore, my beloved brethren." Here is a discriminating word. "Brethren" does not mean brethren after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Brethren in Christ are in mind. The opening address of the epistle would settle that if there were nothing more. "Unto the Church of God which is at Corinth," are the words (1 Corinthians 1:2). And that there may be no mistake in classifying them it is added, "even to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints." But blessed be God, the saints are not limited to Corinth, but all are included "that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." "Be ye steadfast." This refers to our own inner purpose to adhere to "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3), especially the faith of the resurrection. "Unmovable" speaks of that which others may try to do to us. In other words, we ourselves are neither to turn away from the faith, nor permit others to turn us away. How responsible therefore are we for the counsel and the teaching to which we voluntarily lend an ear! "Always abounding in the work of the Lord." Here is the guarantee and evidence of our steadfastness, and also the strongest offset to them who would lead us astray. "The work of the Lord" is that which He works in us, and which we bring to pass in His strength. As Kling says, "it is the work Christ Himself undertook in obedience to the Father’s commission, and which He has commanded His followers to carry forward." There are two utterances of His that tell us what it is. The first is Luke 19:10 : "The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." And the second, John 20:21 : "As the Father hath sent Me, even so send I you." "Abounding." In other words, why limit our reward by limiting our service? Why not be "over and above" in what we are privileged to do? "Always." Through all time, in every season, and in every way. And why? "Forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord." Not in vain, not useless, not unprofitable, because there is such a thing as the resurrection of the dead, a resurrection which means reward to them that are in Christ if they have been found faithful in Him. That subject of reward! None seems so little understood. As A. J. Gordon once said: "If the Romanist has exalted merit to the utter exclusion of grace, the Protestant is in danger of exalting grace to the utter exclusion of merit." Of course merit has nothing to do with our pardon and acceptance, as the same author goes on to say. As sinners standing before the mercy-seat "there is no difference for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"; and therefore all must be saved on the same terms, "being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." But as saints standing before the judgment-seat, there is a difference, since believers are to be judged, "that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad" (2 Corinthians 5:10). Rewards have a very important place in the scheme of redemption. In order to magnify the grace of God all men must be reduced to the same level of unworthiness, but there is no necessity to fix them there forever. Did not our Lord promise His faithful ones that they should be " recompensed at the resurrection of the just"? {1} Hence these two "looks" enjoined in Scripture, with the quotation of which we bring this exposition to a close: "Look unto me and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth" (Isaiah 45:22). "Look to yourselves,-that ye receive a full reward" (2 John 1:8). {1} "The Two-Fold Life," p. 238. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 12: 02.00. A TEXT-BOOK ON PROPHECY ======================================================================== A Text-Book on Prophecy By REV. JAMES M. GRAY, D.D. Dean of the Moody Bible Institutes of Chicago Author of "The Christian Worker’s Commentary," "Synthetic Bible Studies," Great Epochs of Sacred History," "How to Master the English bible," "The Antidote to Christian Science," "Primers of the Faith," "Prophecy and the Lord’s Return,” etc. NEW YORK CHICAGO Fleming H. Revell Company LONDON AND EDINBURGH Copyright, 1918,by FLEMING H. REVELL COMPANY New York: 158 Fifth Avenue Chicago: 17 North Wabash Ave. London: 21Paternoster Square Edinburgh: 75 Princes Street ======================================================================== CHAPTER 13: 02.0000. CONTENTS ======================================================================== Contents I. THESEEDOF THE WOMAN, OR THE FIRST PROMISE OF REDEMPTION • 11 II. GOD’S COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM, OR WHY HE CHOSE ISRAEL •18 III. GOD’S COVENANT WITH DAVID, OR THE COMING KINGDOM • 27 IV. THE "TIMES OF THE GENTILES" AND THE IMPENDING JUDGMENTS• 35 V.ISRAEL RESTORED AND RENEWED• 41 VI. THE PLACE OF THE CHURCH IN THE PLAN OF REDEMPTION • 48 VII. HOW THE KINGDOM AND THE CHURCH DIFFER• 54 VIII. THE ANTICHRIST, HIS HISTORY AND HIS DOOM• 64 IX. WHY THE POPE IS NOT THE ANTICHRIST• 77 X. BABYLON: HER COMING RESTORATION AND HER FALL• 83 XI. THE DAY OF THE LORD--WHEN IT COMES AND WHATITMEANS• 96 XII. DOES THE BIBLE TEACH A GENERAL JUDGMENT?• 106 XIII. THE MILLENNIUM: WHEN, WHAT AND WHERE?• 114 XIV.CHRIST’S FUTURE EARTHLY REIGN • 127 XV. THE AGE AND ITS APOSTASY • 136 XVI. GLOSSARY OF PROPHETIC WORDS • 145 XVII. THE END OF THE AGE AND HOW TO MEET IT • 154 XVIII. WHY GERMANY CANNOT RULE THE WORLD • 165 XIX. PROPHECY CHANGING THE MAP OF EUROPE • 174 XX. IS THE KAISER THE ANTICHRIST? • 183 XXI. WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ABOUT RUSSIA • 192 XXII. JERUSALEM’S CAPTURE IN THE LIGHT OF PROPHECY • 200 XXIII. WHY CHRISTIANS SHOULD STUDY PROPHECY • 207 ======================================================================== CHAPTER 14: 02.00000. THE BOOK AND HOW TO USE IT ======================================================================== The Book and How to Use It THE war with Germany greatly quickened popular interest in the prophetic books of the Bible, and theChristian Herald,New York, asked the author for a series of articles on the subject. They numbered eight, and bore the general title of "The Mountain Peaks of Prophecy." Before the conclusion of the series the- attention awakened seemed to justify an increase of the number of articles to twelve, and later that number was doubled. Questions from correspondents began to multiply which were replied to in some of the later articles, and as the whole assumed more and more the form of class instruction, the management of the paper urged the present publication in book form for wider and more permanent use. One or two articles have been omitted here as being rather ephemeral in character and not essential to the rounding out of the subject; but those that appear do so, with few exceptions, in their original order, and with practically no change in the text. Repetitions and recapitulations incident to the serial form of composition have had to be retained, but it is thought these may be found not undesirable where the study of the book is pursued in classes as is contemplated in some instances, and for which the questions have been added at the close of each chapter. In class study it would be preferable for each member of the class to possess a copy of the book, and in home preparation to read and reread the assigned lesson, being careful to examine the Scripture references in every case. Then when the class meets the teacher should propound the questions as prepared, and let that exercise be followed by one of general discussion and interchange of views. Where it is inconvenient for books to be provided for all the class, the teacher, after careful preparation, might read the lesson to his students when assembled, adding such explanatory remarks as seemed desirable, and then ask the questions. The correct answer might not come as readily in this as in the other case, but the errors and mistakes of some would possess a pedagogic value of their own, and contribute most interestingly to the general discussion at the close. In the preparation of the work the author sought to avoid as far as possible the expression of merely his own opinions in the premises, and to give Scriptural authority for all his interpretations of the prophets. Where he did not know, or was in doubt he said so, and yet the necessary limitations of space in the periodical may have resulted in a flavour of dogmatism here and there which was not intended. Generous consideration is asked for this, as the author fully recognizes the merits of other interpretations than his own; and values the scholarship and judgment with which he is not able always to agree. Notwithstanding, he hopes this simple text-book may be useful to beginners, and stimulate them to broader and profounder study of that "word of prophecy, whereunto 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" (2 Peter 1:19). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 15: 02.01. THE SEED OF THE WOMAN, OR THE FIRST PROMISE OF REDEMPTION ======================================================================== I THE SEED OF THE WOMAN, OR THE FIRST PROMISE OF REDEMPTION I FROM the beginning let us keep in mind that the Bible is not a history of creation, nor a history of the world, nor of the human race, but a history of redemption-the redemption of the race and of the earth on which it dwells. This history begins to be recorded at the moment the necessity for redemption appears; that is, when man first fell into sin, as indicated in Genesis 3:1-24. At the fifteenth verse of that chapter God is pronouncing His curse upon the serpent, who represented Satan, and says: "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." This verse is the first promise of redemption, and has sometimes been called the protevangelium, a Greek word, meaning the earliest proclamation of the Gospel. When God says, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman," “thee" refers primarily to the serpent, and yet the context shows that some one other than the serpent is ultimately in mind. That one is Satan, as we gather from Revelation 12:9 and Revelation 20:2, where the serpent is introduced again and identified with "the devil and Satan." Thus, at the very beginning of his attempt upon man, Satan is frustrated in his plan. He thought he had entered into a harmonious and perpetual and successful compact with man against God, but finds that it is broken ere it begins to work. It is enmity and not friendship that shall exist. Happy are we if we appreciate this enmity, and in our daily contact find daily conflict! The enmity is to be not only between the serpent and the woman, let it be observed, but "between thy seed and her seed." The "seed" of the serpent is the generation of evil men in all the days, as John’s words in Matthew 3:7, and those of Jesus in Matthew 13:38; Matthew 23:33 and John 8:44 firmly establish. Compare also Acts 13:10 and 1 John 3:8. In like manner the "seed" of the woman is the generation of the righteous, as we may gather from Psalms 22:30 and elsewhere, although its stricter application is to the person of Jesus Christ. The emphasis on the word "woman" in the text suggests His virgin birth; but whether or not, the whole story of the Bible, and hence the whole story of redemption, gathers around this "seed." We find it referred to in the call of Abraham and the founding of the nation of Israel, Genesis 12:3; Genesis 15:5, and elsewhere. Isaac, the son of Sarah, was the immediate realization of the promise, and yet he was only the type of the true Isaac who was to come. This is proven by Paul’s words to the Galatians (Galatians 3:16), where he says: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." It was this seed to whom the prophet Nathan referred in revealing the divine promise to David that his son should sit upon his throne and that his kingdom should be established forever (2 Samuel 7:12, compared with Psalms 132:11). It was this seed that Isaiah prophesied of (Isaiah 7:14), and Jeremiah, and Micah, and Malachi. Indeed" to Him bear all the prophets witness. " II But the text continues: "It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Satan and his seed, considered as one totality, succeeded in bruising the Saviour’s heel all through His earthly career, from the murderous antipathy of Herod to the expiring groan on the cross. But after all it was only a bruising of the heel; it was not deadly, nor destructive either of the Saviour Himself or the great purpose of redemption for which He came into the world. On the other hand, the Saviour bruised Satan’s head, a type of the deadly final overcoming power of Christ. This bruising of Satan’s head may be said to have begun when Christ overcame him in the wilderness. Another stage of it was reached in His resurrection, when He spoiled principalities and powers, and made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in the cross (Colossians 2:15). Another will be reached when, at His second coming, Satan shall be bound in the bottomless pit for a thousand years (Revelation 20:2). But the final stage will be reached when, after the millennial age, he shall be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone and be "tormented day and night forever and ever" (Revelation 20:10). It is of the deepest interest to true believers to note that the Holy Spirit, through Paul, unites Christ and them in one totality, so far as the bruising of Satan’s head is concerned. In Romans 16:20 it is promised that the God of peace shall bruise Satan under our feet shortly. Long has he tormented us, and more especially from the beginning of our Christian life has he shown himself the adversary of our souls; but, as Bishop Moule says: "Let us meet his inroads and attacks in the name of Him who has made peace for us and works peace in us, and his afflictions will soon be over." III After this first promise of redemption, God leaves man to himself, as it were, for a period of 1,500 years, more or less. There is no further promise, prophecy or prediction till we come to the days of Noah. All this time man has an opportunity to return to God if he will, and no doubt in the fullest fellowship and blessing, on the basis of that first promise of redemption through a personal Redeemer. But the result is well known. At the end of that period, “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thought of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth" (Genesis 6:5-7). The deluge followed, and only "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." But the deluge did not change man’8nature, evidence of which is soon seen thereafter in the drunkenness of Noah and the licentiousness of his son Ham (Genesis 9:19-25). Practically the same conditions maintained in the whole race as before that awful judgment, and issued at length in what with truth has been called "an organized political and religious revolt against God." This refers to the event of the tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-32). As men again multiplied on the face of the earth, union and consolidation for some reason came to be considered of prime importance. And on the plain of Shinar they said, "Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, whose top may reach to heaven, and let us make us a name; lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth" (Genesis 11:4). The attempt was a failure. "The Lord came down to see the city and the tower," language of sublime simplicity suited to the early mind of man, and expressive of the interposing providence of God. This was a providence of judgment, but, as always, judgment tempered with mercy. Their language was confounded and their union dissipated, but they themselves were not destroyed. Nevertheless they were abandoned to their own evil ways. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." "As they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind" (Romans 1:18-32), and "the loathsome moral condition of Sodom and Gomorrah is a miniature picture of the debasing corruption that followed" ("When God Comes Down to Earth," Stroh). It now looked as though God’s name and God’8 truth would be forgotten in the earth. It now looked as though that first promise of redemption would come to nought. It now looked as though the seed of the serpent had prevailed. But the next study will teach us differently. Our next "mountain peak II will present us with a clearer vision of the sweep and purpose of God’s grace. QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1.Define the Bible, stating what it is and what it is not. 2. Where does the history of redemption begin? 3. How would you identify Genesis 3:15? 4. Give Scriptural proof of the identity of the serpent and Satan. 5. Who are meant by the "seed" of the serpent? 6. Who distinctively is the "seed" of the woman? 7. Trace the history of the “seed of the woman" through the Old Testament. 8. What is meant by Satan’s bruising Christ’s heel? 9. Give the history of the bruising of Satan’s head. 10. What is the next great Bible prophecy and its fulfillment? 11. What is the next outstanding event after the deluge? 12. Describe the conditions leading up to that event. 13. Describe the conditions following. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 16: 02.02. GOD'S COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM, OR WHY HE CHOSE ISRAEL ======================================================================== II GOD’S COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM, OR WHY HE CHOSE ISRAEL I THE preceding chapter carried us forward to the story of the tower of Babel in Genesis 11:1-32, at which time it appeared as if the rebellion and iniquity of the race had driven the name and the truth of God out of the earth which He had made. But it was not so. It is written that "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance" (Romans 11:29), which, for our present purpose, means that His original promise of the redemption of the race had not been forgotten, and that His mind had not changed concerning it. But the period has now arrived for a change in the method of its execution. This does not mean that it is a new method, so far as God Himself is concerned. It is not a surprise to Him in the sense that He is obliged to adopt it because of a previous failure. "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world" (Acts 15:18). What He is now about to do had been not only foreknown but foreordained. He is about to call into being a secondary Instrument for the redemption of the race. The primary one is the Seed of the woman, as we saw in our first study: the Personal Redeemer, the Son of God. But the secondary one is the nation of Israel, whose beginnings take their rise in the call and history of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-20, Genesis 13:1-18, Genesis 14:1-24, Genesis 15:1-21, Genesis 16:1-16, Genesis 17:1-27, Genesis 18:1-33, Genesis 19:1-38, Genesis 20:1-18, Genesis 21:1-34, Genesis 22:1-24, Genesis 23:1-20, Genesis 24:1-67, Genesis 25:1-34). And for what purpose did God desire Israel! She was to be a repository for His truth in the earth, and to her was committed the sacred oracles. She was to be a channel for the coming of the Personal Redeemer to the earth, and she gave the world its Saviour. And she was to be a national witness to God before the other peoples of the earth. His unity, His supremacy, His character were to be made known through her, that all the ends of the earth might fear Him, and that the nations might "be glad and sing for joy" (Psalms 67:4). This brings us to our second mountain peak, where "the Lord said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will show thee" (Genesis 12:1). It was not of merit, but of grace, that this call came to Abraham. He dwelt in paganism, and was personally a sinner like all the rest of mankind. No partiality was shown to him above other men, in the sense that God loved him more than them. He was chosen for this place because God loved the whole race of men and desired to save them by this means. "A Syrian ready to perish was my father," the priests of Israel were taught to say, and although when first spoken this referred to Jacob, yet its application to his grandfather Abraham would have been equally true. The sequel will disclose this. II Look now at the threefold blessing on Abraham. There was, first, a blessing for himself: "I will bless thee, and make thy name great" (Genesis 12:2). Little is required to remind us of the fulfillment of this promise. Whether we follow Abraham in his temporary sojourns into Egypt and Philistia, or abide with him in the peaceful tents of Canaan, or accompany him to battle against the confederacy of Chedorlaomer, it was still the same. God was his Friend (Isaiah 41:8), and kings honoured him, and his silver and gold increased and his cattle and land multiplied. Nor was it only in things physical but also in things spiritual that this was true. Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness (Genesis 15:6); and so transcendent a blessing was this that it becomes the New Testament exemplar of Gospel grace. Christ was made a curse for us, says the Apostle Paul, "that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ" (Galatians 3:13-14). Abraham’s name is great. There was, secondly, a blessing for his direct posterity--"I will make of thee a great nation" (Genesis 12:2); "I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth" (Genesis 13:16). Israel has not been great, numerically or territorially, as compared with other nations; but she has been great in God’s dealings with her, in the wonders wrought in her history, in the things she has accomplished and in the influence she has exerted, not only on the nations contiguous to her but on those of the whole earth. And, as we shall see, her history is not ended, but only temporarily suspended. When the present interregnum has expired, and Israel again takes up her mission in Palestine, the career outlined for her is more glorious than her past. She is to be the head of the nations and not the tail (Amos 9:11-15). Moreover, as our former study pointed out, believers on Jesus Christ are the spiritual seed of Abraham, "a multitude whom no man can number." There was, in the third place, a blessing for the whole world--"Thou shalt be a blessing"; "In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed" (Genesis 12:2-3). This also has been literally fulfilled. All who came into right relationship with Abraham personally were blessed because of that relationship. All who came into right relationship with Israel, the nation that proceeded out of his loins, were blessed for the same reason. But very specially all who have come into right relationship with Jesus Christ, the spiritual seed of Abraham, have been so blessed, and literally they are of "all the families of the earth." However, this part of the promise also awaits complete fulfillment in the time to come; for some day "the earth shall be fullof the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" (Isaiah 11:9). III But there are two contributing agencies to the execution of this threefold blessing upon Abraham. The first was the gift of a land for him and his posterity to dwell in, and the second, the treatment which God purposed to accord to other individuals and nations as they treated Abraham and his descendants. "The land that I will show thee" is the way in which God first alludes to it in Genesis 12:1. Later, when Abraham came into Canaan, the Lord appeared unto him, and said: "Unto thy seed will I give this land" (Genesis 12:7). Still later, after his return from Egypt and subsequent separation from Lot, the Lord appeared unto him once more and, repeating the promise, said, "All the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it and to thy seed forever. . . . Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it, for I will give it unto thee" (Genesis 13:15-17). Finally for our present purpose, God makes a solemn covenant with Abraham, describing and defining the boundaries of the land, "from the river of Egypt unto the great river Euphrates" (Genesis 15:18-20). These boundaries, it may be said, are much more extensive than the territory Israel has ever yet occupied, indicating the greater future in store for her when she occupies the whole. Itis scarcely necessary to speak of its fruitfulness, caring for a large population in the past, and capable of caring for a larger one in the future when, by the special blessing of God, ••the plowman shall overtake the reaper, ’and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed" (Amos 9:13). Its location also is a strategic one. God, in Ezekiel, calls it the "middle of the earth," and the national and international struggles for the possession of its capital in the past bear out that description, to say nothing of the covetous eyes that are resting upon it to-day. Some have found fault with God for wresting this land from its earlier possessors to bestow it upon Israel. But they have not considered His motive for doing so, nor its justifying cause. As to His motive, we are always to keep in view His purpose to redeem the race, and the use He would make of Israel to that end. He was not giving this land to Israel for her own sake, as we have seen, but for the world’s sake. On the other hand, the occupants of the land, known in general terms as the Canaanites, had utterly forfeited its possession. You are a landlord, let us say; and you have a tenant who, with means abundant for the purpose, persistently refuses to pay your rent. Moreover, he has repaid your unwonted consideration for him by abusing your property into the bargain. Patience has ceased to be a virtue, and in the sight of both God and man you are justified in his ejection by due process of law. Nay, you are an unwise administrator of a trust if you fail to exercise your obligation to do so. God did no more than this; but He did this because, of the peoples of that land, it could be justly said that their cup of iniquity had been filled to overflowing for some time. Moreover, He will act in a similar way and on a larger scale when He again comes down to earth to deal in judgment with the sons of men. IV But no feature of this prophecy has more practical concern for us at present than the dealings of God. with other individuals and nations as they dealt with Abraham and his descendants. "I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee" (Genesis 12:3). The reason is added--"and in thee all the families of the earth shall be blessed." In other words, that this blessing may follow, Abraham and his descendants must be preserved and protected as the divine instrument to that end. Accordingly, when famine drives Abraham into Egypt and Pharaoh would take Sarah from him, "the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues," so that he was glad to send "him away, and his wife, and all that he had" (Genesis 12:14-20). God makes the enemies of Abraham’s son Isaac to be at peace with him. Laban cannot circumvent his grandson Jacob. Prison walls cannot prevent Joseph from being second in the kingdom of Egypt. On a larger scale of operations, Pharaoh and the whole kingdom of the Egyptians are plagued with terrific judgments, until Moses is given liberty to lead the Hebrews, as the descendants of Abraham are now called, out into the land of promise. Read the early historical books of the Old Testament from Joshua to Kings, and observe that this principle in God’s dealings with the nations never varied. Sometimes He used the nations in chastisement of Israel; but when they "helped forward the affliction," that is, when purpose of aggrandizement led them to inflict greater and more prolonged suffering upon Israel than was meet, their time of punishment always came. "It shall come to pass that when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high loess" (Isaiah 10:12). Thus said the Lord of one of these nations, and thus has He acted towards all of them. The trouble in the whole Gentile world to-day is attributable to the treatment of Israel or the Jew. Jonah in the whale’s belly is a type of disobedient Israel swallowed by the Gentile nations, which can enjoy no comfort until she is emitted and restored again to her own land. And when God begins to bless her again, those nations will be blessed with her. "God shall bless us," says the psalmist, "and all the ends of the earth shall fear him" (Psalms 67:7). QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1.Quote and apply Romans 11:29. 2. What new stage in the history of redemption is now reached? 3. Name the three purposes for which Israel is chosen. 4. Was this choice of debt or of grace? 5. Name the threefold blessing on Abraham. 6. Describe the fulfillment of the first blessing, 7. Describe that of the second blessing. 8. Describe that of the third blessing. 9. What two agencies were to contribute to the execution of the threefold blessing on Abraham? 10. In what Scriptures are the boundaries of the promised land defined? 11. Describe the territory thus granted to Israel. 12. How would you meet the objections as to the Divine method of its disposal on Israel? 13. Why does God "curse" those who "curse" Israel? 14. How did this “curse" operate in Israel’s history? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 17: 02.03. GOD'S COVENANT WITH DAVID, OR THE COMING KINGDOM ======================================================================== III GOD’S COVENANT WITH DAVID, OR THE COMING KINGDOM I OUR first mountain peak of prophecy was the first promise of redemption, in the garden of Eden (Genesis 3:15). Approximately 2,000 years elapsed before the second came into view in the promise to, and the covenant with, Abraham in Canaan (Genesis 12:15). The promise and covenant were a divine means for the execution of the original promise in Eden. Another millennium has very nearly slipped away ere the third mountain peak appears in the history of David. Abraham has now slept with his fathers. Isaac, his son and the heir of promise, has done likewise. The same is true of Jacob and Joseph, the other patriarchs. Their descendants, the Israelites--or the Hebrews, as they are now called--are a great multitude of people dwelling in Egypt. From their cruel bondage under Pharaoh they are delivered by the hand of Moses. They are settled in Canaan, the land of promise. Hundreds of years have passed in which they are ruled by Judges. But they have desired a king to be set over them like the nations roundabout; and at length David, the son of Jesse, a "man after God’s own heart" (1 Samuel 13:14), is strongly seated upon the throne. The Lord has given David rest from all his enemies, and one day, as he meditates upon it in his palace at Jerusalem, there comes into his heart the desire to build a magnificent temple there to the glory of Jehovah. But God will not have it so, and He sends Nathan, the prophet, to reveal His mind to the king. This is recorded in 2 Samuel 7:1-29. But it is at 2 Samuel 7:10, particularly, that the prophecy begins which attaches itself to the covenant God made with Abraham and which carries forward still further the plan for the redemption of the race. II Let us examine this prophecy. God will appoint a place for His people 1srael-" a place of their own," in which He will plant them, and from’ which they will move no more. "Neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more." God will cause them "to rest from all their enemies." Manifestly, the fulfillment of this is still future. They were in "a place of their own" when it was spoken to David, but not as yet were they planted there. They were moved soon afterwards and have been moving ever since. Their time of rest has not come, for "the children of wickedness," i.e.,the Gentile nations, have not ceased afflicting them to this day. But the Lord says further to David, "I will make thee an house." David will not be a builder just now, but God will be a builder, only the house that God will build for David is not a material one of wood and stone, but an earthly dynasty. "I will set up thy seed after thee . . . and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever." This suggests Solomon at first, but really "a greater than Solomon is here." Solomon’s kingdom was not established forever. Indeed, the next verse settles the prophecy as applying to Jesus Christ, the seed of the woman promised in Eden, and the seed of Abraham in whom" all the families of the earth shall be blessed. "In that verse, God says, "I will be his father and he shall be my son," and the inspired author of Hebrews quotes this as fulfilled ultimately in the Son of God (Hebrews 1:5). III Let us now look for the fulfillment of this prophecy; Solomon, the immediate successor of David, died. In the days of his son, Rehoboam, the kingdom is divided as a divine chastisement upon it for the sin of idolatry which had entered into it. There are two kingdoms now: Israel, or the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes, and Judah, or the kingdom of the two tribes. Three hundred and fifty years have rolled around since God’s covenant with David, and now the Assyrians have come down and carried Israel into captivity, never again to be restored to her own land as a separate kingdom. A century and a half later, or a little less, the same fate is visited upon Judah at the hands of Babylon. But since God had said that His Son should sit upon the throne of David, Judah as the kingdom of David must be restored again to make that true. Therefore in seventy years, according to the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 29:10), she is permitted to return (2 Chronicles 36:22-23). And now more years pass away, half a millennium indeed, and the promised Son does not appear. Judah is still a vassal, first to Babylon, then to Persia, then to Greece and at length to Rome. But one day, when Caesar is at the head of that Empire and Herod, the usurper, represents him in Judea, the angel Gabriel is "sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth; to a virgin, espoused to a man whose name is Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary. "And the angel said unto her, fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour 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 forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end" (Luke 1:26-33). Surely the hour has struck! But alas! "He came unto his own and his own received him not" (John 1:11). Instead of the crown they offered Him the cross. "He is despised and rejected of men." And they hid, as it were, their faces from Him (Isaiah 53:3). He now becomes the nobleman who must go into a far country to receive his kingdom and to return (Luke 19:11). He is crucified, dead and buried and the mourners go about the streets. Two of His disciples on the way to Emmaus are moaning because they "trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel" (Luke 24:21). But lo! He has risen from the dead and has appeared to His disciples, going in and out among them for forty days. It must be His purpose, now, to take to Himself the reins of government and set up the promised kingdom. One day they put the question to Him, saying, "Lord, wilt thou atthistime restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6). But once more there is disappointment and waiting. "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father has put in his own power. But ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. "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 towards 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 into heaven" (Acts 1:7-11). IV Were the disciples mystified? If so, the mystery was deepened afterwards. At first, they went about their business of witnessing, when the Holy Ghost had come upon them, confining their witness to the Jews only. It was to them--the descendants of Abraham--that the kingdom had been promised, and to none other was the Gospel preached. But a great persecution arose, driving them out of Jerusalem, and they went everywhere preaching the Word (Acts 8:1-4). The Gentiles began to hear it, and with the same results as in the case of the Jews at Pentecost (Acts 11:15). What could this mean, Was the privilege of the kingdom for them, as well as for the Jews’ A council of the church must be called to consider it (Acts 15:1-41). Peter at this council relates his experience in the household of Cornelius, the centurion, and Paul and Barnabas also declare" what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them." When lo! the Holy Spirit comes upon James, the presiding officer, and reveals in outline the whole plan of God in the premises for this age and that which is to come. The mystery at length is solved. "Men and brethren, hearken unto me," said James. "Simeon (i.e., Peter) 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 may seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, said the Lord who doeth all these things" (Acts 15:13-17). Study this programme, and see that God is not now, and in this age, setting up the kingdom promised to David, but doing something else. What He is really doing is taking out from among the Gentiles "a people for his name." Or, as collateral Scriptures explain, He is building up His Church which is called the Body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23). The time will come, and may be very near, when this Body will be complete, and the Church will be taken out of the earth, caught up "to meet the Lord in the air" (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18). "And to this agree the words of the prophets," as James says; namely, that“after this," or in other words, after the Church has been translated, Christ will return to the earth, and in Him God will set up the kingdom of David which is fallen down. That is to say, God’s covenant with David standeth true, as recorded in 2 Samuel 7:1-29, but the time is not yet. The Church must be translated first, and Christ must come again. The next chapter will make this clearer to us, bringing before us as it will the converging line of Gentile history. QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1.About how much time" elapsed between the great event of Genesis 3:15 and that of Genesis 12:15? 2. Give the history of the chosen people between the death of Abraham and the Kingship of David. 3. What Scripture contains God’s covenant with David? 4. Name the promises in this covenant. 5. Prove that Jesus Christ rather than Solomon is in mind here. 6. Read carefully Hebrews 1:1-14. 7. Trace the history of Israel from Solomon to the Babylonian captivity. 8. Trace the history of Judah from the return to the birth of Jesus. 9. What hindered the fulfillment of Luke 1:33 at that time? 10. Can you recite the parable of the nobleman? 11. What is the promise of Acts 1:11? 12. Give the history of the Church from the ascension of Christ to the first council at Jerusalem. 13. Analyze the divine program as revealed to James. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 18: 02.04. THE "TIMES OF THE GENTILES" AND THE IMPENDING JUDGMENTS ======================================================================== IV THE "TIMES OF THE GENTILES" AND THE IMPENDING JUDGMENTS I OUR fourth study leads us away temporarily from the history of the Jew to that of the Gentile. The word "Gentile" is commonly used in the Bible as synonymous with the word "nations." It distinguishes all the other nations of the world from the one nation of Israel, which God had chosen for a particular purpose in connection with the redemption of the human race. What this purpose was and is, we defined in the second chapter, entitled" God’s Covenant with Abraham." It ought to be said here that now, and hereafter, we use the name "Israel" interchangeably with "Judah," as indicating the descendants of Abraham after the flesh. The division of the original kingdom of Israel into two kingdoms, mentioned in our last chapter, is no longer necessary to be kept in view, because in the restoration the two are again to be brought together in one (Isaiah 11:12-13; Hosea 1:11); and even now they are so blended as to be indistinguishable to the human eye. It was God’s purpose that Israel should be an independent nation and, because of His peculiar relation to her, necessarily dominant in the affairs of earth. But this position of privilege she forfeited by her disobedience and iniquity, as indicated in our last chapter on "God’s Covenant with David." In chastisement upon her, God withdrew His directing and protecting care from her in a national capacity at a certain period in time past, and transferred the authority and power incident thereto into the hands of the Gentiles. This period was about 600 B. C., when Nebuchadnezzar was on the throne of Babylon, the record of the transfer being found in Jeremiah 27:1-22 and Daniel 2:1-49. II This is the story of Jeremiah 27:1-22 : Judah is as yet located in her own land, but the hour of her captivity is near at hand, though she refuses to believe God’s prophet when he tells her so. In the meantime, Babylon has risen to great power in the East, and is aspiring to world-dominion, with covetous eyes upon the control of the Mediterranean Sea. Like all her successors, she realizes this to be the key to the problem. But to control the Mediterranean, Babylon must subjugate the smaller nations lying inthe path of it, which are Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon, all of which are contiguous to Judah. Last, but not least, she must subjugate Judah also. The nations thus named are not ignorant of her purpose, and at the opening of our chapter we find them, by their representatives, in international council assembled in the city of Jerusalem. Zedekiah, king of Judah, doubtless is presiding over them. We can imagine them discussing ways and means. "Preparedness" is their theme. An alliance or a coalition is proposed by them to withstand the oncoming of the conqueror. But, speaking after the manner of men, God seizes upon the occasion of their meeting to send His prophet to them with a message both in word and symbol. Jeremiah is to make himself "bonds and yokes," or "bands and bars," and put them upon his neck. It appears that he is to make duplicates of them also, and send them to the kings of the countries represented in the conclave. They are to be sent to them by the hands of their representatives at the conclave. And with these "bonds and yokes" is to go a message to the effect that God has made the earth and the man and beast upon it, and that He has given it to whom it seemed right in His sight. "And now," He adds, "have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, my servant. . . . And all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son’s son, until the time of his own land come. . . . And it shall come to pass that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar. . . that nation will I punish . . . until I have consumed them by his hand." These same words Jeremiah communicates to Zedekiah, king of Judah, saying "Bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him and his people, and live." The sequel we know. Turning a deaf ear to the prophet of the Lord, Judah and her king went their own way. And that way was into Babylonian captivity for seventy years. Nay, more; it was into captivity to the Gentiles from that day until this, as Daniel 2:1-49 more clearly predicts and reveals. III Turning to Daniel 2:1-49, we find that while the allies are conferring in Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar is dreaming in Babylon. But by morning he has forgotten his dream, and its meaning remains a mystery until Daniel is enlightened from above to reveal it to him. He had seen a colossal metal image, with head of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs of iron and feet part of iron and part of clay. A stone, cut out without hands, smote the image upon its feet and brake them in pieces. Then were the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver and the gold broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors, and the wind carried them away. Then "the stone that smote the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth." The interpretation of the dream was this: The image represented the Gentile dominion in the earth from the time of Nebuchadnezzar, i.e., about 600 B.C., down to the end of this age, when Israel shall be restored to her old place, and when the kingdom of God, otherwise the kingdom of David and the son or David, Jesus Christ, shall be set up on its ruins. The four different metals of the image represented four world-empires, among which Gentile dominion would be divided in all this time. The head of gold was Babylon; the breast and arms of silver were the Medo-Persian Empire; the belly and thighs of brass were Greece, and the legs and feet of iron were Rome; not papal Rome of course, but political Rome. The two legs of iron represent the two halves into which the Roman Empire was divided hundreds of years ago; the eastern half with its capital at Constantinople, and the western half with its capital at Rome. The ten toes represent ten separate kingdoms, or nations, into which these two halves of the empire will be divided at the end of this age. The iron represents the monarchical power in those kingdoms or nations, and the clay the democratic power. The two elements "mingle themselves with the seed of men, but they shall not cleave to one another, even as iron is not mixed with clay." "In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed." In other words, when the Roman Empire shall be found in the form indicated, ten kingdoms (partly monarchic and partly democratic), Gentile dominion as such is doomed, and the day of Israel, or rather the day of the Lord on this earth, begins. The stonestrikesthe image, indicating a collision of some kind between the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of men. Doubtless this is that judgment on the Gentile nations of the time indicated by the battle of Armageddon in Revelation 16:1-21, and foreshadowed in the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:1-46}. The collisiondestroysthe image, and brings Gentile dominion to an end. This does not mean the destruction of all the individuals on the earth, but the disintegration of those nations as nations, or the passing of the balance of power out of their hands, thus affording an opportunity for the coming in of that Kingdom of God which" shall stand forever." QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1.For what does the word “Gentile" stand’? 2. How are the names, “Israel" and “Judah" hereafter used in this text-book? 3. Have you read Isaiah 11:12-13 and Hosea 1:11? 4. What was God’s purpose for Israel and how was it forfeited by her? 5. What chastisement now falls on her and when does it begin? 6. Tell in your own words the story of Jeremiah 27:1-22. 7. Recite Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and its interpretation. 8. .If the “image" represented Gentile dominion, what did its four metal parts represent? 9. What about the application of the legs, feet and toes? 10. What is meant by God’s Kingdom being set up? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 19: 02.05. ISRAEL RESTORED AND RENEWED ======================================================================== V ISRAEL RESTORED AND RENEWED I IN considering "the Times of the Gentiles" in our last chapter, it was assumed throughout that when those "times" came to an end the time of Israel, as a nation, would begin again; that she would be restored to her own land and be in fellowship with God, through faith in Jesus of Nazareth, her Messiah and her Saviour. It remains to prove this. The proof begins indeed with the initial promise to Abraham. "All the land, . . . to thee will I give it, and to thy seedforever"(Genesis 13:15). This promise practically was repeated to David, the kingdom of whose Son was to be establishedforever(2 Samuel 7:13). Certainly in the perspective there appeared no opportunity for a doubt in this matter, and no indication of even a break in the continuity of the possession of the land or the perpetuity of the kingdom. A break came, however, as we have seen, first in the division of the kingdom in Rehoboam’s reign, and later in the captivity both of Israel and Judah. Nevertheless, the later prophets now take up the strain, and foretell that this break, serious as it is and prolonged as it may be, will make no difference in the outcome. God’s word shall be fulfilled, and His purpose of the redemption of the world through the descendants of Abraham shall not fail. Take the first of these prophets in the order in which they appear in our canon. Isaiah, in his earliest message, speaks of the spiritual harlotry of Judah and Jerusalem and of the judgments that shall fall upon her, but they will be purifying judgments. Her judges shall be restored as at the first and her counsellors as at the beginning, and afterwards she shall be called "the city of righteousness, the faithful city" (Isaiah 1:25-27). Manifestly this has not yet taken place in the history of Jerusalem, and unless God’s word shall fall to the ground, it is still to be looked for. Jeremiah is very full and very plain in similar prophesying, and almost at random we select for our illustration Jeremiah 33:1-26. Jehovah, by the prophet, is speaking of the Babylonian victory soon to be accomplished over Judah, and her captivity to follow. Of Jerusalem especially He says: "I have hid my face from this city." But then He adds, "I will cause the captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and will blend them as at the first. And I will cleanse them from all iniquity. . . . And this city shall be to me a name of joy, a praise and an honour before all the nations of the earth" (Jeremiah 33:5-9). As further accentuating the futurity of these promises they are associated with the second coming of Christ. "In those days and at that time will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David, and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord, our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 33:15-16). Four times in the chapter does Jehovah refer to His covenant with David (see the third chapter), reaffirming it, and declaring that it will not be broken any more than His covenant of the day and of the night shall be broken. Ezekiel’s prophecy of the dry bones is so familiar that it is not necessary to quote it (Ezekiel 37:1-28); but it may be sufficient to say that the resurrection it typifies is not a physical resurrection of individuals, but a political resurrection of the nation of Israel and Judah, to be then brought together again as one. Their moral resurrection is foretold in the preceding chapter, on which ground it is that the Lord is now able to say: "And David my servant shall be king over them and they shall have one shepherd; they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers dwelt; . . . and my servant David shall be their prince forever. . . . And I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them forevermore. . . . Yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And the Gentiles shall know that I the Lord do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them forevermore" (Ezekiel 37:24-28). Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks is even better known than Ezekiel’s valley of dry bones. These seventy weeks, or seventy "sevens" of time, are determined upon Judah and Jerusalem "to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in everlasting righteousness" (Daniel 9:24). There is a general agreement among students of prophecy that a period of 490 years is here referred to, which is broken up into three parts. The first part ended with the rebuilding of Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity, and the second with the crucifixion of Christ and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. The third part is yet to come, the last of the seventy sevens, during which these events of which Daniel speaks will be brought to pass, and which are similar in character to, and synchronize with, the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel, already named. We might pause here with our consideration of these four, which are called the major prophets; but Hosea, the first in order of the minor prophets, is a unique witness. As an object lesson, Jehovah called upon him to marry an unchaste woman, who deserted him even after she had borne him children. Nevertheless, he was commanded still to love and to provide for her, and to covenant while doing so, that she should not be the wife of any other man and that he would keep himself for her. All this, we are told, is "according to the love of the Lord towards the children of Israel." "For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king, and without prince, and without sacrifice, and without an image, and without ephod, and without teraphim. Afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days" (Hosea 3:1-5). II A question might arise at this point as to whether these prophecies, uttered prior to the Babylonian captivity of Judah, do not find fulfillment in their return therefrom. One method of reply to this would be to point out, as might easily be done, that the nut does not fit the bolt. In other words, the prophecies werenotfulfilled in that return. Jerusalem did not then become the righteous or faithful city. Judah and Israel were not cleansed from all iniquity then, nor did the nation then become a praise and honour before all the other nations of the earth, and much more to the same purport. But another method of reply is to quote the prophets who prophesiedafterthe Babylonian captivity, and whose utterances are in perfect harmony with those who went before. Take a single one, Zechariah. In the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth chapters he is speaking of a time yet to come, when Jehovah "will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the peoples round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem." In former times, when the sacred city had been besieged, the Gentile nations had been made "a cup of trembling" for her, but now it will be reversed. In that day "I will seek to destroy all nations that come against Jerusalem." When the Romans came against Jerusalem,A. D.70, this was not so, but Jerusalem herself was destroyed. Is it not evident, therefore, that a future period is meant? In that day“they shall look unto me, whom they have pierced." "In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness." "And his feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives." “And the Lord shall be King over all the earth." Even a cursory reading of these chapters must convince anyone willing to be convinced that the prophet is speaking of a time which is yet to come, when Judah and Israel shall be restored. And the same is the testimony of the New Testament as well as the Old. Christ’s words in Matthew 24:15-31 have not yet been fulfilled in the history of Judah and Jerusalem, and who shall dare to say that they shall not be? And what of Paul’s remarkable testimony in Romans 11:1-36? “I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved." As a closing word it may be said that, unless Israel shall be restored again to her own land, the larger part of the book of Revelation, certainly Revelation 7:1-17, Revelation 8:1-13, Revelation 9:1-21, Revelation 10:11, Revelation 11:1-19, Revelation 12:1-17, Revelation 13:1-18, Revelation 14:1-20, Revelation 15:1-8, Revelation 16:1-21, Revelation 17:1-18, Revelation 18:1-24, Revelation 19:1-21, Revelation 20:1-15, would be almost entirely without meaning. Those chapters are very largely Jewish, and relate to events that will take place in the history of that people, to a considerable extent in Palestine and the beloved city of Jerusalem. QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1. What proof of the future restoration of Israel is there in Genesis 13:15 and 2 Samuel 7:13? 2. Quote Isaiah on this point. 3. How does Jeremiah associate the restoration with the second coming of Christ? 4. To what earlier promise of God does Jeremiah 33:1-26 refer? 5. What two kinds of “resurrection" in Israel’s case are named by Ezekiel, and where? 6. What is to be the consummation of Daniel’s “seventy weeks"? 7. In what chapter of Daniel is this referred to? 8. Distinguish in history, past and future, the three parts of these seventy weeks. 9. What makes the prophet Hosea a unique witness to the future restoration? 10. In what two ways would you reply to the question as to whether these prophecies were not fulfilled in Judah’s return from Babylon? 11. Have you read Zechariah 12:1-14; Zechariah 13:1-9; Zechariah 14:1-21, or Matthew 24:15-31? 18. What verse of Romans 11:1-36 is quoted in this chapter? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 20: 02.06. THE PLACE OF THE CHURCH IN THE PLAN OF REDEMPTION ======================================================================== VI THE PLACE OF THE CHURCH IN THE PLAN OF REDEMPTION I THUS far in our studies, almost nothing has been said about the Church, and for the reason that we have been dealing chiefly with the Old Testament, in which the Church is not named. The Kingdom of God is there in evidence, the Church being reserved for the present age. Paul refers to this interestingly in the last chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, at Romans 16:25-26. He is speaking of his Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, and alludes to it as "the mystery which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made . . . known to all nations for the obedience of faith." In other words, it was not revealed in the Old Testament; but for reasons already touched upon, and to be more particularly explained later on, it was kept until the occasion and the need for it appeared, after the rejection of Jesus Christ as the King of the promised Kingdom. In his Epistle to the Colossians (Colossians 1:23-27), the same apostle touches upon it from another angle. In the sufferings incident to his ministry he is filling up “that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ for his body’s sake, which is the Church." Of this Church he was made a minister according to a special “dispensation" or “stewardship" given him of God for the Gentiles, "to fully preach the Word of God." This fuller preaching meant the revelation of that "mystery which had been hid from all ages and generations, but now is made manifest to the saints." And if we ask what that mystery is, we find it to be the indwelling of Christ in His believing people. Nor does this mean merely His indwelling in the believer as an individual, but, and because of that, His indwelling in the Church, considered as His mystical body, of which the individual believer is a member by faith. Even more clearly does he express this in Ephesians 3:3-9. This "mystery" had been given to him, Paul, by revelation, which in other ages had not been made known unto the sons of men. And as to its essence, it was this: "That the Gentiles [with the believing Jews] should be fellow heirs and fellow members of the Body and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus, through the Gospel." II A little reflection will lead us to see a kind of parallel here between Israel in the Old Testament and the Church in the New. After the world may have been said to have rejected God, as instanced at the tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-32), He then chose the nation of Israel (as yet in the loins of Abraham), to be His witness to the world and His instrument in the execution of His original promise of redemption (Genesis 3:15). (See our second study on "God’s Covenant with Abraham."). And so now, after the world has again rejected Him in the person of His Son Jesus Christ, He chose the Church, which is called the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23), to be His witness to the world and His instrument in this later age for the execution of that promise. In other words, the Church did not come into being until after the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. Its birthday, indeed, was Pentecost (Acts 2:1-47). So says the distinguished church historian and theologian, Dr. Philip Schaff, in his admirable catechism, where he puts and answers the question: "Who founded the Christian Church? "Our exalted Saviour, on the fiftieth day after His resurrection, by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon His disciples at Jerusalem. Refs.: Matthew 16:18; Acts 2:1-11; 1 Corinthians 3:11; Ephesians 2:20." And to the same purport the Methodist standard theologian, Richard Watson, says, in commenting on Matthew 18:17 : "The apostles who followed Christ may be considered as the elements of His Church at the time, but it could scarce be considered as constituted until after the day of Pentecost, when regular assemblies under apostolic direction were formed, the worship of God arranged, the Supper of the Lord administered, and the terms of communion mutually acknowledged. Christ therefore must be understood as speaking prospectively(i.e., in Matthew 18:17)." We like the way Dr. Schaff expresses it, because the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was absolutely essential to the forming of the Church into the body of Christ. For example, in Matthew 16:18 we find Christ saying, evidently with reference to the future, "I will build my Church, " while subsequent Scriptures show that He proposed to build it not from the outside but from the inside. As carrying out this thought, note that on the night in which He was betrayed He said to His disciples that the Holy Spirit who then dweltwiththem would bein them (John 14:17). Again, after His resurrection He commanded them to remain in Jerusalem until they should be baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5). Is it not reasonable to suppose that the event at Pentecost, ten days after His ascension, was the fulfillment of both of these promises in one (Acts 2:1-4)? As they were thenfilledwith the Holy Spirit, had He not come to dwellin them, and was not this equivalent to baptizing them? Take Paul’s testimony as to this, in 1 Corinthians 12:12-13. There he speaks of believers as being one body with Christ, and affirms that we were baptized into this body by one Spirit. It was like this: The believers were all assembled with one accord in one place, ready to be made an organism, ready to be incorporated into Christ, He, the Head of the proposed organism, was on high, but He now sends down His Spirit to dwell in every one of them. His Spirit is one, and since He dwells alike in every believer, He necessarily unites them to the Head, and in doing so unites them one to another in the Head. Thus the body is formed, for "he that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit" (1 Corinthians 6:17). Now, this body of Christ has a particular, and, in a sense, a limited, work to do on the earth. Several of the Pauline Scriptures refer to it, but just now we choose Ephesians 4:1-16. Passing over the opening verses, which instruct us how to keep this unity of the Spirit which Christ has made for us, we come to Ephesians 4:7, where the gifts are spoken of which the Head of the body bestows upon the members. These are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4:11). And for what purpose were these gifts bestowed’ "For the perfecting of the saints," is the answer (Ephesians 4:12). And why are the saints perfected’ "Unto the work of ministering for the building up of the Body of Christ" (R. V.). This last is deeply interesting. The apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, considered as gifts to the Church, are not in themselves an end, but only a means to an end. Their purpose is to equip the whole company of believers to engage in the work of Christian ministering, each according to his or her capacity. And the object of this general ministry on the part of all is “the building up of the Body of Christ" the increase of its membership, the completion of it as an organism, "till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”(Ephesians 4:13). The "perfect man” in this case does not mean the individual man, but the corporate man rather. It means that MAN we conceive of when we think of Christ as the Head and the Church as His body. When that MAN is perfected, that mystical organism complete, in other words, when God has called out from among the nations all whom He intends in order to form the Church, then Christ shall have attained, and we in Christ shall have attained, the measure of the stature of His fullness. QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1. Why has not the Church been mentioned hitherto? 2. How does Paul speak of the Church in Old Testament times? 3. How does he define the" mystery" in his epistle to the Colossians? 4. How is the definition enlarged upon in Ephesians? 5. When did the Church begin its history? 6. Have you carefully examined Matthew 16:18; John 14:17; Acts 1:5; Acts 2:1-4; 1 Corinthians 12:12-13? 7. State in your own words the teaching concerning the Church as the Body of Christ which those Scriptures set forth. 8. What is peculiar about the work of the Church? 9. Who is the source of Christian ministry? 10. What are such Christian ministers called? 11. What is meant by the" perfect man" in this case? 12. Have you carefully examined Ephesians 4:1-16? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 21: 02.07. HOW THE KINGDOM AND THE CHURCH DIFFER ======================================================================== VII HOW THE KINGDOM AND THE CHURCH DIFFER I IN chapter three we considered "God’s Covenant with David, or The Coming Kingdom," in which it was stated that God is not now and in this age setting up His Kingdom, but doing something else, namely, building up His Church, which is called the Body of Christ. The time will come, it was added, when this Body will be completed and the Church caught up to "meet the Lord in the air" (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18). Afterwards, Christ will return to the earth and in Him God will set up His Kingdom which is the Kingdom promised to David and now in abeyance. The last chapter bore the title, "The Place of the Church in the Plan of Redemption," where it was shown that the Church did not come into being until after the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ,i. e.,on the day of Pentecost. It. was also shown that the Church has a particular and a limited work to do on the earth,i.e.,the building up of itself until, as a spiritual organism, it is complete or perfected, when the translation above referred to takes place. In this chapter, however, the Kingdom and the Church are brought together in one view, in such a way that it may be seen more clearly how they differ. II To speak first of the Kingdom. The word is a translation of the Greek "basileia," and is never translated any other way. There are two phrases descriptive of it in the New Testament, "the Kingdom of God" and" the Kingdom of Heaven," which in the popular mind are identical and interchangeable, but this is an error. The first is the broader and more comprehensive term, universal in fact, "including all moral intelligences who are willingly subject to God." These are the good angels, the saints of all past and future dispensations, and the true Church of the present dispensation. (See Luke 13:28-29; Hebrews 12:22-23.) On the other hand, the Kingdom of Heaven, as distinguished from the Kingdom of God, is a limited designation, and takes its rise in the divine promise to David in 2 Samuel 7:10-17. The story is something like this: At the creation of man God gave into his hands the dominion over all the earth, which man lost to Satan at the fall, the latter then becoming the "prince of this world" (cf. Genesis 1:26-28 with ’Matthew 4:8-10, and John 14:30). Immediately, however, God revealed His remedial purpose in Jesus Christ, the seed of the woman, who should bruise the serpent’s head (Genesis 3:15). This purpose was to restore the dominion to man, and through man, again to bring it back to Himself. Two thousand years later this purpose further revealed itself in the divine call of Abraham to become the father of the nation of Israel (Genesis 12:1-7). This nation was to be instrumental in the execution and fulfillment of the original purpose. Again, one thousand years after the call of Abraham, and when the nation which had come out of his loins was established in its land, and David his descendant was reigning over it, that purpose still further revealed itself in the promise to David that the Lord would set up his seed after him and establish his kingdom forever (2 Samuel 7:10-17). This is the beginning of the Kingdom of Heaven. It is called "the Kingdom of Heaven," not because it is to be realized or manifested in heaven, but because the thought of it originated there, in God’8 purpose of love and grace towards His creatures, and because it is heavenly in its principles and in its authority. In other words, to quote Daniel 2:44, it is "the Kingdom of Heaven" because" the God of heaven" shall set it up, but it will be set up on earth, nevertheless, and will have Jerusalem as its capital (Isaiah 24:23; Joel 3:16-17). At first it will be established over Israel when she shall have been regathered to Palestine and converted to Jesus Christ as her Saviour and Messiah; but ultimately it will be established over the whole earth (Psalms 2:8; Isaiah 2:1-4; Ezekiel 37:21-25; Zechariah 9:10). Furthermore, the thought that God is to set up the Kingdom of Heaven should be dissociated in our minds from any idea that man will set it up. That is, it will not be brought to pass by any legislation of men, nor by any international treaties. Neither will it come by "persuasion," through the preaching of the Gospel and the progress of Christianity for example, but rather by the exercise of divine power and through purifying judgments on the world powers in connection with the second advent of Christ. (See Psalms 2:1-12; Isaiah 9:7; Daniel 2:35, Daniel 2:44-45; Zechariah 14:1-9; Revelation 19:11-16.) As the Scofield Bible says, "it is impossible to conceive to what heights of spiritual, intellectual and physical perfection humanity will attain in the coming Kingdom," but we know it will mark an age of peace and righteousness. The meek will inherit the earth in those days; longevity will be increased; beast ferocity will be removed; justice and equity will be the rule; and the great majority of earth’s inhabitants will be saved by the grace of God, for the knowledge of Him will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. Especially should it be noted that Satan will then be removed from the scene and from active participation in human affairs (Revelation 20:1-5). And finally, as showing more clearly the relation of the Kingdom of Heaven to the Kingdom of God, let it be repeated that the Kingdom of Heaven has for its great object the ultimate establishment of the Kingdom of God in the earth. That is to say, the "Kingdom of Heaven merges into the Kingdom of God," when Christ, having "put all enemies (of the Kingdom of Heaven) under his feet," "shall have delivered up the Kingdom (of Heaven) to God, even the Father" (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). III Coming to the thought of the Church, it is the translation of the Greek word "ecclesia," which means the called-out ones, as when a number of people are called out from their private concerns to a public meeting, and assembly of some kind. In the New Testament it is used (1) to designate a local church, as when Paul speaks of "the church which is at Cenchrea" (Romans 16:1) ; (2) a group of churches, as when he speaks of "all the churches of the Gentiles" (Romans 16:4); (3) the visible body of professed believers, "all the churches of Christ" (Romans 16:16) ; and especially (4) the body of the truly redeemed in this dispensation, no matter of what locality, or to what class they belong, "the Lord added to the Church daily" (Acts 2:47), "the Church which is his body" (Ephesians 1:22-23), "the Church of the first-born" (Hebrews 12:23). These are the called-out ones in the sense that God, by His Holy Spirit, has called them out of the world unto Himself through the exercise of their faith in Christ. They have been" delivered out of the power of darkness, and translated into the kingdom of the Son" (Colossians 1:13). Thus we see that the Church is not revealed in the plan of God till we reach the New Testament. Then it is that Christ appears on the earth, He who is the Seed of the woman promised in Eden, the Seed of Abraham and the Seed of David, the Son who should proceed out of Him and in whom His Kingdom (i.e., the Kingdom of Heaven) should be established forever (2 Samuel 7:12-13). "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" (Matthew 3:1-2). And Christ Himself at the initiation of His ministry in Galilee did the same (Matthew 4:17). But Israel did not repent, but instead she kept on in her wicked way and rejected "him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write." When this rejection became evident and fixed at the time of Peter’s noble confession of Him as "the Christ, the Son of the Living God," then it was that Christ announced the new program about the Church which had been "kept secret since the world began" (Romans 16:25). He said "upon this rock,"i.e., upon this confession of me, "I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). This building process began on the day of Pentecost, and has been in process ever since, and will continue until the building is completed, when "the Church which is his body" (Ephesians 1:22-23), will be caught up to meet its Head in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18). (See the previous chapter, "The Place of the Church in the Plan of Redemption.") It thus appears that the Church at present bears something of the same relationship to the Kingdom of Heaven that the latter bears to the Kingdom of God; in other words, it has for one of its objects at least, the ultimate establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven upon the earth (Ephesians 5:29-32; 2 Timothy 2:12). IV A few confirmatory evidencesofthe distinction between the Kingdom and the Church may be appreciated. For example, consider (1) the terms used in representing each. The Church is "built," the Kingdom is "set up." The first word is never used in connection with the Kingdom nor the second in connection with the Church. Consider (2) the relationship sustained by men and women towards each. The Church has its "elders," its "messengers," its "servants," but the Kingdom has its "heirs." "We "see," we "receive," we "enter," we "inherit the Kingdom," but these terms are never used in Scripture of our relationship to the Church. Consider (3) the way in which reference is made to each. The "advancement" and "extension" of the Kingdom are spoken of, but the "cleansing" and "edifying" of the Church. (4) The Kingdom is a unit, the Church an aggregation. The word "Kingdom" is never found in the plural, but "Church" is very commonly referred to thus. (5) The Church will reign with Christ, but the Kingdom will be reigned over by Christ and His Church. (6) The Church is an election, taken out of all nations; the Kingdom will be universal. (7) The Church is now in the world and longs for the time when it will be delivered out of it, but the Kingdom is still in abeyance and prayed for in the familiar words, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." (8) The Church is temporal so far as its establishment on the earth is concerned, but the Kingdom is an everlasting kingdom. Years ago there lived and ministered in Boston an earnest though somewhat eccentric individual known as Father Taylor, pastor of the Seamen’s Bethel. He was a godly man but not very cultivated, and one day, while preaching, he became considerably tangled in his utterance and broke out with the words, "Brethren, I seem to have lost the track of my nominative ease; but one thing I know, I’m bound for the Kingdom!" He was right. Though he had been in the Church a great many years, he realized that the Kingdom was still future. Father Taylor, in other words, was not guilty of the blunder of a university president (also a minister) whom we have seen quoted as follows: "The Christian Church is the Kingdom of God on earth, viewed in its objective or institutional form. God’s Kingdom among men is as old as human history!" V There are two or three textual objections to the foregoing that may suggest themselves. For example, what about Christ’s words, "My Kingdom is not of this world," and "The Kingdom of God is within you" (John 18:36; Luke 17:21)? And the words of Paul, "For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Romans 14:17). Some have found embarrassment in reconciling the first with the idea that the Kingdom is to be an earthly one; but there is no more conflict there than in the case of the Church. Christ’s Church is not of this world, but it is in the world. It is the same with the second text, which the margin renders, "The Kingdom of God is among you, or in the midst of you." The Kingdom could not in any sense have been within the persons to whom Christ addressed these words, because they were the wicked and contentious Pharisees who were expecting the Kingdom to come by such methods of observation as they could appreciate. Christ’s words rebuked them. The Kingdom was already in the midst of them, or among them, in the sense that the King was there, if only they had eyes to see Him. And as to Paul’s words, of course, righteousness, peace and joy are already in the earth, but this does not constitute the Kingdom to be set up after the coming judgment on the nations, and which is to constitute the throne of David. Hence we see that the true attitude of the Church to-day must be that of the best days of her history, one of loyal and loving expectancy, as she continues to pray: “Thy Kingdom come; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1.Give a condensed review of the earlier lesson on "God’s Covenant with David." 2. Do the same for the lesson on “The Place of the Church." 3. What two Biblical phrases describe the “Kingdom" ? 4. How do these two expressions differ in meaning? 5. Where may it be said that the conception of the Kingdom of Heaven takes its rise? 6. Tell in your own words the story leading up to it. 7. Why is it called "the Kingdom ’of Heaven’’’? 8. What will be its earthly beginning and ultimate extent? 9. By what means will the Kingdom be set up on the earth? 10. How does the Scofield Bible summarize the earthly blessings of the Kingdom? 11. State the relation of “the Kingdom of Heaven" to “the Kingdom of God." 12. Can you quote 1 Corinthians 15:24-28? 13. What does “ecclesia" mean, and in what four ways is it used in the New Testament? H. When, and under what circumstances was the Church revealed? 15. When will its earthly history conclude? 16. Name eight evidences confirmatory of the distinction between the Kingdom and the Church. 17. Name and reply to certain textual objections to the foregoing. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 22: 02.08. THE ANTICHRIST, HIS HISTORY AND HIS DOOM ======================================================================== VIII THE ANTICHRIST, HIS HISTORY AND HIS DOOM I IN dealing with a subject of this kind, time spent in review is not always misspent. Therefore let us sweep the horizon once more, the better to relate the present mountain peak of prophecy to the rest of the range. We have seen: (1) That God has a purpose of redemption for the race revealed in the promise of Eden that the Seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head. (2) At a certain point in time, He called out the nation of Israel as an instrument in the execution of this promise. (3) The failure of Israel to fulfill her mission has caused her to be set aside temporarily while the "times of the Gentiles" are in process. (4) These times are to come to an end in catastrophic judgment by and by, at which time Israel will have been regathered to her own land and restored to fellowship with God in order to the renewal of her commission as His witness to the world. The millennial blessing follows. (5) But now, while Israel is rejected and the“times of the Gentiles" are in their course, God is doing a new thing in the earth. He is calling out a people for His Name from all the nations. This people are being formed into the body of Christ, which, when its number is completed, will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, and to reign with Him over the millennial earth. To return now to those catastrophic judgments.Whenwill they fall upon the earth? What will be their character? And where, and in whom, will they be focused? To this last inquiry we address ourselves in this study. The prophet Daniel is our authority for saying that the Gentile nations, which in earlier times were federated under Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander and the Caesars, shall again be federated under a secular despot mightier and wickeder than they. He is described by him in Daniel 6:1-28 and Daniel 8:1-27 as a "little horn," in chapter Daniel 9:26 as a "prince" of the Roman people, and in chapter Daniel 11:36 as "the king." The details of the description indicate his intellectuality and boldness: "eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth speaking great things." These "great things" are "words against the Most High," and he "shall wear out the saints of the Most High," and" think to change times and laws." "His power shall be mighty," and "he shall destroy wonderfully," and "through his policy he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand." His time will be "the time of the end,"i. e., as we learn from other Scriptures, the last seven years of the present age, during which time he will "make a firm covenant" with the Jews then residing in Jerusalem. This covenant he will break in the middle of that period and "cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease"; he will deny the Jews liberty to worship God, and will set up his own image to be worshipped on a pinnacle of the restored temple. "Yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him." In other Old Testament Scriptures he is spoken of as "the king of Babylon," prouder even than Nebuchadnezzar--"I will be like the Most High" but he "shall be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit" (Isaiah 14:1-32; Micah 5:6). In Zechariah 11:15-17, he is spoken of as a shepherd, but a foolish and a worthless one, who "shall eat the flesh of the fat and tear their hoofs in pieces." II The New Testament takes up the story of his career in the Gospels. It is a common opinion of expositors that our Lord refers to him in John 5:43, where, rebuking His fellow countrymen for their unbelief and rejection of Himself, He says: "I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." It is thus not improbable that this coming one may be a Jew, but in any event he will be accepted by restored Israel as their predicted Messiah. It is this fact which in a later writing of the New Testament gives him the title of“the Antichrist." It is in the Olivet discourse of Matthew 24:1-51, however, that our Lord refers to him more particularly. "When ye therefore shall see the abomination or desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet stand in the holy place" (Matthew 24:15). This "abomination of desolation" is none other than the wicked "prince" of Daniel 9:27, and the same "little horn," who shall have his image placed on a pinnacle of the temple where all may behold it, and who himselfon some occasion, or occasions, will be found sitting in the temple giving out that he himself is God (2 Thessalonians 2:4). This allusion to Paul’s words in 2 Thessalonians brings us to the next New Testament reference. In his first epistle to that church he had expatiated on the coming of Christ for His Church; but at this time a grievous persecution seems to have been raging in the city, and some of the Christians had come to believe that "the day of the Lord" had come. In other words, they thought they were already in the tribulation period, which a better intelligence doubtless would have led them to see could not be true while the Church was still on the earth. Moreover, they had been misled by a forged letter, as from Paul, that contributed to their error. The apostle is now seeking to correct this, and he tells them that that day shall not come until after the apostasy and "the man of sin (or lawlessness) be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above (or against) 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." A further description follows in the same chapter, in which it is said that his "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." He will come to an end, however, for "the Lord shall consume him with the breath of his mouth, and shall destroy him with the brightness of his coming." This may be as good a place as any to say that the common application of these words to the Pope does not fit. When he is carried into St. Peter’s, he may be seated somewhat higher than what is called the "tabernacle of the host"; but still, St. Peter’s is not the "temple of God." That temple was erected in Jerusalem by Solomon, according to the instruction of his father David, who said: "All this the Lord made me understand in writing by his hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern" (1 Chronicles 28:19). And there it is to be reerected, according to the prophets; and there the "abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet" is yet to be seen. It is the Apostle John who specifically calls this person the Antichrist. "Who is the liar," he exclaims, "but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ! This is the Antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son" (1 John 2:22). Another evidence this is that the Pope is not he, for the Pope does not deny that Jesus is the Christ. On the contrary, he calls himself the "vicar of Christ," and in a way professes to exalt Him. He does not deny the virgin birth of Christ, but makes much of it rather, in the form of Mariolatry. Neither does he deny His atoning sacrifice, nor His resurrection, nor His coming again, though the Church he represents weakens these great facts and almost nullifies the doctrines they sustain by her traditions. Indeed, Protestantism contains as many of the deadly elements of Antichristianism to-day as Roman Catholicism. It is time our eyes were opened to this fact. The destructive criticism of the Bible which began in Germany less than one hundred years ago, and which holds sway in so many of our Protestant theological seminaries at this time, and is voiced in so many of our Protestant pulpits and our religious periodicals, is doing as much as, if not more than, the Papacy to prepare the way for the coming of him whom humanity, in its blindness, will worship as the" Very God." III We now come to the book of Revelation. More is said about this being here than in any other part of the Bible. And the reason is that Revelation deals very particularly with the events upon the earth during the last seven years of this age, when the Antichrist will be revealed and have come into his great power. By many he is thought to be the rider of the white horse of Revelation 6:2, who goes forth "conquering and to conquer." He it is in Revelation 11:2, who is treading the holy city (Jerusalem) "under foot forty and two months," the latter half of the period of seven years. He it is who, "ascending out of the bottomless pit, shall make war" against God’s two witnesses in that holy city "and shall overcome and kill them." He is the "beast" which John saw as revealed in Revelation 13:1-18, "coming up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy." "And the dragon[i. e.,Satan] gave him his power, and his throne, and great authority." "And all the world wondered after the beast," saying, "Who is able to make war with him?" "And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God." "And it was given unto him to make war with the saints and to overcome them; and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." The fact that this beast comes "up out of the sea identifies him with the vision of Daniel where he saw the four beasts come up out of the sea. The "sea" is commonly typical of the Gentile nations, and the particular sea in mind just now is doubtless the Mediterranean, the center, so to speak, of the former Roman Empire, and hence the center of what is called the prophetic earth. The "ten horns" are a further mark of identification, showing that the Roman Empire is referred to, not as it has been known during its entire existence, but as it shall be known in its last form. The" seven heads" are a new feature not referred to in any earlier prophecy of the beast, but symbolizing, it is thought, the different forms of government in which the Roman Empire has existed, from the absolute monarchy of Nebuchadnezzar’s period to the constitutional monarchy and democracy of our own time. One of the heads was "as it were wounded to death," the prophet says, and "his deadly wound was healed." In other words, here is the renewal, as by Satanic power, of a certain form of government under which the Roman Empire once existed, but which had passed away. Itis this renewal that causes all the world to wonder, and to say, "Who is able to make war with him?" But this chapter also contains a revelation of another beast "coming up out of the earth." "He had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon." "And he exerciseth all the authority of the first beast before him [or in his sight], and causeth the earth and them that dwell therein to worship the first beast." "And he deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by means of those miracles which he had power to do." And he caused "that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed." And" no man might buy or sell save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." "And his number is 666." This second beast comes up out of the "earth" rather than the "sea." If the sea symbolizes the Gentile nations, the earth possibly symbolizes Israel, so that this "false prophet," as he is called later on, may be a Jew, while the beast before whom he exercises his power maybe a Gentile. The first "beast" is the supreme civil or political power at the end of the age, but the second "beast" is the ecclesiastical power or what will stand for it at that time. His" two horns like a lamb" seem to set him off in contrast to Christ, but since "he spake as a dragon," it is evident that he is energized by Satan. Note the trinity of evil: The dragon, the beast, the false prophet! What a caricature of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit! Nor let it be forgotten that all this is in the name of religion. At the beginning of Gentile dominion, Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, sought to ordain a public worship for all his subjects, by setting up his image to be worshipped, and here history repeats itself. "Nothing promotes discord among nations as diversity of religion." Hence, when the Roman Empire is once more federated politically, that federation will be sealed by what another aptly calls "a new common-sense, matter-of-fact sort of worship, obligatory upon everyone," and focused on the image of the beast, the great emperor himself. This is the abomination of desolation which will be set up in the Jewish temple, while perhaps facsimiles will be found in all the cathedrals and churches of Christendom in that day. And the second beast "causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast." He deceives them by the miracles he does. Not pretended miracles, be it remembered, but real miracles. This is the time predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-17, when God shall send upon men strong delusion for their sin, that they should believe a lie; for while the miracles are real, the worship they sustain is false. And no insubordination will be tolerated. All must receive a mark, either on the hand or on the forehead. No man can buy or sell without it. This mark will be the name of the beast or the number of his name. That is, it may be expressed in letters, or in cabalistic numbers. In the Greek and Hebrew languages letters are used to express numbers as well as sounds. "Putting aside vain guesses and efforts of ingenious men, the general idea of what this means is plain enough. Seven is God’s number in His present dealings with the world, while six is the utmost reach of man." This number is first mentioned in connection with man,i.e., in his creation on the sixth day, and, as Bullinger says, it thus becomes his "hall-mark," stamping everything with which it is used as belonging to him. God’s great human opponents have been so marked. Goliath was six cubits in height, his spear’s head weighed six shekels, and he had six pieces of armour. Nebuchadnezzar’s image was sixty cubits high and six broad, and six instruments of worship summoned its worshippers. But the great significance of this number, as Bullinger says further, is its symbolical use in the ancient pagan mysteries. And SSS, or 666, is still "the secret connecting link between them and their revival in spiritism and theosophy, which aim at the union of all religions in one." "Here is wisdom," as the inspired prophet says. "He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast." It were as though he went on to add: Let not the faithful remnant be afraid; great and awful as his power is, he is not God, though he shows himself to be so. After all, his number is but “the number of a man." IV It is when we come to Revelation 17:1-18 and Revelation 19:1-21, that we perceive the doom of the" beast" and the "false prophet," together with the events immediately leading up to it. The former is depicted as "scarlet coloured," and he has a woman seated upon him. This "woman" is subsequently interpreted to symbolize" that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth," and "over peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues." The city is then identified by the name written on the woman’s forehead as "Babylon the Great," meaning, as many believe, the same old Babylon (see Revelation 10:1-11) on the plain of Shinar, revived at the end of this age as the localized seat of power, or throne, of the Antichrist. As she is sitting on the beast, it means that the Antichrist is supporting her in all that she holds of blasphemy and idolatry and intoxication "with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus." The record goes on to show the transfer of the power and strength of the ten kings unto the "beast, " "for God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." From one point of view, this is Satan’s work; and yet God ruleth over all, and He "shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie" (2 Thessalonians 2:11), and so surrender themselves to the Antichrist. These then make war with the Lamb, but are overcome. It is the battle of Armageddon that is here referred to, in which the beast is taken, and with him the false prophet, and "these both were cast alive into the lake of fire" (Revelation 19:20). The rest of the army which they led were ordinary men, and their dead bodies were eaten by the fowls of the air, for there was none to bury them. But these two, while also men, were nevertheless superhuman men. They came up out of the abyss and cannot now be slain as mortals (Bullinger); hence they are east alive into the "lake of fire." And there are they still found alive at the close of the millennium (Revelation 20:10). QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1.Review the lessons thus far. 2. To what inquiry are we addressing ourselves in this lesson? 3. What Old Testament prophet is our first guide? 4. For what future event is he authority? 5. Have you read the chapters in Daniel to which the lesson refers? 6. Describe the wicked person therein predicted. 7. Identify his period and his “covenant." 8. What other Old Testament prophets allude to him, and in what way? 9. How does our Lord refer to him as recorded by John? 10. What title of him does this warrant? 11. What is he called in Matthew 24:1-51, and why? 12. Read carefully, and expound 2 Thessalonians 2:1-17. 13. Why do not these words fit the history of the Roman pontiff? 14. What is there in Protestantism to be feared, and why? 15. With what does the book of Revelation chiefly deal? 16. Trace this wicked person through the chapters of that book. 17. How does Revelation thus become identified with the book of Daniel in the history of this person? 18. Read carefully and expound Revelation 13:1-10. 19. Describe the second "beast" revealed in this chapter. 20. How are the two differentiated? 21. What is the office of the second beast and how will it be accomplished? 22. What, according to Bullinger, is the significance of 666? 23. What warning does this bring us against the demand for a "universal" religion? 24. What chapters in Revelation reveal the doom of the" beast" and the" false prophet"? 25. What city does the "scarlet-coloured woman" symbolize? 26. What wicked prominence is reserved for that city? 27. What explains the action of the kings of the federated Roman Empire in giving over their power to the" beast"? 28. In what great battle will they be overcome? 29. What is the doom of the "beast" and the "false prophet "? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 23: 02.09. WHY THE POPE IS NOT THE ANTICHRIST ======================================================================== IX WHY THE POPE IS NOT THE ANTICHRIST I ASthe articles forming the chapters of this book appeared from time to time in theChristian Herald(see prefatory note), they naturally gave rise to questions, some of which were sent by the editors to the author for reply in their columns. A few of them were not questions somuch as expressions of dissent from some of the views presented. For example: that the Jewish nation would be rehabilitated in Palestine proved a surprise to some, and even intelligent and educated people were found capable of so reading the Bible on that subject as to make it teach the very opposite to the truth. Another theme whose treatment brought unhappiness to some was that of the apostasy and the Antichrist. That Babylon means the papacy and that the man of sin is the Pope, is one of the beliefs of the Reformation period that is still held by not a few with more tenacity even than the doctrine of justification by faith itself. There was good reason for the Reformers feeling keenly on that subject, and good excuse for their misunderstanding the Scriptures concerning it; but history, to say nothing of Sacred Writ, has proved them to be wrong. We know how erroneous is the teaching of Roman Catholicism and how soul-destroying it is. And we know also that the character and conduct of its hierarchy in many places closely resembles what the Bible teaches about Antichristianity and the Antichrist. But to closely resemble a thing is not the same as being the thing itself. In the fulfillment of prophecy a part of the evidence is not enough. To reach a conclusion on that basis breeds all sorts of confusion. The prophecy must be fulfilled completely, if God’s Word shall be honoured and our faith sustained. We do not hesitate to say that Roman Catholicism is a daughter of Babylon whose features resemble her mother’s very closely, but still the daughter and the mother are not identical. II An exception is made here in order to discuss one of the letters received on this subject. The correspondent refers to the Pope’s assumption to be the "vicar of Christ," and says,“his assertion is Antichrist." Of course the correspondent does not mean just that, because it would negative his contention. The Antichrist, whoever he may be, is a person and not an "assertion" merely. But what the correspondent means is that such an assertion on the Pope’s part is anti-Christian, with which we fully agree. Indeed, the whole system of Roman Catholicism is anti-Christian, and as such it is one of the contributing elements, and a strong one, in creating a political and religious situation favourable to the rise of the Antichrist; but this is different from saying that the Pope himself is that person. At another place in his letter the correspondent quotes Paul as saying that "this whole popery is an untruth, a lie, hence is Antichrist." But he does not mean just that either, for Paul never mentions popery. The correspondent discloses what he means when he says that "the Pope fulfills Paul’s description in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12." But here he is mistaken. The Pope’s blasphemy and arrogance have been very great, but he has not yet opposed and exalted "himself about all that is called God, or that is worshipped." His very title "vicar of Christ," disproves that. Nor does he, as God, sit "in the temple of God showing himself that he is God." The Vatican or St. Peter’s at Rome is not the temple of God and is not called by that name. Roman Catholicism does not attach the word "temple" to its church buildings. The temple Paul has in mind is the historic one in Jerusalem, which is to be rebuilt by the Jews in the latter end of this age. Our correspondent does not believe this, and affirms that "we have no Scriptural evidence that the temple ever will be rebuilt"; but in this he again errs, “not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God." He errs at still another point, when he takes exception to the remark in our article that the Antichrist has yet to appear. He quotes Paul’s saying that "the mystery of iniquity" was already at work, as a proof that the Antichrist existed over 1,800 years ago. But "the mystery of iniquity" and the Antichrist are not one and the same; the Antichrist develops out of the mystery of iniquity, and the apostle himself testifies that the former had not been revealed in his day, but was yet to come (verse 8). III But why take such pains with this matter? Is it merely to refute an opponent? By no means. Time is too short and space is too valuable for that. It is to make clear the teaching of Scripture on a very serious matter, and one that grows more and more serious as we "see the day approaching." We may be mistaken indeed, but it looks to us like a case of spiritual camouflage. That French word has sprung into the limelight during the progress of this war, and we have come to learn that it means some kind of humbug for the deception of the enemy. In some such way as this, Satan is now acting with reference to the great move he is soon to make. That move comes when he is cast out of heaven and down to this earth (Revelation 12:9-13), and when he will give "his power, and his seat, and great authority" to the beast (Revelation 13:2). In the meantime he would divert our thought from the real beast by occupying it with a humbug. He would keep us from watching out against the greater enemy to come, by concentrating our attention upon the lesser enemy that now is. IV To speak plainly, the Papacy is an enemy of truth, and the Pope himself is no dim foreshadowing of the Antichrist, but that monster, when he arrives, will find his way prepared for him through Protestant Berlin as well as Catholic Rome. To quote Nietzsche, the German philosopher, whose teaching is so largely responsible for this war: "While preparing to found a world-empire, Germany is also preparing to create a world-religion." If such a purpose or preparation were limited to Germany, we might not seriously fear; but the philosophical and religious teaching which underlies it is rife throughout Christendom. Our colleges and universities are permeated with it, and our pulpits in some cases are its mouthpiece. By such teaching is meant that which ignores, or questions, or outrightly opposes the Bible as the revealed will of the only true God, the incarnation and deity of Jesus Christ, His impeccable humanity and the infinite value of His atoning sacrifice for the salvation of all men. This is what is true in Protestantism to-day, and has been true for a long while; and it is laying the ground and preparing the way for the real Antichrist, who is yet to come, and whose description and history elicited the above remarks. QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1. What is the opinion of some as to the papacy and the Pope? 2. When did it take its rise? 3. How is the teaching of Roman Catholicism characterized? 4. What relation may Roman Catholicism be said to bear to Babylon? 5. What relation does Roman Catholicism bear to the Antichrist? 6. How does the Pope fall short of fulfilling 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12? 7. What temple has Paul in mind in that Scripture? 8. What is the relation of the Antichrist to the “mystery of iniquity"? 9. What word of current warfare illustrates Satan’s method in the world at present? 10. What event is scheduled in his history before very long? 11. How is he seeking to humbug us about it? 12. How will the Antichrist have his way prepared for him? 13. According to Nietzsche, what is Germany seeking to do? 14. What do we mean by this false "plu1osophy and religious teaching"? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 24: 02.10. BABYLON: HER COMING RESTORATION AND HER FALL ======================================================================== X BABYLON: HER COMING RESTORATION AND HER FALL I THE great British advance in Mesopotamia, involving the capture of Bagdad, interested students of prophecy even more than what was transpiring on the western front of the seat of war. The proclamation of General Sir Stanley Maude to the inhabitants of that city read .1ike an address of a victorious king of Israel or Judah to the same peoples in an earlier day. Speaking of the trade prospect now opened before Mesopotamia, and for that matter before the whole world, a member of the British House of Commons said: "It will mean eventually putting down something like a new Hamburg in the world. There are rich oil-fields near by, and the ’black country’ of Mesopotamia may rise here, and the demands on European manufacturers for machinery and other things become enormous." We gather from other sources that railway construction across the Syrian desert will be so easy that probably Damascus will be connected with the Euphrates, and motor cars become as common there as on the Lincoln Highway across the United States. However, we speak of Bagdad and its awakening only as an approach to the consideration of the awakening of its near neighbour on the southwest, the ancient and famous Babylon, whose history occupies so large a place in the inspired Word. It begins at the tenth and eleventh chapters of Genesis in the record of the first world-monarchy under Nimrod. There, at Babel, or Babylon, was the scene of the earliest apostasy from God after the Flood; and, always the enemy of His people, she became in later days the metropolis of the great Gentile empire under Nebuehadnezzar. But as "God promised to remember his covenant with Israel, so he promised also to remember Babylon in the day of his wrath," and the purpose of this chapter isto show how that promise is to be fulfilled. II Returning to Genesis, we find that hundreds of years after the Flood the sons of Noah, i;e., Shem, Ham and Japheth, had greatly multiplied themselves and migrated to the ends of the earth. The Japhethites peopled Europe mostly, and are known to history as the Aryan race, which includes the Hindus, Celts, Greeks, Italians, Germans and Slavs. The Hamites went into northern Arabia, Egypt and Ethiopia or modern Abyssinia, while the Semites remained nearer the starting-point, giving origin to the Arabians, Assyrians and Hebrews, from whom came Israel, and finally our Saviour and Lord. There is one individual among the Hamites, however, of whom we have particular record as the first world-monarch: Nimrod, the father in that sense of all the Nebuehadnezzars, Alexanders, Caesars and ambitious Kaisers down to the forthcoming Antichrist. He was "a mighty one in the earth," or, as the Targum of Jonathan describes him, "a mighty rebel before the Lord." "And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel," the record says. His kingdom it was, indeed, and not the Lord’s. "And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. . . . And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” There were two reasons for this action, the obvious and the occult. In the first place, the solidarity of the race was in mind, the application of the popular idea that "in union there is strength"; but back of this was a false worship, so false and so bad that it is ever after pointed to in Scripture as the earthly fountain-head and source of all idolatry and rejection of the true God. "And God came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men builded," and He confounded their "one language" which had been put to so bad a use, and He scattered them to the four corners of the earth. But now once more in the end of the age the world is moving towards unification, and so far as it also is without the knowledge of the true God, it only can be doomed to failure, as was the first attempt in the same direction. God will again come down and interfere with things, and judge the nations that glory in their own achievements but do not glory in Him. III But not to anticipate. Hundreds of years after Nimrod, Babylon for a second time occupies the field of history, and Nebuchadnezzar, like his great predecessor, is obsessed by the dream of world dominion. And God permits him to try it out. Indeed, He uses this king’s ambition to punish other and smaller nations in their disobedience, which become his vassals. The story is told in 2 Kings, and in the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel. And of course Nebuchadnezzar is inflated by his power, and sets up his image to be worshipped, and renews the tower of Babel on the old foundations, and exclaims: "Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom, by the might ofmypower and for the glory ofmymajesty?" But "while the word was yet in the king’s mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, O king, Nebuchadnezzar, to thee is it spoken; the kingdom is departed from thee" (Daniel 4:30-31). The city also comes in for visitation as well as its royal builder, and the prophet Isaiah testifies: "Babylon, the glory of the kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. "It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation; neither shall the Arabian pitch his tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there. "But wild beasts of’ the desert shall lie there; . . . " And her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged" (Isaiah 13:19-22). There are those who think this prophecy was fulfilled in the overthrow of the Babylonian power by the Medes and Persians, but I believe they are mistaken. This whole chapter of Isaiah and the next seem to be a single prophecy, and when so regarded there are at least eight features which were not fulfilled in that overthrow, and hence are yet to be fulfilled, Benjamin Wills Newton, in his book, too little known, "Babylon and the East," enumerates them thus: "(1) The whole land was not then destroyed (Isaiah 13:5). "(2) The Day of the Lord did not then come (Isaiah 13:6). "(3) The physical phenomena were not then seen (Isaiah 13:10). "(4) The city was not then destroyed as Sodom and Gomorrah (Isaiah 13:19-22). Indeed, the victory of Cyrus was almost bloodless, and the scepter passed comparatively quietly into his hands. Moreover, the land still yields an income to its Turkish rulers, and a city and village exist on its site. "(5) The Lord did not then visit Jacob with rest, nor has He yet done so (Isaiah 14:1-3). "(6) The king of Babylon so minutely described (Isaiah 14:4-22), has not yet arisen, which seems to point to a greater and more august being than the world has yet seen. "(7) The Assyrian was not then trodden down in the land of Judah, nor was the yoke then removed from Judah’s neck (Isaiah 14:25). "(8) The divine purpose on the whole earth was not then consummated (Isaiah 14:26)." In other words, the blow which then fell on Babylon was premonitory only, a fact perfectly consistent with the divine method in other cases. "Indeed," to quote Mr. Newton further, "so strongly do present facts as well as events known from Scripture as about to occur in the land of Israel indicate Babylon’s restoration, that if the Bible were silent respecting it, we should conclude nevertheless that its revival was not only probable, but well-nigh certain." IV But the Bible is not silent. There is a general consent among students of the prophetic word that Zechariah, who prophesied long after Babylon was overthrown by the Medes and Persians, foretells her revival. In the fifth chapter of his prophecy he sees an ephah going forth and a woman sitting in it, and the interpreting angel said to him, "This is wickedness. And he cast her down into the midst of the ephah, and he cast the weight of lead upon the mouth thereof." And two women, with wings like the wings of a stork, lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven, and bore it “to build her an house in the land of Shinar [Babylon]. And when it is prepared she shall be set there in her own place." An "ephah" is a Jewish measure, and suggests or symbolizes trade and commerce. It“goeth forth," indicating the spread of the idea it represents. "This is their resemblance through all the earth,” the prophet says, and the margin reads, “This is their eye in all the land. " Some render it "the aim (eyes) of all the land (earth) are upon it," as though, interpreting it in the light of present facts, the focus of human interest in the time appointed would be business efficiency and success, and the gain and wealth and the delicacies and luxuries which they permit. Of the woman in the ephah, the angel says, “This is wickedness." It is unholy gain therefore that is in mind, harmonizing with what Isaiah in the Old Testament, and James in the New, predict of the end of the present age. “The house of Jacob will be replenished from the east with silver and gold, and horses and chariots," and also, alas, with idols! Isaiah says a false worship will thus accompany the increase of riches and luxury in the last days, and the figure of the woman in the ephah is in perfect harmony therewith, for the wicked women of the Bible, whether in reality or type, are always associated with idolatry. The place where this woman’s house is to be built, “her own place" as the prophet says, "is the land of Shinar." Babylon therefore will be at once the center of the world’s luxury and the world’s idolatry. The stork’s wings carry the woman there, for swiftly will these events accumulate when the time comes. V But you ask the proof of it. In the first place, Zechariah’s prophecy has not as yet been fulfilled. Nothing in subsequent history answers to it. What then does it mean, and when will it be? While these questions are awaiting answer, we open the book of Revelation, which shows us "things which shall be hereafter," and at chapter 14 we meet with this: "Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." Here is Babylon again, Babylon in the future, Babylon whose destruction is once more foretold. May not this be the fulfillment of Zechariah’s vision? Some say, No, because in their judgment Babylon means Rome, papal Rome. In other words, they believe the language of Revelation is symbolic in this case, and that under the name of that ancient city we have a veiled reference to the papacy. But why so? The city is named again in Revelation 14:1-20, when she comes" in remembrance before God." This is at the time of the battle of Armageddon, and every student of the Bible knows that this battle is not to be fought in Europe in the neighbourhood of Rome, but in Asia and in proximity to "the land of Shinar." Again, in Revelation 17:1-18 and Revelation 18:1-24, she is referred to quite at length, and in the eighteenth more particularly is she described as “a habitation of demons, and a hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird." Shall we say that this means Rome’ I have some familiarity with the history of the papacy, and hold no brief for its defense. Its day of reckoning will surely come; but it seems to me that language like this is better fitted for what we know of Babylon than Rome. But whether this be true or not, the chapter goes on to say, "All nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, . . . and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies." Without pausing to point out the untruthfulness of the identification of the first part of this verse with Rome, it must be admitted by all who have any acquaintance with her history that the last part does not belong to her. The merchants of the earth did not wax rich through the abundance of the delicacies of Rome, pagan or papal. As a matter of fact, nine verses of the chapter are taken up with a lament of the merchants, shipmasters and sailors at the destruction of the city. No man buyeth their merchandise, or their cargo, any more, the vast range and character of which are so minutely described that Dean Alford said it more nearly suited London than Rome at any period of the latter’s history. Sir Henry Rawlinson is authority for the statement that the Euphrates, on which Babylon rests, is navigable for 500 miles, and with very little effort could become so for ships of large size. On the other hand, Rome has no port, and no shipmasters go there, so that, to quote Bullinger, if Rome be the city, then Rome is yet to become the great political, commercial and religions center of the world, with both port and harbour. This revival of Rome, therefore, is about as difficult to believe as the revival of Babylon, and in either case it is simply a question of revival, and that at present is the point. There are other verses in this chapter, the fourth to the seventh, which sometimes have been quoted in favour of the papal application. They begin thus: “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins." But this can hardly refer to Christians, who are thus being warned, as some say, to escape the papacy, for, as most teachers of dispensational truth believe, the faithful Church will have been caught up to meet the Lord before the time of which those verses speak. It refers more likely to Jews at that time residing in Babylon, which a reference to Isaiah 48:1-22 and Jeremiah 51:1-64 makes almost certain. VI But some admit this literal Babylon in Revelation 18:1-24, and yet see Rome in Revelation 17:1-18. But we find no authority for thus separating the two. Indeed, the "harlot" of Revelation 17:1-18 is distinctly called "Babylon the Great," and in a later verse identified as "that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth." Had the mistaken idea never obtained that ancient Babylon was destroyed long ago in fulfillment of prophecy, the thought of confounding her with Rome would never have occurred. This is not to say that in symbolizing Babylon the woman does not also symbolize the vast system of idolatry connected with it. It is for this reason indeed that she is described as "the mother of harlots and of the abominations of the earth. " The" earth" is more than Rome, or even Babylon herself, considered as a single city, but the latter was the fountainhead, "the mother," of all the systems of idolatry which have cursed the earth since Nimrod’s day. Romanism is one of these, but only one. As Dr. Seiss says in his" Lectures on the Apocalypse," the wine of her fornication"wasalready bottled and labelled before the first dispersion," i. e., prior to the tower of Babel, as recorded in Genesis 11:1-32. In other words, therewasidolatry before Rome, either pagan or papal. The Old Testament tells us of Moloch, and Ashtaroth, and Chemosh and Milcom, the gods of the nations round about, whose worship polluted Israel. These were the result of Babel, and under other names the same gods are affecting the thinking, the legislating and the worshipping of the nations of the earth to-day. Two-thirds of the people of the earth are still pagans, while the other third are largely Mohammedans, Jews, Romanists, infidels, Christian Scientists, Spiritualists, or adherents of some other tainted and anti-Christian faith. In other words, the same old Babylon and her daughters still bear rule in the earth, and will continue to do so until Jesus comes. It is this awful fact that gives such significance to the teaching of Scripture about the coming restoration of Babylon and her fall. That event is the logical conclusion of the history and the times of the Gentiles. “The civilization and the culture of the world will again become atheistic and man-centered, and having described a circle, its cradle (Babylon) will become its grave." That is the inspiration of, and that is what gives impetus to, Christian missions. It is a time to make haste to "testify the gospel of the grace of God." QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1.What other city of Mesopotamia in its reawakening affords a presumption for Babylon? 2. Where in the Bible does Babylon’s history begin? 3. What distinguishes her at the first? 4. Trace the migration of the sons of Noah. 5. Who was Nimrod? 6. Give the reasons for the tower of Babel. 7. How is history repeating itself in this age? 8. In what Scriptures is the history of Nebuchadnezzar told? 9. Have you read Isaiah 13:1-22; Isaiah 14:1-32? 10. State the eight reasons for doubting that this prophecy was fulfilled in the overthrow of Babylon by Persia. 11. What was the nature of that blow on Babylon? 12. Give in your own words the quotation from Newton. 13. Have you read Zechariah 5:1-11? 14. Give in your own words an exposition of the vision of "the woman in the ephah." 15. In what chapter of Revelation is Babylon once more referred to? 16. To what more modern city is this prophecy sometimes applied? 17. Give three or four reasons against such an application. 18. Why cannot Revelation 18:4-7 refer to papal Rome? 19. Have you read Isaiah 43:1-28 and Jeremiah 51:1-64? 20. Why cannot Revelation 17:1-18 and Revelation 18:1-24 be separated in their general application? 21. What does the" woman" of Revelation 17:1-18 symbolize? 22. How is Babylon described with reference to idolatry? 23. What relation does "Romanism" bear to “Babylonianism”? 24. Name some of the idolatries before" Romanism," and their relation to Babylon. 25. What relation do they bear to current religious history? 26. What does this suggest as to the logical conclusion of "The Times of the Gentiles"? 27. What is its bearing on Christian Missions? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 25: 02.11. THE DAY OF THE LORD - WHEN IT COMES AND WHAT IT MEANS ======================================================================== XI THE DAY OF THE LORD--WHEN IT COMES AND WHAT IT MEANS I EVEN the cursory reader of the Bible will have observed the frequent phrase, "the day of the Lord," or "that day," or "in that day." It is found in the Old Testament prophets chiefly, notably Isaiah and Joel, but also in the New Testament. Some illustrations follow: "The Lord alone shall be exalted in that day" (Isaiah 2:11) ; "And it shall come to pass in that day that the remnant of Israel . . . shall stay upon the Lord" (Isaiah 10:20); “Howl ye, for the day of the Lord is at hand" (Isaiah 13:6); "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood before the great and terrible day of the Lord come" (Joel 2:31); "His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives" (Zechariah 14:4); "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord" (Matthew 7:22); "When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe in that day" (2 Thessalonians 1:10) ; "The day of the Lord will come as a thief" (2 Peter 3:10) ; "The battle of that great day of God Almighty" (Revelation 16:14). II It is natural to ask what this phrase means, and when the time will come to which it refers. There appear to be contradictions in the allusions to it. It contains blessings for the earth, and yet it also contains judgments. What relation does it bear to what is called the "Millennium"? This last-named period has not been dealt with in these studies, but it has been assumed that our readers had some knowledge of it. "Millennium" means a thousand years, and is commonly used with reference to the thousand years named in Revelation 20:1-6, when Satan shall be shut up in the bottomless pit. It is the time of "the first resurrection," when Christ and His saints shall reign over the earth. The question is, will the day of the Lord come before, or during, or after the Millennium’ As a matter of fact, it willcover all these three phases of time.It begins just prior to the Millennium, it continues throughout that period, and extends somewhat beyond it. But before it begins, there are certain preliminary events which must take place. One of these is the translation of the Church to meet the Lord in the air, as foretold by Paul (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18). Another is the regathering of Israel to Palestine, on which we dwelt in a previous study. And a third is the federation of the Gentile nations (that is, the former nations of the Roman Empire) under a single head, as we saw in a study preceding this. This person the Scriptures sometimes describe as "the beast," sometimes as "the man of sin," “the son of perdition," or“the Antichrist." Our previous studies have made us more or less familiar with all these things. III On the supposition that these events have taken place, then the day of the Lord begins with the return of the Lord Himself in glory. When He comes for His Church (according to John 14:1-3, Php 3:20-21, and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18), He comes into the air and the Church is caught up to meet Him. But when, after a brief interval (possibly the seven years spoken of in Daniel 9:1-27), He comes in judgment on the nations, it will be to the earth that He descends. This is what is meant by "the return of the Lord himself in glory." See for this Zechariah 14:4; Matthew 24:29-30; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10. The judgment of the nations follows, and Psalms 50:1-23, Zechariah 14:1-9, Matthew 25:31-46 and Revelation 19:11-21 find their fulfillment. Be sure to read these Scriptures, which are very full and graphic. It is in the course of this judgment on the nations that there takes place the destruction of "the beast" and the "false prophet," with their followers, as referred to in the study preceding this. See in this instance Daniel 9:27, 2 Thessalonians 2:8, Revelation 19:20 and corresponding places. The binding of Satan is next in order (Revelation 20:1-3), and then we have the Millennium. The binding of Satan, it should be borne in mind, is a necessary preliminary to the Millennium, or to Christ’s reign in righteousness. Necessary because he must be kept in restraint. It is during the Millennium that the Kingdom of God is established in the earth. This is the kingdom promised to David, as we have seen in our third study, and over which His son Jesus Christ shall reign. It is the kingdom of which Daniel prophesied, as brought out in our study on "The Times of the Gentiles." It is the kingdom that Christ "Came to set up at His first advent, and for which Israel and indeed the whole world has been looking, in a more or less darkened way, in all the centuries, Revelation 20:4-6 refers to this kingdom very briefly, but for descriptions of its physical blessings one must turn to the Old Testament. The reason for this is that the nation of Israel shall then be dominant, to which people the promises were made in the Old Testament days. Read Psalms 72:1-20, or look at Isaiah 2:1-22 for one of the pictures of the Millennium. There, at last, the poor are being judged with righteousness, the wild beasts are tamed, there is nothing to destroy in all God’s holy mountain, and the earth is "full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea." It is the time when "he shall show who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords" (1 Timothy 6:15). But it must not be imagined that because Satan is bound all this time, therefore there will be no sin in the earth. Isaiah 65:20 says of that time: "There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days; for the child shall die an hundred years old;but the sinner beinganhundred years old shall be accursed."It is the period when Christreigns,but as another aptly says: "the fundamental idea of a reign, according to God, is the repression of evil. When all evil is suppressed, that is, in the eternal age, righteousness will dwell" in the earth, but it will not "reign." IV The Millennium lasts for a thousand years, but still "the day of the Lord" continues, and includes in its history another resurrection. This is the resurrection of the rest of the dead that did not rise when Christ came for His Church, because they were not part of it. In other words, these are the wicked dead who, in all the centuries from Adam, have died without faith, have died rejecting the testimony of God. Revelation 20:5 refers to this. But, it may be asked, what about the righteous and regenerate who die during the Millennium? As to this we are unable to speak with clearness, unless we interpret Isaiah 65:20-22, mentioned above, as indicating that none but wicked and unbelieving people shall die during that period. If this be true, then at its close "death will have none to surrender except those who will stand before the Great White Throne, and who alas! will be cast into hell." In this connection think of that beautiful millennial promise in Isaiah 65:22 : "For as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall wear out the work of their hands" (Margin). Quoting William Lincoln, "How solemn it isthatthe first resurrection, that of the righteous, is not contrasted by the Holy Spirit with the second resurrection, that of the wicked; but instead we read of thefirstresurrection and of the seconddeath.The summoning of the wicked from their graves is termed a resurrection in judgment in John 5:1-47, but here the language is changed to ’the second death.’" Several times in this chapter the wicked are still termed dead, even after their resurrection. And dead indeed they are, not in the sense of non-existence, but in that of separation from God. But the second resurrection seems to synchronize with the unbinding of Satan, who goes out again "to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, and to gather them to battle" (Revelation 20:8). This is one of the strangest and most startling facts associated with the whole teaching of the Millennium. It thus appears that while during that period Christ will be obeyed and served by the nations, yet to no small extent it will be on their part a feigned obedience and an unwilling service. See Zechariah 14:16-19. Men will need, in that day as well as in this, to be "born again" in order to "enter into the kingdom of heaven" (John 3:3-7). The nations will be ready to be again deceived, when Satan comes back into his power "for a little season," and the battle to which he shall gather them will be another attack upon Jerusalem, "the camp of the saints about and the beloved city" (Revelation 20:9). It is at this time that God has His last and most awful conflict with man in the flesh. "And fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them." The destruction of Satan follows. He is "cast into the lake of fire and brimstone," where the beast and the false prophet were cast at the beginning of the Millennium (Revelation 19:20), and he is there "tormented day and night forever and ever" (Revelation 20:10). Revelation 20:3 teaches that Satan “must be loosed a little season." Why the "must"? Is it not that man may be tested or tried again Y He had been tried in the garden of Eden, when he possessed the knowledge of good only; he had been tried again, when he possessed the knowledge of "good and evil," amid evil only. But now finally, at the close of the Millennium, he must be tried when he possesses the knowledge of good and evil, amid only good. Then it will be evident that, let the circumstances be what they may, man himself is not good (Lincoln). Thus the millennial day that had dawned so brightly on earth ends as all the preceding ones ended-in disaster, so far as man is concerned. Man without Christ can only fail. V The next great event divinely scheduled in the day of the Lord is the Last Judgment. Not the “general" judgment, as it is often erroneously called, for there is no such judgment; but only the judgment of the dead, the wicked dead already spoken of. And they were" judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." They had an opportunity to be judged in Christ by faith in His blessed Name, but this they wickedly rejected. They chose rather to stand upon their own record, and not His. Their" works" were that in which they gloried, and God kept an accurate record of them. But their value was nil, for "whatsoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." "This is the second death" relatively to their preceding physical death in unbelief, but it is not annihilation, as shown by Revelation 19:20 and Revelation 20:10. As the Scofield Reference Bible reminds us, "after one thousand years in the lake of fire the beast and the false prophet are still there and undestroyed.” “Forever and ever" or "to the ages of the ages" are the words, and that they carry the awful thought of unendingness is evidenced by the fact that they are used in Hebrews 1:8 of the very Throne of God itself. May the unbelieving and unsaved reader take warning from this solemn fact, and before it is too late fly for refuge to the hope set before us in the Gospel. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1. Give some illustrations of the Scriptural use of the phrase, "The Day of the Lord," or its equivalent. 2. What seeming contradictions are observed in the use of it? 3. What does “Millennium" mean and with what time is it identified? 4. Will "The Day of the Lord" come before, during, or after the Millennium? 5. What three events precede “The Day of the Lord"? 6. When does that “Day" begin? 7. What is meant by “the return of the Lord Himself in glory"? 8. What follows this return? 9. Have you read the Scriptures indicated? 10. What events take place in the course of the judgments on the nations? 11. What is a necessary preliminary to the Millennium, and why? 12. What parallel is suggested here? 13. What is established in the earth during the Millennium? 14. Identify this "kingdom" in other Scriptures. 15. Where are its physical blessings more particularly revealed, and why? 16. Have you read Psalms 72:1-20 and Isaiah 11:1-16? 17. Will there be sin in the earth during the Millennium? 18. What distinction do you see between righteousness “reigning" and righteousness “dwelling" in the earth? 19. Who are the persons in the second resurrection? 20. How do some interpret Isaiah 65:20-22? 21. How is the word “dead" in Revelation 20:1-15 to be understood? 22. With what does the "second resurrection" or rather the "second death," synchronize? 23. What startling fact does this bring forward? 24. When does God have His final conflict with man in the flesh? 25. What event follows? 26. Why the word “must" in Revelation 20:3? 27. What is the next great event in “The Day of the Lord"? 28. Who are judged here and on what basis are they judged? 29. What name is given to that which follows this judgment? 30. What proves that the second death is not annihilation? 31. What is the warning for the unsaved? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 26: 02.12. DOES THE BIBLE TEACH A GENERAL JUDGMENT? ======================================================================== XII DOES THE BIBLE TEACH A GENERAL JUDGMENT? I SOME questions raised by the previous chapter when it appeared in the serial form, related to the interpretation of various passages in the book of Revelation culminating in its teaching concerning the last judgment. Most of them were too lacking in general interest to warrant attention in any special way; but an exception is made of one which asks whether Revelation 17:8 refers to a "limited atonement." The passage reads, "And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world." The thought of the atonement is not to be excluded from these words, but it is not in the foreground. The subject of the whole verse is the "beast," the Antichrist, the secular despot, possibly an "incarnation of Satan, who will ascend out of the abyss and later go into perdition, and who will rule over the earth during the period of the tribulation still ahead. For further information about him, see Chapter VIII. "They that dwell on the earth shall wonder after him," or, as Revelation 13:3 says, "all the world wondered after the beast." And no wonder they wondered, when we are told in another Scripture (2 Thessalonians 2:4) that "he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God," and in still another (Revelation 13:2-17), that there is a false prophet with him who "deceiveth them that dwell on the earth, by reason of the miracles which he had power to do." "Wonder" in this case means not simple astonishment, but a surrender of will and judgment, bringing the one who wonders under the sway and spell of the one who is wondered at. Yet as the verse states, this will not be true of all. In Elijah’s time there was an elect remnant who bowed not the knee to Baal (Romans 11:1-5), and so will it be in the great tribulation. Although the Church will have been caught up to meet the Lord in the air, as we believe the Scriptures teach (1 Thessalonians 4:17), yet there will be an elect remnant on the earth, both of Jews and Gentiles--converted it may be by the very event of the Church’s translation-who will prefer death to allegiance to this son of perdition. (Read Revelation 6:9-11; Revelation 7:14; Revelation 13:15-17.) These are described by contrast, in the question presented to us, as those whose names were "written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world." What troubles the inquirer is that some names were written there while others were not, and only the first are saved, while the others presumably are lost. His is a doctrinal or theological question that hardly comes within the range of this work, which cannot properly discuss such matters as a limited or an unlimited atonement. But this much may be said, doubtless without controversy: (1) that the book and the writing of the names are figures of speech, indicating God’s foreknowledge of the saved and the lost; (2) that His foreknowledge is not necessarily identical with His foreordination of some to eternal life and some to eternal death; (3) that the atonement of Jesus Christ is sufficient for the sin of the world (John 1:29); (4) that all may be saved who are willing to be saved (Revelation 22:17). II This leads to the question of the final judgment referred to in Revelation 20:11-15, where the words recur: "Whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire." This was dealt with in the last chapter on "The Day of the Lord, When It Comes and What It Means," where it was said that it is erroneously called the "general" judgment. By the "general" judgment is commonly understood a judgment of all mankind at one time and one place and on precisely the same basis, which does not appear to be the Bible teaching on that subject. But, says the inquirer, what about Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:10, and Matthew 25:31-46? These passages will be quoted later, but in the meantime let us reflect that the day of judgment, as presented in the Bible, is not a day of twenty-four hours merely, but one covering a great length of time. “The Day of the Lord," mentioned before, is equivalent to the day of judgment, and it covers at least a thousand years, beginning with judgment, ending with judgment, and characterized by judgment more or less, all the way through. 1. There is a judgment of Christians,true believers, the members of Christ’s body, which will take place when Christ comes for His Church. It is to this that Romans 14:10 and 2 Corinthians 5:10 apply. The first reads: "We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." And the second, "We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." The pronoun "we" in these cases refers only to Christians, as may be seen from the. contexts, and especially from the introduction to both epistles (see Romans 1:1, Romans 1:7 and 2 Corinthians 1:1). This is not a judgment unto condemnation, but rather an inquiry into the conduct of disciples, in order to give unto them "before the eyes of all a gracious reward of tried fidelity," as van Oosterzee expresses it. Compare further 1 Corinthians 3:2-15. 2. There is a judgment awaiting Israel as a nation,which shall take place on the earth, and doubtless with particular intensity in Palestine, whither that nation will have returned at first in an unconverted state. The time will be after the translation of the Church, and when Christ will be revealed with His saints and with His holy angels for the deliverance of "the children of thy people"; "and there shall be a time of trouble such as there never was since there was8nation, even to that same time; and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book." That it is a final judgment for some of them at least seems involved in the language which follows: "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." III 3. There is a judgment of the Gentile nations, also on the earth, commencing perhaps with the judgment upon Israel and following after it. It is to this that Matthew 25:31-46 applies, beginning: "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." Observe that those who are here judged are called "nations," and the meaning is living nations, i. e., nations existing on the earth at the time. It does not refer to those who have died, and nothing is said about a resurrection having taken place. For parallel Scriptures see Isaiah 34:1-2; Ezekiel 39:1-29, the whole chapter, where, as in other instances in the Old Testament, the word "heathen" should be rendered "nations"; Joel 3:2; Zechariah 14:1-2. Observe also that the ground on which this judgment is passed is peculiar, different from any other judgment named or to be named. The sheep are divided from the goats according to the kindness or unkindness shown to a third class of persons called the "brethren" of the Judge. This third class is taken to mean Israel or the Jews, and doubtless during the tribulation period. There is no mention of a formal trial here and no opening of books, but "a calling up of rebellious or obedient subjects and the passing upon them of their sentence of penalty or reward." Nothing could be more distinct from the circumstances of the last judgment, which will be spoken of in a moment. And yet there is a finality to this also, for they that have done wickedly go into everlasting punishment, "but the righteous into life eternal," For parallel scripts, see Jeremiah 25:15-33; Daniel 2:44-45; Daniel 7:9-14; Joel 3:2; also 2 Thessalonians 2:8; Jude 1:14-15; Revelation 19:11-21. That there is much difficulty in the application or interpretation of certain parts of this scene of judgment is not disputed, but it would require more than one chapter of the present length to deal with it in any satisfactory way. Here we can speak only in general terms and state conclusions in broad outlines. IV 4. There is a final judgment (Revelation 22:11-15). (1) Note the time, after the thousand years (Revelation 22:9-10). How long after is not revealed; but whether it be brief or extended, it clearly differentiates it from all preceding judgments. (2) Note the location, not in heaven, neither on earth, for the time has come foretold by Peter, "in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up" (2 Peter 3:10). (3) Note the characterization of the judged. They are the dead; and by "the dead" is doubtless meant all who have died from the very beginning, excepting those who have been judged in the earlier periods. In other words, all men will be judged at some time. There will be no exception to this rule; but the judgment will not be general in that all will be judged together and by precisely the same rule. (4) Note the record and the basis of the judgment: "they were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." No believers are in this judgment, it would appear, for the thought of faith appears to be excluded from it, as well as that of reward. See also Christ’s promise in John 5:24. There are two stages in this judgment as another puts it: first, a reference to the "other books" to show that the works of the wicked deserve death; and second, the opening of "the Book of Life," to show that by unbelief they have rejected life. (5) Note the awful sentence of the judgment; "the second death," "the lake of fire." May God deliver the reader from it. And this will He do beyond a peradventure, to all who receive the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour and confess Him as Lord. QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1.What is the subject of Revelation 17:8? I. Why will “all the world wonder after the beast"? 3. What does “wonder" mean in this case? 4. What exceptions will there be to those that “wonder" after him? 5. Have you read the verses referred to in Revelation? 6. Recite the four comments made on Revelation 17:8. 7. What is commonly meant by the expression “general judgment"? 8. What Scriptures are frequently but erroneously used to establish such a judgment? 9. What expression does the Bible use as synonymous with the day of judgment? 10. How many distinct “judgments" are pointed out in this lesson? 11. Explain what is meant by a judgment of Christians, and give the Scriptures which prove it. 12. Do the same for the judgment awaiting Israel as a nation. 13. When will the judgment of the Gentile nations commence? 14. Expound the parable of the sheep and the goats. 15. How should the word “heathen" commonly be rendered? 16. What five things are to be noted concerning the final judgment? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 27: 02.13. THE MILLENNIUM: WHEN, WHAT AND WHERE? ======================================================================== XIII THE MILLENNIUM: WHEN, WHAT AND WHERE? I IT has been thought best that the previous chapters should be supplemented by one on the Millennium. Considerable has been said on that subject as we have progressed, but nothing in the way of a sustained or continuous treatment such as would interest and instruct a beginner in the study of prophecy. The word "Millennium" is a combination of two Latin words,mille,a thousand, andannus,a year, and means a thousand years. In its Biblical or theological use, it finds its origin in Revelation 20:1-7, where it is employed six times in speaking of such coming and momentous events as the binding of Satan in the bottomless pit, "that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years should be fulfilled," and the resurrection of the saints who shall reign with Christ over the earth during the same period. However, while this is the only place in Scripture where the "thousand years" is named specifically, yet nevertheless the period itself is identified in many ways throughout the Bible. Indeed, the Fleming H. Revell Company once published a goodly-sized volume by the distinguished Bible scholar, Dr. Nathaniel West, entitled, "The Thousand Years in Both Testaments," from whose opening pages we quote the following: "What we find in the New Testament as its outcome in respect to the ages and the kingdom, has already lain in the bosom of the Old Testament from the beginning. The closing part of the New Testament (Revelation 20:1-7 for example) is but the full flower of which the opening part of the Old Testament was the precious seed, the kingdom, one and the same in essence all the way. Nothing appears in the later revelation that was not hid in the earlier; nothing in John that was not in Moses. . . . Such is the organic and genetic character of revelation and of prophecy, that if ’the thousand years’ are not in Moses, the Psalms and the Prophets, they have no right to be in John." II The task would be fascinating to trace from the beginning the prophecies of the Bible which point to that "good time coming" which we call the Millennium. Take the earliest of all, in Genesis 3:15, where it is promised that the Seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head. In a former chapter it was shown that this "Seed" is Jesus Christ, and the "serpent," Satan, the bruising of whose head means the destruction of his power longer to hurt men. This at once parallels the verse in Revelation, which speaks of him as being bound and shut up in the bottomless pit a thousand years. His final doom is not reached even then; but if for a thousand years he is restrained from doing evil in the earth, think what that will mean in the peace and happiness of mankind! This is one of the features of the Millennium. We pass to that other promise, attached to the call of Abraham in Genesis 12:3, "in thee all the families of the earth shall be blessed." We saw in former studies the extent to which "all the families of the earth" are already blessed in Abraham, whose Seed is Jesus Christ; but we also saw that this was only a part of that blessing which is yet to be, and which approaches nearer its fulfillment in that same Millennium. Hastening to the time of David, Abraham’s kingly offspring, we listen to the Messiah saying in the second Psalm, "I will declare the decree: Jehovah hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." This points to the same period, and shows us our blessed Lord reigning over the whole earth, with all of the peace and righteousness upon the earth which that implies. The prophet Isaiah comments upon this reign, saying, "He shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither decide after the hearing of his ears; but with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth, " The blessing extends to the animal creation too, for we remember the familiar words of the same prophet, "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them" (Isaiah 11:3-6). Israel, or the Jew, will be specially favoured at that time, for, as Amos says, "In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David [i. e., restore his kingdom], and I will build it as in the days of old. . . . Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed, and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. And I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards and drink the wine thereof; and they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land and they shall no more be plucked up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy God" (Amos 9:11-15). III The joyous refrain is continued in the New Testament, and Jesus, in view of His coming crucifixion and death, instructs His disciples concerning self-denial, saying: "What is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? . . . For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father and his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." The second coming of our Lord is thus declared to be one of the features of the Millennium, and naturally the great feature; for, as we have seen previously, it is His coming alone that can introduce that period or make it a possibility. But He is coming to judge His people and to dispense to them the reward of their fidelity, which will make it a happy time for them. In the Acts, Peter refers to it. He exhorts the unbelieving Jews who crucified their Lord to repent and be converted, that their sins might be blotted out. And then he adds: "That so there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah who hath been appointed for you, even Jesus, whom the heavens must receive until the time of restoration of all things, whereof God spake by the mouth of his holy prophets which have been since the world began." It is the time of the" restoration of all things," and yet not all things absolutely, but all those things of which the holy prophets have spoken, and which a consensus of their writings shows will be brought to fruition in the Millennium, when Jesus comes again (Acts 3:19-21). Of course, the Epistles hold much of the same thought, but that thrilling revelation through Paul in the eighth of Romans challenges our attention first. He is comforting believers under "the sufferings of this present time," which "are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." And then he uses these words, so often quoted, but so little appreciated in their bearing on millennial conditions: "For the earnest expectation of creation waiteth for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only so, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for our adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." This passage parallels that already quoted from Isaiah, pointing out that the earthly blessings it portrays are vitally associated with the resurrection of the saints. Thus, not to prolong this running comment any further, we are brought once more to Revelation 20:1-7. IV The reader is asked to carefully read this passage, and then answer the following question: Suppose it had now passed before your eyes for the first time, and suppose you were entirely free from any bias of mind concerning it, what would it naturally suggest to you’ Would it not seem to teach at least eight things: (1) That Satan will be bound and shut up in the bottomless pit a thousand years; (2) That during this period the nations will not be deceived or misled by him; (3) That thrones of judgment shall be occupied by risen saints and martyrs; (4) That these shall live and reign as kings and priests with Christ; (5) That the rest of the dead shall remain in their graves until the period is ended; (6) That this is the first resurrection; (7) That there is no more death for them that partake of its blessedness; (8) That at its close Satan shall be loosed again. Thisis the Millennium.Thisis the kingdom of the Messiah on this earth, which is predicted throughout the Old Testament. If we are intelligent in the Scriptures,thisis what we mean every time we pray, "Thy kingdom come."Thisis how almost the whole Church understood these prophecies for the first three centuries of the Christian era. As another says, "It was not until Christians began to mistake the world’s patronage of a corrupted Christianity for the commencement of the Millennium[i.e., at the fourth century in the days of Constantine], that they adopted those spiritualizing theories of interpretation which made these prophecies teach something else." And what is that "something else" which they are thus made to teach f Namely, that the resurrection and the reigning of the saints and martyrs in this passage merely designates a revival of their spirit in the earth. They say it merely means the universal spread and predominance of the principles of Christianity for which they suffered. But, as the English writer quoted above asks: “How could such a revival or predominance of the principles of the martyrs be a reward forthem,while as to their bodies they are still in the grave’ Is this the reigning with Christ which is to more than compensate for their suffering with Him? We think not." Of course we are not now speaking of the eternal age. We are not speaking of the period following the Millennium, when, according to 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, Christ will deliver up "the kingdom to God, even the Father." When that time comes, "then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." But we are distinctly taught that His preceding (millennial) reign continues until then, and it is of this (millennial) reign that this present chapter treats. This is the reign promised to every one "that overcometh and keepeth my works unto the end," to whom He will "give authority over the nations" (Revelation 2:26) and they "shallreign on the earth"(Revelation 5:10). In the eternal age they cannot have authority over the nations on the earth, for there will be no nations in the present sense of that term; and as for the earth itself, it will then have fled away, and "there was found no place for them" (Revelation 20:11). But a further word of explanation is necessary to the effect that the reigning of Christ and His saints over the nations of the earth does not involve their possession of fleshly bodies like our present ones, nor their actual habitation on the soil of the earth. Christ’s resurrection body is an indication of what the resurrection bodies of the saints may be. He could pass in and out of closed doors. He could be present and could vanish in an instant. He could ascend up into heaven, or remain upon the earth at His will; and the same is likely to be true of the saints, as we gather from 1 Corinthians 15:42-49. And as to a habitation on the soil of the earth: Does not King George reign over India with his throne in England, and does not President Wilson exercise authority over the Philippines from a capital at Washington? Why then should there be difficulty about the saints exercising dominion on the earth from their location in the air with Christ’ The air, it should be remembered, is one of the "heavenly places" (Ephesians 1:3; Ephesians 2:6; Ephesians 3:10; Ephesians 6:12), and there are we to be "forever with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:17). It is from that vantage ground that the present god of this world exercises his power over the nations of the earth (Ephesians 2:2) ; and what is to hinder the saints of God doing the same, when they with Christ shall occupy that domain from which He shall have been cast out (Revelation 12:7-12)? V To sum up, the millennium is a thousand years of peace and righteousness, of prosperity and plenty, to be realized upon this earth. It will follow the second coming of Christ, at which time the Church, which is His body (Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 3:1-4), shall have been caught up to meet Him in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18). But though the saints will thus have been translated, they will not be deprived of a share in that blessing and its glory, for they shall reign with Christ on the earth, having authority over the nations. This blessing not only follows but is consequent upon the second coming of Christ, and for the reason outlined above, that He will then bind Satan and cast him into the bottomless pit, that he should deceive the nations no more until the thousand years are ended. The binding of Satan is associated with the divine judgments that shall fall upon the disobedient nations, and the subjection of those nations to the rule of Christ. The earth then shall be governed righteously; Israel shall be converted; idolatry shall cease; all false religions and false worships shall be put away, and, the material and animal creation sharing in the benefaction, the waste places shall "break forth into joy," and "all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God" (Isaiah 52:10). But one thing more. When we speak of Christ subduing His enemies by power, and of the Millennium being introduced by His coming and His judgments, we must not forget the name and the work of the Holy Spirit. As we are reminded by another, so far as the conversion of souls is concerned in the millennial age, or any other age, the Holy Spirit is the agent by which it is accomplished. As soon as the Antichrist arises in power, and even before Jesus comes in judgment on him and the nations under his leadership, the Holy Spirit is promised to a faithful remnant in Israel. "When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him. And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord" (Isaiah 59:19-20). It is significant that this work of the Holy Spirit does not render unnecessary the personal coming of the Redeemer, and that it is in connection with that coming and as a forerunner of it that the Holy Spirit is thus named. Moreover, Scriptures might be multiplied to show that this same gracious agency shall continue to abide with Israel throughout the whole of the millennial period. See, for example, Isaiah 39:11-15; Isaiah 44:2-5; and Zechariah 12:10. But Joel goes still further and teaches that in that day the Holy Spirit shall be poured out "upon all flesh" (Joel 2:28-29). We think that an accredite8 student of prophecy is right when he says that "the judgments which accompany the Lord’s return will have purged out the obstinately wicked of that generation, while the survivors, awed by those judgments and compelled to bow to the scepter of Jesus Christ, will, by this universal outpouring of the Holy Spirit, be generally turned in heart to the Lord." "Generally," be it observed, but not entirely or universally. Every soul of man will not be converted, and regeneration will be as necessary then as now, if one shall enter into the Kingdom of God. But in a sense or in a degree which until then the earth never will have known, it will be a time when “the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together" (Isaiah 40:5). QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1.What is the meaning of "Millennium"? 2. What is its Biblical origin? 3. Is Revelation 20:1-15 the only place where the period is referred to in the Bible? 4. Give in your own words the quotation from Dr. West. 5. Identify two early promises of the Millennium in Genesis. 6. Quote one each from the Psalms, from Isaiah, and from Amos. 7. Where in the Gospels are found the words quoted from Jesus? 8. Expound Acts 3:19-21 in your own words. 9. With what great event are the earthly blessings of the Millennium vitally associated? 10. Name the eight features of the Millennium in Revelation 20:1-7. 11. When were the spiritualizing theories of the Millennium adopted, and why? 12. In what are these spiritualizing theories summed up? 13. How does an English writer reply to this? 14. How is the millennial age distinguished from the eternal age to follow? 15. Does the earthly reign of Christ and His saints involve their possession of fleshly bodies and actual residence on the soil? 16. Illustrate your answer to the above. 17. In what sense is the" air" employed in 1 Thessalonians 4:17? 18. Sum up the teaching on the Millennium thus far. 19. What relation does the work of the Holy Spirit bear to millennial blessing? 20. Quote Isaiah 59:19-20 and Joel 2:1-32. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 28: 02.14. CHRIST'S FUTURE EARTHLY REIGN ======================================================================== XIV CHRIST’S FUTURE EARTHLY REIGN I AMONG the questions raised by the previous studies in their serial form was one as to whether there would be a second incarnation of Christ. On the supposition that He is to reign on the earth, it was supposed that He must be in the flesh as a man. He is indeed to reign over the earth, but this does not make it necessary that He shall reign on the earth. The earlier chapter on the Millennium referred to this. That "His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives" (Zechariah 14:4), we accept literally; but it does not necessarily carry with it the thought that He shall remain there, or in any other earthly locality, throughout the millennial reign. Indeed, the touching of the mountain with His feet is the signal for its division into two halves and the formation of a great valley in between. As the prophet Nahum says, "The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt; and the earth is upheaved at his presence, yea, the world and all that dwell therein" (Nahum 1:5). But as to a second incarnation, this is unnecessary and of course impossible, except in the sense that all things with God are possible. In His resurrection body, Christ could be present or vanish in an instant. He could ascend up into heaven or remain upon the earth at His will. It is in this body that He now appears in the presence of God for us (Hebrews 9:24), and it is in this body that we may look for Him to come again, as He was seen to go (Acts 1:11). Indeed, there is danger in pressing the thought of a reincarnation of Christ, for such is the teaching of many of the false religions now being imported from the east, like Buddhism and Theosophy and the Order of the Star of the East. They believe that a great teacher will soon appear in the world, and they would have Christians suppose that he is our Saviour. But such is not true, for the Christ they speak of is not the one revealed in the Bible. Their Christ is named in the same breath with Buddha and Confucius and Zoroaster and other leaders of Pagan cults. They make no mention of sin, of sacrificial atonement, of judgment, of the Holy Spirit. They are simply preparing the way for the Antichrist, and we need to be on our guard against them. II An interesting letter was received from a correspondent who took the position that the Transfiguration of Christ (Matthew 17:1-27) was His coming in His kingdom in miniature, and we think the position was well taken. Quoting from the present writer’s "Prophecy and the Lord’s Return": “When He comes the second time, He will appear on the earth and yet He will be apart from the earth in the air, and here (in the Transfiguration) we see Him in that relationship to both. "When He comes the second time, it will be in glory, and here we see His face shining ’as the sun,’ His raiment ’white as the light.’ "When He comes the second time, the dead saints will be with Him, and here we see Moses, representing that resurrection, talking with Him. "When He comes the second time, the saints who are alive and remain on the earth shall be caught up in the clouds to meet Him’ in the air, ’ and here we see Elijah, representing that translation, also talking with Him. "When He comes the second time, Israel in the flesh will sustain a mediatorial relationship to Him, and the glorified Church on behalf of the Gentile nations; and here we see Peter, James and John, representing Israel in the flesh, occupying this place of wonderful privilege and fellowship. "Thus appears the whole story of the second coming in a kind of picture, and yet it is all real. No wonder that it brought so much encouragement to the disappointed and wondering disciples." That the correspondent was not in error in thus conceiving of the Transfiguration is made sure by the words of one of the witnesses on that occasion. Read, for example, Peter’s testimony in his second epistle, where he says (2 Peter 1:16-18): “We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his majesty. "For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory; This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. "And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount." Here we have not only Peter’s testimony to the fact, but his inspired comment upon the testimony. The transfiguration, he says, was "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." Not that it was exhaustive of His power in that direction, nor that it meant His coming in its entirety; but as a fore-gleam of that momentous event in its various particulars, it established its certainty as something that is to be. III And yet all this testimony is not satisfying to some. Another correspondent wrote, "We do not understand at all from Scripture that the people, whom God is now calling out from all the nations for His Name, are to reign with Him over the millennial earth." And then he states the grounds of his objection. It will be interesting and instructive to consider them: (1) He says: "There is to be no millennial earth here. The only place in the Bible that speaks of a thousand year reign is Revelation 20:4, and it does not at all indicate that it is to take place here on this earth." Where, then, is it to take place, may we ask? The preceding chapter, to which this one bears the closest relationship, is speaking of the earth. There are the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against our Lord Jesus Christ, and there is He seen smiting the nations and ruling them with a rod of iron. Immediately following the account of the thousand years’ reign, we are told that Satan, loosed from his prison-house, goes out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth. "And they went up on the breadth of the earth and compassed the camp of the saints about the beloved city." It is not until after this that the earth and the heaven flee away. In the chapter on “The Millennium: When, What and Where?" it was stated that, while the thousand years specifically is named but once in the Bible, yet the period to which that phrase refers is named again and again. We quoted Moses, David, Isaiah, Amos, Peter, Paul, John and Jesus Christ. Indeed, as Nathaniel West says: "There is a text in what is known among scholars as the ’little apocalypse of Isaiah’ (Isaiah 24:21-23) which so closely resembles Revelation 20:1-4 as to be called its companion piece." (2) The correspondent quotes: "And I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus . . . which had not worshipped the beast, . . . and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years," and adds, "This certainly does not include us of the present time. We have not been beheaded, and are not likely to be. In other words, we are not martyrs for Christ, and it seems presumptuous to put ourselves in the company of these martyrs for this special reign. We who are caught up at the coming of the Lord will be in the general reign with Christ, but not in this special reign. " That he is not very clear as to this "special reign" is evident from a later statement in which he says that it is a reign "with his martyrs somewhere else than on this earth, and that it is now taking place." There are two errors here. In the first place, Christ, considered as to His human nature, Christ the God-man, is not now reigning anywhere. As God, He is reigning over the universe, of course, just as He has done ever since He created it; but as the risen and glorified man He is "sat down on the right hand of God, from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool" (Hebrews 10:12-13). In that day, however,i.e., when His enemies are made His footstool, He will come again, "and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever" (Luke 1:32-33). In the second place, the reign of the martyrs cannot now be taking place, because the martyrs themselves have not yet been martyred. They are the martyrs of the tribulation period which is yet to come, and in which they will su1fer at the hands of the Antichrist ’(see Revelation 13:15-18). And finally, it is no presumption for us "to put ourselves in the company of these martyrs," because the context itself does that for us. For example, it says that "This is the first resurrection," and good exegesis makes this harmonize with "the resurrection of the just" (Luke 14:14), and "the resurrection of life" (John 5:29). All believers are counted in these resurrections, and necessarily in that. But why are the martyrs singled out Y For a very good reason indeed. Up until this time, the Church had been in the air with Christ, and was now about to enter with Him upon His earthly reign. Meanwhile Antichrist had been reigning on the earth, and these martyrs had refused to acknowledge him and had paid for their loyalty with their life. But now he is tormented and they are comforted. He is bound and cast into the bottomless pit for a thousand years, and they are raised from the dead and exalted to a place with the Church, which is Christ’s body, and they reign with Christ a thousand years. IV In the foregoing it has been assumed that, when Christ comes in the air and the Church is caught up to meet Him there, it is from that location that He and His Bride shall reign over the earth. Such is a common understanding among premillennialists, but it is not by any means the only one. For example, Luthardt, a distinguished German commentator, says unhesitatingly; "The Church does not remain in the air, nor is she retired into heaven, but, after her translation, accompanies the Bridegroom hitherward to the Holy Place," by which he means some glorified place on the earth in which she shall be separated from the as yet unglorified part of humanity. Dr. Nathaniel West agrees with this, and warns us not to "rob corporeity of its rights in the resurrection, or dissolve under the idea of ’glory’ the resurrection body into a gauzy texture ballooning in the sky." QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1.Is it necessary that in the Millennium Christ shall reign on the earth? 2. If the above is answered negatively how can it be harmonized with Zechariah 14:4? 3. Is a second incarnation of Christ necessary, and if not, why not? 4. What spiritual danger follows in the wake of such a thought? 5. How may the transfiguration of Christ be regarded? 6. Show the correspondences between that event and His Second Coming. 7. Quote 2 Peter 1:16-18. 8. How would you prove the earthly character of the millennial reign? 9. Have you looked up "the little apocalypse of Isaiah"? 10. Is Christ considered from the human side now reigning anywhere? 11. When will He begin to reign over the house of Jacob? 12. How would you answer the objection that the reign of the martyrs is now taking place? 13. Why is it not presumptuous for Christian believers to put themselves in the company of the martyrs? 14. Why, then, are the martyrs singled out in Revelation 20:1-15? 15. What contrary opinion about Christ’s reigning on the earth is held by some? 16. What possible confusion of thought on their part is suggested? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 29: 02.15. THE AGE AND ITS APOSTASY ======================================================================== XV THE AGE AND ITS APOSTASY I THERE are certain strategic words in the study of prophecy which, if made clear, would do much to solve many of its difficulties. For this reason it is proposed in this and another chapter to attempt a glossary of such words. Take the word "age," for example. How often it is used! "This age" is spoken of; "the god of this age," "the end of the age," "the millennia! age," etc. ’What does it mean! The word occurs some forty times in the New Testament though it is commonly translated "world" (Greek "aion"). Here are some instances: "The harvest is the end of the world" ("age") ; "what shall be the sign of thy coming and of the end of the world" ("age") ; "be not conformed to this world" ("age") ; "the powers of the world (" age") to come." (See Matthew 13:39; Matthew 24:3; Romans 12:2; Hebrews 6:5.) It represents various periods of time, but of that we need not now speak. A more interesting question is the object or reason of the“ages." Chapell’s "Theology" suggests that it may be the opposing forces of Satan and his hosts in the heavenly places that causes them; for he regards them as so many stages in the divine warfare,so many epochs in the execution of the plan of redemption. There are concealments of God’s purpose in the ages which may be necessary in order to obtain victory (Matthew 24:43); or, as he remarks further, even the cycles of the heavenly bodies may have something to do with them, for" there is a wonderful harmony between the material and immaterial worlds." However, for our present purpose it is more practical to observe that "age" is commonly used as synonymous with "dispensation" (Ephesians 1:10), which means "a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God." The Scofield Reference Bible speaks of seven dispensations: (1) That of Innocency, when man was subjected to a very simple test, and warned of the consequences of disobedience (Genesis 2:17). (2) That of Conscience, when man was responsible to do all known good, and abstain from all known evil, and to approach God through sacrifice (Genesis 3:23-24; Genesis 4:1-26; Genesis 5:1-32; Genesis 6:1-22; Genesis 7:1-24). (3) That of Human Government, when man became responsible to govern the world for God (Genesis 8:1-22; Genesis 9:1-29; Genesis 10:1-32; Genesis 11:1-9, especially Genesis 9:5-6). (4) That of Promise, which was exclusively Israelitish, when the descendants of Abraham came under a covenant, wholly gracious and unconditional, and which lasted until, at Sinai, Israel accepted the law (Genesis 12:1 - Exodus 19:8). (5) That of Law, extending from Sinai to Calvary (Exodus 19:9 - John 19:30). (6) That of Grace, which begins with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and extends to His coming again (John 1:17; 2 Corinthians 6:2). (7) That of the Kingdom, or the Millennial Age, which continues from Christ’s Second Coming onward for a thousand years (Revelation 20:1-4). Some find an eighth dispensation revealed, that of the "Fullness of the Times" (Ephesians 1:10), and identified by them with the age when Christ shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God, even the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24-28), a subject so large as to demand a separate article to define it. It will be recalled that all of these" ages" passed into one another without any change of a catastrophic character except the Flood. There were changes revolutionary in principle, but they were not felt immediately and universally over the earth or over the race. In some cases they were slow of accomplishment or in reaching a consummation. The age of Innocency ended in the expulsion of man from Eden. The change to the dispensation of Promise effected little at first, outside of the family of Abraham; while that from Law to Grace, although in some particulars the most revolutionary of all, came to pass without the knowledge of the world beyond Jerusalem. And how much of the crucifixion was known or understood even within its walls, and how little were its general inhabitants affected by it! Such may be the case when the present age passes into that of the Millennium. The descent of Christ into the air and the translation of His body, the Church, to meet Him there, may not seriously, nor for very long, disturb the rest of mankind. A seven days’ wonder, it may soon be forgotten. And the judgments to follow on the ungodly nations may seem at first only a repetition of the present" frightfulness" and its accompanying tribulations. Indeed, the effects of the passing of this age into the next will be continuous doubtless for a thousand years. (See the earlier chapter, "The Day of the Lord--When It Comes and What It Means.") II "Apostasy" is another word worth dwelling on because of its large place in the study of prophecy, and because of the serious relation it bears to the current history of the Church and the world. The word is not in the Bible, but that for which it stands is frequently named in the New Testament. What does it mean? But first, what does itnotmean? An apostate is not an ordinary unbeliever in Christianity, a pagan for example, who has never heard of Christ and His Gospel. Neither is he a back-slidden Christian--one who, through sin, has lost his fellowship with God, and for whom forgiveness and cleansing wait on his penitent return (1 John 1:9). An apostate is not one who simply errs as to some specific truth of revelation, of which he may be as yet ignorant (Acts 19:1-6). Nor is he a heretic merely, for, as another says, heresy may be accounted for by the snare of Satan, and at the same time be consistent with the holding of a measure of the true faith (2 Timothy 2:25-26). An apostate is different from any of these, in that he is one who once knew, or professed to know and to hold the truth of Christianity, but who has altogether and definitely renounced it. That is not to say that he has renounced the whole of it, or the outward appearance and the profession of it; but that he has renounced the vital part of it, the Godhead of Christ and redemption through His sacrificial death; that which really makes one’s life a part of the life of God, through the reconciliation of the cross (Php 3:18; 2 Peter 2:11). The "apostasy," therefore, is a condition in the professing Church that expresses a definite and permanent falling away on the part of many from "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). The parables of our Lord in the thirteenth of Matthew all predict this, but very especially that of the wheat and the tares, where "the supineness of the servants affords opportunity to the enemy to sow tares where good seed-had been already sown." The evil once introduced would be removed only by judgment at the end of the age. The Church had not been formed when these parables were spoken; but hardly had it come into existence before they began to be fulfilled. Listen to Paul in his address to the elders at Ephesus: "I know that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:29-30). Compare also his words to the Church at Rome (Romans 16:17-18), to that at Corinth (2 Corinthians 12:20-21), Galatia (Galatians 4:8-10), Philippi (Php 3:18-19), Colosse (Colossians 2:4-23), and the well-known predictions in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-17, 1 Timothy 4:1-16, and 2 Timothy 3:1-17. III To dwell on that in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-17. In his first epistle to this church, Paul had enlarged upon that stage of the second coming of Christ associated with the translation of the Church to meet Him in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:13-16). But in this second epistle he does the same for that later stage of the same event, when Christ shall descend from heaven with His holy angels in flaming fire to judge the wicked and disobedient (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9). It would seem that some in that Church supposed that this had already come, that their tribulations at the hands of persecutors were nothing less than part of the general sorrow to be experienced in the "Day of the Lord." But Paul disabuses their minds of this. "Let no man deceive you by any means," he says: "for that day shall not come except there come a falling away (apostasy) first, and that man of sin be revealed," whom he describes. He then adds, "the mystery of iniquity doth already work,"i.e., the apostasy had already begun, "only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way." The meaning of this seems to be that there was some power exercised in the earth and over Christendom preventing the full expression of this iniquity, hindering the apostasy from coming to a head. Whatever this power may have been, it seems still to be working and exercising its restraining influence. Perhaps it is the semblance of Christianity, as represented in the nations of Christendom; perhaps it is the presence of the true Church not yet translated; in any event, it is the Holy Spirit Himself acting in or through these or other agencies. When he, i.e.,this restraining power, shall be removed, "then shall that wicked (or lawless one, the Antichrist) be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." In other words, the apostasy will be brought to an end with the destruction of the chief apostate. IV The modern development of the apostasy dates back to the close of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth, in the rise of the destructive criticism of the Holy Scriptures. When man’s faith in the inspiration and authority of the Bible is undermined, the whole structure built upon it must eventually crumble; which explains what we hear now on every hand in the scouting of the deity of Christ, the lost condition of the race, the need of redemption through a sacrificial atonement, eternal retribution of the wicked, and practically all the fundamentals of revealed truth. And there is a close relation between this and the judgments on the nations synchronizing with the end of the age. Sooner or later, ecclesiastical corruption paves the way for the open revolt of the kingdoms and nations of the earth" against the Lord and against his Anointed." A writer in theNew York Evening Postremarks, that "the Bolsheviki are doing more damage to the Central Powers to-day with their ideas than they were ever able to do with their bayonets"--a principle that has a wide application. The United States and the Allies will be able to overcome the artillery and the submarines of Germany, we confidently believe; but the poison gas of her universities, pouring through the theological seminaries of our land, is a more lasting menace. QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1.How often does the word, “age”occur in the New Testament and how is it commonly translated? 2. Quote some instances of its use. 3. What is Chapell’s theory of the object or reason of the ages? 4. What word in Ephesians 1:10 is synonymous with age? 5. What does "dispensation" mean? 6. How many dispensations are spoken of in the Scofield Reference Bible? 7. Name and describe these different dispensations. 8. What eighth dispensation is sometimes named? 9. Describe the manner in which these ages or dispensations passed into one another. 10. Apply the teaching of these historical facts to the coming Millennium. 11. Define the word, “Apostasy” from the negative side. 12. Who is an apostate? 13. State what the “Apostasy" is. 14. How many Scripture references have you examined showing the early rise of the Apostasy in the Church? 15. Expound 2 Thessalonians 2:1-17 in your own words. 16. How will the Apostasy be brought to an end? 17. Describe the modern development of the Apostasy. 18. Describe the relation between the Apostasy and the coming judgment on the nations. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 30: 02.16. GLOSSARY OF PROPHETIC WORDS ======================================================================== XVI GLOSSARY OF PROPHETIC WORDS IN the previous chapter we began a glossary of the great words of prophetic study, but did not advance very far. The words "age" and "apostasy" were so full of meaning as to fill up the space. "Antichrist" and "Armageddon" are two other words of importance in the same alphabetic category, but they were treated sufficiently, the first in the chapter entitled "The Antichrist, His History and His Doom," and the second in an earlier work under the title "Prophecy and the Lord’s Return" (Revell, N. Y.). "Beast" is a further word of prophetic importance, which also was defined and explained in the article on the "Antichrist." "Coming," as applied to the Second Coming of Christ, is next in order. It is a translation of the Greek "parousia," which occurs twenty-four times in the New Testament, and is sometimes rendered "presence" as well as "coming." It means literally "the becoming present." It is the same word that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 16:17, where he speaks of the "coming" to him of Stephanas and others (see also 2 Corinthians 7:6 and Php 1:26). Their "coming" was, of course, personal and visible, from which we gather that Christ’s coming will be the same. There are other words used in the same connection which have the same significance, like "revelation," 2 Thessalonians 1:7, and "appearing," 1 Timothy 6:14 and other places. (See this worked out more fully in "Prophecy and the Lord’s Return.") "Day" is one of the prophetic words as used in the Biblical phrases "Day of the Lord" (Isaiah 10:20; Zephaniah 1:7); " Day of Vengeance" (Isaiah 61:2) ; "Day of Christ" (1 Corinthians 1:8) ; "Day of Salvation" (2 Corinthians 6:2). To speak of them in the order of time, the "day of salvation" is the whole of the present dispensation between the two advents of Christ. The" day of Christ" applies to the blessing and reward of the saints at His second coming (cf., in addition to the text above named, 1 Corinthians 5:6; 2 Corinthians 1:14; Php 1:6, Php 1:10; Php 2:16). "Day of the Lord" synchronizes with the whole of the millennial age, beginning just prior to it, continuing throughout, and extending somewhat beyond it. It is almost wholly connected with judgment on Israel and the Gentile nations. (See previous chapter on "Day of the Lord--When It Comes and What It Means.”) "Day of Vengeance" is practically the same as "Day of the Lord." "Dispensation" was sufficiently considered in the former chapter under the word "age." "Gentiles" is a translation of Hebrew and Greek words meaning "nations" and often rendered "heathen." It distinguishes all the nations of the earth from "Israel," which stands distinctively for God’s chosen people in the line of Abraham. The "times of the Gentiles" began when God transferred the dominion of the earth from Israel to the Gentile nations, of which Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, was the earliest representative; in other words, aboutB.c. 600 (Jeremiah 27:1-11; Daniel 2:36-45; 2 Chronicles 36:15-21). They will end with the present age and the commencement of the millennial age, when Israel will be in the ascendant as the earthly visualization of the Kingdom of God (see the chapter, "The ’Times of the Gentiles’ and the Impending Judgments"). The "fullness of the Gentiles" (Romans 11:25) is to be distinguished from the “times of the Gentiles" as meaning “the completion of the purpose of God in this age, namely, the outcalling from among the Gentiles of a people for Christ’s name, the church which is his body (Acts 15:13-18)." (See the chapter "The Place of the Church in the Plan of Redemption.”) "Gog and Magog" are words first found in Ezekiel 38:2, and are interpreted and applied in our chapter on "What the Bible Teaches About Russia." To this we add the following footnote from the Scofield Reference Bible: "That the primary reference is to the northern (European) powers, headed up by Russia, all agree. Gog is the prince, and Magog his land. The allusion to Meshech and Tubal (Moscow and Tobolsk) is a clear mark of identification. . . . The whole prophecy belongs to the yet future Day of the Lord and to the battle of Armageddon (Revelation 16:14; Revelation 19:17), but includes also the final revolt of the nations at the close of the millennial age (Revelation 20:7-9). " It should be added that the "Gog and Magog" in the last Scripture mentioned does not mean the same nations as those indicated in Ezekiel, as a thousand years intervene between the two, but one would seem to be the prototype of the other. "Kingdom," "Kingdom of God," "Kingdom of Heaven" were enlarged upon in the chapters, "God’s Covenant with David, or the Coming Kingdom," and "How the Kingdom and the Church Differ." "Remnant" means that which is left of anything, the piece remaining after the last cutting. It is frequently used in Scripture, especially in the Old Testament, but its chief prophetic interest centers in the history of Israel during the tribulation period. There may be a bad remnant as well as a good one. For the former see 1 Kings 14:10, R. V., Ezekiel 23:25, and similar references; and for the latter Isaiah 1:9; Isaiah 11:16; Jeremiah 23:3; Zephaniah 2:9; Romans 9:27; Revelation 12:17. Throughout the whole history of Israel, wicked and disobedient as she was, there was always a faithful "remnant" who remained loyal to the true God. Recall in illustration the story of Elijah’s day (1 Kings 19:18); also Daniel and the three worthies of whom the sacred record speaks in Daniel 1:1-21 and Daniel 3:1-30, and "them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem" in Christ’stime (Luke 2:38). Note particularly that there is such a remnant now, "a remnant according to the election of grace," i.e., in this church age, as indicated in Romans 11:4-5. But the" remnant" in the great day of trial that is to come will be composed of those Jews who will turn to the Lord and accept Jesus as their Messiah after the translation of the Church. Zechariah 13:9 refers to these, and they are brought before us again symbolically in Revelation 6:9-11; Revelation 7:4-8; Revelation 12:17; Revelation 20:4, and other places. These passages show that some of the "remnant" will undergo martyrdom in that period and be raised and reign with Christ and His Church, while others will be spared through the tribulation and enter into the earthly blessings of the millennium. Their experiences during the tribulation are set before us prophetically in the millennial psalms, and furnish one of the most thrilling chapters of revealed history (see Psalms 9:9-14). "Restitution" is used but once in a prophetic sense, namely, in Acts 3:21, where Peter, speaking of the ascended Christ, says: "Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution (restoration R. V.) of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." Some suppose this to refer to the salvation and restoration of the wicked dead and even of Satan himself, but their mistake is seen in the fact that Peter’s words are limited by what the prophets have spoken. The context shows that he means what they have spoken concerning Israel, for he is addressing himself to Jews only. That which they have spoken relates to Israel’s restoration to her land and the setting up of the kingdom of David (see Genesis 12:2-3; Deuteronomy 30:1-9; 2 Samuel 7:8-17; Romans 11:26, etc.). "Tribulation" is a word full of saddest meaning prophetically. Of course, ever since sin entered the world there has been tribulation with it, and it is even said of us Christians that "we must through much tribulation enter into the Kingdom of God" (Acts 14:22). But the tribulation of which the prophets speak is an event coincident with the end period of this age. By the "end period" is meant the last years of the age, or, in prophetic terms, the last week of Daniel’s seventy’ weeks, especially the latter half of that week (Daniel 9:24-27). It is the time of Antichrist’s supremacy, the time of the judgments described in Revelation 16:1-21, the time of Armageddon. But although all the nations of the earth must in some measure be involved in it, yet it is peculiarly "the time of Jacob’s trouble" (Jeremiah 30:7). A mooted question among students of prophecy is whether the Church--i.e.,the true Church will pass through the tribulation, some affirming that it will and others that it will not. The writer believes with the latter that the Church will be translated before that period, and he thinks a strong Biblical argument can be presented for it. Nevertheless, while the question is important, it is not so vital as to justify any division among brethren in regard to it. "Weeks" obtains its prominence as a prophetic word from its place in Daniel 9:1-27, referred to above. The prophet had asked God to reveal to him the time of the deliverance of His people Israel from their Babylonian captivity, and God had sent His angel to say, "seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon the holy city." "Weeks" is a translation of a Hebrew word meaning "sevens," and what God really said was, "seventy sevens are determined," without stating whether they were seventy sevens of days, weeks, months, or years. The context, however, shows that He meant years--seventy sevens of years, or four hundred and ninety years. This period is divided again into three. There are first seven sevens, or forty-nine years, extending to the reestablishment of Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity; sixty-two sevens, or four hundred and thirty-four years, down to the crucifixion of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans; and one seven, or the last seven years of this age. The intervening time from the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews among the nations until their return again to their land at the end period, is not included in the four hundred and ninety. This is in accordance with a principle in God’s dealing with that people not to count time in their history while they are sojourning in captivity to the Gentiles. “Zion” This word is named in this list chiefly to say that it is never applied in Scripture to the Church. Much confusion of thought and misinterpretation of the prophetic Scriptures have been caused by the failure to recognize this fact. For one thing, it has caused all the Old Testament promises to be applied to the Church and all the curses to Israel. It accounts, too, for the mischievous principle of spiritualizing Scriptures that ought to be taken literally, and which makes the Bible to many a book so "hard to be understood." "Zion" is the translation of the Hebrew word for "castle. " In Deuteronomy 4:48, it is given to the peak of Mount Hermon. Later, it is applied to the eminence in Jerusalem where David established his throne. Sometimes the whole city of Jerusalem is called Zion, and once the word is used symbolically of heaven (Hebrews 12:22), but it is never applied to the Church. QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1.What Greek words are translated by “coming"? 2. How often does it occur in the New Testament, and how is it otherwise rendered? 3. What is its literal meaning? 4. What other words in the New Testament have the same significance? 5. State the distinctions among the four uses of the word, "Day." 6. State the distinction between the “fullness of the Gentiles" and “the times of the Gentiles." 7. Where are the names “Gog and Magog" found in the Old Testament? 8. To what nation are they thought to refer? 9. How would you distinguish between the reference to them in Ezekiel and that in Revelation? 10. Have you examined the Scripture references to the word, "Remnant"? 11. Who will constitute the "Remnant" in the Tribulation? 12. Have you read Psalms 9:1-20? 13. How is the word "Restitution" to be applied in Acts 3:21? 14. What does this chapter teach about" Tribulation"? 15. What does this chapter teach about the word "Weeks" as found in Daniel 9:1-27? 16. What misunderstanding exists as to the application of the word, "Zion"? 17. What serious error has it caused? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 31: 02.17. THE END OF THE AGE AND HOW TO MEET IT ======================================================================== XVII THE END OF THE AGE AND HOW TO MEET IT I THE theme of this chapter has been chosen in order to bring the teaching up to this point to a spiritual and practical conclusion. It is a brief exposition of Paul’s words to Timothy-c-those in the third and fourth chapters of the second letter to his young son in the faith, beginning with the words: "This know also that in the last days perilous (grievous) times shall come." By "the last days," I do not understand him to mean those preceding the end of the world, which, as we have seen, is doubtless a long way off, but those pre ceding the end of the age, which, for aught we know, may be very near. Indeed his description of these days so tallies with what we see around us now, as almost to compel the conclusion that he has the present time in mind. For is not this time marked by selfishness, by the love of money, boasting, pride, blasphemy, disobedience to parents, unthankfulness, the absence of natural affection, the breaking of treaties, slander, incontinence, fierceness and the other awful things he names’ Does not the love of pleasure supersede the love of God to-day, and has not formalism largely taken the place of real spiritual power in the religious life? Of course, it may be said that these things have been apparent in every period of the professing Church from apostolic days till now. Cowper thought they marked his period over 100 years ago, when he wrote: “The Prophets speak of such, and, noting down The features of the last degenerate times, Exhibit every lineament of these." But this does not effect the prediction that they will mark the last days, nor the fact that they assuredly mark the present ones. II Therefore particular interest attaches to the three or four additional things which Paul says about these days: (1) He speaks of the influence of the formalists on the female mind."Of this sort are they that creep into houses and lead captive silly women." Not that all women are silly, as some of Paul’s critics might be quick to charge him as having said, but that those are silly who are led away by these false teachers whose propaganda he informs us is marked by secretiveness, cowardice and ignorance. We think of Bahaism in these days, and the Star of the East, and New Thought, and Christian Science, and Spiritualism, and other forms of Theosophy and Buddhism, which get their foothold in these western climes so generally through woman ’8susceptibility. When her conscience is restless because of sin and fear, and failing to accept Jesus Christ as her Saviour and Lord she "casts wearily about for other anodynes," the false teacher gets his opportunity. He has his occult solutions of her difficulties, and she listens, and experiments and becomes infatuated and is lost. (2) A second thing he mentions is that these "evil men and seducers"(or impostors), for thus he characterizes false teachers of religion,"shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." A prediction this is which definitely answers the ever-recurring question as to whether the world is morally growing better or worse. The modern view is that improvement is constantly in progress, but the Bible steadfastly teaches the opposite. And it does so because it is dealing with fundamental and eternal principles rather than material phenomena of any kind. These latter can be good and lasting only as they express or are based upon the right view of and the right relationship to God, which are clearly inconsistent with the growth of religious imposture in the world. Note further, that these impostors are not only deceiving others, but are themselves deceived. The god of this age, as Satan is called in the Bible, is he who controls their thinking and inspires their religious zeal though they are unaware of it. Because they refuse the love of the truth God gives them over to a delusion that they should believe the lie (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11). (3) A third thing is the certainty of persecution for all who oppose the world’s view of things, or as the apostle puts it, "for all that will live godly in Christ Jesus." "Antithetical principles must collide, and collision for the Christian disciple must bring pain." This may not mean the faggot, or imprisonment or the lictor’s thong, in these days, though in some places and under some conditions these are not impossible; but it will mean ostracism and contempt, it will mean defection of relatives and friends, and it will mean an opposition on the part of those who have the power of worldly preferment that will bring deprivation and loss that can be felt. (4) But a fourth thing Paul mentions has joy and comfort in it. These false teachers shall come to an end, or 88 his words in 1 Timothy 3:9 might be rendered, "they shall not proceed too far." The hounds of hell are leashed. He compares the teachers with the magicians who withstood Moses before Pharaoh, and he affirms that their folly shall be made evident to all men as was true in the other case. But that will be the day of the manifestation of the sons of God, the day of the Lord’s coming for which the whole creation groans. III We have thus before us a picture of the last days, however sketchy, and it is in order now to follow Paul as, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he instructs and warns us how to face the situation it discloses, and how to solve its problems. Three lines of action are set forth: (1) After describing the character of the men and women who are in part the cause, and in part the product of the times, and after climaxing his description on the religionists who hold only the outward form of godliness and deny the power thereof, he says: "From such turn away" (1 Timothy 3:5). There must be no compromise in other words, and no parley; separation must be the rule. Devoutly is it to be wished that the youth of our generation would act on this advice or rather command, and "turn away" from these false systems of religion before attempting to investigate them. To investigate them is worse than useless for there is always peril in it. And this investigation has been done for us by those competent for the task, and who have stamped their character upon them in no unmistakable terms. The fabric of these false systems is not new, though like an old dress they sometimes deceive us by taking on new collars and cuffs. Their beginnings were in Babylon, on the plain of Shinar, of which we have written in a preceding chapter, and which the Bible calls "the mother of the harlots and the abominations of the earth" (Revelation 17:5). From her face flight is the only safety for" her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell" (Proverbs 5:5). (2) But flight is nothing if there be no refuge to fly to, and therefore Paul reveals one in the Word of God."Continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of,"he says to Timothy,"knowing of whom thou hast learned them"(1 Timothy 3:14). The things he had learned and had been assured of were those of Holy Scripture, and he had learned them from his mother and his grandmother as we are informed in the first epistle. Therefore he is exhorted to continue, or abide, in his nursery faith. Bishop Moule’s commentary reminds us of the vividness of that word, "continue." Timothy is not merely to hold these things as opinions, they are not to be merely a thin thread of sentiment in his mental make-up, "a languid conservation of what has become habitual," but to be grasped as a living force. He is to stay in the things he has believed, to find his home there and to be always at home. The truths concerning God, Christ, sin, redemption, faith, holiness, and the return of our Lord are to be his inner circle, his atmosphere, nearer than anything else to him. He is to be fused with them so that they and he shall be one reality. But why that reference to salvation in the verse? "From a child thou hast known the holy scriptures which are able to make theewise unto salvationthrough faith which is in Christ Jesus." Was not Timothy already saved? Assuredly, so far as deliverance from condemnation was concerned. But salvation is not only a thing of the past but something also which is going on. Timothy needed what every true Christian needs, a salvation from the spirit and the power of the times in which he lives. A daily salvation from the love of self, the love of money, pride, boastfulness, blasphemy, in gratitude, slander, incontinence, fierceness, treason, the inordinate love of pleasure, and fundamentally from that unspiritual Christianity which is the form of godliness without its power. He needs a salvation which enables him to overcome the world every day, and that salvation becomes his instrumentally through the Word of God. That Paul means something like this is clear from the next verse where he says:" All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine (teaching), for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work" (R. V.). These are the times, therefore, to get back to the Bible by many so long neglected. To-day, we need right teaching, we need the reproof of authority, we need the correction that springs from wisdom and love, and we need that instruction in righteousness which rounds out the Christian profession in the kind of service that honours God. (3) But to "continue" in the faith is not enough save as an effort is made to reach others who are not of the faith. And so, in the succeeding chapter Paul says: "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; be instant, in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine." The solemnity of this charge startles us. It is the strongest adjuration that could be addressed to mortal. The Lord Jesus is coming again to set up His Kingdom, and before Him His Saints must appear "that everyone may receive the things done in his body according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad" (2 Corinthians 5:10). In that day Timothy, and every saint, according to his opportunity, will be held responsible for his ministry of the Word of God. Preaching the word is not sermonizing. It is not the work of the ordained ministry only. In the early days, "there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem, and they were all scattered abroad . . . except the apostles. Therefore they that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word" (Acts 8:1-4). Just common, every-day men, women and children these were, who went everywhere telling out the story of salvation through the cross. This is the paramount duty of the Christian in these days, not to disseminate his opinions about religion or the times, but to preach the Word. "In season, out of season," characterizes it as a fireside task; the task of the social circle; the task of the store and the shop, the camp and the market-place. Women, meeting together in Red Cross work, company the clinking of your scissors and your knitting needles with the preaching of the Word! "Do your bit" to create an atmosphere for God, a chance for His voice to be heard in the midst of the world’s Babel. To do this you will need the grace of "longsuffering" of which Paul speaks, for surely these are the times when "they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears, shall heap unto themselves teachers after their own lusts." "Itching ears." The Athenians" spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing" (Acts 17:21), and so would it appear of these whom Paul has in mind. "Heaping to themselves teachers." What a contrast to the picture in Ephesians 4:1-32, where we are taught that when Christ ascended on high, leading captivity captive, He gave gifts unto men. "And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers." But these are not of that sort. "Uncommissioned propagandists" are these whom the people are heaping to themselves. How graphic a description of the multiplicity of religious teachers! "Heaping," however, not only suggests numbers, but lack of discrimination and confusion. What a medley of teachers of religion we have! And a medley, because they are teaching not what God has revealed but what the people want. "After their own lusts." And thus are they turning their ears from the truth and being turned unto fables. IV There is strong encouragement to act on Paul’s instruction and advice. He is himself ready to be offered and the time of his departure is at hand. He has fought the good fight, he has finished the course, he has kept the faith. He has done that which he is urging Timothy, and you and me to do. And now, he says, “Henceforth, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day, and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing." God help each one of us to make full proof of our ministry, for the Judge standeth at the door. QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1.Have you read a Timothy 3-4? 2. What are we to understand by “the last days"? 3. How does Paul’s description of “the last days" compare with our own days? 4. Name the four additional things which Paul says about these days. 5. What false teachings of the present day are getting a foothold through woman’s susceptibility? 6. How does the Bible answer the question as to whether the world is morally growing better or worse? 7. Have you read 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11? 8. For what must the true witness to God and to His Son be prepared in these days? 9. When will this persecution end? 10. What three lines of action does Paul recommend in the face of this situation? 11. Why should youth shun these false teachings? 11. What does the word "continue" mean in this case? 13. What daily salvation does the Christian need? 14. What instrumental means has God provided to this end? 15. What is the Christian’s duty to those about him? 16. What is meant by “preaching" in this case? 17. What definition of false religious teachers does this lesson give? 18. What encouragement is there for the faithful servant of Christ? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 32: 02.18. WHY GERMANY CANNOT RULE THE WORLD ======================================================================== XVIII WHY GERMANY CANNOT RULE THE WORLD (Note: This chapter and those that follow, with exception of the last perhaps, are not intrinsically related to the foregoing, although they were published as articles in the Christian Herald at about the same time, having been called forth bf special circumstances. As their contents have more than a passing interest, however, it has been thought desirable to add them to this volume.) I FOR nearly one hundred years there lived in England a Bible teacher, seer and student of prophecy, named Benjamin Wills Newton. He died just prior to the present war at the ripe age of ninety. In 1855, during the progress of the Crimean War, he published a tractate to show, from the Scriptures, that the struggle between the Western Powers and Russia must result in the triumph of the former-a prophecy he saw fulfilled. The German Empire was not then in evidence, and indeed, the name of Germany is mentioned only once in the tractate; but if it were now rewritten, and “Germany" substituted for "Russia" throughout its pages, few other changes would be needed to make it fit as perfectly into present conditions as it did into those of sixty odd years ago. In other words, the reason, fundamentally, whyRussia could not control the world then, is the reason why Germany cannot control it now. The present chapter, though original in that its author is alone responsible for it, is nevertheless, in essence, the rewriting, though in much abridgment, of Mr. Newton’s work. II Europe for a long while has been minus a controlling center, a balance of power. Prior to the present period, the will of Great Britain and France, unitedly expressed, was determinative of most European questions. But when the strength of France was impaired-as at the time of the Franco-Prussian war-no such controlling force remained. Gradually, however, France has been regaining her former position with England, and at the bottom of the present war is Germany’s purpose to offset the results certain to follow inthat case. But she cannot finally and permanently achieve her aim, not because she lacks the force, nor the organization, nor the advantage of temporary success, but because a higher Power than she or any other nation has decreed otherwise. III It is the Divine prophecy recorded in Daniel 2:1-49 that enables one to speak thus confidently. It was given him of God at a time when controlling power was being withdrawn from his nation of Israel and committed by God to certain nations of the Gentiles. This power had been given to Israel away back in the days of Solomon, the son of David, but because of her transgressions it was now being transferred for the time being. This transfer, be it noted, was not to the other nations of the world indiscriminately, not to others who through their own strength might be able to grasp and retain it, but to certain and particular nations which God Himself indicated and to which He gave, and would continue to give, the power to execute His will. These nations were symbolized in the colossal metal image seen in a dream by Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, and which Daniel the prophet enlightened and empowered to interpret. Scripture meant--or itself identifies the nations that are rather empires, as we now call them as being in succession, Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome. For the supreme power of the first, compare Daniel 2:37, the second, Ezra 1:2, the third, Daniel 11:3, and the fourth, Luke 2:1. Quoting Newton: "The sovereign controlling power of earth which was first vested in Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, next in Cyrus of Persia, afterwards in Alexander of Greece, descended at last to the emperors of Rome; and within the territory once ruled by them, that sovereign power resides, and there its home will be until the Gentile Image comes to an end and forgiven Jerusalem becomes the ’City of the Great King.’ " By the "Gentile Image," he means that image which Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream, and the interpretation of which afforded the occasion of Daniel’s prophecy. By "forgiven Jerusalem," he means the ancient city of Palestine, restored to Israel and occupied by her when she shall at length have become reconciled to God through the acceptance of the crucified Jesus as her Messiah. "Accordingly," he goes on to say, "during all the rude shocks which the Roman Empire has received, the supreme determinating power of earth has never left its boundary. Invading tribes have never succeeded in removing the seat of power outside its limits. Such tribes have either lost the authority they temporarily possessed, or else, in order to retain it, they have abandoned their primeval seats and sought a new home within the divinely prescribed area.’ This the Turks did when they left their primeval seats for Constantinople." We may be pardoned a digression here to say that, while some Biblical scholars question the application of the fourth empire to Rome, nevertheless such has been the orthodox application from the beginning. It was early expressed by Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities, by a majority of the church fathers, by all the expositors of the Middle Ages, and by a majority of the moderns. Among these last some of the best known are Lange, Hengstenberg, Havernick, Hofmann, Keil, Gaussen, Auberlen, Kliefoth, Pusey, Barnes, Faussett and Tregelles. The great Joseph Mede, an English theologian of the seventeenth century, first of his countrymen to attempt an explanation of the book of Revelation, places the application of the fourth empire to Rome88among the axioms of prophetic interpretation. "Having so good ground in Scripture," he says, "it is with me little less than an article of faith." IV Now the point is that Germany, if we except the southwestern corner of her land, was not represented in Nebuchadnezzar’s image; in other words, -she never became a part of the Roman Empire. Hence the impossibility that she should be finally and permanently victorious over those nations which aresorepresented. That is not to say that she may not for a time be permitted, as a scourge, to successfully assail them, or even temporarily to occupy or control a portion of their territory as at the present moment; but this is something different from becoming the mistress of those nations, and holding through them the determinative power of the earth. There may be a long and difficult conflict still ahead, for the progress of events in the Divine calendar is sometimes hindered by things beyond our ken; but so far as the end is concerned, we can say with the inspired prophet, "The dream is certain and the interpretation thereof sure" (Daniel 2:45). Speaking of the "things beyond our ken" recalls the mysterious tenth chapter of Daniel, where it is revealed that centuries ago, when, in the providence of God, the time had come for the Persian Empire to succeed the Babylonian in the place of power, the angel of God was sent to confirm and strengthen Persia, but was resisted and hindered by the powers of darkness for the space of twenty-one days. The representative of the powers of darkness in this case was called "the prince of the kingdom of Persia." It is true, in other words, that not only in an individual sense, but nationally as well, "we wrestle not against flesh and blood (merely), but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12). These" heavenly places" are not those of which we conceive as the dwelling-place of the unveiled presence of God, of His holy angels, and the "spirits of just men made perfect," but those which for the time being are possessed by the evil angels and Satan who is at their head. In the crisis of the Persian succession, Michael the chief prince, or the archangel, as we are told, came to help the angel of God against the spiritual "prince of the kingdom of Persia," and success followed; or, as the angel of God Himself said to Daniel, "I remained there with the kings of Persia" (Daniel 10:13). There is an intimation in the same chapter that a similar spiritual conflict ensued in the region of the heavens when, later, the succession was about to pass from the Persian to the Grecian Empire; for Satan does not purpose that God shall have His way if he can prevent it. Little do we know, therefore, the seriousness of the warfare now raging in the "heavenly places" as well as on the battle-fields of France. Mr. Newton reminds us that just before the Roman Empire was established as the mistress of the world, it had to pass through one of its most severe and dangerous struggles with an earthly prince to whom the Kaiser may well be compared. Mithridates was his name, and his influence extended along the coast of the Black Sea to the Caspian. The prize contended for was Asia Minor and the East, the same as it is to-day. A terrible warfare was conducted, but he was overcome. And now, if the moment has arrived, as symbolized in the Gentile Image, when the limits of the Roman Empire are again to appear, may we not expect another struggle not unlike the first’ The effectual revival of the East, and the recognized reappearance of the Roman nations there aswell as in the West, would be a supreme step onward in the development of the Divine counsels, and we might well expect a tremendous political convulsion to precede it. V Another interesting point is this: that the Roman Empire and its predecessors in the Image have their historic existence in Scripture as long as they are employed in that which concerns Israel in Jerusalem. One of the objects for which they were called into power was that they might punish and "tread down" the Holy City. Therefore, as soon as Israel was dispersed after the siege of Jerusalem by Titus,A. D.70, a long night began to fall on the Roman Empire, although the "iron" strength which was its heritage always remained somewhere within its boundaries. For this reason we may believe that when the Jews again return to Jerusalem in unbelief to reestablish their Holy City--and are not events pointing that way just now?--we shall once more behold the Roman nations in the divided form of the ten tribes of the Image, assuming a definite relation to it and to its people. Is it then unlikely, in view of all this, that the Roman nations now engaged against Germany shall successfully resist her? It is recorded of John Bright that, when he was once tempted to turn back in his great reform movements, he said: "If we can’t win as fast as we wish, we know that our opponents can’t, in the long run, win at all." Then he gathered new courage and went on to victory. "Let us in our conflict," says another, "look up, cheer up, and go forward. Doing this, as surely as Christ has all authority in heaven and on earth, we shall finally and gloriously triumph." QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1.Who was Benjamin Wills Newton? 2. What work of his is referred to? 3. What parallel is drawn between the European political situation of that day and this? 4. What is given as the explanation of Germany’s present purpose? 5. Why can she not succeed? S. What Scripture indicates this? 7. Give the gist of that prophecy. 8. Have you examined the references which identify the controlling empires? 9. How has history fulfilled this prophecy? 10. Name some modem authorities who corroborate the application of the fourth empire to Rome. 11. Why cannot Germany become finally and permanently victorious over the nations thus represented? 12. Give an Old Testament application of Ephesians 6:12. 13. What is the meaning of "heavenly places" in this case? 14. Relate in your own words the story of Mithridates, and apply it to the present war. 15. State the relation of the Roman Empire to Israel in Jerusalem. 16. What inference of present importance may be drawn from this? 17. Quote the encouraging remark of John Bright. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 33: 02.19. PROPHECY CHANGING THE MAP OF EUROPE ======================================================================== XIX PROPHECY CHANGING THE MAP OF EUROPET I THE previous chapter dealt with the question, "Why Germany Cannot Rule the World," the evidence and the argument for which was drawn from the prophecy in the second chapter of Daniel. Briefly summarized, we saw that during "the times of the Gentiles" God has committed the control of the world into the hands of particular nations, of which Germany is not one. "The times of the Gentiles" commenced at about 600B.C., and will continue until the second coming of Christ to set up His kingdom in the earth. The year 600B.c. was the time when, in punishment for her transgressions, God withdrew the power to govern from Israel, to be restored again to her through purifying judgments, when Christ comes. The particular nations to which the government of the earth was committed were represented in the colossal image of the man which Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, saw in a dream, and which the divinely inspired prophet interpreted for him and for us. They were, in their order, the kingdom of Babylon, and the empires of Persia, Greece and Rome. We quoted Benjamin Wills Newton to the effect that "the sovereign controlling power of earth which was first vested in Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, next in Cyrus of Persia, afterwards in Alexander of Greece, descended at last to the emperors of Rome; and within the territory once ruled by them that sovereign power resides, and there its home will be until the Gentile Image comes to an end and forgiven Jerusalem becomes "the city of the great King." Now the point is, as we then said, that Germany, except the southwestern corner of her land, was not represented in that image; in other words, she never became a part of the Roman Empire in the Scriptural significance of that term, and hence the improbability, if not impossibility, that she should be finally and permanently victorious over those nations which are so represented. II It remains to prove this by indicating the countries that fell within the Roman Empire; and this in turn raises the question as to what period of the Roman Empire is in mind? This question is met by the consideration that "prophecy relating to Gentile dominion is always focused upon the Jews and Palestine, and has especially in view the presence of the nation in her own land." Now, it is well known that shortly after the overthrow of the Jews by the RomansA. D.70, their national recognition as possessors of the land ceased, a period which broadly corresponds to the close of the apostolic era. This is approximately Trajan’s period (56-117 A. D.), under whom the empire extended its boundaries to the farthest limit on the east. The dying Augustus hoped it might never be extended beyond the Euphrates, but Trajan’s ambition led to a victorious conflict with the Parthians by which there were permanently added to his territory, Armenia, Assyria and Mesopotamia. Defining the nations in detail, therefore, (1) those in the northwest included Great Britain, that is to say, England and Scotland as far north as the Grampian Hills. Ireland was never brought under the Roman power, which may explain some things in her history in all the years. (2) As to the west, Gibbon is authority for the statement that the old Roman wall left the Rhine near Bingen and joined the Danube near Ratisbon. The Romans possessed everything west of this, including Portugal, Spain, France, Belgium, Switzerland, and, as stated above, the southwest corner of Germany, the lobe of the ear, so to speak, which includes Luxemburg, Baden and Bavaria south of the Danube, as well as the much-disputed and contested region of Alsace and Lorraine, which will be referred to again. (3) In the south and southeast, the Romans possessed Italy, Greece, the islands of the Mediterranean, and the Archipelago and all the territory south of the Danube. This last includes what we know as European Turkey, Bulgaria, Servia, Montenegro, and all the Austrian dominions south and west of the Danube. To this Trajan added the province of Dacia north of the Danube and to the east of Hungary, or what we know as Rumania. The central part of Hungary was never brought within the Roman Empire. (4) In Asia the Black Sea was the northern boundary, which thence extended along a south. easterly line to the Persian Gulf, taking in Asiatic Turkey, the Bible names for which arc Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Palestine, and, as mentioned above, Armenia. (5) In Africa Rome possessed a portion of Egypt and the northern coast, identified by moderns as Tripoli, Tunis, Algeria and the upper part of Morocco. To quote Newton again, "these are the countries which fall within the boundaries of the Gentile Image, and which, from the earliest period until now, have ever been the center of all that has influenced human life. The light of revelation first given to Israel, and then to the Christian Church, was set within these countries. All the civilization of antiquity was centered there, where still resides the power which at this moment is forming the character of the world. The responsibilities of these nations are unequalled." III Let us now consider what realignment of the nations may be necessary in order to the fulfillment of Daniel’8prophecy that those of the Roman Empire are to resume their distinctness and corporate relation to each other at the end of the age. 1. It is obvious that all those countries external to the Roman limits that now exercise authority over countries within those limits will be obliged to relinquish such authority. Newton illustrates this by the case of Belgium and Holland. The former at one time was subjected to the latter, but the latter was obliged to relinquish this authority. Political reasons made it necessary, of course, but there was a divine reason back of these, namely, that Belgium was part of the Gentile Image and Holland was not. Belgium was originally in the Roman Empire, but Holland never was. This need not carry with it, however, the corollary that countries now or hereafter to be connected with or allied to the nations of the Roman Empire, and which were not so connected or allied at the time mentioned, are necessarily to be given up. For example, Great Britain need not be required to lop off the Scottish highlands, nor even to lose Ireland. 2. On the other hand, we may expect Germany to be deprived of her possessions west of the Rhine and south of the Danube. In other words, if Gibbon is to be relied upon as to the Roman wall, this means the loss of Luxemburg and Baden, and part of Bavaria, and Alsace and Lorraine. 3. By the same token there must be a radical break in the Austro-Hungarian empire, for, as Gibbon says, “If we except Bohemia, Moravia, the northern skirts of Austria, and a part of Hungary between the Theiss and the Danube, all the dominions of the house of Austria were comprised within the limits of the Roman Empire." We need not be surprised, therefore, if Hungary becomes divorced from Austria, and the latter severs her alliance with the German Empire. And when that division comes, if not before, we may expect Italy to retrieve all the territory that rightly belongs to her. 4. As to the nations farther south and east, there can be little doubt that Bulgaria will withdraw her loyalty from Germany, and that Rumania will be enabled to break the chains now binding her to the same empire on the one hand and to Russia on the other. 5. Palestine will not return to the Turk, and Armenia at last will be delivered from the awful bondage of the same tyrant. IV We had pursued our study of the map to this point, when there was freshly brought to our attention a recent volume, "The Roman Empire in Prophecy, " by W. E. Vine, M. A., an English Bible student, collaborator with Dr. Hogg in a valuable commentary on Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians. His work on the Roman Empire was the outcome of conversations with inquirers since the outbreak of the present war, in which he drew upon the study he had given to the subject for over twenty years. He raises the question as to whether Germany is to be considered a part of the Roman Empire because of the conquest and rule of Charlemagne in the eighth century, but apparently dismisses it in favour of the principle of interpretation spoken of above; namely, that within the meaning of the prophecy, the Roman Empire stands for its limits at the close of the first century of the Christian era. With this principle in mind, he notices "certain circumstances of past and present history suggestive of future issues," from which, even at the risk of some repetition, it is interesting to quote, because of its corroboration of the above: 1. Commencing with north Africa, the author observes that practically the same strip of territory which belonged to the Roman Empire in the times of the apostles has passed directly under the government of countries which were themselves then within the empire; and no country then outside of the empire has been permitted to annex that territory since the Saracens and Turks were dispossessed of it. 2. Passing to Asia, the present war has already dispossessed Turkey of Mesopotamia, and most of Armenia and Palestine, and brought them under the control of Great Britain, a country of the Roman Empire. 3. As to Greece, it obtained its ancient province of Macedonia as an outcome of the Balkan War of 1912, and to-day its boundaries are approximately what they were in the Roman Empire. 4. The dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary was partly within and partly without the Roman Empire. What are now Hungary, Transylvania, and Bessarabia were without, while Pannonia or Austria west of the Danube was within. Even when, in a later century Dacia (now Transylvania, Bessarabia, etc.) was annexed, the two parts of the present dual kingdom were separate. And we all know, as Mr. Vine says, that "the separation of the two parts has been a practical question of European politics for some time, and may be hastened by present events." 5. "The northern and northeastern boundaries of Italy embraced the Trentino and the peninsula of Istria. Noticeable, therefore, are the present efforts of Italy to acquire these very districts, efforts which are likely to achieve success. 6. "Roman states north of Italy covered what are now Baden, Würtemberg, Luxemburg and a large part of Bavaria, the possibility of an eventual severance of which from Prussian domination has been much discussed of late. 7. "The Rhenish provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, originally part of the Roman province of Gallia (now France) were snatched from that country by Germany in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71. Their recovery is a supreme object of the efforts of the French in the present war." Our author speaks in an equally interesting manner of England and her colonies, and also of the United States, should the latter continue in alliance with her, but space will not permit further attention to the subject at this time. He would be understood as speaking not dogmatically, however, but by way of suggestion only, and yet that the Scripture will be absolutely fulfilled he has no doubt, though the exact mode of its accomplishment is known only to God. QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1.Summarize the previous lesson. 2. What was the point of the previous lesson to be proved in the present one? 3. What period of the Roman Empire is in mind? 4. Name the nations of the Roman Empire in Europe, Asia and Africa. 5. What makes for their great responsibility? . What is obvious as to certain countries external to the Roman Empire? 7. What division of German territory is likely to take place? 8. What is likely to happen in the Austrian empire? 9. What about the Balkans and Palestine? 10. What authority is quoted in this lesson in addition to Mr. Newton? 11. What does he say about North Africa? 12. About Asia and Greece? 13. About Austria-Hungary and Italy? 14. About Germany and France? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 34: 02.20. IS THE KAISER THE ANTICHRIST? ======================================================================== XX IS THE KAISER THE ANTICHRIST? I AMONG the many questions in the realm of prophecy which have arisen during the war, one of the most persistent has been, "Is the Kaiser the Antichrist’" which we consider in this chapter. Two or three months ago occasion was had to correspond with several Bible teachers who are authorities in prophetic study, when the question of the Kaiser’s being the Antichrist was taken up. The letters were so interesting and informing that permission was obtained to publish some of them. I The first is from the Rev. I. M. Haldeman, D. D., pastor of the First Baptist Church, Seventy-ninth Street and Broadway, New York City, who writes: "There are many things in the career, attitude and speech of the Kaiser, together with his victorious march to the East, which suggest the Antichrist. Should he succeed as he is now endeavouring to do in raising an army of a million or two of Asiatics; should he take possession of Persia, Armenia and the Euphratean valley; set up a kingdom from Bagdad to Babylon j assume the titles of the Chaldean, the Assyrian and king of Babylon; win Jerusalem from the English and then announce himself protector of the Jews; declare the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire or the Germano-Roman Empire as he has promised to do, with greater extension and glory than it ever knew, he would almost line for line be fulfilling the portrait of the Wicked One. "But we must measure final things by the image. The image has a twofold process of fulfillment; from the head to the feet--from the feet to the head. So far it has been going down from the head to the feet. We are undoubtedly in the region or the beginning of the region of the clay. The Antichrist can come only when the prophecy starts backward or upward from the feet to the head. As the clay is the basic element (and that is the people), then the iron (the autocratic) element can come in only after the clay has come to the front. "The federation of ten kings comes not from war as such, nor as the result of a conqueror’s victory, but by and from the people, who must produce the democratic kings. The last Kaiser can become such only after five democratic kings come in the region of the Western Empire and five in the Eastern (starting from the Adriatic line and below the Danube). "The initial act of the Antichrist which throws him forward to Europe is the overthrow of three democratic and eastern systems. He becomes the wild beast of whom the question is asked, ’Who is able to make war with him?’ only after he has become the head of the image. Then the question must further arise: ’Against whom does he make war?’ Evidently not against his own ten kings. This being so would eliminate him as a personal or possible factor in this war, and necessarily free the present Kaiser from identification with him. "Bacon says prophecy has a budding, a blossoming and a fulfilling. I am assured we are largely in the blossoming, and every day’s event gives emphasis to the fulfillment of prophecy and the verification of the written Word, but the Kaiser is not the Antichrist." Some of our readers may welcome a few words of explanation of the above. Dr. Haldeman’s reference to the "image" means that which Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, saw in his dream as recorded and interpreted in Daniel 2:1-49. It revealed the whole course of Gentile history in the world from that day till the end of this age. The ten toes of the image are having their historical fulfillment now, in Dr. Haldeman’s judgment. They were composed part of iron and part of clay, the latter representing democracy, the former autocracy. Democracy is coming into the ascendant at the present time, but there will be a reaction, as he understands the prophecy, and from the people themselves will arise the autocratic despot, the Antichrist. This will not be, however, until the ten "democratic kings," or kingdoms, are clearly defined, and divided evenly between the eastern and western halves of the old Roman Empire. When the Antichrist arises, his appearance will be coincident with his overthrow of three of the eastern kingdoms, after which the growth of his power will be rapid until he is at the head of the ten, the head of the image and the successor of Nebuchadnezzar. He then goes forth to "make war"; but as it is obvious that he does not make war against his own under kings, or his own kingdoms, he cannot be the Kaiser, because the latter is at present making war against some or most of those very kingdoms at whose head the Antichrist shall be. This, as Dr. Haldeman says, does "necessarily free the present Kaiser from identification with him." II We follow Dr. Haldeman’s communication with that of Dr. C. I. Scofield, because he also stresses the point that the political despot we have in mind comes out from among the people, the democracy. Dr. Scofield, unlike Dr. Haldeman, and some others, distinguishes between the "Beast" of Revelation 13:1-18 and the Antichrist. The" Beast," in his opinion, is the political despot, and the Antichrist the false prophet associated with him in that chapter. For our purpose, however, this distinction need not be pressed, as we are talking about the political despot himself, the wicked head of the Gentile powers at the end of the age, whether he be called for the present “Beast" or the "Antichrist." Of him Dr. Scofield says: "The one unanswerable objection to the Kaiser-Beast theory is that the ’Beast’ rises ’out of the sea,’i.e., the mere mass of men. Napoleon Bonaparte might well be taken as an adumbration. The Kaiser comes of a race of rulers, and is by no means merged in the mass of mankind. "Another collateral argument rests upon the man of one kingdom overcoming two, over which he reigns, and then over the federated restored empire. The whole setting is of the East, and not of northern Europe. "Moreover, the final scene brings against him in his place ’in the glorious holy mountain’ powers from the North and South. If the ’Beast’ is the Kaiser, his own power is in the North; therefore I do not believe the Kaiser-Beast theory." III Mr. A. C. Gaebelein, editor of Our Hope, is the next authority. He is the author of many Bible commentaries, that on Daniel probably being the best known. Like Dr. Scofield, he says: "It is very necessary to distinguish between the two leaders of the end of the age, who head the apostate forces after the true Church has been caught away. The one is the head of the reconstructed Roman Empire seen by Daniel as the little horn among the ten horns (Daniel 7:1-28) and as the prince in Daniel 9:1-27; the other is the personal Antichrist, whose picture is given in Daniel 11:1-45. The one is the political masterpiece of Satan and the other the ecclesiastical head. "The head of the Roman Empire (the political masterpiece) must appear first, but he cannot appear till that empire is formed. The final Antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son, who does away with all Christian doctrine and opposeth and exalteth himself, ete., cannot come till the apostasy is here. The apostasy in turn cannot come as long as the true Church is in earth. "To restate: The emperor over the Roman Empire will not appear till that empire is formed. The personal Antichrist will be manifested when the apostasy has come. Inasmuch, then, as we have no Roman Empire revived and the apostasy is not here, and above all, the true Church is still on earth and the Body of Christ still forming, the two persons are not in power." IV The following from the pen of W. J. Erdman, D. D., of Germantown, Pa., is very clear. He is one of the last representatives of that distinguished company of Bible expounders among whom the late Dr. James H. Brookes was a leader, and which included Bishop William R. Nicholson and President W. G. Moorehead, Professors Kellogg and Stiller, Doctors West, Gordon, Parsons and Pierson, and Evangelists Needham and Major Whittle. There were giants in those days, and their summer rendezvous was the Bible Conference at Niagara, of which Dr. Erdman was for years the honoured and efficient secretary. Coming to the question, "Is the Kaiser the Antichrist?" he says, "No," for the following reasons: "1. Because the ’ten toes’ or ’ten horns’ do not now exist in Europe, Asia, Africa, and he rises later from among the horns and is autocrat over all. "2. No system like the ’Woman Babylon’ now exists, to be upheld by the ’beast and ten kings’ for a while and then destroyed by them. Papal Rome cannot be the ’Babylon’ now; the Pope, in spite of all his claims, is in fact of small account just now. "3. But the Kaiser and the ambitions of Germany and the War do give the nations a sample of what will come in the days of the ’beast.’ "4. A season of peace will follow this war, in which the Lord will give man another trial in religion and government; but the outcome will be ’Babylon’ and the ’Beast.’ But I am firm in the belief that the Kaiser does not ’fill the bill’ of the Antichrist, whether politically as the ’ten-horned beast,’ or doctrinally as the ’two horned,’ his minister and miracle-worker. "Wilhelm II will have to be grayer than he is now to see his Antichrist’s day." V We conclude with a brief paragraph from the Rev. Robert Cameron, D. D., of Seattle, Wash., joint editor with the Rev. Mark A. Matthews, D. D., of Watchword and Truth. "As to the Kaiser," he says, "I see no difficulty in answering that. The Antichrist will be at the head of the ten nations; his capital, or rather the center of his political movements, will be Babylon rebuilt; his religious persecutions will have their center in Jerusalem and Palestine. That is perfectly plain. Therefore, the Kaiser cannot be the Antichrist. He may be, and is doubtless, in some respects, a foreshadowing of what the Antichrist will be." Summing up the foregoing therefore, we find that the Kaiser is not the Antichrist for the following reasons: 1. Because the time has not arrived for the Antichrist to appear. (a) The people, that is the democracy, are not yet in power in the eastern and western portions of the Roman Empire. In other words, the renewed Roman Empire is not yet formed. (b) The apostasy has not yet come to a head. (c) The Church has not yet been translated. 2. The Kaiser is making war against some of the very peoples who will give the power to the Antichrist, which contradicts the thought that he could be that person. 3. The Antichrist and the "Beast," if they be regarded as separate persons, arise in the East and not in northern Europe, which precludes the thought of the Kaiser being the Antichrist. QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1. Name and identify the contemporaneous Bible teachers mentioned. 2. How is the Kaiser said to suggest the Antichrist? 3. How should these likenesses be measured? 4. From among whom will the Antichrist ultimately arise? 5. How do Dr. Scofield and some others distinguish between the" Beast" and the Antichrist? 6. In what marked particular does Dr. Scofield corroborate Dr. Haldeman? 7. According to Mr. Gaebelein what must precede the manifestation of the Antichrist? 8. What in his judgment holds back the apostasy? 9. State in your own words the four points made by Dr. Erdman. 10. Sum up all the answers. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 35: 02.21. WHAT THE BIIBLE TEACHES ABOUT RUSSIA ======================================================================== XXI WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ABOUT RUSSIA I THE writer rejoices with Russia in her newfound freedom, and hopes for the day when all classes of her democracy will be thoroughly united in an invincible prosecution of the present war. So far as he can see, such a solution of her present difficulties is essential both to her own welfare and to anything like an early ending of this terrible world-wide conflict. But after saying this with absolute sincerity and in good faith, he is obliged to add, as a faithful interpreter of the Word of God, that he would not be, surprised if the democracy of Russia were short-lived. Not necessarily that this decade nor even this generation should witness its demise, but only that, sooner or later, she will return to some form of monarchical rule. The Bible seems to foreshadow this. And, indeed, that Russia should at length be found in alliance with Germany is not one of the improbabilities, judging from the same source. II To set this before the reader requires a brief recapitulation of some of the things spoken of in the previous chapters. For example: our Lord Jesus Christ is to return again from heaven, prior to the introduction of the Millennium upon the earth. This return, as previously stated, is an event of two stages. There is a comingforHis saints, when the dead shall be raised and the living caught up to meet Him in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:1-18) ; and a comingwithHis saints and His mighty angels in judgment upon the living nations and to set up His kingdom on the earth, or in other words, to begin His millennial reign. (See Zechariah 14:1-21; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-17, and Revelation 20:1-15.) Between these two stages there is an interval, the length of which is not revealed, but which is identified by some with Daniel’s "seventieth week," so-called, or a period of seven years at the close of the present age, which that prophet predicted (Daniel 9:1-27). However this may be, momentous events will be occurring on the earth during that interval, and not a few of them in Palestine and the vicinity of Jerusalem. In the first place, the Jews will have regathered there in large numbers, and be under the protectorate of some Gentile power. In the second place, the nations of Europe, formerly constituting the Roman Empire, will have become federated again under a single head, according to Daniel 2:1-49 and Revelation 17:1-18. There are reasons for believing that one object of this federation is the control of the near East, as it has come to be called, and which includes necessarily Palestine, which Ezekiel calls “the middle of the earth." (Ezekiel 38:12, R. V.). At this point it is that Russia’s destiny comes into view, which nation, with her Eastern allies, will also come up against Palestine. Whether this step on her part is at the same time that the Western nations gather there, and for the purpose of opposing them, or whether it is later and after those nations with the Antichrist at their head shall have been overcome, is not determinable, perhaps; but there is no debate among students of prophecy as to the main fact. III The proof of this begins to be seen at the thirty-eighth chapter of Ezekiel, where the prophet is told to set his face«towards Gog of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him." There is no dispute among philologists and archeologists that "Gog" and "Magog" here stand for a powerful Scythian dynasty of Ezekiel’s time. Besides this, we have in "Gog" the first syllable of the word “Caucasus," the name of the mountain range crossing the peninsula of Russia, which divides the Caspian from the Black Sea. In "Rosh" also we have the first syllable of "Russia," while "Meshech" and "Tubal" are the original forms of “Moscow" and “Tobolsk," which were immemorially in possession of that nation. A reliable ancient map placed by the side of a reliable modern one will identify the territories. But it is a prophecy of divine anger against her and the nations which are allied with her. These are named as "Persia, Ethiopia and Libya . . . ; Gomer and all his hordes; the house of Togarmah in the uttermost parts of the north, and all his hordes. . . . Be thou prepared, yea, prepare thyself, thou and all thy companies that are assembled unto thee, and be thou a guard unto them." "Persia" we identify; "Ethiopia" is thought to mean the present Abyssinia; "Libya" a part of Egypt; "Togarmah" some would identify with Armenia and others with Turkestan. Germany is not mentioned in this list, indeed, but Gaebelein’s commentary on Ezekiel is authority for saying that the Talmud gives that identification to "Gomer." "That the descendants of Gomer established themselves in parts of Germany seems to be an assured fact." IV But what of thetime when this shall be fulfilled? As Ezekiel 38:1-7 indicate the nation,soEzekiel 38:8-12 indicate the time. It will be "after many days" and "in the latter years," a Hebrew idiom pointing to the close of the present dispensation. But whether or not this is the case, it must be a period still future, for the reason that the military combination referred to in Ezekiel 38:5-7 has not yet appeared in history. Russia with Persia, Egypt and the other nations in her train represents a mobilization of armies which the world has yet to witness, But, furthermore, it will be the time when Israel shall be gathered again in her own land, and whenshe shall be dwelling in comparative quietness and safety (see Ezekiel 38:8, Ezekiel 38:11-12). And now what of the results? What shall be the consequence of this invasion of Palestine on the part of Russia? Read Ezekiel 38:18-23, and Ezekiel 39:1-24. God’s fury shall come up into His nostrils, and He will not only slay them with the sword but with pestilence, and the forces of nature, such as rain and hailstones, and fire and brimstone, like unto Sodom and Gomorrah. Two items give a very vivid picture of the terribleness of this slaughter. One is that Israel will be seven months burying the dead, and the other that the wooden portions of their accoutrements of war will furnish fire kindlings for seven years. Prior to the present war, statements of this character would have been considered luridly extravagant; but in the past four years we have become so accustomed to gigantic devastation that they fail to surprise us. V There are certain inferences to be gathered from the above, both of a political and religious nature. The people of God have often been able to read history generations and centuries in advance, and it seems probable that they may do so here. Of course, dogmatic assertions are out of place, but if our interpretation of Ezekiel be correct, then the present alliance of Russia with the Western nations is not likely to be permanent, for they are of the original Roman Empire, to which she never belonged. And for this reason it is more likely that one of these days the relationship of Russia and Germany shall become close, for Germany, like Russia, was never of the Roman Empire, except as to that part of her territory west of the Rhine. In other words, as Major General Wood has warned us, we are not to expect an unending peace as the result of the present embroilment of the nations. The president of Chicago University said some time ago that certain of the nations entertain piratical policies and intentions, and are willing deliberately to apply them to the weaker peoples. He spoke truly of the past and the present, and there are reasons to feel that he also prophesied of the future; for nations are but aggregations of men, and men are unchangeable in their nature, except by the power of God, through the operation of faith in Christ Jesus. But is there no hope Y Yes, thank God, but it is found in Him and in Him only. When the prophet asked, "Watchman, what of the night?" the watchman said, "The morning cometh, and also the night." The night first, but the morning afterwards. To the true believer, the morning comes when Jesus comes to gather His own unto Himself. But although these shall be caught up to meet Him in the air, yet there is promise for the earth also. The judgments to follow will be purifying judgments, until at length the nations of the earth shall learn righteousness, and “the kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever" (Revelation 11:15). (Note: John Spargo, the Socialist leader and litterateur in an article on “Russia and the World Problem of the Jew," Harper’s Monthly Magazine, June, 1918, says: “For the moment in this great debacle we are witnessing a gigantic chaos, and the ruin of Russian feudalism seems complete. We must not, however, let this destruction deceive us; the fact remains that there is no evident constructive capacity in the proletariat, and no great and powerful economic interests to inspire a middle class to constructive effort. The only constructive power remaining in Russia, at all likely to be able to restore order from the chaos, is the small group of Liberalists and capitalists. A Bolshevik frenzy may destroy, but it cannot build." It will be found, we believe, that the constructive elements in Russia will crystallize at length around some form of a limited monarchy.) QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1. What two expectations or probabilities are expressed for Russia and why? 2. May our Lord be looked for prior to or after the Millennium? 3. Describe the two stages of His second coming. 4. What prophetic period is supposed to fit in between these two stages? 5. Name some of the events that will be then occurring? 6. What will be a chief object for the federation of the nations of the Roman Empire? 7. What description is given by Ezekiel to the Holy Land? 8. What will Russia be planning at this or a later time? 9. In what chapter of Ezekiel is that people brought before us? 10. Name some of the reasons for identifying Russia in this case. 11. What kind of a prophecy concerning Russia have we here? 12. What nations are allied with her? 13. With what modern nations are they identified? 14. What time will this prophecy be fulfilled? 15. What proof of this can you present? 16. Have you read Ezekiel 38:1-23 and Ezekiel 39:1-29? 17. What inferences are deducible from the foregoing? 18. May we expect an unending peace to follow the present war? 19. What then is our hope? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 36: 02.22. JERUSALEM'S CAPTURE IN THE LIGHT OF PROPHECY ======================================================================== XXII JERUSALEM’S CAPTURE IN THE LIGHT OF PROPHECY I THE Christian’s pulse beats high these days, and his gaze is upward. Will the clouds soon part and the Lord appear? is the anxious thought of his heart. Some have ventured the opinion that His second coming may be the event that will bring this war to the end. What surprise it would effect in the battling armies, if the members of the Body of Christ were caught up out of their ranks and no dead bodies be left behind! The capture of Jerusalem by the British, and their allies has greatly stimulated this feeling just now. So much has been said about the Jews returning to their own land, and so commonly is it related up to the second coming of our Lord, that the two events have come to be associated as one in the popular mind. But nevertheless they aredistinct and separate. In the first place, the capture of Jerusalem may precede, by quite a period, any return of the Jews to Palestine on a large scale. The war must end first and the terms of peace be agreed upon, including the setting aside of that land for the people to whom it really belongs. Of course, this is going to be done sooner or later, but just when it will be done who can say? We might take this occasion, however, to speak of a mysterious prophecy in the sixteenth chapter of Revelation which points to it, in the judgment of some. It is the pouring out of the sixth vial "upon the great river Euphrates," whose water is dried up "that the way of the kings of the East might be prepared." The Euphrates is regarded as the symbol of the Turkish power, and its drying up is the receding of that empire from the extensive boundaries of its European and Asiatic domain into the narrower compass of its birthplace, a receding which really began at the rebellion of Ali Pasha in 1820, and has been continuing to the present hour. "The kings of the East," or "the kings that come from the sunrising" (R. V.), and mentioned in the prophecy, are taken to mean the Jews. F. C. Jennings, in "The World Conflict in the Light of the Prophetic Word," translates the phrase, "that the way of the kings of the rising again of the sun might be prepared." The text is confessedly difficult, and we are unable to say that Mr. Jennings is justified in this rendering; but his observations upon it are interesting at least. The "sun" in his judgment is here used symbolically of Christ, whose rising again refers to His coming to deliver Israel from her oppressors and to set up His Kingdom on the earth. Malachi’s words come into mind, where Christ in His future relationship to Israel is described as “the Sun of righteousness" Who shall "arise with healing in his wings." But to quote Mr. Jennings: "I take it, then, that in harmony with these Old Testament promises, as well as with the tenor or very atmosphere of this book, the Supreme Ruler’s-the Sun’s-the King’s-earthly people Israel is surely to be seen under the term, ’the kings of the rising again of the sun.’ Itis their way that is prepared by the drying up of the water of the Euphrates; it is for their return to their land that the Gentile that has his foot on Jerusalem is to be pushed back whence he came. "Now, make of it what you will; say, if you please, that it is but a coincidence, or a series of coincidences; yet it is an evident fact that, as Turkey has been pushed back, so has the Jew gained a footing again in his land. A century ago he could not own a foot of it, or hardly set his foot on it, save under extremely humiliating conditions; to-day there are more than double the number of Jews in Palestine than returned there from Babylon in the days of Ezra." II In the second place, while the return of the Jews to Palestine--the budding of the fig-tree--may be a sign of the Lord’s second coming, it is not necessarily a forerunner of it. The reference now is to that first stage of His coming coincident with translation of His Church. In other words, as the writer understands the prophecies, Christ’s coming for His Church does not await that return or any other happening. The capture of Jerusalem sends a thrill through our souls as though He were very near; it makes us feel His nearness as before we did not feel it; and yet if the capture had not been made, it would still be our duty to be looking for His coming at any time. In other words, the second coming of Christ, as previous chapters have pointed out, is an event of two stages, or a grand drama of two acts: There is a coming in the air for the Church which is His body, and which will be translated to meet Him there (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18); and then, after an interval, a coming with His saints and His mighty angels in judgment, and for the deliverance of His people Israel from their persecutors. As this deliverance is to take place in the Holy Land, it is evident that ere that time Israel must have returned there in increasing numbers, and have rebuilt "the waste places" as the prophets have foretold, and even reestablished their temple worship. But there is time for this between the translation of the Church and the date of its occurrence. Especially is this true if the Jews continue to return there more and more before the translation takes place, and then complete the repopulation of the land after that event. It is this thought really that gives the intense interest to the capture of Jerusalem. And yet we would not speculate or contribute to false hopes. Especially would we cultivate the spirit of sobriety, and quietude of heart, and that patient waiting for Christ which James, the brother of our Lord, urges with such fervency upon the sojourners of the dispersion to whom he wrote: “Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain. Be ye also patient, stablish your hearts; for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh." III This caution towards sobriety and quietness is very necessary in view of the extravagances to which this hope has led in other days. Even in Paul’s time, men were neglecting their business and their ordinary duties because of it. This is why .he urges the Thessalonian Christians to “study to be quiet," and to attend to their "own business," and to work with their“own hands," for the very practical reason that they might“walk honestly towards them that are without," and that they themselves might "have lack of nothing." Wild fanaticism dishonours the Lord whose name we hear, and so do idleness and busy-bodyness, which commonly go with it. Our rent must be met, and our grocer paid, and our families cared for just the same even if the Lord is at the door. "Blessed is that servant whom his Lord, when he cometh, shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, that he shall make him ruler over all his goods." As the leaders of our nation warned us when this war began and when some people became hysterical, “This is no time to rock the boat." And this reference to the war suggests another reason for soberness and fidelity to present duty. Nothing would please the powers of darkness better than the cry of "Lo, here! or Lo, there!" that might divert the minds of easily excited people from the solemn task: that now devolves upon this nation. Even if we Christians were to be caught up tomorrow, it behooves us to remember what our duty is to-day--a duty to the government under which God has placed us, and a duty to the people whom we would be compelled to leave behind. The people who would be left behind? Oh, the sadness of it! Let us not be so absorbed with the things that are coming on the earth or the glory that awaits the risen saints of God, as to forget the lost and erring that are all about us. Oh, for the sounding out of the Gospel message in these days! Oh, for the proclamation to go abroad in new and mighty power: "To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. "Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God." QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1. Are the Lord’s coming for His Church and the return of the Jews to Palestine simultaneous events? 2. What events must precede that return on a large scale? 3. Of what has the Euphrates been regarded as a symbol? 4. According to some, who are meant by “the kings of the East"? 5. How does Mr. Jennings apply the prophecy in Revelation 16:1-21? 6. Have you read that prophecy? 7. What spirit should we cultivate while waiting for the coming of Christ? 8. Why should this spirit be cultivated? 9. Have you read 1 Thessalonians 4:1-18? 10. What is our duty to the Government in the present crisis? 11. What is our duty to the unsaved? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 37: 02.23. WHY CHRISTIANS SHOULD STUDY PROPHECY ======================================================================== XXIII WHY CHRISTIANS SHOULD STUDY PROPHECY I THIS chapter is in reply to an inquiry as to the right attitude of God’s people towards prophecy, or as suggested in the title, "Why Christians Should Study Prophecy." 1. The most obvious answer is that prophecy is part of the Bible, part of God’s revelation to man. A Christian, in the New Testament sense of the term, is one who has come to know and love God through faith in the atoning merits of His Son, Jesus Christ. Hence he loves God’s Word, and he has not the slightest doubt that the Bible is His Word. 2. But prophecy covers a large part of the Bible. We commonly think of the seventeen books of the Old Testament, Isaiah to Malachi, and one book of the New Testament, Revelation, just eighteen books of prophecy in all. And if this were all, it would be nearly one-third of the whole. But it is not all. Some of the most important prophecies are in the Pentateuch, the Psalms are largely prophetic, and so is the Gospel of Matthew. One of the most comprehensive and illuminating prophecies is in the Acts, and what of 1 and 2 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians, and the Pastoral and General epistles? Taking it in bulk, more than one-half of the Bible is predictive, so that no further reason seems necessary why Christians should study prophecy. 3. Prophecy has great importance attached to it in the Bible. God justifies Himself as the God of truth by saying: "Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them" (Isaiah 42:9). Why is Jeremiah, though a political prisoner, directed of God to buy his cousin’s field in Anathoth , To buy it, even when he knows that Jerusalem is doomed and his nation is to be carried into captivity’ To buy it with all the formality of the counting of the money, the signing and sealing of the deed, the calling of witnesses, and the depositing of the papers in safe keeping’ This is the answer: “Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel: Houses and fields and vineyards shall yet again be bought in this land" (Jeremiah 32:6-15). In other words, Judah was to be restored from her Babylonian captivity and again at the end of this age, and God desired it to be known that it was done by His hand. "He that eateth bread with me, hath lifted up his heel against me. Now I tell you before it come, that when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he" (John 13:18-19). These words of Christ give us the key to prophecy and tell us why Christians should study it. It is revealed so that when it comes to pass we may be convinced that He is the One Whom Be claimed to be, the very Son of God, the Saviour of them that believe and the Judge of the whole earth. 4. Prophecy in its fulfillment is a great strengthener of faith. The older apologists classed it with miracles in this respect. They pointed out that miracles furnished the more impressive testimony for the beginning of the Christian era, but prophecy for its close. In other words, prophecy is an argument whose force is continually growing. Beginning when the first prophecy was fulfilled and increasing as fulfillments increase, its maturity will not be reached till the end of the world. As Prof. S. H. Kellogg reminds us, "the whole of the Old Testament was in the hands of the Jews400years B.C., and yet their predictions were not only borne out by events in His life and work, but are still in process of fulfillment before our eyes. Nor are the essential facts which bear upon this matter at all affected by modern criticism. Let every book be brought down to the latest date which that criticism claims, and still there is a large residuum of veritable prophecy written long, long before the occurrence of the events foretold." Eighteen hundred years have elapsed since the last book of prophecy was written and during that long period, the leading events of history have proven in a marvellous way that "holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:1-21; 2 Peter 2:1-22). 5. Prophecy strengthens faith because it so greatly increases knowledge. As the psalmist says: "The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him; and he will show them his covenant" (Psalms 25:14). Think what prophecy meant to Noah and his family in the building of the ark. Think how it enabled Abraham successfully to intercede for Lot in Sodom. It sustained Moses in leading the Hebrews out of Egypt and Joshua in conquering Canaan. Again and again it nerved Israel’s arm for battle by the prediction of victory, and if to-day our people knew and believed the prophecies of God, their fear of Germany would be materially diminished. Daniel knew by the prophetic books the number of years that spanned the Babylonian captivity for His people, and as a scholar and statesman, he stood unequalled among all his contemporaries. Simeon and Anna were diligent students of prophecy and God honoured them with an actual vision of their Redeemer. The poor saints at Jerusalem were relieved in the famine of the period of Claudius Caesar as the result of Agabus’ prophesying. Paul’s prophesying in the Adriatic heartened all his fellow-voyagers in their hour of shipwreck. Some months since, a metropolitan divine uttered a cry of despair over world conditions and the hopelessness of the reformation of mankind j but had he been a closer student of prophecy, he might have spared himself and us part of that despondency. As the late J. D. Herr said at an International Prophetic Conference some years ago: "There is one grand event placed before us on which we can rest our faith and plant our hope amid all the sad disasters and spiritual depressions constantly surrounding the walls of Zion. No seeming defeat of moral reform, no beating back of the armies of truth, no attempt to overthrow the bulwarks of Christianity, shakes our confidence or paralyzes our aggressive efforts. Beyond and above all these is seen the outshining of His power, and we wait in expectancy and humble patience for the appearing of the glory of our Great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Here is the objective point of all prophecy." 6. This reminds us that prophecy, properly understood, is a wonderful inspirer of hope. In other words, pessimism and Bible prophecy do not go together. It is through the latter that we learn the world’s destiny; and become assured that the march of the centuries is towards a legitimate and glorious future. Thus Peter says: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto 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" (2 Peter 1:19). He is thinking of Christ’s transfiguration on the mount when he says this, which to him was at once a pledge and a specimen of the second coming of Christ in His Kingdom. That event, i.e.,the transfiguration, made the word of prophecy more sure. It was "an indubitable declaration of the personal and official glory of Jesus Christ, a sufficient warrant for all that he and the other apostles said concerning Him." But the point is that in the estimation of the inspired penman, "prophecy" is a "light," a lamp shining "in a dark place." The Greek for "dark" in this instance might be rendered "squalid." O, the squalor of the filthy, blood-besmirched world today! How much it needs light! And the prophetic Word of God is that light. What shall the Church do with it? Hide it under a bushel, or hold it forth for the guidance and the cheer of men? Prophecy is speculation and impractical they tell us; but what can be more contrary to such an idea than the thought of a lamp shining in a dark place? And if the present state of the world is a "dark place," what is the "day-dawn," if not the second coming of Christ to set up His Kingdom f "He shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds." This "star-day" is to rise in our hearts, Peter says. There is, in other words, a moral and spiritual rising that must precede the outward splendour of that day to them who shall behold it. Is this true of the reader of these words? Has he yet received Jesus Christ as his Saviour and confessed Him as his Lord? It is as he does this that prophecy becomes to him an inspirer of hope. 7. Thus Christians should study prophecy because it exalts Jesus Christ. "To him give all the prophets witness" (Acts 10:43). All prophecy from Genesis to Revelation relates to Him directly or indirectly. "0 fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken," said He to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, and then, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:25, Luke 24:27). The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Revelation 19:10). No one interested either in His past history or His ultimate triumph can afford to ignore its study. "God never would have traced the exalted pathway of His Son through the long aisles of the future, had He not desired and expected us by our eye of faith to follow Him." 8. If prophecy thus exalts Jesus Christ, and by exalting Him strengthens the faith and increases the knowledge and quickens the hope of men, it stands to reason that it radically affects their conduct. No surprise is felt, therefore, when we read that the pagans of Thessalonica, "turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God and to wait for his Son from heaven"(1 Thessalonians 1:9-10). We see what prophecy did for them. Peter teaches us that by the "exceeding great and precious promises" (prophecy again), we escape "the corruption that is in the world through lust" (2 Peter 1:4). John declares that "every man that hath this hope in him" (Christ’s Second Coming), "purifieth himself even as he is pure" (1 John 3:1-24), (prophecy again). Indeed, to quote Dr. Rufus W. Clark of honoured memory in Albany, "there is not a duty pertaining to the Christian life that is not quickened and rendered more imperative by the power of this blessed hope; not a virtue that it does not call into highest exercise, not a motive in the human heart that it does not purify and strengthen." II But if prophecy is, and does all this, why do not Christians study it more generally than they do? Yankee-like, we answer that question by asking another, "Why do not Christians study the Bible more generally than they do?” If they studied the Bible at all, in any serious way, how could they fail to study prophecy? Is prophecy too difficult! Will it be said that God sends a message to mock our humble efforts? His answer is that the longest and most difficult prophecy in the Bible is distinguished from every other part of it by the name of "Revelation." If that is a misnomer, God is responsible for it, since it is in the text. The mistakes and extravagances of theorists are sometimes adduced as an argument against prophecy; but men have wandered away from fundamental doctrines of the Bible and even given "heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons," yet have Christians discarded the study of those doctrines! The truth is, as Dr. John Lillie, the American Commentator, tells us, that among those who really deserve to be called students of prophecy, there is greater harmony on essential points than is found in other departments of theological science, while their divergences on the other band are not by any means as mischievous in character or tendency. A New York clergyman recently said that the Bible Institutes of the country were all teaching the premillennial coming of Christ, and then he sought to disparage the teaching by adding that they were all at variance with one another. Quite the opposite is true. The ten or a dozen Bible Institutes, or schools, which the writer knows will bear out absolutely Dr. Lillie’s testimony. QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1.Name seven reasons why Christians should study prophecy. 2. Define a Christian. 3. Name books of the Bible other than the Prophets so-called, which contain important prophecies. 4. How does prophecy prove God’s truthfulness? 5. How does prophecy differ from miracles as a ground of Christian evidence? 6. Name some illustrations of the bearing of prophecy on spiritual knowledge. 7. For what practical reasons should we expound prophecy? 8. Why do not Christians more generally study prophecy? Printed in the United States of America ======================================================================== CHAPTER 38: 03.00.1. GREAT EPOCHS OF SACRED HISTORY, ======================================================================== Great Epochs Of Sacred History, Studies on the First Twelve Chapters of Genesis By James M. Gray Copyright 1910 ======================================================================== CHAPTER 39: 03.00.2. PREFACE ======================================================================== Preface As an e-Sword user, and a resource creator, I always try to find quality works I believe will be beneficial to others in their studies. I hope this fits that description, and that all who use this module will find it to be a blessing. Your Brother In Christ, Jason L. Briggs ======================================================================== CHAPTER 40: 03.00.3. TABLE OF CONTENTS ======================================================================== I. When The World Was Made Where did Moses get his facts?—Whence came man? —Were there pre-Adamites?—The earth a ball of fire—Voltaire answered—The doctrine of the Trinity— Creation out of nothing—Evolution. II. When Sin Entered The World Body, soul and spirit—Eden a reality—Man’s glory his peril—The first interrogation point—Humanity deified—The formula of the pit—The first promise of redemption—Shall Satan ever die? III. When The First City Was Built No real catastrophes in history—Why was Abel’s sacrifice accepted?—Religion not enough—In the land of Nod—Whom Cain married—What civilization is— Shall we all die?—When the church is translated. IV. When The Flood Came And Swept Them All Away The days of Noah—Fallen angels on earth—Ante- diluvian civilization—Women’s activities—Are men to blame?—Spiritism in our public schools—Suicide and lust—Did the flood ever occur? V. When The First World-monarchy Began The rainbow in the cloud—How the nations originated —Ancient greatness—The most important document in the world—"The Lord came down"—Is the tower of Babel historic?—A raven or a nightingale? VI. When The Last World-monarchy Shall Appear God’s purpose in Israel—Israel’s failure and its re- sults—The history of the Antichrist—Shall Babylon be restored? — The commercial crisis coming—The "trust" and the "union" —How the last world- monarchy shall end—Bringing back the King. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 41: 03.00.4. PREFORATORY NOTE ======================================================================== PREFATORY NOTE. The origin of the following pages is the same as that of a companion book, " Satan and the Saint," which appeared a year earlier. The several chapters were originally lectures spoken extemporaneously to popular audiences in New York, Chicago and Grand Rapids, and previously in Glasgow and Edinburgh. They were reported stenographically, and in correcting the copy for the printer the author strengthened a statement here and there by quotations from others, sometimes inserted in the chapter and sometimes added as a note. The only adverse criticism of " Satan and the Saint" meeting the author’s eye was the remark that he was a better diagnostician than a therapist—he knew better how to classify a disease than to heal it. But he is persuaded that the critic did not read the book very carefully, and especially that he did not read it through. The remedy for the individual is the salvation which is found only in Jesus Christ by faith; and for society the remedy is the second coming of the same Saviour who has promised that " the expectation of the poor shall not perish for ever." This remedy was found in every chapter of the former book as it is in this, and the closing chapter was entirely given over to its exposition. " Come, Lord, and wipe away The curse, the sin, the stain, And make this blighted world of ours Thine own fair world again." JAMES M. GRAY. The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 42: 03.01. WHEN THE WORLD WAS MADE ======================================================================== CHAPTER I. When The World Was Made. Genesis 1:1-31. LET us open our Bibles at the first chapter of Genesis. We are beginning a series of lectures on " Great Epochs of Sacred History," which, it is unnecessary to say, will be Biblical and expository in character, because from our point of view there is no sacred history outside of the Bible. I. The theme of this lecture is " When the World Was Made," and without further preliminaries let us read the first verse: " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." If, for the first time, we had heard these words, certain questions would have arisen in our minds. For example, Who wrote them? Where did he obtain his information? How do we know it is true? When was the beginning? Who is God? How did He create the heaven and the earth ? In attempting to answer them, let me remind you that for thirty-five hundred years, more or less, the whole of the Christian church and the Jewish nation have believed that Moses, the great leader and legislator of the Hebrew people, was the human author of these words. These two witnesses, the Christian church and the Jewish nation, have had every reason and every facility for ascertaining the facts in the case, and therefore we may believe their testimony is true, and rest upon it. WHERE MOSES GOT HIS FACTS. Moses may have obtained his information by direct revelation from God; or from tradition, as handed down from generation to generation, for the long lives of the patriarchs would have permitted its transmission through not more than five or six men; or he may have obtained it by the comparison of other and earlier documents, for similar records of creation were in possession of other nations. But in any event, we know from other scriptures that he was guided and controlled by God in the record he has here made of it. The Bible does not say when the beginning was. There is a chronology in the margin of our Bibles, and it says the earth is six thousand years old, but you doubtless know that it is a man-made chronology and not God-made. It is not part of the inspired text, and therefore we have a right to go back of it, if we will, and inquire concerning it. The earth may be six thousand years old, or sixty thousand, or six hundred thousand, or it may be six hundred million years old, as some scientists believe. But if the latter should prove beyond a peradventure that the earth is so old, there is nothing in the Bible it would contradict, for the Bible says that " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," but does not state when the beginning was. THE BEING OF GOD. Who is God? As we understand the Holy Scriptures, God is an infinite and a personal Being, above and independent of the universe He created. If such a God, personal and infinite, did not create the heaven and the earth, who did? Excuse the vulgarism, if I say that it is up to the disputer to say who did create the heaven and the earth, and how it was created, if God, and such a God, was not its creator. I quote a sentence or two from Dr. A. T. Pierson, who reminds us of the axiom that nothing can be imparted to a work that is not first in the workman, or to a product that is not first in the producer. In this earth we see a work, a product, and we see one that has design and purpose stamped upon its every part; but design and purpose are always the products and the proofs of intelligence. Therefore, whoever designed this earth, whoever wrought out the work and the product must have had intelligence, and intelligence presupposes a personal being. We have here the whole argument for a divine Creator in a nutshell, and one which has never been answered, and never can be answered while the world lasts. WHERE DID MAN COME FROM? Let us follow Dr. Pierson a little further. There are those who would say concerning man for example, that he is developed from a monkey. But where did the monkey come from? He came from a codfish. But where did the codfish come from? It came from an oyster. But where did the oyster come from? It came from the original germ, or protoplasm. But where did the protoplasm come from? They would answer that it was spontaneously generated. In other words, it came from itself! Now they say: " All is plain. The chain has been traced link by link to the very last." " Yes,-but that link has no staple, it has no fastening anywhere." " It makes no matter," they would reply, " the chain is hung somewhere." We grant that, but to us the " somewhere " is God. He is the staple of the chain, He is the fastening, and no one and nothing else. Argue as you please, you are always arguing in a circle and coming back to the place whence you started, except as you begin where Moses begins, in the first verse of the first chapter of Genesis. WERE THERE MEN BEFORE ADAM? And here is a further interesting suggestion concerning that first verse of Genesis. There are devout scholars, who are at the same time devout Christians, who believe that it is separated by a long period from the verses which follow it. They believe that it refers to a creation of heaven and earth prior to the creation of the earth as we now know it. They hold that that long-ago earth was created good, and perfect and holy, and that there were men upon it before Adam, pre-Adamites, as they are called. But they hold that some great catastrophe occurred in it, brought about by sin through the same devil and Satan who is introduced to us a little later on. They would claim further, that as the result of this catastrophe the earth fell into that condition of chaos described in the second verse. If this hypothesis be true-and it may be true- perhaps it allows time enough for the formation of those geological strata of which scientists speak, and time enough to meet the demands of others who affirm that the creation of the earth must have been hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years ago. II. Let us, then, passing from the first verse, read the work of the first day of what we may call our era, and come face to face with the picture of the earth in its condition of chaos. Verses 2 to 5: "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. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." The word " was " in verse 2 might be translated " became," in which event verses 1 and 2 would read: " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth became without form, and void," as though the condition indicated there was the result of something that had happened to the earth of verse 1. Notice the description of the earth in verse 2. Formless and empty, dark and deep. " And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." To get the sense of this, we need to know that the word " earth " as here used does not mean the earth as we now know it, and as it is referred to in the work of the third day, but merely the material, " the cosmic matter," as some call it, out of which the earth was made. Also, the word " waters " in this verse does not mean the liquid of our seas and oceans, but rather the gaseous condition of this cosmic matter out of which the earth was made. PANTHEISM CONTRADICTED. " The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. It does not say that He moved within them. Significant this. Pantheism would say He moved within the waters. Christian Science probably would say this, and Theosophy and the New Thought would say it, for these are only different forms of pantheism, which denies the personality of God. All the god pantheism knows is what it describes as " the impersonal soul of the universe." The god of pantheism is in this book, or this desk, or the material of this building, or in any other thing or part of the universe that can be named, but it is not above, or beyond or separated from it as an independent and self-conscious being. But the only and true God meets this false philosophy at the very beginning of His revelation in the use of that particular preposition, saying that He moved upon the waters, and not within them. The word " moved " might be rendered " brooded." It is the picture of a bird brooding over her nest. As the result of the brooding there is vibration in the gaseous matter, and as the result of the vibration, light; hence the significance of the words: " And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." III. THE HEAVEN OF THE SECOND DAY. Let us now read the story of the second day, verses 6 to 8: " And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." To understand this day’s work, keep in mind the gaseous condition of the matter out of which the earth was made. It is vibrating, and light is presiding over it. The step that God now takes is to make a division in it. He separates it so that some of it is above, and some below, and the space between the two He calls the firmament, or, as it might be rendered, the expanse, which He subsequently designates as heaven. By this " heaven " is meant the great space chamber that surrounds our earth, not only that, however, in which the birds fly and the clouds float, but that still greater space in which the sun, and moon, and stars find their habitation. This is the firmament, or expanse, or heaven of the second day. IV. We are now ready for the revelation of the third day. See verses 9 to 13: "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day." Now and throughout the rest of our chapter we are concerned simply with the lower half of this gaseous matter already spoken of. It is divided from the upper half by the expanse of heaven. It is, a ball of fire, vibrating and rotating with a velocity we cannot apprehend. And as it rotates it throws off great rings which vibrate and rotate in their turn. Each of them at length is rolled up into a ball, and one of them becomes the nucleus or beginning of our earth. As it vibrates and rotates, now far away from the greater ball of fire which threw it off, it gradually cools; and as it cools chemical affinities are formed, hydrogen and oxygen come together, with water as the result, the water we speak of as that of our oceans and seas. Thus this great rolling ball of fire is now swathed in a covering of water. LIKE A BAKED APPLE. But it continues to cool still further, and as it cools its crust hardens, and becomes wrinkled, like the skin of a baked apple when it comes upon the table. The hollows on the surface are the places into which the water runs and which form the basins of the oceans and seas, while the projecting parts are the mountain ranges and uplands. Hence the significance of the words: "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so." But something else was done on the third day. Now that the dry land appears, it is ready for vegetation, and the command goes forth, " Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind." Observe the wording of the language here. THE EGG OR THE HEN FIRST ? Scientists have been interested for generations over the question, " Which was first, the egg or the hen ? The seed or the plant?" And latterly, they have come to the conclusion that the hen was before the egg, and the plant before the seed. But behold! Moses, thirty-five hundred years ago revealed this order. Where did he get his information? What an evidence of the inspiration of the Bible! He tells us that God made the herb first, yielding seed, and the fruit tree first, yielding fruit after its kind. The Bible does not claim to teach science, or to be a scientific book in the technical sense of the term, but there is no conclusion of science which, in the slightest degree, contradicts any statement the Bible has ever made concerning any scientific fact. V. We have another illustration of this in the story of the fourth day, in Genesis 1:14-19 : "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day." MOSES VS. VOLTAIRE. Two hundred years ago, the French philosopher and atheist, Voltaire, raised a laugh against Moses for saying that God made the sun upon the fourth day. " Why!" he exclaimed, " does not everybody know that the sun is the source of light? Therefore God must have made the sun upon the first day. In the face of this fact, how can one affirm that the Bible is inspired, and that it is a revelation from God ?" In those days Christians were unable to answer Voltaire from the scientific point of view, and must simply hold their peace and bide their time. But now, within seventy-five years, perhaps, von Humboldt has discovered that there was light before the sun, and hence that the latter is not the source of it. In other words, the earth is self-luminous. LIGHT ON THE COUNTRY ROAD. Indeed a child may discover this for himself on a dark night, especially if he lives in the country, where there are no lamps upon the roads. You have gone out sometimes on such a night, so dark that you could not see your hand before you, and yet after you had journeyed a little way, you became conscious that there was light, you were seeing something, after all. Whence came the light? There was no moon in the sky and no stars, and yet, you were able to see the path before you, and the hedge on either side; and as you looked up between the trees you could see the sky, dark and cloudy, but still the sky. Whence came the light? The answer of the scientist is the answer of the Word of God, the light came from the earth itself. Here again as I have said, we find a testimony to the inspiration of the Mosaic record, for how could he have written these things which the world has only now discovered, except as God revealed them? Notice the reason for which God made the sun and moon and stars. They are not the light itself, but the holders of it. Why made He them to hold it? To divide the day from the night, is one reason; which is secured by the rotation of the earth on its axis. To be for signs and for seasons, and for days and for years is another reason. This is secured by the earth’s annual revolution around the sun, for as every day it is turning on its axis and giving us day and night, so is it making a revolution around the sun, and we have winter and summer, and seed-time and harvest. HALLEY’S COMET. Our secular papers recently spoke of the greatness of Dr. Halley, who discovered the comet that has visited us again; and of his greatness in being able so accurately to calculate the time of its return, so that we knew to a day when in the period of seventy-four years it might be seen. Great, indeed, is the astronomer whose brain can perform a mathematical feat like that, but greater still, the God Who made the man, and the brain and the comet, too! Let us ascribe greatness unto Him to Whom it belongeth, and especially now, when through the machinations of the prince of darkness man is becoming more and more a god unto himself. " The spacious firmament on high, With all the blue, ethereal sky, And spangled heav’ns, a shining frame, Their great Original proclaim: The unwearied sun, from day to day, Does his Creator’s pow’r display; And publishes to every land The work of an Almighty hand." VI. We hasten on to the work of the last day, Genesis 1:26-28 : "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 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." Four things I would call your attention to, very briefly. One is, the use again of the word " create." Only three times in the chapter is the word used; when God brings into being the world of matter, the world of animal life and the world of spiritual life, as represented by man, made in His image. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. The second thing I would emphasize is the word " us." Notice the plural pronoun as an intimation at the very beginning of revelation of the tri-personality in the Godhead, the fundamental doctrine of Christendom, the doctrine of the Trinity. Our Unitarian neighbors would answer this by saying that the plural is used here only in the sense of the plural of majesty, just as kings and emperors of the present day say " we " when referring to themselves. But we reply with Dr. Murphy, that such was not the usual style of monarchs in the ancient East. Pharaoh never used this word, nor Nebuchadnezzar, nor Cyrus, nor Darius. Nor does God Himself use it, except in instances like the present where He would emphasize the great truth that in the " I " there is also " us " and " our." We need to bear constant and definite testimony to to the great truth of the trinity in the Godhead, involving as it does, the deity of Jesus Christ and the personality of the Holy Ghost, for when we let go of one of these fundamentals we let go of every one. In illustration of this, in the last national Unitarian convention, one of their speakers from the Pacific coast declared that it was not right " to pray to a monarch in the skies," but that " prayer should rather be addressed to a universal god that was in man." MAN IN GOD’S IMAGE. The third thing I would call attention to is this: " God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." What is meant by the image or the likeness of God in which man was made? The next chapter indicates its meaning. We find in the creation of man a kind of trinity, for it is said that God formed him of the dust of the ground, breathing into his nostrils the breath of life, so that he became a living soul. And henceforward in Holy Scripture man is referred to as possessing body, soul, and spirit. The distinction between the soul and the spirit is before us for consideration in the next chapter, but now I want to emphasize the fact that man is made in the image of God as to his nature, a kind of trinity in himself. But he is made in the image of God, not only as to his nature, but as to his character, for we read in Paul’s letter to the Colossians that believers on Jesus Christ have been renewed in knowledge after the image of God. (Colossians 3:10). In other words, the great element which differentiates man from the rest of animal life, and makes him to be a spirit, is the religious element, the capability to know God, and to have fellowship with Him in life, and service, and perfection. Man lost this image when he fell into sin in the garden of Eden. He did not merely deface it, but lost it. But, thanks be unto God, there is such a thing as the renewal of man in that image, which takes place when he believes on the Lord Jesus Christ as his Saviour, and confesses Him before men as his Lord. MAN"S DOMINION. The fourth and last thing I name in the work of the sixth day, is the dominion God gave to man over all the rest of created nature. This dominion man has lost, in a great measure, through sin, but this also is to be restored to him again in that great day for which the whole creation waiteth. (Romans 8:22-23). Psalms 8:1-9 seems to teach us the same truth from the Old Testament point of view. How glorious to know that those who have believed on Jesus Christ are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ; and that as joint-heirs with Him there is restored to us that dominion He Himself has over the whole of created nature! It pays to be a Christian, and it also pays to know what it is to be a Christian! O the height, and depth, and length and breadth of that love of God toward us, in Christ, that passeth knowledge! VII. THE WORLD CREATED OUT OF NOTHING. Two questions I would raise, and answer briefly. First, Did God create the world out of nothing? The answer is that He did. That answer is found first, in what has been said concerning the design and purpose in creation, and it is found again in the peculiar use of the word " create " in Genesis 1:1-31. That word does not of itself always and necessarily mean a creation out of nothing, but as it is used here it does mean that, and nothing else. It is used so discriminatingly here. In Genesis 1:1, Genesis 1:21 and Genesis 1:27, at the introduction of material life, at the introduction of animal life, and at the introduction of spiritual life you find it; but in every other case in this chapter where mere transformations are referred to, or where new species of animal life are mentioned, another word is used, and which is translated " made " and not " created." Now the fact that God uses the word " create " in these particular instances is an evidence that when it comes to a question of the bringing into being of these three spheres of existence, which are the only spheres of existence which we know, the creation of them was a creation absolutely out of nothing. WHAT ABOUT EVOLUTION? But what of evolution? What is evolution? It is the theory, speaking in general terms, that God created matter, giving to it certain inherent and necessary laws, and then left it to itself in order that, by the operation of those laws, without any special interposition of His, the whole universe, including man, should be created. Man in this way, according to evolution theories, has come up from the lower animals, as they in turn have come from the plant world, and the plant world from protoplasm, or fire mist, or whatever you may please to call it. The answer to evolution has been given in what has been said concerning the design and purpose everywhere seen in the universe. But that is not to say that there may not be a certain kind of evolution within each one of these systems, or spheres of life, of which I have spoken. For example, matter may evolve itself into various forms of matter, or animal life various forms of animal life, or spiritual life into various forms of spiritual life, but if this is proven-and as yet it is not proven-it is something entirely different from that other kind of evolution which would make man the descendant of an ape, and drive God out of the universe that He has made. JOHN BURROUGHS AND THE BIRDS. In closing, let me bring again to your attention what I referred to a moment ago, viz: the man in his natural state has lost the image of God, and that it can never be restored to him except as he comes to God through Jesus Christ. John Burroughs, the great naturalist, was seated one day on the veranda of his hostess, whose residence overlooked the Hudson River, when she complained to him of the scarcity of bird-life in her locality. Said Mr. Burroughs, in surprise: " While I have been sitting here I have counted not less than twelve different species of birds." " What," she replied, " is it possible that I have been here all summer and have seen so few, and you, in the course of half an hour, have seen so many ?" His reply has a lesson in it for the spiritual sphere: " Ah, madam, you must have the bird in your heart before you can have it in your eye!" The knowledge of God, which is the restoration in man of God’s image, is not the knowledge of the head, but of the heart. Our Lord and Saviour said: " This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent." The knowledge of God in that sense is not intellectual but moral. " Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again." NOTE. The evolution theory has been associated chiefly with the name of Darwin, but modern philosophers, especially among the Germans, believe it has seen its best days. Even in the last decade of the nineteenth century a few timid expressions of doubt and opposition were heard, to quote " The Literary Digest," and these have gradually swollen into a great chorus of voices aiming at the overthrow of the theory altogether. Prof. Fleischmann in a recent book upon the subject affirms that: "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of research, but purely the product of the imagination." "The Other Side of Evolution," by Rev. Alexander Patterson, an inexpensive book of 150 pages, is recommended to those who would like to see something of both sides in a condensed form. A still smaller publication, and of much value, is " The Collapse of Evolution " by Prof. Luther T. Townsend, D. D. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 43: 03.02. WHEN SIN ENTERED THE WORLD ======================================================================== CHAPTER II. When Sin Entered The World. Genesis 2:1-25 and Genesis 3:1-24. Let us open our Bibles at Genesis 2:4. Our theme is " When Sin Entered the World," and in the working out of it there will be four or five stages of development. We begin with I. THE CREATION OF MAN, Genesis 2:4-7 : " These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. * * * 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." The phrase " These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth " refers to that which follows it rather than that which goes before. And the most important thing which follows is the record of the creation of man, where it is written that the Lord God formed him of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, so that he became a living soul. We thus perceive, as was intimated a week ago, that man is as to his nature a kind of trinity; he has a body, a soul, and a spirit, and the soul seems to be the meeting-place of the body and the spirit. The New Testament emphasizes the same truth, where Paul, in his prayer for the young Christians at Thessalonica, expresses the desire that their spirit, and soul and body may be preserved entire and without blame at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thessalonians 5:23). The early church expected His near return just as we should be expecting it, and it was Paul’s wish that they might be on the earth when He came, entire as to their body, soul, and spirit, and thus be caught up to meet Him in the air. To the same purport, the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the Word of God as quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit. (Hebrews 4:12). THE SOUL AND THE BODY. There is, therefore, a distinction between the soul and the spirit of man, just as there is between his soul and body. What the distinction is, it is difficult to say, but psychologists speak of the body as the seat of our sense-consciousness, the soul as the seat of our self-consciousness, and the spirit as the seat of our God-consciousness. With our body in other words, we know things that are round about us, with our soul we know ourselves and with our spirit we know God. It is significant in this connection that God speaks of the regenerated man as one. in whom He will " create a clean heart" and " renew a right spirit," a spirit that can know Him, and hence hold fellowship with Him, as we have seen, in love, and service, and perfection. Have you been born again, and do you thus know God ? This is the first of questions. God help you to settle it now, and to settle it right. II. Let us now pass to THE LOCATION OF MAN, Genesis 2:8-15 : "And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And. out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." There are those who hold that the garden of Eden is simply a fancy and not a fact, and that the incident here recorded is not historical, but a myth or allegory. It seems to me, in reply, that the Holy Spirit would hardly take the pains He evidently does to describe this locality, if that were true. Nor would He so trifle with the intelligence and credulity of His creatures. To my mind, no further answer is required to prove the historicity of Eden. Just notice the particularity referred to. He speaks first of Eden, then of a location eastward in Eden, and then of a garden in that location, as though one alluded to the United States, then to the state of Illinois, and finally to the city of Chicago. Notice the topographical data. Particular attention is directed to a river that went out of Eden to water the garden. And it must have been a great river, since it subsequently became divided into four, indicating the location to have been in the uplands in order to give rise to it. WHERE WAS EDEN? Even the names of the rivers flowing from the original are given. The last two are identified by everyone, and it is thought by many that the first two are the Kur and the Araxes, which flow into the Caspian Sea; and if this be so, then they compassed the land we know now as Armenia. In further corroboration of this, I may say that modern science substantiates it in at least two ways: first, by affirming that the human race came from a common center; and second, that that center must have been in the tableland of central Asia. I should like to repeat here what I said in the previous lecture, that while the Bible does not profess to teach science, or to give a history of the world, or even of the human race, yet modern research has not been able in any way to contradict any scientific or historical fact which the Bible has recorded. THE MEANING OF THE TREES. When God refers to " the tree of life," some suppose it means that the tree possessed the gift of physical immortality; that its " leaves were for the healing of the nations," to heal wounds, to counteract sickness, to repair daily waste and keep the springs of activity and enjoyment preserved in abounding fulness. If this be so, then observe again God’s kindness in excluding man, after the fall, from the garden. There was judgment in that act, but mercy too; for since man had come to possess the knowledge of evil, without the power of resisting it, had he still been at liberty to lay hold of and eat of the tree of life, might it not have meant a physical perpetuation in this condition of moral deformity forever? When God speaks of " the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," it is supposed to be meant that by disobedience in the eating of it, man came to have a value of goodness and a sense of evilness which otherwise he had not, and could not have obtained. The opening of his eyes to perceive that he was naked, of which we read in a later verse, is an illustration of what is meant by his now coming into this experience. III. To pass to THE MORAL TEST OF MAN, Genesis 2:16-17 : "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." We inquire, perhaps, why God should have put a moral test upon man at all ? The answer is that man is a free agent. Such is man’s glory although it is also his peril. If he were a mere machine, God might command his obedience, and do with him what Orville Wright does with his airship, causing it to ascend into the air as he wills, and to go wherever he pleases. But if man is a free moral agent, as God Himself is, then should he obey God at all in a way to glorify Him, it must be by a cheerful, loving act of his own volition. So, in order to determine that, God gives him this moral test. It was given in love, and it was dignifying to man. When God says, " The day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," or, as the margin puts it, " Dying thou shalt die," He meant just what He said; and man did die that day in a spiritual sense, for he was then excluded from the presence of the Lord in being driven from the garden of Eden. Exclusion from the presence of the Lord meant, of course, exclusion from His communion and fellowship. That is always what is meant by spiritual death. It is not annihilation, as some would have us believe, but eternal exclusion from the presence of the Lord, and, of course, communion and fellowship with Him. But Adam died also in a physical sense, for there, no doubt, the seeds of disease entered his frame, and being no longer in a position to eat of the tree of life, there was no other outcome but that of returning unto the dust from which he came. IV. We hasten on to the most important part of the lesson, THE TEMPTATION OF MAN, Genesis 3:1-7 : " 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 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 unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they know that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." It is thought by some that the serpent originally moved upright like a man, that it was very beautiful to look upon, and perhaps possessed the organs of speech. We do not know that this is so, although to a certain extent naturalists confirm it, saying that the serpent, while one of the latest creations of the animal kingdom, is at the same time a kind of retrogression in that kingdom, as though the work of creation were turned back in its case. However that may be, we know that more than the serpent is here. We know it not only because of the possession of the organs of speech, and the intellectual acuteness and subtlety we discover, but because of the spiritual nature of the temptation and especially what the New Testament teaches on the subject, identifying the old serpent with the devil and Satan. (See Revelation 12:9; Revelation 20:2). Satan found it most to his advantage to use this particular beast for his hellish purpose in the seduction of our first parents. THE FIRST INTERROGATION POINT. In that connection, notice how Satan employs the interrogation point for the first time in sacred literature. Have you ever observed particularly the formation of this punctuation mark? How it resembles a serpent, erect, neck arched, mouth open, fangs protruding as if ready to inject its poison into one! And that is precisely what Satan now does in a moral and spiritual sense, saying to the woman: " Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree in the garden ?" The inference from his words being that God hath not said anything, and if He hath, what difference doth it make? I would have you observe that the devil has been using the interrogation point ever since in the same way and for the same purpose. The question he is continually raising before the minds and hearts of men and women is the same old question, " Is the Bible the Word of God?" and " Is there any obligation resting upon human beings to obey it ?" You will observe further, that the poison had already entered Eve’s soul, as indicated in her reply, since she says: " 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." That was a lie. God had not forbidden them to touch the tree, but simply to eat of it. But from that time on mankind, in a similar fashion, has ever been charging God with unkindness, and claiming that His commandments are more grievous and His burdens heavier to be borne than they really are. On almost every corner you meet men and women putting up this argument for their disobedience and unbelief. You will observe, too, the deep and acute reason which Satan presents for disobeying God, adding: " Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God (R. V.), knowing good and evil." Aye, there is the rub! It was by pride that Satan himself fell, for he snatched at the very Godhead itself. And now he seeks by the same kind of pride and ambition to bring man down to his own level, and in so far succeeds. WHAT IS THE ROOT-SIN? Pride is the root-sin of the human heart, and its essence consists in the desire to be as God; not indeed to be as He is in personal holiness, but in carnal knowledge, in self-importance, in freedom from restraint, and in the power to command worship. To quote another, this is the trump card in the hand of the arch-fiend. " Sensuality might be thought to be a stronger temptation of man; but, in the long run, intellectual pride and vaulting ambition, are as much stronger as mind is superior to body. " An eagle’s wings may be tied to the ground, and become bedraggled with the mud and soot of its surroundings, just as sensuality may ensnare a man and smut him; yet the captive bird has ever an eye for the sun, and is impatient to mount and soar away into the heavens. " That even sinless minds, as Adam and Eve, may be fascinated by the dazzle of self-deification is proof of its extraordinary witchery." We have an illustration on a national scale of man’s desire to be as God in the history of the French revolution, where only one hundred years ago, " a people in the front rank of learning and culture, with profane excitement, enthroned human reason as their god, and deified even a harlot!" And we have illustrations of it continually in individual cases, in what we know of anarchism for example. But to come still closer home, what shall we say of the false religious teachings of the day which are so general, and which give encouragement to the same sin by elevating man in his own estimation, and exalting humanity to an equality with God ? As one of the moderns expresses it in verse: " Men have professed their love of God, of king, Of church, of state, of friends, of family. A loftier strain than all of these I sing: I love Humanity. " Divide not and exclude not. Build no wall. No special tie shall bind me from the Whole. Love’s garment has no rent. It clothes the All. I love the Cosmic Soul." Finally, when the Antichrist shall at last arise, that secular despot who shall be at the head of the nations of Christendom, the culminating act of his iniquity will be the avowed dethronement of God. He himself shall be found sitting in the temple of God, giving out that he is God. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-17) In that day, thank God, the true Church, as distinct from Christendom, will have been translated to meet the Lord in the air, but Christendom itself will be bowing down to the Antichrist recognizing in him a kind of incarnation and hence a deification of humanity. Satan’s lie will for a time be in the ascendant. THE FORMULA OF THE PIT. Notice, in the next place, what may be described as the natural history of sin: " 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." Here are three steps in sin’s development: When she saw (1) that the tree was good for food; (2) that it was pleasant to the eyes; and (3) to be desired to make one wise. You recall that formula of iniquity which John gives in his first Epistle (1 John 2:1-29), speaking of it as " the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life." Behold Satan acting in accordance with it here. The tree was good for food-the lust of the flesh; pleasant to the eyes-the lust of the eyes; to be desired to make one wise-the pride of life. Observe how he acted upon the same plan in the temptation of the second Adam in the wilderness. " If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread"-the lust of the flesh. Then he " taketh him up into a high mountain and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, and saith, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me "-the lust of the eyes. Then he carrieth him to the temple, and placeth him upon a pinnacle of it, and saith unto him, " Cast thyself down, for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee, and they shall hold thee up in their hands, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone "-the pride of life, as evidenced in the doing of a great miracle. Satan still works upon the same plan. There are some he can ensnare by the lust of the flesh, taking them through the lower and baser appetites of the body. There are others he can ensnare by the lust of the eyes, setting before them the glamour, " the vain pomp and glory of the world." There are still others, however, he can only take by the snare of intellectual pride, entrapping them through the puffing up of their fleshly minds, and the assertion of their own philosophy against the revelation of God and the cross of Jesus Christ. We want to be on our guard against him at each point, for by one or another is it in his power, through sin, to bring us all into captivity to his will, except as we place our trust in Jesus Christ. V. Let us now pass, in closing, to the last stage of the development of our theme, namely, THE TRIAL, PENALTY, AND REDEMPTION OF MAN. It runs from Genesis 3:8-21, but I will ask you to read only Genesis 3:14-15, and Genesis 3:21 : "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: 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." " Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them." First, God gives a trial to the man and to the woman, and then to the serpent. The penalty in each case follows the trial, but it is that upon the serpent which especially interests us because in connection with it, God gives us the earliest promise of redemption through His Son. When He says: " Thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go," we have another intimation of what was alluded to previously, that the serpent may originally have moved erect, like a man. And when He says: " Dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life," we may emphasize the last phrase, for it is remarkable that even in the millennial age, when the curse will be removed from all the rest of the animal creation, as from man, it will still rest upon the serpent. In corroboration of this, note the words of Isaiah, referring to that day, " The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat." (Isaiah 65:25). THE FIRST PROMISE OF REDEMPTION. When, however, we reach the fifteenth verse, it is not the serpent that God is dealing with, but Satan, who is back of the serpent. " The seed of the serpent" may easily be identified as the generations of evil men in all the days, even as Jesus says in the parable of the wheat and the tares, " The tares are the children of the wicked one." And so, in like manner, it might be supposed that " the seed of the woman " represents the generations of the righteous, a thought not to be excluded in view of such a teaching as that of Psalms 22:1-31, " a seed shall serve him;" but the strict application of the phrase is to the person of Jesus Christ Himself. In the first place, the emphasis on " woman" in the verse suggests the virgin birth of Jesus, but whether or no, the whole story of the Bible, and hence the whole story of redemption gathers round this " seed." It is referred to again in connection with the call of Abraham and the founding of the nation of Israel as we see in Genesis 12:3 and elsewhere. Isaac, the son of Sarah, was the immediate realization of this promise, and yet he was only the type of the true Isaac who was to come. This is shown by Paul’s words to the Galatians where he says: " Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." It was this same seed that Nathan had in view when revealing the divine promise to David that his son should sit upon his throne and his kingdom be established forever; and indeed " to him bear all the prophets witness." SHALL SATAN EVER DIE? But God goes on to say: " It shall bruise thine head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." The bruising of Satan’s head began when Christ overcome him in the wilderness; another stage was reached in His resurrection, when he spoiled principalities and powers, making a show of them openly, triumphing over them in the cross. (Colossians 2:15). Another will come when at His second coming Satan shall be bound in the bottomless pit for a thousand years. (Revelation 20:1) ; but the final stage only will be accomplished when, after the millennial age he shall be " cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, and be tormented day and night forever and ever." (Revelation 20:10). We thus see that as the bruising of the head of the serpent means its destruction, so the bruising of the head of Satan means that Jesus Christ shall utterly destroy him. Nevertheless, such destruction is not annihilation, if, according to the scriptures quoted, he is to be tormented forever and ever, but Christ destroys him in the sense in which it is written in the Hebrews 2:14-15. " 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 had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them, who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." The moment a man accepts Christ, the seed of the woman, as his personal Redeemer and Saviour, he comes out from under the power of the devil, knowing that there is therefore now no condemnation upon him, because he is in Christ Jesus. (Romans 8:1). Nevertheless, God says of Satan: "Thou shalt bruise his heel." We know the kind of bruising Satan did. From the very infancy of Jesus until the day when upon the cross He exclaimed: "It is finished," Satan bruised Him. " He was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief." " But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." (Isaiah 53:1-12). Praise be to God for the first promise of redemption, and for the first revelation of the Redeemer! Have we yet laid hold of Him by faith ? THE SYMBOL OF THE COATS OF SKINS. But God does more than this. He not only gives us a promise of redemption, but a symbol of it as well, for we find in the twenty-first verse that, " Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them." When their eyes were opened to behold their nakedness, they sought to cover their shame in God’s sight by the aprons of fig leaves. What is meant by nakedness in this case? May it have been that when God first breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life, with such inbreathing of His Spirit, as with the light in a porcelain globe, there shone round the man the glory of a lustrous halo? Was he covered with light as with a garment? And is it possible that when he lost his inner glory through sin he lost this outer glory also ? At all events, we see him trying to make up for his loss by a substitute so inadequate. And behold here an illustration of man everywhere when awakened to perceive what sin is, and brought under conviction for it. See how he tries to hide his moral nakedness in the sight of God by the covering of his own good works, his morality, his self-righteousness, his church-membership, his prayers, his repentance, his tears. THE FOUNDATION OF THE GOSPEL. What are any and all of these things, except the apron of fig leaves? God only can cover a man’s spiritual shame. And how did He do it in this case, and what means did He use? To obtain that covering must not the slaying of an innocent victim have been necessary? Thus at the very beginning of man’s sin God lays down the truth that " without shedding of blood there is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22), and points us to the Lamb of God Whom Peter has in mind when he says: " We were not redeemed with corruptible things as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish, and without spot." (1 Peter 1:18-19). Because of the shedding of the blood, God is now able to cover Adam and Eve, that the shame of their nakedness should not appear, and so He covers you and me in Christ Jesus, as we receive Him as our Saviour. He gives unto us " the garments of salvation " and covers us " with the robe of righteousness." " 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." (2 Corinthians 5:21). Behold, the mercy and condescension of God, His grace and love, at the very beginning of man’s need, since he supplies that need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus! THE TRIAL OF ROJESTVENSKY. You recall what occurred in that great sea battle off the coast of Japan, in the Russo-Japanese war. The commander of the Russian fleet was Admiral Rojestvensky. When he and his captains returned home they were court-martialed for their humiliating defeat. But do you remember this further fact? As each captain presented himself in court he was accompanied by counsel, who presented a defense and made a plea for exoneration and freedom, but in every case he was found guilty, and sentenced to death. When, however, the admiral himself appeared he was unattended, and standing before his judges he simply said: " Sirs, Russia’s fleet has been humiliated, the people have confidence in you, I await my punishment." There was no plea, no excuse, no extenuation. And yet the admiral alone was exonerated and granted liberty. It is written in the Scriptures that "He that covereth his sins shall not prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. (Proverbs 28:13). I plead with you who are out of Christ, that on the basis of this promise of a Redeemer, and this fact of redemption which God has set before us, you come to Him through Jesus Christ. Confess your sin, and forsake it and receive Him, of Whom it is written, that "As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 44: 03.03. WHEN THE FIRST CITY WAS BUILT ======================================================================== CHAPTER III. When The First City Was Built. Genesis 4:1-26 and Genesis 5:1-32. SOMETIME ago in an eloquent and interesting address on the Bible, the speaker said: " Young man, cling to your Bible; our civilization is built upon it, and it has a sure foundation;" which remark reminds me of General U. S. Grant who, speaking of his experience at West Point, said that he graduated very near the head of his class, if it were turned around. The remark, in other words, would be a great truth, if it were only true; but as a matter of fact it is not true. Our civilization is not based upon the Bible and hence has not a sure foundation, but a very shaky one. John Lothrop Motley, referring to the breakdown of the House of Hapsburg, says that there are no real catastrophes in history. " Sap-sap-sap,-gnaw-gnaw-gnaw,-nibble-nibble-nibble, a million mildews, and rats and mice, do their work for ages, and at last a huge fabric goes down in a smash, and the foolish chroniclers of the day wonder why it tumbles. The wonder was that the hollow thing stood so long." Some day this civilization of ours will go down in a mighty smash. " The stone cut out from the mountain without hands " will strike the image upon its feet, and the whole of it will disappear like chaff upon the summer threshing floor. WHEN AUSTRIA DISAPPEARED. Motley did not mean that Austria had disappeared, but only the traditional German Empire or confederation with a Hapsburg word to it, the Austria prestige, the great imperial, military, dictatorial power. And so the nations will not altogether disappear nor the people that compose them in the day of which I speak, but everything in or among them that represents our present governments and forms of authority. In a word, our civilization shall give place at length to the kingdom which the God of heaven shall set up and which shall never be destroyed. It will be a catastrophe when it comes, and yet, as in the case of the House of Hapsburg, it will only be the culmination of the sins of all the former centuries which have gone before, and very particularly those of that century itself. The elements that will bring this to pass are already working within the bounds of Christendom under the name of that civilization of which we boast, and it is the province of this lecture to point out some of them. The particular theme is, " When the First City was Built." We shall divide it into three parts, and consider: 1. The Sacrifice of Abel. 2. The Posterity of Cain. 3. The Translation of Enoch. All of which bear the closest relation to one another. I. Let us read the story of Abel, Genesis 4:1-8 : "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. 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: but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." When, in the first verse, it is written that Eve, bare Cain and said: " I have gotten a man " or " I have gotten the man from the Lord," there are those who believe she was referring to the Deliverer spoken of in the preceding chapter, the seed of the woman who should bruise the serpent’s head. But if she believed Cain were he, she was soon undeceived, as we may gather from the name of her second son, Abel, which means " that which passeth away as a breath." In process of time these two sons came to present their offerings unto the Lord, when Cain brought of the fruit of the ground, and Abel of the firstlings of his flock, and the fat thereof; and the Lord had respect unto Abel and his offering, but unto Cain and his offering He had not respect. Just how He showed His respect to the one and His disrespect to the other is not stated, but perhaps, as on later occasions, fire may have come out from before the Lord and consumed the one in token of its acceptance, leaving the other untouched. WHAT MADE THE DIFFERENCE? But a far more important question is, Why was Abel’s offering accepted and Cain’s rejected? The importance of this question cannot be overemphasized, because it has the most vital bearing upon the race in all the generations since. In answer, we cannot suppose that Abel’s sacrifice had a higher market value that that of Cain, for it is almost inconceivable that market values should have been considered then. Moreover, it is written in the New Testament that " If there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not." (2 Corinthians 8:12). Neither can we suppose that Abel’s offering was accepted because he was a better man than Cain, for God is no respecter of persons when it is a question of two men who are alike sinners. This was true of Abel and Cain, who were both sons of sinful parents, both born outside of Eden, and hence both children of wrath, even as others. Abel’s character was no better intrinsically than Cain’s, and the ground of his acceptance could not have been found in himself. Indeed, we only discover the answer to this question in the New Testament, where we read in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, that " By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain." By faith in what, or in whom? Manifestly faith in some preceding promise of God, or some preceding revelation wherein He showed how a guilty sinner might approach a holy God. And if we are asked what that promise was, we find it in the third chapter, in the reference to that Deliverer, the seed of the woman who should bruise the serpent’s head. And if we ask what the revelation was, we find it in connection with the coats of skins which God made for Adam and Eve, and where doubtless, He laid down the principle that it was possible for guilty man to put the life of another between himself and God; and where He showed him that he could not approach God except through the shedding of blood. Abel believed God’s promise, and came to God in God’s appointed way; he surrendered his will to the divine will, and hence was accepted. THE FIRST RATIONALIST. Cain, on the other hand, was the first rationalist in sacred history. He was a moral man as well as Abel, and a religious man, or he would not have presented an offering to God at all. But, nevertheless, he was a self-willed man, who chose to follow the light of reason rather than revelation. He presented to the Lord of the fruit of the ground, a thank-offering for the abundant harvest but nothing more. Such an offering was good as far as it went, but it is to be remembered, that no man’s offering can be accepted until the man himself is accepted. God help us to apprehend that clearly! And the only ground upon which any sinner can be accepted is that of the finished work of Jesus Christ, revealed in prophecy and symbol in the garden of Eden. In the light of that circumstance and explanation, observe the gracious condescension of God in expostulating with Cain, and saying, " Why is thy countenance fallen? if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." That last phrase is worthy of consideration. It seems to suggest that sin, like a beast of prey, is couchant at Cain’s door ready to spring upon him and devour him if he be not on his guard. But there is another way of looking at it. The Hebrew word for " sin " is the same as that for " sin-offering," and it might read thus: " If thou doest not well, the sin-offering lieth at the door;" in other words, " Thou hast the same opportunity to approach me as Abel had; the lamb is nigh thee; put thy hand upon its head as thy substitute; present the atoning sacrifice as he did; yield up that life in the place of thine, as I have revealed to thee, and thou shalt be accepted as thy brother was." RELIGION NOT ENOUGH. God in the same way is expostulating with men and women here. You may be moral and righteous as the world regards you; you may be religious as Cain was; perhaps you are members of some church, and yet, for all that, you have never come to God in God’s way; you have never presented the Lamb " that taketh away the sin of the world." God is pleading with you and saying what He said to Cain: " If thou doest not well, the sin-offering lieth at the door." Take the Lord Jesus Christ now. Let those familiar words of Charlotte Elliott come up into thy heart, that God may hear them: "Just as I am, without one plea, But that Thy blood was shed for me, And that Thou bid’st me come to Thee, O Lamb of God, I come." Will you stand with believing Abel or with unbelieving Cain? II. But let us pass to the second division of our subject, THE POSTERITY OF CAIN, which bears the closest relation to the sacrifice of Abel. Genesis 4:16-24 : "And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael began Lamech. And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah. And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold." When it is said that " Cain went out from the presence of the Lord," what does it mean ? Scarcely that he went out from the garden of Eden, for his parents had already been excluded thence before his birth. But we recall that when God drove out the man from the garden, He placed " at the east of the garden cherubim and a naming sword," " to keep the way of the tree of life." Some would translate " a flaming sword" by " shekinah," which gives the thought of that visible cloud of glory which, later on, always symbolizes the divine presence; and it may be that after our first parents were driven out of the garden, God manifested Himself to them thus in the shekinah, where they worshipped and communed with Him. IN THE LAND OF NOD. If such be true, then that is what is meant when we read that " Cain went out from the presence of the Lord "-He went out from the shekinah glory. Now he has become a wanderer,-for that is the meaning of the word " Nod "-the land of wandering. What a type of the sinner, always and everywhere! He is a wanderer in the land of wandering. You will recall in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, that " when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, taking vengeance against them that know not God and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ," " they shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power." Suffer the repetition of the thought that throughout eternity the conscious retribution of the wicked is not annihilation, but separation from the presence of the Lord, from communion and fellowship with Him, and those who know and love Him. When, in the next verse of our lesson we read that " Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bare Enoch, and he builded a city and called it after the name of his son," there are two or three things that call for explanation. Where did Cain get his wife? How many ask that question! Some people refuse to believe anything in the Bible unless you can answer that to their satisfaction. And yet it is a simple answer. Remember that a long period of time must have elapsed between the birth of Cain and the death of Abel, and that many sons and daughters may have been born to Adam and Eve of whom there is no record here. WHOM DID CAIN MARRY? The Bible is not a history of the world, nor of the human race, but simply the history of the redemption of the race. That is the single thread running all through the Bible, and God only takes a stitch with it here and there in the fabric of the world’s history just to keep it before us. He alludes only to certain men and women, and to certain events in the history of the world which are necessary to illustrate and set before us what He is doing with reference to the redemption of the race. Hence Cain and Abel are mentioned, but the other sons and daughters of Adam and Eve are not named. Cain, of course, married one of his own sisters, which was not a sin in itself. On the contrary, the human race could not otherwise have been propagated; but by and by, God, in express commandment, declared such unions to be sinful, and woe be to them now who enter into them. (Leviticus 18:9). When it is said that the name of Cain’s son was Enoch, let us not confound him with another person of the name whom we shall consider later on; and when it is said that he " builded a city," let us not conceive of a city like Chicago, with its streets and market-places and its great and magnificent architecture. Perhaps the city at first was only a stockade, a protected place for the habitation of his family; and yet, considering the centuries he may have lived, the city before his decease may have grown to a prodigious size. That in which we are particularly interested, however, is the story of Lamech, because the Holy Spirit is interested in it, and sets it before us in detail. He does so that we may discover the nature and extent of the civilization of that early time and the end to which it came. FEMININE CHARMS. In Lamech’s story the first thing we learn is that he took unto himself two wives, in other words, he was the first polygamist in sacred history. We learn next that the name of one of these wives was " Adah " and the other " Zillah." It is significant that the Holy Spirit pauses to give the names of these women. With the exception of Eve, no other names of women are given, if I remember correctly, for two thousand years, until we reach the period of Abraham and Sarah. Why does the Holy Spirit give us these names? Can it be because of their meaning? Adah means " ornament;" Zillah, " shade;" and Naamah, " lovely," as though the physical beauty and sensual attractions of women were coming to be prominent as not before. In the next verse our attention is called to the development of wealth and commerce. Jabal was the first nomad of whom we read, " the father of such as dwell in tents and have cattle," a man of possessions, and trade and commerce. His brother’s name was " Jubal," and he was the founder of what we call the arts, and the introducer of the means for pleasure and amusement, the dance and the song, in the civilization of that day, " the father of all such as handle the harp and the organ," or the harp and the pipe. Another brother’s name was Tubal-cain," the " instructor of every artificer in brass and iron," or the founder of what we call the mechanical sciences,-" the forger of every cutting instrument of brass and iron," the Revised Version reads. WHAT CIVILIZATION IS. We thus see the elements of civilization set before us, wealth, commerce, the arts, the sciences, the pleasures and the amusements of society, the comforts and the conveniences of life. In other words, the Holy Spirit emphasizes that the posterity of Cain did everything they could to make themselves as happy and content as possible in the life of sin, without seeking to be delivered from it. And this conviction is forced upon us with greater power still when we read in the following verse that Lamech has practically thrown off the authority and worship of God altogether, and become a kind of anarchist and atheist, saying to his wives, " Hear my voice, ye wives of Lamech, Hearken unto my speech; For I have slain a man for wounding me, And a young man for bruising me." Singularly enough, this speech is in the poetic form, and may have become a classic as it was handed down by tradition to later generations. The lawlessness of the man is seen in that he is taking the law into his own hands, just as men and women are doing today in our advanced civilization, taking away life when they desire to, and being defended in the act by lawyers, and exonerated from the crime by juries. Lamech is not only an anarchist, however, but an atheist, a worshipper of the god of forces, for in the next verse he exclaims: " If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold." God had set a mark upon Cain, and said that should he be slain vengeance would be taken upon the perpetrator of the deed sevenfold, but Lamech boastingly declares: " See how much greater I am than God! What is His power compared to my sword? Would He avenge Cain sevenfold ? I have power in myself to be avenged seventy times sevenfold." This is one side of civilization-the wealth, the commerce, the arts, the sciences, the pleasures, the amusements, the comforts, the conveniences; and on the other side sin, polygamy, sensuality, anarchy and atheism! Is it not the same today? And is such a civilization based on the Bible, and has it a sure foundation? This is the end of Lamech, and the posterity of Cain so far as the Bible record goes. It began in one murderer, and it ended in another. III. But now God shows us another picture in connection with the TRANSLATION OF ENOCH and the posterity of Seth, Genesis 4:25-26 : "And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the the name of the Lord." The Holy Spirit here shows us the difference between the Sethites and Cainites in three ways: 1. Their mode of living. 2. Their spirit of worship. 3. The character of their posterity. (1) As to their mode of living, there is no mention of the building of cities, and nothing is said about wealth and commerce; nor the arts and sciences; nor pleasures and amusements; nor the comforts and conveniences of life. And correspondingly, nothing is said about polygamy or sensuality, or anarchy, or atheism. I do not affirm that the Sethites did not live in cities; nor that they had no wealth, nor that they did not engage in commerce. Neither do I affirm that they knew nothing about the arts and sciences, and had no pleasures and amusements, or comforts and conveniences. Most particularly do I not say that they were not sinners, or knew nothing about the iniquities referred to in the line of Cain. I am only trying to remember that the omissions of the Holy Spirit in the Bible are sometimes as significant as the things recorded. When He has omitted all reference to these things in the line of Seth, and laid emphasis upon them in the line of Cain, it seems to me that He would have us do the same, and to understand that the Sethites were differentiated in these ways from the Cainites. In other words, the former were a meek, humble, separated people, and while using the world they were not abusing it. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NAMES OF DEITY. (2) As to their spirit of worship, it is written that " then men began to call upon the name of the LORD." The word " LORD " is printed in the text in capital letters, and wherever it is so found in the Old Testament, it indicates that the original word is " Jehovah." This is the name of the Deity that brings Him near to His people, while " God " is the name which conceives of Him rather as far off. In other words, when we speak of " God" we think of the Creator, but when by contrast we speak of "Jehovah " we think of the Redeemer. Thus when the men of Seth began to call upon the Name of Jehovah, evidently, like Abel, they were looking towards the Deliverer promised in the third of Genesis, " the seed of the woman " who should bruise the serpent’s head. They were basing their confidence for salvation and fellowship with God upon the vicarious atonement set before them symbolically in the coats of skins. (3) As to their posterity, we might discover many things were we to consider all the verses of the following chapter, but for the sake of brevity let us focus our attention, as the Holy Spirit does, upon a single individual. That individual is Enoch, the seventh from Adam in line of Seth, as Lamech was the seventh in the line of Cain. Is it not remarkable that these two men should be brought before us in this sharp contrast? Lamech representing the civilization of the world, its accomplishments and results, and Enoch representing the life of faith in the same way. Let us read the record of Enoch in Genesis 5:21-24 : "And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah: And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: and all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: and Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him." " And Enoch walked with God." " Can two walk together except they be agreed?" See what this means as to communion and fellowship with God. A little girl once said: " Enoch walked with God, and one day he walked so far that he forgot ever to come back again." " He was not, for God took him." We learn from the eleventh chapter of Hebrews this means that he was translated, having never seen death. What a reward for faith, and holiness, and separation! And it is a reward by no means limited to Enoch. It is written in the New Testament, that, " It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment," and as I have reminded you before, this has sometimes been rendered as though it were, " It is appointed unto all men once to die, and after this the judgment." But such is not the case. There is one generation of men living on this earth in the flesh who shall never see death, namely, those who, believing on the Lord Jesus Christ and looking for His coming, shall be alive and remaining here on the earth when He comes, who shall be caught up in the clouds to meet Him in the air, and so to be forever with Him. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). What God did in the case of one man, He is able to do in the case of many. And for all we know, my brethren, it may be God’s pleasure at any time to send His chariots to carry us who are waiting for Him to meet Him in the air. Again let us ask ourselves the question as to which of these two classes we belong ? Are we in the line of Cain or Seth? What Will Happen When The Church Is CAUGHT UP? ’ Remember that when Enoch was translated he left the wicked world behind him as it was. It continued in its polygamy and sensuality, in the accumulation of its wealth, the extension of its commerce, the enjoyment of its art and science, its pleasures and amusements, its comforts and conveniences; and also in its iniquity and wickedness until at last God was obliged, consistently with His righteousness and truth, to sweep them all away with the exception of eight souls. When the Church shall be translated to meet the Lord in the air, it will leave the wicked world behind it. Christendom will be on the earth when the Church is translated, for there is a distinction between Christendom and the true Church of Christ, which is His body. Our civilization will be progressing then just as it is now. There will be still the accumulation of wealth, the extension of commerce, the enjoyment of art and science, the pleasures and amusements, and the comforts and conveniences of the time. And side by side with all these things will be the polygamy, (and worse than that, for men have now found through the divorce court an easier and cheaper way to gratify their lust), and anarchy, and atheism, and all the rest, until God shall give the nations to His Son for His inheritance. Who shall " break them with a rod of iron," and " dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel." That is what our civilization is coming to, and the kind of foundation upon which it rests. In the face of such a fact, where do we stand ? WHERE CHRISTIANS STAND. If we are men and women of God, if we are in the line of Seth rather than Cain, then three things are true of us, according to this record. In the first place, like the Sethites as represented by Enoch, we are witnessing and waiting for the coming of our Lord from heaven (Jude 1:14). And secondly, we are witnessing and waiting for Him because we are separated from the world unto God, using it as not abusing it; having come to apprehend, that if we " love the world, the love of the Father is not in us, and the world passeth away, and the lust thereof." (1 John 2:15-17). But thirdly, if we are separated from the world in this sense, then it means that we have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ as our Saviour, and have confessed Him with our mouth before men as our Lord. Have we done this? It is an easy thing and a simple thing to do, and it may be done now. You may take your place with the people of God tonight as you sit in this edifice, and be counted with them forever. " THE SHOT HEARD ROUND THE WORLD." Every American, and many who are not Americans, know the story of Concord bridge and the patriotic memories that gather round April 19, 1775: " By the rude bridge that arched the flood, Their flag to April breeze unfurled, Here once the embattled farmers stood And fired the shot heard round the world." There was a moment when those farmers were British subjects, owning their allegiance to King George; but there was another moment when they had turned their backs upon that allegiance, and had become American citizens. That was the moment when, in obedience to the command of John Buttrick, they fired " the shot heard round the world " upon the redcoats at the other end. In a moment, by hearing and heeding the divine command thou canst be "turned from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God." In the moment thou dost believe on the Lord Jesus Christ thou canst be translated from the powers of darkness into the kingdom of the Son of God’s love. Will you change your allegiance today? God help you to do it, for His name’s sake! ======================================================================== CHAPTER 45: 03.04. WHEN THE FLOOD CAME ======================================================================== CHAPTER IV. When The Flood Came And Swept Them All Away. Genesis 6:1-22. In referring to that coming event of which all the prophets speak, Jesus said: "But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be " (Matthew 24:37-39). I. It behooves us, therefore, to consider the days of Noah and see what were their leading features, and compare them with those of our own days, if we would be wise in discerning the signs of the times. Happily we have not far to go, nor much space to cover, for God has condensed the history of the days of Noah into about three chapters of Genesis, viz.: four to six, and especially six. To be sure, there is not an abundance of detail here, but when we recall that God is giving a historic outline, not of a few decades or even centuries, but millenniums of years, we must be persuaded that the features of the period He dwells upon are dominant, and that they are those He would have us carefully consider for that reason. Just what these features are we will see as we read in Genesis 6:1-8 : "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." SIN IN THE CITIES. 1. The first feature to which our attention is here called is the increase of population. " It came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth." Attention was called to this in the last lecture, where we saw men building cities, amassing wealth, extending commerce, multiplying the arts and sciences, and enjoying the pleasures and amusements and the comforts and conveniences of life. Wherever men come together in large numbers there sin is not only diffused, but also intensified. There is sin in the country, but there is more in the city. As men thus get closer together they are better able to support one another in iniquity, and they grow more daring and defiant against God and His laws. As a matter of fact, all our great cities today are hot-beds of rationalism, infidelity and anarchy. 2. Another feature is the marked prominence of the female sex, since we read that " When men began to multiply on the face of the earth, daughters were born unto them." It is not remarkable, of course, that daughters should be born, but the divine historian says nothing about sons in the same connection, which is significant, especially in the light of what was brought before us in our previous lecture. There the Holy Spirit went out of His way apparently, to mention the names of three particular women. Significant because the names of no other women are given for a period of thousands of years, and especially so considering the meaning of the names, which indicated that the physical beauty and sensual attractions of the sex were now exercising an influence in the world which theretofore had not been known. FALLEN ANGELS. 3. The third feature is the irruption of fallen angels into the world of men, for we read (Genesis 6:3), "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." As I have stated on other occasions, that phrase " the sons of God " wherever in the Old Testament, refers not to men, but to angels; whether good or evil angels the context must determine. In this case it determines that they were evil angels. They had already fallen from their first estate of holiness and subjection to God, following in the lead of Satan, and now they are seen entering upon a deeper apostasy still, thrusting themselves through their own habitation into this earth. Nor are they content with influencing humankind for evil at a distance, but coming as closely as possible to men, and consorting with human flesh in what we define as the marriage relation. A great mystery is here, but were there time the declaration could be strongly buttressed by other passages in the Bible, and other historic facts. It was for this reason, and because of this crowning iniquity on the part of man, that Jehovah said: " My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh." The text goes on to say that "There were giants in the earth in those days." The Hebrew word for "giants" is "nephilim," which means, "the fallen ones." The fallen angels were in the earth in those days. "And also after that" the verse says. This irruption of fallen angels into the world of men was not limited to the antediluvian period, in other words, but was known also at a later time. THE LOVES OF THE GODS. That later time, by the way, is suggested to us in the story of the Canaanites, who were exterminated from their land among other reasons because of this very sin. In evidence of this you may recall that when Moses sent the spies into Canaan to reconnoitre it, the unbelieving ones returned, saying: " The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. And there we saw the giants "-that is, the nephilim, the fallen ones, a declaration they subsequently qualify by saying, "The sons of Anak, which come of the giants "-i.e. the offspring of the fallen ones-"and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." (Numbers 13:33). To return to Genesis 6:1-22 again.we read that " After that "-that is, after the antediluvian period-" when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." In this sentence we have an intimation of the source or origin whence the classic writers of antiquity obtained their notions concerning the loves of the gods and the demi-gods. Has that feature of mythology ever struck you as peculiar? Where did ancient literature obtain an idea like that ? Was there not back of it an awful fact? A fact of which those authors may have been cognizant in their own time, or which had been handed down to them by tradition? Is it not difficult otherwise to explain the legends of families half human and half divine? 4. A fourth feature was a general diffusion of infidelity and atheism, for it is written again that, " God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." This also was set before us in the last lecture. Lamech, the seventh from Adam in the line of Cain, and a kind of embodiment of his period, was a polygamist, a murderer, and a worshipper of the god of forces. But it would appear also that after the translation of Enoch, who came in the line of Seth, even the Sethites themselves fell into the same wickedness. Perhaps through inter-marrying with the Cainites, or some other cause, they had been seduced by the intellectual pursuits, the gay society, and the easy life of the wicked until (swallowed up in the same vortex) they disappeared as a separate people. And so it came about that as God looked down upon the face of the earth there was only one man that could be described by him as a preacher of righteousness, and who, with his family, He saved. 5. Finally, the days of Noah were marked by an excess of riot, for we read in the twelfth verse, omitted previously, that " The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence." ANTEDILUVIAN CIVILIZATION. And now in noting these things, remember that side by side with them, the communication with evil spirits, the spread of infidelity and atheism, and the excess of violence and riot, that the civilization of the period was going on, advancing and progressing on every side. And little do we apprehend what that civilization may have been. We boast of our civilization today, but ours may not be comparable with that of the antediluvian period. The men of those days were not limited in their acquirements to a period of three-score years and ten, or even four-score years, but lived to be hundreds of years old, some of them nearly a millennium; and hence had an amassing of knowledge, experience and skill to enrich their civilization, of which we can have little appreciation. As an illustration of this, Dr. George H. Pember, an English writer, speaks of the building of the ark, which was the work of a Sethite, and equalled in size the Great Eastern, the ship which but a few years ago afforded such marvel to ourselves, and which has only just now been surpassed. He thinks also that many of the mighty labors accomplished by the earlier descendants of Noah may have sprung from reminiscences of pristine grandeur, and fragments of lore, handed down by forefathers who had passed a portion of their existence in the previous age of glory and depravity. Among these labors he names the daring conception of a literally cloud-capped tower; the stupendous and splendidly decorated edifices of Babylon and Nineveh; and the wondrous structure of the first pyramid, involving as it did, an accurate knowledge of astronomical truth at least on a level with vaunted advances of modern science. All these great efforts it is to be remembered, were in progress during the lifetime of Shem, and probably that of his brothers also. And so they continued amassing wealth, and extending commerce, and multiplying the arts and sciences, and enjoying the pleasures and amusements, and the comforts and conveniences of a life in sin, or, as Jesus said: " They were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, and knew not, until the flood came and took them all away." II. Keeping these lines of comparison before us, let us now inquire whether there is anything in our time that parallels them in any degree. COMPASSING OUR OWN TIME. 1. What about the increase of population in our day? James J. Hill says that within forty years the United States will be called upon to feed a population of 200,000,000 people, and I suppose there is no man of like experience and observation who will question the fulfillment of that prediction. We ourselves see how all our cities are growing. What a marvel Chicago is, with its two millions of people within three-quarters of a century! And so far as my reading goes, I have observed that what is true of the cities of the United States is true of cities the world over. I need not repeat what was said a moment ago, that when men thus come together they soon begin to act upon the principle, human and not divine, that " in union there is strength." Thus organizations and federations are multiplied from year to year, without the thought or recognition of God in Christ, and even in opposition to Him, until we may well begin to question whether another tower of Babel is not near, with all its direful consequences. 2. Consider the marked prominence of women in our time. Let no one suppose that I have anything harsh to say against femininity. I have had a mother and a sister, and I have a wife; and if not blessed with daughters of my own, those furnished me by enterprising sons are multiplying delightfully. Little criticism have I to make and few comments, but I would set before you facts that are as plain as anything can be. Consider how women are in evidence in their personal appearance. Their hats for example; the powder and paint on their faces, even in the public streets; their boldness in dress that need not be described; their brazenness on the stage, and in the audiences of such performances, where, in the companionship of the opposite sex, they gaze upon a lewdness that would have shocked their mothers only a generation ago. WOMAN’S ACTIVITIES. Think of their influence in society, I mean their organized influence. I do not say that it is not often, and indeed usually, an influence with a good intent, but I am speaking only of the fact. Long has woman been potent in the drawing-room as a social arbiter, but now through clubs, and committees and other associations limited to her sex, she effectually touches life in the broadest way at almost every point. Think of her influence in business and professional life, occupying positions which until now have been thought only to belong to men, extending in their range from the pastorate to the spiritualistic mediumship, and from newspaper editing to expert mountain climbing. Think of her influence in the political world, not only holding office, but clamoring for the ballot, that she may act directly on the legislation of her land, even the land of Turkey, by the way. It is not so long ago, no longer than my boyhood, when it was the rarest thing to see the picture of a woman in a daily newspaper, and when its portrayal there brought a sneer to the lips of men and a blush to the cheeks of women. But today the pictures of women are as common in the newspapers as those of men, and did we include the magazine, the cigar-box cover and the bill-board, the latter are utterly outclassed by the representations of the female face and form. Referring to woman’s prominence in the professions and business life, an impish maiden recently rebuked an editor who deplored the fact, characterizing his words as " amusing." " Why don’t the men marry us and keep business for themselves ? " she asked. " If you have the notion that women prefer banging type-writers, or pushing sewing machines, or selling goods over the counter, to making homes for loving husbands and prattling children, why then, you are a goose of a man, and a very unobserving editor. All this talk about the modern desire of women to be independent is absurd." ARE THE MEN TO BLAME? In effect the same argument or explanation is given by the suffragettes, who insist that men are no longer capable of legislating for women and children. A working-girl is ruined by her employer, and afterwards punished for the crime of child-murder, while he escapes. This is the occasion for one of the leading English suffragettes taking the platform on behalf of the ballot for women, and even advocating the use of the brickbat to obtain it. There may be sufficient justification in the premises, but just now we are dealing only with the facts. In the same way both men and women, including a few ministers indeed, have condoned an orgy of bloodlust unsurpassed in modern annals of human deviltry in one of the towns of southern Illinois, because of police misgovernment and the miscarriage of justice in the courts. There may be much truth in these things. The man may be to blame for woman’s interference with his prerogatives. His sinful neglect of duty to the home and to the state may have fired her with the necessity of unsexing herself, if necessary, for the general improvement of the race; but this neither mends the matter nor silences the fact. There are good women, plenty of them, thank God! as good as men, and some of them a great deal better. And there are women better able to manage a household, a business, or even the state, for that matter, than some men that can be named. Nevertheless, we cannot close our eyes to the truth that as it was in the days of Noah, so it certainly is today, that woman is not only coming to, but is already at the front, and almost certain to remain there until the end of the present age. 3. Let us consider the relation today between evil spirits, or demons, and human beings. What shall we say of spiritualism, and clairvoyance, and fortune-telling, and palmistry, and the related cults? That there is fraud and fake in them, I know, very much of both indeed, perhaps more than most of us believe. But I also know that there is a modicum of truth in them; and that scientific men today confess themselves baffled in the face of some of their phenomena which cannot be explained, they say, upon the natural plane of things. Nor can they ever be explained, except as the Word of God explains them, which tells us of a kingdom of darkness at the head of which Satan stands and who has under him myriads of fallen angels and demons whom he can use. These control human beings, and possess them, where the latter yield and surrender themselves to that end. SPIRITUALISM IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS. I believe these things are multiplying on every hand and finding their way, indeed, within the professing Church itself. Only within a few months two noted ecclesiastics in this country have spoken sympathetically concerning spiritualism, and one of them has predicted that the day is coming when the children in our public schools will be instructed how to fraternize with spirits, and to talk with the dead, just as they are being taught today grammar and geography. I am not so sure but that this prediction may come true. Indeed there are such schools in spiritistic circles even now, where boys and girls as young as four years of age are taught about " controls " and corresponding things. But this I say, that when those "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," those of us who believe on Jesus Christ, and are waiting for Him, may take courage, because it is the day of which He speaks: " Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame." (Revelation 16:13-15). 4. Let us consider the spread of infidelity and atheism today. You know as well as I how these things are increasing on every hand. There was a time when a reference to an infidel or to infidelity caused us to think of isolated individuals of eminence, like Goethe, or Voltaire, or Bradlaugh, or Robert G. Ingersoll, but today, through the evil influence of the rationalistic criticism, infidelity has become so common as to be found even within the Church., When professing Christians are denying the integrity of the Bible as the Word of God, and the deity of Jesus Christ, and the lost condition of men, and the necessity of the new birth, and even the personality of God Himself, is not that infidelity? And because of the positions some of these Christians hold, they are infidels of the most subtle and dangerous type. There is only one possible end to this kind of thing and it is coming very soon. SUICIDE AND LUST. 5. Finally, what of the increase of violence and fraud in the day in which we live! Open your newspaper any morning or evening and determine for yourselves. Where is there a great city in the United States where the Sabbath is respected? Was there ever a period of more disobedience to parents than today? How lightly human life is considered now! For what pretexts will men take away the lives of others and even their own! As The Living Church observes: " It hardly awakens more remark than does the ordinary way of dying, for one to read in the morning paper that some prominent banker or leading society woman has deliberately thrown life away. ’ Poor man!’ or ’ Poor woman!’ we say; just as though they had been taken off with pneumonia." And passing to another thought, what shall we say of the lust and licentiousness of today. And the " tandem polygamy " as Dr. Parkhurst calls it ? Do the records of our divorce courts present any evidence bearing upon this? Indeed, an analysis of the individual cases of suicide just referred to, sustains the conclusion that " the increase in that mania affects particularly the well-to-do and prosperous, and is induced by crimes of dishonesty committed in high positions of responsibility where the only alternative to escape punishment is the termination of life." And what about dishonesty in business? And what of lying or falsehood in other spheres than business ? GIPSY SMITH AND THE INTERVIEWER. Gipsy Smith tells of a Chicago reporter who interviewed him about his meetings, urging him to tell the number of his converts; and when he objected on the ground that his words would be exaggerated and do harm, the reporter said: " Oh, I love exaggeration!" Is not this characteristic ? No, not of the newspapers but the public. The newspapers of today are not leaders but only interpreters of the people. They know what the people want and cater to it. The people must have the sensational headline; they must have a chance to lie and call other people liars, and the papers give them the opportunity. So used have we become to this indeed, that we could not easily adapt ourselves to a change. And yet, side by side therewith our civilization is advancing: we are progressing on every hand and boasting of it continually. To quote The Living Church again: " While it is wrong to exaggerate, it would seem that in our modern life we are developing a condition in morals similar to that of the Roman Empire in its decay. This is the day in which the materialistic philosophy of the last generation, although it has run its course and died out in the schools, would seem to have filtered through into the common mind and to have produced its legitimate fruit in materialistic living. "And back of all this lies that great falsehood, ’ Ye shall be as God ’ (R.V.) or in other words, the thought that the individual intellect is supreme. That every man may think and believe as he pleases; that he owes nothing intellectually or spiritually to anything outside of himself; that he has not only a right but a duty to assert his manhood by adopting any religion he will, or no religion whatever if that pleases him better." It was for these things that the flood came and swept them all away. DID THE FLOOD EVER OCCUR? But did the flood come and sweep them all away? That is the question. How many there are today who are raising this question! How many are incredulously smiling at the silly notion that there ever was a flood ? So far as I am concerned, the Bible is evidence enough for me, but let me call your attention to its corroboration from tradition. The Mexicans, composed of various nationalities, the Hindus, the Chinese, the Persians, the Romans, and the Greeks all tell, with varying details, the same story of the carrying away of the old world by a flood, and the repeopling of the earth by some who had been miraculously preserved. THE TESTIMONY OF GEOLOGY. Added to the corroboration of tradition, take that of geology. This also teaches that there has been a temporary submergence of at least a large part of the Old and New Worlds in times comparatively recent, speaking in a geological sense. For instance, beds of mud and gravel are found almost everywhere in both hemispheres, which must owe their origin to a sudden rush of water sweeping away the soil; and yet this rush of water cannot be explained by local floods, such as the overflow of rivers, because these beds are found on elevations where rivers never flowed. Gravel and shells on mountain tops call for the explanation which the flood of Genesis alone satisfactorily supplies. Away down in the antediluvian strata too, are whole cemeteries of skeletons, with the bones in a state of perfect preservation, indicating a catastrophe which not only slew, but buried its victims. The stretch of sea between Dunkirk and Norfolk on the English coast is called by sailors " the burial ground " because of the huge piles of bones beneath the waters. They are said to be like ants in some of the valleys of Italy, and the peasants have used them as they would stones for building their walls. In one place in Siberia, referred to by Prof. G. Frederick Wright, of Oberlin, there is an indication that the animals were fleeing from the lower levels to the higher hills when they were overtaken, and as they were overtaken they were preserved entire; hair, skin and flesh are as fresh as if they died but yesterday. It has been found also on examination, that suffocation was the cause of their death. THE DIVINE WARNING. What shall we say to these things? I can no more appropriately close this study than by quoting the inspired words of Peter, where in his Second Epistle (2 Peter 3:3-10, 2 Peter 3:14) he says: " Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 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: but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." * * * " Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless." THE SONS OF GOD AND THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN. (From " Earth’s Earliest Ages," by G. H. Pember.) When men, we are told, began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, the sons of God saw the daughters of men. Now by " men " in each case the whole human race is evidently signified, the descendants of Cain and Seth alike. Hence, the " sons of God" are plainly distinguished from the generation of Adam. Again; the expression "sons of God (Elohim)" occurs but four times in other parts of the Old Testament, and is in each of these cases indisputably used of angelic beings. This is the view taken by Josephus, Philo Judaeus, and the authors of " The Book of Enoch" and " The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs" ; indeed, it was generally accepted by learned Jews in the early centuries of the Christian era. In regard to the Septuagint, all MSS. render the Hebrew "sons of God" by "angels of God" in Job 1:6; Job 2:1, and by "my angels" in Job 38:7 -passages in which there was no dogmatic reason for tampering with the text. In Genesis 6:2; Genesis 6:4, the Codex Alexandrinus and three later MSS. exhibit the same rendering, while others have " sons of God." Augustine, however, admits that in his time the greater number of copies read " angels of God" in the latter passage also (De Civit. Dei. 15:23). It seems, therefore, extremely probable that this was the original reading; and certainly the interpretation which it involves was adopted by the majority of the earlier Christian writers. Those who would pursue this subject further can do so in a recent and exhaustive treatise by the Rev. John Fleming, entitled, "The Fallen Angels and the Heroes of Mythology." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 46: 03.05. WHEN THE FIRST WORLD-MONARCHY BEGAN ======================================================================== CHAPTER V. When The First World-monarchy Began Genesis 10:1-32 and Genesis 11:1-32. WHEN we reach Genesis 9:1-29 the flood is past and the deluge over. The first climax of sin has met its fate, and the human race, originally created holy, innocent, and in God’s image, has been swept away, with the exception of eight souls. Noah and his family have come forth from the ark, and God has in them given man another chance. We shall see, before we conclude, what man did with that chance. GOD BLESSING NOAH. God is now blessing Noah, and entering into a new covenant with him. In the blessing man is once more commanded to " be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth "—an obligation as binding today as then, the doctrinaires of the new social order to the contrary notwithstanding. Ex-president Roosevelt’s fulminations against race suicide are quite in harmony with the blessing pronounced on Noah. Man is again given dominion over the beasts of the earth, only now the " fear " of him and the " dread " of him are the weapons of his power, suggesting that previously he may have ruled by fondness and affection. A change in man’s diet is noted. Whereas previously he was limited to the herb, now he is at liberty to eat flesh. Some regard this as a lightening of the curse since flesh is easier to obtain than the products of the soil, but there is another view to be taken of it. We observe, for example, that in our day spiritists, theosophists and others who claim affinity with evil spirits are prohibited the use of meat on the ground that it hinders such affinity; and may it be that God now commanded it, in order to forestall such affinity on the part of the postdiluvians lest they should fall into the sin of their progenitors? Finally, certain magisterial functions are now conferred upon man. Whereas the previous dispensation had been one of freedom even unto license, so that men took matters of law into their own hands and slew for revenge as they chose, now God will hold them accountable for human blood, and " whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed." All these things are mentioned in the first six verses of the ninth chapter. THE TOKEN OF THE RAINBOW. The covenant that God enters into with Noah includes as well every living creature; and the terms of it are that flesh shall not again be cut off by the waters of a flood. God goes even further in grace, giving a token or a sign of His promise for perpetual generations, saying : " I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. * * * * And I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth." You will recall that at the creation of man, it was stated that " the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth," " but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." As Dr. Pember suggests, probably this state of things continued until the flood, when the windows of heaven were for the first time opened. The rainbow he regards as a new phenomenon when it was given as a token to Noah, believing that the words of God imply as much. Had the bow been seen before the flood, its subsequent reappearance could never have suggested security, in his judgment. But if there had been no rainbow, there could scarcely have been rain. On this supposition, the falling drops, and then the pouring torrents, must have greatly added to the terror of that day. " What scenes of horror must have been presented beneath the ominous rainfall! What affrighted groups! What countenances of dismay! What shrieks of terror! What faintings for fear! What headlong flights to any place which appeared to offer safety for the moment! " I am inclined to agree with Pember about this matter, and think his idea is strengthened by the declaration that God now sets a bow in the cloud to show that never again will He punish sin in this way. But how affecting to hear God say, "I will look upon the bow." In other words, the rainbow, in its beauty and glory, is not man’s token, but God’s token; and man’s security does not rest upon his seeing it, but upon God’s seeing it. *?. THE RAINBOW AND THE SPRINKLED BLOOD. The circumstance recalls that equally touching utterance of Jehovah in the twelfth of Exodus, where in directing the Hebrews as to their deliverance from the death of the first-born, He tells them to slay a lamb and sprinkle its blood upon the door-posts of their houses, adding, " When I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you." Not when they should see the blood, for they were on the inside of the house, but when God Himself saw it He would pass over them. Think of what this means for those who are in Christ Jesus! He is God’s token rather than man’s, God looks upon His only-begotten and well-beloved Son, and is satisfied with His finished work, and passes over you and me in all our guilt because of it. How kind God is! Let us then remember every time we look at the rainbow in the sky, that there is Some One else looking at it, and that it is bringing to His remembrance the promise that means so much to us, and which is as sure as His own throne. THE ORIGIN OF THE NATIONS. We pass over hundreds of years now, and come to the tenth chapter, where is an account of the dispersion of the nations throughout the earth, beginning with the words: " Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood." In the following verses are given the names of these sons and grandsons, and first, those of Japheth. We are told that " By these "—the descendants of Japheth —" were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations." The phrase " the isles of the Gentiles " may be rendered " the coastlands of the nations," and we learn from other scriptures and secular research that " the coastlands of the nations" means the proximity of the Persian Gulf on the south, the Caspian and Black Seas on the north, and the Mediterranean and Aegean on the west. These localities, settled by the descendants of Japheth, were chiefly in the north and northwest, and for the most part what we know as the continent of Europe. Most of us in this audience belong to the line of Japheth, which in later days has been called the Aryan race, including the Hindus, the Celts, the Greeks, the Italians, the Germans, and the Slavs. Next follows the line of Ham, and without reading the verses, let me say that they went in a south and southwestern direction, migrating into northern Arabia, Egypt, and Ethiopia, the modern Abyssinia. Following the line of Ham we have that of Shem, which remained more closely to the common center, but migrating somewhat towards the south and southeast. From them sprang the Persians, the Assyrians, the Hebrews, and finally the Israelites, of whom was Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour. THE FIRST WORLD-MONARCH. There is the record of one individual in this chapter upon which we will especially dwell—Nimrod, the founder of the first world-monarchy. Let us read Genesis 10:8-12 : "And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city." Notice certain facts about Nimrod. First, he was a descendant of Ham. His father was Cush, the son of Ham, which means that he was an Ethiopian. Second, he began to be a mighty one in the earth. Mighty he must have been, as men count mightiness, when the divine penman pauses to call attention to the fact. But his mightiness was of the earth. He was also a " mighty hunter before Jehovah," the meaning of which I do not know. But though he was a mighty hunter of beasts, he soon became a mighty hunter of men, for in the next verse we read about the beginning of his kingdom. Notice that this is the first reference to a " kingdom " we have met in sacred history, and that it is his kingdom, and not God’s kingdom that is mentioned. The beginning of his kingdom was in the great cities of Babel (or Babylon), Erech, Accad, Calnah, and the rest. But not content with founding this kingdom " he went forth into Assyria "—which is the rendering of the Revised Version,—and builded Nineveh and the following cities named. He was thus the founder of two of the greatest kingdoms the earth has known, Babylon and Assyria. ANCIENT GREATNESS. Before leaving this chapter, let me try to make its reality stand out before you by an illustration. One city only will suffice, Accad. The Accadians were a people whose name, even, was not known fifty years ago, but within that period archaeological research, the work of the pickaxe and spade in Bible lands, has unearthed the palace of a king called Sargon I. He was one of the early kings of Assyria, and lived probably as early as the time of Moses, or earlier. His name is not so much as mentioned in secular history, and only once in the Old Testament, yet when the archaeologists unearthed his palace recently, they brought to light one of the most magnificent in the world, covering no less than twenty-five acres of land. Nor is that all. In this palace there was a large library, not of books printed or bound like those of today, but clay tablets arid cylinders inscribed with wedge-shaped characters. It was shelved and catalogued like our modern libraries, and the person desiring a book presented his card to the librarian and obtained it much as by our present system. We talk about our great libraries today, yet, after all, I suppose our librarians are learning at the feet of those who carried on such work thousands of years ago. But more than that, in this library there was a number of books written in the Accadian tongue, which even in that day had become a dead language, and was studied by the Assyrians as we study the classics in Greek and Latin in our colleges now. Gather up these facts, set your imaginations free, and fancy what a kingdom that may have been which Nimrod founded thousands of years before Christ! THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT IN THE WORLD. Here is another illustration to show the reality of these things. Take the genealogy of Nimrod. This chapter shows him to have been an Ethiopian, although the founder of this kingdom in Asia. As recently as 1854, however, a scholar named Baron Bunsen declared that the Ethiopian origin of Nimrod existed only in the imagination of Biblical interpreters, that it was not historical, and could not be true. The ink on his paper had scarcely dried though, when, four years later, another scholar, Sir Henry Rawlinson, the earliest decipherer of the Babylonian monuments, proved conclusively, by a study of the primitive language of Chaldea, that the Biblical record concerning the origin of Nimrod and his people was absolutely correct. Primeval history is thus confirmed again, and most signally, by modern research. There have been those who laughed at Genesis 10:1-32, and passed it over as simply a long list of names hard to pronounce, and without meaning or significance. But these names, with few exceptions, like this of Nimrod, are not names of individuals merely, but races; and if that be so, it makes this chapter the most important historical document in the world! As corroborating that statement let me quote a sentence from Sir Henry Rawlinson’s book, " The Origin of Nations," where he says: " The Christian may with confidence defy his adversary to point out any erroneous or impossible statements in the entire chapter, from its commencement to its close." Have we not reason to thank God that He has not left Himself without witnesses in all these centuries; and that when the strongest need exists for it their testimony is thus gloriously forthcoming? HOW THE NATIONS CAME TO BE. We pass now to the eleventh chapter, where we have explained the reason for the dispersion of the nations. In chapter ten we have the story as to how they were dispersed, but here we are told why it was done. Let us read the first nine verses: "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth." When it says that " the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech"—or, as the margin reads, " of one lip, and one set of words "—I suppose the reference is to the earth at the time of Nimrod. When it says " they journeyed from the east " it means that they journeyed " in the east," as the margin reads. There they found the plain of Shinar, which was then and is still noted for its clay pits and asphalt springs. Having the materials for building at hand, and moved by the spirit of iniquity and rebellion against God, they said: " Let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven." It was a challenge to the God of heaven, and a determination on their part through the congregation of themselves together, to make it no longer necessary to put their trust and confidence in that God, but only in themselves. " Let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." God’s purpose was the scattering of men throughout the earth, but man’s purpose was and still is, the very opposite; and by organization and federation to improve his material prosperity without God. It is the plea for union, but union for godless and selfish ends. " THE LORD CAME DOWN." " And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower." As Murphy expresses it: " The interposing providence of God is here set forth in a sublime simplicity, suited to the early mind of man. Still there is something here characteristic of the times after the deluge. The presence of the Lord seems not to have been withdrawn from the earth before that event. He walked in the garden when Adam and Eve were there. He placed the ministers and symbols of His presence before it when they were expelled. He expostulated with Cain before and after his awful crime. He said: ’ My Spirit shall not always strive with man.’ He saw the wickedness of man; and the land was corrupt before Him. He communicated with Noah in various ways, and finally established His covenant with him. In all this He seems to have been present with man on earth. He lingered in the garden as long as His forbearance could be expected to influence man for good. He at length appointed the limit of a hundred and twenty years. And after watching over Noah during the deluge, He seems to have withdrawn His visible and gracious presence from the earth. Hence the propriety of the phrase,’ the Lord came down.’ " He still deals in mercy with a remnant of the human race, and has visited the earth and manifested His presence in a wondrous way. But He has not yet taken up His abode among men as He did in the garden, and as He intimates that He will sometime do on the renovated earth." IS THE TOWER OF BABEL HISTORIC? In corroboration of this chapter let me remind you that all the early nations possessed traditions concerning the building of the tower of Babel, and the confounding of the human tongue. They had traditions concerning giants who attempted to storm heaven, either to share it with the immortal gods, or to expel the gods from heaven, they do not say which. In some of these traditions the confusion of tongues is represented as the punishment inflicted by the deities for this wickedness. The tower by which the rebellious intended to ascend to heaven is said to have been overthrown by a mighty tempest. The people were scattered into various regions, it is said, and thenceforth spoke different languages. Of course, these traditions testify to an original foundation of fact, whence they took their rise. Moreover, I would have you know, that in a sense even the tower of Babel still exists. Its ruins existed in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, only six hundred years before Christ, and that great king tells us that the gods urged him to restore it. Its site, however, he did not injure, neither did he change its foundation walls. I quote his words, as found inscribed on two cylinders recently unearthed and deciphered: " In the month of good fortune, on an auspicious day, I improved the bricks of its buildings and the tiles of its roofing into a compact edifice. I renewed its substructure, and I put the inscription of my name on the cornice of its edifice. To restore it, and set upon its pinnacle, I raised my hand. As it was before, I built it anew; as it was in remote times, I erected its pinnacle." The ruins of this work of Nebuchadnezzar, built on the original pile, remain today, and form the most remarkable feature of that country. They are about six miles to the north of Hillah, a suburb of ancient Babylon, and bear the name of Birs Nimrud, or the tower of Nimrod. They cover a square surface of forty-nine thousand feet, and rise nearly three hundred feet high. Travelers describe the mass as towering like a mountain above the plain. TWO AGITATED COLLEGE GIRLS. An occasion for mentioning these facts is this: One Sunday morning, two young girls called at my house on their way from church. They had been brought up in an orthodox home, and trained under the teaching of an orthodox pastor, and taught that the Bible was the Word of God, and that the records of these early chapters of Genesis were true. That morning, however, they had attended divine worship in a strange church, and listened to a sermon upon these chapters in which it was said they contained myths and allegories chiefly, and intimated among others things that the tower of Babel never existed. The girls had recently entered college and were humiliated by the thought of their ignorance. Could it be that their parents had deceived them? And was their pastor in the conspiracy as well? As they passed my house on their way home, they paused for information. I was absent, but my wife was able to show them such facts and evidences as in this limited way I am presenting to you now. Perhaps you say, " How do you account for a minister making false statements?" In one sense I cannot account for it, yet in another I can. That minister is a good man and was unaware that he was making false statements. He would sooner have lost his right hand than have consciously done so. But I suppose he had been trained in the atmosphere of the rationalistic criticism. All his college and seminary days he had heard and read but one side of the story; and since entering upon the ministry, had neither the time, nor the inclination, it may have been, to listen to or read the other. The circumstance emphasizes the momentousness of the words of Jesus where He lays on us the obligation to take heed what we hear, not merely how we hear, though that were quite important, but what we hear. Oh, the solemn responsibility that rests upon the pew concerning the preaching and teaching to which it listens! But how can you exercise that responsibility, except as you are familiar with the Word of God and learned in the Holy Scriptures? "YE SHALL BE AS GOD." I close this study by a further remark concerning the spirit and motive of these Babylonians in building the cloud-capped tower. I believe that in the last analysis, it can only be explained by the words of Satan in the garden of Eden, " Ye shall be as God," which, as was declared previously, is still the trumpcard in the hand of the arch-fiend. As our first parents were caught in this snare, so have all their descendants become likewise fascinated by it. Julius Caesar was the tutelar deity of Rome. The Greek and Roman mythologies were deifications of human strength, beauty and licentiousness. The Roman Catholic Church claims that she is Christ’s vicegerent upon earth. The German philosophers of the 18th century said: " The human race is the God-man, the human race is the incarnate Son, the human race is the true Christ." To come still nearer home, the literature of the English Carlyle, and the American Emerson—whom men and women are worshiping today—is of the same kind as the German philosophers and teaching the same deification of humanity. A RAVEN OR A NIGHTINGALE? And when we look toward the future what do we see? We see the human race rapidly approaching the culminating period when, as was said previously, under the Antichrist, it will be worshiping itself in worshiping him. Some may call me a pessimist for saying this, but it matters not. As Bishop Nicholson once said, " Pessimism is croaking, and to croak is like the frog, and smells of the swamp. But if a night-hawk be hovering around, then the croaking of a raven were better than the song of a nightingale." He is not a pessimist who gives a true and needed warning, but in the best sense of the word he is an optimist. As John Bigelow says: " No conflagration was ever extinguished by silencing the alarm bell." This age of ours is wrinkled deep with many lines of character, and one of them, deeper and blacker than the others, deepest and blackest of them all, is the design and purpose underlying the declaration: " Ye shall be as God." The antidote to this is the exaltation of the incarnate Son, " Who was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. The third day He rose from the dead, He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God, the Father Almighty. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 47: 03.06. WHEN THE LAST WORLD-MONARCHY SHALL APPEAR ======================================================================== CHAPTER VI. When The Last World-monarchy Shall Appear. Genesis 12:1-20 and Genesis 13:1-18; Isaiah 13:1-22 and Isaiah 14:1-32; Revelation 18:1-24. Were there time I would ask you to read with me the twelfth and thirteenth chapters of Genesis, but I shall refer to them in the course of the lecture. We recall that after the flood God gave man another chance. He gave him a fresh opportunity to serve Him and to return to Him through faith in a personal Redeemer, the seed of the woman, on the ground of the atonement of blood. But we also recall that man repudiated the opportunity. He once more turned his back upon God, and in connection with the tower of Babel rebelled against and defied Him, until another judgment fell in the confounding of the tongues of the race. And thus the one family is divided into three, and scattered to the different parts of the earth. It now seems as though the name of God would be forgotten in the earth, and His purpose to redeem the race through the seed of the woman would come to naught. But God’s purposes never fail, and consequently we find Him in these chapters revealing another method—speaking after the manner of men— for the execution of the original plan. GOD’S PURPOSE IN ISRAEL. His method now is to select one family from among the many, that of Abraham, and from it to build up a nation, Israel, which should be (1) A repository for His truth in the earth. (2) A witness to Himself before the other nations, and (3) A channel for the bringing into the world of the personal Redeemer. For these three great purposes He chose Israel, so that in all the apparent partiality He has shown towards that nation, in all the protecting care He has given them, and the gracious promises He has made to them He has been thinking, not of them alone, but through them of the blessing of the whole world. The history of that nation may be likened to a river. It begins in a mountain spring, and trickles over the face of the rock and in and out among the boulders until it becomes a rill, and then a rushing brook in which the trout play, and the angler throws his fly. Now it carries on its bosom the Indian canoe or the pleasure yacht. By and by it loses itself in some subterranean passage, flows under the surface of the earth, or spreads out among the reedy marshes almost beyond identification. But finally, it comes together again, a strong, deep, and energetic stream, bearing the commerce of a great city out upon the ocean. Israel’s History. The stream of Israel began in Abraham and trickled through Isaac and Jacob. Jacob has twelve sons. Their families grow into seventy souls, and with their retainers go down into Egypt when Joseph is in power there. They are hidden away in the fruitful land of Goshen, where God keeps them under His care for four hundred years until they become a great multitude. Then He delivers them supernaturally from their Egyptian bondage. He leads them across the Red Sea, He protects and guides them in the wilderness, and by and by brings them into the promised land. The law has been given them and they are now amalgamated into a nation. The golden eras of David and Solomon follow. But sin comes in, rebellion, disobedience, and then disruption. The one kingdom becomes two—the kingdom of Israel, the ten tribes; and that of Judah, the two tribes. Now, because of her disobedience, the kingdom of Israel is deported, carried by the Assyrians into captivity, and lost to human vision until the day when God shall be pleased to bring her to the light again. Judah remains in her own land a century and a half longer, but at length, through disobedience, is also carried into captivity by the Babylonians. She returns after seventy years, according to prophecy, and once more reinstated in her own land, remains there long enough to give birth to the Messiah, the Saviour of the world, Whom she crucifies. Then, because of that crowning sin, the Roman people are permitted to overcome her and she is scattered among all the nations of the earth, where she is today, " sifted as corn is sifted in a sieve," and yet not one grain of wheat to fall to the ground until God shall be pleased to restore her to Himself and to her land in perpetuity. That shall be the day when, in repentance and faith, Israel and Judah shall accept Jesus Christ as their Messiah, and Jerusalem shall be created a rejoicing, and her people a joy. ISRAEL’S FAILURES AND ITS RESULTS. We thus see that Israel has fulfilled two of the three purposes God had in mind for her. She has been a repository for His truth, keeping the sacred oracles intact through all the centuries; and she has been a channel for the incoming of the Redeemer to the world giving us our Saviour. She has failed, however, to be a faithful witness to Jehovah before the other nations of the earth, and in consequence, is suffering the dispersion and the persecution which, alas! we know about today. Moreover, in consequence of her disobedience, the other nations of the earth, Christian and pagan, are living in rebellion against ’God. And this rebellion the prophets teach, shall increase and gather strength, until at last it shall express itself in the last world-monarchy, of which we shall now speak. THE LAST WORLD-MONARCHY. 1. Let me define the term. By a world-monarchy I mean a federation of certain nations, especially those of Christendom, under one head, as in the case of Nimrod, of whom we studied last week. Or like Nebuchadnezzar at the head of the Babylonian federation, or Darius, or Alexander, or the Caesars, only a greater, stronger and wickeder federation than any of these, and under a stronger, and greater and wickeder head than any that has been named. By the last world-monarchy I mean the last which the earth shall see in this age and before the millennium begins. WHO IS THE ANTICHRIST? 2. Having defined the term, let me speak of the head of this last world-monarchy. The Scriptures refer to him as " the man of sin," " the son of perdition," " the Antichrist," but he will be a secular, and not an ecclesiastical, despot. I mention this as my judgment, because there are many who believe that the pope will be he. The papacy, indeed, has many crimes to answer for in all the centuries, and not the least in this, nor am I here to apologize for it by any means. But the man of sin when he arises, will be as much greater and wickeder than any pope as can be imagined, because into his hands for the time being, Satan will transfer his power and authority in the earth. WHENCE WILL HE ARISE? The papacy is one of the elements making for the development of the man of sin. There is no question about that. But the papacy itself, I feel sure is not identical with him. The Scriptures teach that he will come up from the Roman Empire. By the Roman Empire is meant the territory over which the Caesars ruled, and which, speaking loosely, extends from Persia on the east to Great Britain on the west, and includes chiefly the nations bordering on the Mediterranean Sea. If I were asked from what part of the Roman Empire he would arise, I should say—though I am not dogmatizing on the subject,—from that part of it which was formerly the Grecian Empire. In other words I am looking for him somewhere in the neighborhood of the Bosphorus, somewhere in the locality where Greece and European Turkey join. WHAT HIS CHARACTER WILL BE. The Scriptures say that when he arises he will at first be weak and insignificant; the head of an obscure principality not considered seriously by the greater nations, ’but that his development will be rapid. By fraud and flattery, superadded to a Satanic intellect and astuteness, he will swiftly gain control of three kingdoms; and at last, the kings of the other kingdoms of the Roman Empire then existing will find it to their advantage to yield their power and their dominion into his hands, when for the time being he will have become supreme. SHALL BABYLON BE RESTORED ? 3. Passing from the consideration of the head of the monarchy, let me speak of its location, or seat of government. I believe the prophets teach that it will be identical with that of the first world-monarchy, viz: the old city of Babylon, in the land of Shinar. This is denied by some earnest Bible students, whom I greatly respect, but I believe their objections are not sound. They object to it among other reasons on the ground of Isaiah’s prophecy (See Isaiah 13:19-22) part of which reads thus: "And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there. But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged." This prophecy, they say, was fulfilled in the overthrow of Babylon by the Persian power six hundred years more or less before Christ. But I cannot agree with this, further than to say that what befell Babylon in that day may bear about the same relation to what will befall it in the day to come as a shadow bears to the substance it precedes. As Benjamin Wills Newton in his " Babylon and Egypt," says: " God is wont in His goodness to give premonitory blows. He is accustomed to warn before He finally destroys. Egypt, Jerusalem, and many other places, have all experienced premonitory desolations; and so has Babylon. Its present ruin is a memorial of what God’s righteous vengeance can do, and a warning of what it will more terribly do, if human pride in contempt of all His admonitions, shall again attempt to rear its goodly palaces where He has written desolation. " Without therefore undervaluing the lesson given by past visitations of God’s judgments, without hiding, but rather seeking to proclaim the reality and extent of the ruin His holy hand has wrought, we have also to testify that the hand of man uncommissioned from above, will sooner or later, reconstruct the fabric of its greatness, its last evil greatness, on the very plains which teem with the memorials of a ruin entailed by former and yet unrepented of transgressions. " Egypt, Damascus, Palestine, and in a measure, Jerusalem, are already being revived. And if these and neighboring countries, which have been visited by inflictions similar to those which have fallen on Babylon, are yet to revive and flourish with an evil prosperity at the time of the end, why should Babylon be made an exception ? " Indeed, to quote our author further—" That the blow which has already fallen upon Babylon should be regarded as premonitory only, so far from being inconsistent with the method of the divine acting in other cases, is on the contrary in strict harmony with it. And so strongly do present facts, as well as events known from Scripture as about to occur in the land of Israel, indicate the likelihood of Babylon’s restoration, that, even if Scripture were silent respecting its final history, we should nevertheless conclude that its revival was not only antecedentary probable, but well nigh certain." LUCIFER AND ISRAEL IN THE TIME TO COME. In affirmative proof of this, let me say that the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of Isaiah should be read continuously, at least until the end of verse 27 of the last-named chapter. The thirteenth chapter dwells on the glory and fall of Babylon the city, but the fourteenth dwells principally upon the glory and downfall of Babylon’s king. " Will any one read the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah as a whole and say it has been fulfilled? Has he yet appeared among the nations who is there styled Lucifer, the day-star ? Has there been as yet anyone who, after arrogating to himself the place of Christ and professing to be to the nations as the bright and morning star, has been because of this blasphemy, smitten and brought down to Hades, to the sides of the pit? No such king of Babylon has as yet existed, and no such has been destroyed." Moreover, it is very clear from these chapters that the destruction of this king shall be coincident with the forgiveness of Israel, for at the beginning of the fourteenth chapter we read: " For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob. And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors." There is more in these chapters to the same purport, and which goes to prove that the hour of this judgment on Babylon is still future. These things have not yet come to pass in the history of Jacob and Israel. God has not yet set them in their own land. The people have not yet taken them and brought them to their place, and Israel does not possess the peoples of the earth for servants and for handmaids. She has not yet taken them captives whose captive she was, nor does she yet rule over her oppressors. But these things shall come to pass as truly as the Bible is the word of God, and when they come to pass the hour for the fall of Babylon has arrived. , Other arguments might be presented, but to me these are quite sufficient to show that the prophecy of Babylon’s destruction is yet to be fulfilled. And this involves, of course, the restoration of that city to her former place as the center of the federation of the God-defying nations of the earth. THE COMMERCIAL CRISIS TO COME. 4. From the consideration of the locality of this world-monarchy, let me further refer to the cause of it. What is the motive, or the governing principle that shall bring about this federation of the nations of which the prophets speak? As a matter of fact, that motive or principle is expressed in a single word, and one very familiar in this day, " Commerce." The Old Testament prophets say that wickedness in commerce shall yet have its center in Babylon on the plain of Shinar, and all around us are tokens that corroborate and strengthen this conviction. Take the United States only as an illustration. For the last twenty years our presidential elections have turned upon the question of either the tariff or the money standard, a question of commerce. Our Chief Magistrate recently made a journey in which he visited thirty-one states, and the burden of his speeches was commerce. He met the President of Mexico in a semi-social way, and they spake of commerce. We support a mighty and a growing navy in order to defend our commerce. We insist upon the " open door " in China for commercial reasons. We desire to keep on friendly terms with Japan for commercial reasons. We must retain the Philippines for commercial reasons. But what is true of the United States is true of almost every nation of the world. Great Britain rules India with an iron hand, and yet permits every pagan religion to flourish there side by side with Christianity, because of commerce. Spain is permitting her soldiery to be stricken down in Morocco for the sake of commerce. Belgium holds the Congo in a bloody grip for the sake of commerce. Name any of the great nations of the earth, and say if the governing principle of their existence be not the same. "TRUSTS" AND "UNIONS." Look at another phase of the subject. This is the day of the syndicate, the corporation, the trust. It is also the day of the federation and the " union." Not only men of wealth, but those we designate as " working men " are coming together. Organization is in the air and not merely national, but international; while commerce, in some aspect of it, is the secret of it all. But the day is coming, so the prophets teach, when this world shall see its greatest syndicate, its greatest corporation, its greatest trust, its greatest federation, its greatest union. And that shall be when the nations of the old Roman Empire will come together again, and for the sake of their material well-being put into the hands of one man the combination of their power. In further corroboration of this observe that in the book of Revelation (Revelation 18:1-24), when the seer speaks of the destruction of Babylon, he sets before us the merchants and the shipmasters of the earth as the chief mourners at her funeral. His words are these: "And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and the cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more." Then he describes in detail the character of their merchandise, which is that of luxury rather than necessity, and returning to the destruction of the city, says: " The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, 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 is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, and cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city! "* HOW THE LAST WORLD-MONARCHY SHALL END. 5. Finally, let us consider the occasion of her downfall. Why is this great city brought to nought ? Why does this last world-monarchy come to an end ? See Note on "What Commercialism Is Responsible for In Christendom." In considering the occasion we are brought back to the point whence we started at the twelfth chapter of Genesis and God’s call to Abraham, and His promise to give to Abraham and posterity the land of Palestine forever. In fulfillment of that promise the Jew is going back to Palestine; at first in an unconverted state, however, so far as his acceptance of Jesus as his Messiah is concerned. And when Israel thus goes back, she will rebuild her Temple, and essay to worship the God of her fathers somewhat after the former manner. But when this federation of the nations takes place, Palestine is absolutely necessary to it, for she is the key to the riches of the Orient. Israel thus will be approached by " the man of sin " who will make a covenant with her to last for seven years, in which he will grant her liberty of conscience to worship God. There are some faithful Jews in Jerusalem at this time who will not thus be ensnared, nor enter into this " covenant with death and this agreement with hell." But the majority of the people, as when in that earlier time they crucified our Lord, will carry the day and the covenant shall be sealed. In the midst of the seven years, however, " the man of sin," in accordance with his character of deceit and fraud, shall break the covenant, and setting up his own image in the Temple to be worshipped, shall give out that he himself is God. And practically the whole of Christendom in that day, including faithless Israel, will bow down and do obeisance to him. This is the teaching both of Daniel and of Paul. His hour of triumph, however, is not long, for now is fulfilled the words of Zechariah (Zechariah 14:1-21) " 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 to battle; * * * Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, * * * and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee." Then is the hour of the triumph of the Son of God, for we read again: " And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.* * * Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited." Then it is that Israel takes up the broken threads of privilege and duty where she laid them down so long ago, the threads of testimony and witness to Jehovah, her Messiah, and her Saviour as well as ours. And then it is that through her testimony the nations of the earth, in the millennial age, shall be brought at last to obedience to the Son of God. WHERE IS THE CHURCH IN THAT DAY? A question possibly arises. What about the Church in that day ? You say: " We thought the hope of the Christian was the coming of the Lord. But if He is not to come until then, if all these things must intervene before His coming,—the federation of the nations, the development of the man of sin, the restoration of the Jew to his own land—how long must it be before He comes ? And hence, where is the value or effectiveness of such a hope?" I am glad to be able to repeat that the second coming of Christ, as I understand the Word of God, is an event of more than one aspect. There is a coming of Christ for His saints, and a coming of Christ with His saints. It is the coming of Christ for His saints that is the hope of the Church, an event for which the faithful are always looking. I know of nothing to intervene before He comes. He may come today, or certainly within our generation, when the Church will be caught up to meet Him in the air. Then there will be an interval, how long I do not know. And during that interval, while the Church is with her Lord in the air, most of these events apparently, of which the prophets speak are to transpire on the earth. It is then that the nations are federating, the man of sin developing, the Jew returning, and the crisis approaching. And when that crisis comes, then Christ comes, not for His Church as we have seen, but with His Church and with His holy angels, " in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Thessalonians 1:6-10). BRINING BACK THE KING. Sometime since I wrote a few verses, a simple Gospel hymn, in which I speak of that coming, which perhaps you will indulge me if I read.* The verses were suggested by that incident in -The life of David to which I have referred on another occasion. Absalom, his ungrateful son, has rebelled against him and driven him from his throne and from his land. He is an exile beyond Jordan. But Absalom is now dead, the rebellion is at an end, and still David is an exile. At length the men of Judah, those of his own tribe, come together, and shamefacedly inquire of one another : " Why say ye not a word of bringing back the king?" And when they begin to talk about it, they begin to act about it. Soon they cross the Jordan and David is back again. And so I ask, especially of my brethren of the ministry— Why say ye not a word of bringing back the king? Why speak ye not of Jesus and His reign? Why tell ye of His kingdom, and of His glories sing. But nothing of His coming back again? Dost thou not want to look upon His loving face? Dost thou not want to see Him glorified? Wouldst thou not hear His welcome, and in that very place, Where, years ago, we saw him crucified? O, hark! creation’s groans, how can they be assuaged? How can our bodies know redemptive joy? How can the war be ended in which we are engaged, Until He comes, the lawless to destroy? Come quickly, blessed Lord, our hearts a welcome hold! We long to see creation’s second birth. The promise of Thy coming, to some is growing cold: O, hasten Thy returning back to earth." How many can say: " Amen " to this ? " Come quickly, Lord Jesus, come." ’Copyrighted by James McGranuhan. NOTE. WHAT COMMERCIALISM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IN CHRISTENDOM* This first-born daughter of Babylon—Commercialism— has filled the world with its numerous forms of wickedness: its desecration of the Lord’s Day, by newspaper, trolley, travel, traffic, and trade; its evil amusements; its illegitimate occupations and professions; its prostitution of body and soul to do the works of hell. It corrupts the halls of legislation; befouls the springs of justice; poisons our food with hurtful and deleterious adulterations; and is silencing or corrupting the testimony of Christ’s ambassadors. DISTRUST OF NATIONS. Which are the nations today that are looking at one another with mutual distrust lest one get the advantage over the other commercially? They are chiefly the nations of Christendom. They are learning war and arming themselves at enormous cost, entailing great miseries to their people, because of what they desire to get, or from the fear that other nations will covet and try to take what they have. This insatiable thirst for commercial supremacy, this hunger for territory—for stealing a whole empire,—is not new, to be sure, but today it is eminently " Christian." Again, consider how this same commercial spirit has 99 often led to the persecutions of Israel, God’s covenant people. Who have been the persecutors of the Jews during the pact 1,500 years? Apostate Christendom in every case OPIUM AND RUM. How came it about that China’s millions are cursed today by the opium evil? Because, for commercial gain, ’ The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ," by Willis Waldo Mead. Pages 237, 239, 240 and 241. ** Christian " England forced it upon them at the edge of the sword. And the opium traffic in India may thank the same symbolic woman of Revelation 17:1-18 and Revelation 18:1-24. What is the case with the ivory and rubber trade in the Congo, which, it is declared, surpasses in its atrocities the awful slave trade? Another nominally Christian nation, for commercial gain, is the offending party. Who were the participants in the slave trade of Africa, of America, of the islands of the Pacific? Again the answer is, the nominal followers of the Lamb! Whom have " the merchants of the earth " to thank for their enormous wealth made in the alcohol and tobacco trade? "They were made rich by her." Christendom is the producer, and Christendom largely the consumer. For what cause did the great nations of the world recently take united action for the suppression of the sale of rum and fire arms to the heathen peoples of Africa, and the islands of the Pacific? Was it because of their body-and-soul-destroying character? Not in the least; but because these things were destructive to their commerce with those peoples! for rum and guns would depopulate those countries and thus destroy the market for their goods. What are we to think of the " Christian" character of a civilization that tolerates, legalizes, and protects, by law, the liquor business, that annually, in the United States, sends one hundred thousand victims down to drunkards’ graves, not to speak of the sorrow and misery, the poverty, degradation, and inherited tendencies which it entails? GOD’S PLANS VS. MAN’S EXPECTATIONS. All these crimes, and many others of a similar kind, are laid at the door of this Woman, Babylon the Great, the False or Anti-Church. " For by the wine of the wrath of her fornication all the nations are fallen. And the kings of the earth committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth waxed rich by the power of her wantonness." To her was it spoken, " For with thy sorcery were all the nations deceived." Dark indeed is the picture thus drawn, but who that has the mind of the Spirit would dare affirm that it has been overdrawn? Nay, the tenth part has not been told. With every passing month, the charm of her sorcery and the fumes of her body-and-soul-enslaving wine become more irresistible. Every new invention and every advance in knowledge is eagerly seized by her to increase the power of her wantonness. In the meantime, God is calling to us by the heavenly voice, saying: " Come forth, my people, out of her, that ye have no fellowship with her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues" (Revelation 18:4). The day of grace is drawing to a close. The doom of this City of Destruction, with all that appertaineth to her, is not far off. But when it comes, it will be as sudden and unexpected as it will be awful and complete. For " in one day shall her plagues come, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire; for strong is the Lord God who judged her" (Revelation 18:8). Such, however, is not the view men take today as to the means by which the regeneration of society is to be effected. They are busy making new plans for bringing about commercial, industrial, civic, legislative, and administrative righteousness; for the suppression of intemperance; for the enforcement of law; for putting an end to war; and for ushering in the era of " liberty, equality, fraternity." Vain expectation! It will never come by these means, nor by the efforts of men. God alone can do it, and it will be by terrible judgments. In proof of recommend a careful reading of Isaiah 59:1-21. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 48: 04.0.1. HOW TO MASTER THE ENGLISH BIBLE ======================================================================== HOW TO MASTER THE ENGLISH BIBLE AN EXPERIENCE A METHOD A RESULT AN ILLUSTRATION BY REV. JAMES M. GRAY, D.D. MINISTER IN THE REFORMED EPISCOPAL CHURCH AUTHOR OF "SYNTHETIC BIBLE STUDIES" "THE ANTIDOTE TO CHRISTIAN SCIENCE" "PRIMERS OF THE FAITH" ETC. ETC. EDINBURGH AND LONDON OLIPHANT ANDERSON & FERRIER 1907 Printed byMorrison & Gibb Limited,Edinburgh ======================================================================== CHAPTER 49: 04.0.2. NOTE BY THE PUBLISHERS OF THE BRITISH EDITION ======================================================================== NOTE BY THE PUBLISHERS OF THE BRITISH EDITION The success of the author’s book,Synthetic Bible Studies, has been such that it is a pleasure to us to introduce this little book to British Bible students. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 50: 04.0.3. NOTE BY THE PUBLISHERS OF THE AMERICAN EDITION ======================================================================== NOTE BY THE PUBLISHERS OF THE AMERICAN EDITION The author of this book requires no introduction to the Bible-loving people of our time. A time it is of unusual quickening in the study of God’s Word along spiritual and evangelical lines, toward which, as the editor of a leading newspaper has said, no one man has contributed more than Rev. James M. Gray, D.D. "He knows what is in the Book," says theChristian Endeavour World,"and when he sounds the clear, strong notes of God’s love, of victory over sin, of the believer’s assurance, it is no wonder that thousands of young people wax as enthusiastic over the Bible as others do over athletics or art." The interdenominational Bible classes which he has carried on, and to which his work directly and indirectly has given rise, are the largest and in other respects the most remarkable known. His work has revolutionised the method of teaching in some Sunday schools; it has put life into dead prayer-meetings; in not a few instances it has materially helped to solve the problem of the second service on the Lord’s day; it has been a boon to many pastors in the labours of study and pulpit, whose gratitude is outspoken; it has contributed to the efficiency of foreign missionary workers, whose testimony has come from the uttermost parts of the earth; and it has reacted beneficially on the instruction given in the English Bible in some of our home academies, smaller colleges and seminaries. The secret of these results is given in this book. Nor is it as a Bible teacher only, but also as a Bible preacher, that Dr. Gray holds a distinguished place in the current history of the Church. His expository sermons leave an impress not to be effaced. Presbyteries and ministerial associations are on record that they have stirred communities to their depths. Even secular editors, commonly unmoved by ordinary types of evangelism, have written: "Here is something new for the people, something fresh and suggestive for every active mind, which the business interests of the city cannot afford to neglect." The testimony of one pastor given at a meeting of the presbytery is practically that of scores of others throughout the country. He had attended a series of popular meetings conducted by Dr. Gray, and said: "I learned more during the few days I listened to Dr. Gray about the true character of preaching than I had learned in all my seminary course and my twenty years of ministry. Because of what I learned there of true expository preaching I shall hope to make the last years of my ministry the very best of all." We are glad that this book contains a practical application of all that the author has said and taught to the results which may be gathered from it in the pulpit. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 51: 04.0.4. MODULE PREPARED BY BIBLESUPPORT.COM ======================================================================== Module Prepared by BibleSupport.com Text Modification The text has been changed from the print edition. Scripture references were formatted for electronic presentation in e-Sword. Most implicit scripture references were made specific to reference the actual book chapter:verse rather than expecting the reader to deduce the chapter or book. Connect With Us Download thousands of free e-Sword modules, find answers to e-Sword problems, access e-Sword user forums, and fellowship with other e-Sword users. BibleSupport.com is also home to the only e-Sword User’s Guide, the most comprehensive documentation available for e-Sword. Want to know when this module is updated? Want to know when we release other modules? Want to show your support? Like us on Facebook: Facebook.com/BibleSupport Follow us on Twitter: Twitter.com/BibleSupport ======================================================================== CHAPTER 52: 04.1. THE STORY OF THE CASE ======================================================================== THE STORY OF THE CASE PART I The Bible like a Farm. How to master the English Bible! High-sounding title that, but does it mean what it says? It is not how to study it, but how to master it; for there is a sense in which the Bible must be mastered before it can be studied, and it is the failure to see this which accounts for other failures on the part of many earnest would-be Bible students. I suppose it is something like a farm; for although never a farmer myself, I have always imagined a farmer should know his farm before he attempted to work it. How much upland and how much lowland? How much wood and how much pasture? Where should the orchard be laid out? Where plant my corn, oats, and potatoes? What plot is to be seeded down to grass? When he has mastered his farm he begins to get ready for results from it. Now there are many ways of studying the Bible, any one of which may be good enough in itself, but there is only one way to master it, as we shall see. And it is the Bible itself we are to master, not books about the Bible, nor yet "charts." I once listened to an earnest and cultivated young man delivering a lecture on Bible study, illustrated by a chart so long that when he unrolled and held one end of it above his head, as high as his arms could reach, the other curled up on the floor below the platform. As the auditor gazed upon its labyrinthian lines, circles, crosses and other things intended to illuminate it, and "gathered up the loins of his mind" to listen to the explanation following, it was with an inward sigh of gratitude that God had never put such a yoke upon us, "which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear." The Vernacular and Bible Tongues. And it is the English Bible we are thinking about, the Bible in the vernacular, the tongue most of us best understand. One is grateful to have studied Hebrew and Greek, just to be able to tell others who have not that they do not require either to hearken to our Heavenly Father’s voice. He has an advantage as a scholar who can utilise the original tongues; but the Bible was not given to scholars, but to the people, and "hear we every man in our own tongue wherein we were born" (Acts 2:8). It is not at all inconsistent to add that he who masters the English Bible is possessed of the strongest inducement to study it in Hebrew and Greek. That which follows grows largely out of the writer’s personal experience. For the first eight or ten years of my ministry I did not know my English Bible as I should have known it, a fact to which my own spiritual life and the character of my pulpit ministrations bore depressing witness. [Sidenote: The Bible in the Seminary] Nor was I so fortunate as to meet with more than one or two brethren in the ministry who knew their English Bible very much better than I knew mine. They all declared that the theological seminaries did not profess to teach the English Bible. They taught much about the Bible of great importance for ministers to know, such as the Hebrew and Greek tongues, the principles of exegesis and interpretation, the history of the text, and the proofs and illustrations of Christian doctrine; but, in the words of one of the ministers referred to (which have appeared in print), "while we had some special lessons in one or two of the epistles, several of the psalms, in some of the prophecies, and in a few select portions of the gospels, other and vastly important parts of the Bible were left out altogether. We had nothing on the book of Revelation, no elaborate study of the Mosaic ritual and its profound system of types, and especially were we left uninitiated into the minute and wonderful co-ordination of parts in the various books of the Old and New Testaments, which disclose a stupendous divine plan running through the whole, linking them all together as an indissoluble unit and carrying with them an amazing power of conviction." The seminaries have assumed that students were acquainted with the great facts of the English Bible and their relation to one another before matriculation, but so competent an authority as President Harper declares that "to indicate the line of thought and chief ideas of a particular prophet, or the argument of an epistle, or to state even the most important events in the life of our Lord, would be impossible for the average college graduate." It is such an unfortunate state of things which, to a certain extent, accounts for the rise and maintenance of those excellent institutions, the Moody Bible Institute in this country and Spurgeon’s College in London, with their almost countless offspring and imitators everywhere, creating as they have a distinct atmosphere of biblical and evangelistic teaching and preaching. It is commonly supposed, it may be said in passing, that these institutions cater to or attract only men or women of very limited educational attainments, but in the case of the first-named, at least, an incidental census taken recently disclosed the fact that one-third of the male students then on the rolls or who had lately left were college-trained; one may safely hazard the opinion that in the women’s department the proportion of college-trained students would have been still larger. Help from a Layman. The first practical help I ever received in the mastery of the English Bible was from a layman. We were fellow-attendants at a certain Christian conference or convention and thrown together a good deal for several days, and I saw something in his Christian life to which I was a comparative stranger—a peace, a rest, a joy, a kind of spiritual poise I knew little about. One day I ventured to ask him how he had become possessed of the experience, when he replied, "By reading the epistle to the Ephesians." I was surprised, for I had read it without such results, and therefore asked him to explain the manner of his reading, when he related the following: He had gone into the country to spend the Sabbath with his family on one occasion, taking with him a pocket copy of Ephesians, and in the afternoon, going out into the woods and lying down under a tree, he began to read it; he read it through at a single reading, and finding his interest aroused, read it through again in the same way, and, his interest increasing, again and again. I think he added that he read it some twelve or fifteen times, "and when I arose to go into the house," said he, "I was in possession of Ephesians, or better yet, it was in possession of me, and I had been ’lifted up to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus’ in an experimental sense in which that had not been true in me before, and will never cease to be true in me again." I confess that as I listened to this simple recital my heart was going up in thanksgiving to God for answered prayer, the prayer really of months, if not years, that I might come to know how to master His Word. And yet, side by side with the thanksgiving was humiliation that I had not discovered so simple a principle before, which a boy of ten or twelve might have known. And to think that an "ordained" minister must sit at the feet of a layman to learn the most important secret of his trade! Dr. Stalker’s Experience. Since that day, however, the writer has found some comfort in the thought that other ministers have had a not unlike experience. In an address before the National Bible Society of Scotland, the Rev. Dr. Stalker speaks of the first time he ever "read a whole book of the Bible straight through at a sitting." It was while as a student he was spending a winter in France, and there being no Protestant church in the town where he was passing a Sunday, he was thrown on his own resources. Leaving the hotel where he was staying, he lay down on a green knoll and began reading here and there as it chanced, till, coming to the epistle to the Romans, he read on and on through to the end. "As I proceeded," he said, "I began to catch the drift of Paul’s thought; or rather, I was caught by it and drawn on. The mighty argument opened out and arose like a great work of art above me till at last it enclosed me within its perfect proportions. It was a revolutionary experience. I saw for the first time that a book of Scripture is a complete discussion of a single subject; I felt the force of the book as a whole, and I understood the different parts in the light of the whole as I had never understood them when reading them by themselves. Thus to master book after book is to fill the mind with the great thoughts of God." The Author’s Plan. Let me now speak of what I, personally, began to do after the suggestion of the layman, for the results which, in the providence of God, have grown out of it seem to warrant dwelling upon it even at the risk of prolixity on the one hand or the suspicion of egotism on the other. At first, supposing it more desirable to read the books in the original than the vernacular, I began to memorise some of the smaller epistles in Greek, but the Lord showed me "a more excellent way" in view of the purpose which the event proved Him to have had in mind in the matter. Accordingly, ignoring the Bible tongues for the time, I read Genesis through in the English at a single reading, and then repeated the process again and again until the book in its great outlines had practically become mine. Then I took up Exodus in the same way, Leviticus, Numbers, and practically all the other books of the Old and New Testaments to Revelation, with the exception of Proverbs, the Psalms and one or two others which do not lend themselves readily to that plan of reading, and indeed do not require it to their understanding and mastery. I am careful to emphasise the fact that I did not read the Bible "in course," as it is commonly understood. One might read it in that way a great many times and not master it in the sense indicated above. The plan was to read and re-read each book by itself and in its order, as though there were no other in existence, until it had become a part of the very being. Joy and Power. Was the task tedious and long? No more than was Jacob’s when he served Laban for his daughter Rachel. There were compensations all along the way and ever-increasing delight. No romance ever held sway over the thought and imagination in comparison with this Book of books. A better investment of time were never made by any minister; and, shut me up today to a choice between all the ministerial lore I ever learned elsewhere and what was learned in this synthetic reading of the Bible, and it would not take me many minutes to decide in favour of the latter. Nor did I know until lately how closely my feeling in this respect harmonised with that of a great educator and theologian of an earlier day. Dean Burgon and Dr. Routh. Dean Burgon tells of an interview he had in 1846 with the learned president of Magdalen College, Oxford, Dr. Martin Joseph Routh, then aged ninety-one. He had called upon him for advice as to the best way of pursuing his theological studies. "I think, sir," said Dr. Routh, "were I you, sir—that I would—first of all—read the—the Gospel according to St. Matthew." Here he paused. "And after I had read the Gospel according to St. Matthew—I would—were I you, sir—go on to read—the Gospel according to St.—Mark." "I looked at him," says Dean Burgon, "anxiously, to see whether he was serious. One glance was enough. He was giving me, but at a very slow rate, the outline of my future course." "Here was a theologian of ninety-one," says the narrator of this incident, "who, after surveying the entire field of sacred science, had come back to the starting point, and had nothing better to advise me to read than—the Gospel!" And thus he kept on until he had mentioned all the books of the New Testament. Sad, however, that the story should have been spoiled by his not beginning at Genesis! Lightening Labour. Words fail me to express the blessing that reading has been to me—strengthening my conviction as to the integrity and plenary inspiration of the whole Book, enlarging my mental vision as to the divine plan along the line of dispensational truth, purifying my life and lightening my labours in the ministry until that which before had often been a burden and weariness to the flesh, became a continual joy and delight. To speak of this last-named matter a little further. The claims on a city pastor in these days are enough to break down the strongest men, especially when their pulpit preparation involves the production of two orations or finished theses each week for which they must "read up in systematic treatises, philosophic disquisitions, works of literature, magazine articles and what not, drawing upon their ingenuity of invention and fertility of imagination all the time in order to be original, striking, elegant and fresh." But when they come to know their Bible, and get imbued with its lore and anointed by the Spirit through whom it speaks, "sermonising" will give place to preaching—the preaching that God bids us to preach, the exposition of His own Word, which is not only much easier to do, but correspondingly more fruitful in spiritual results. And, indeed, it is the kind of preaching that people want to hear—all kinds of people, the converted and the unconverted, the rich and the poor. A wide experience convinces me of this. Here is the minister’s field, his specialty, his throne. He may not be a master in other things; he may and should be a master in this. The really great preachers today, the MacLarens, the Torreys, the Campbell Morgans, are Bible expounders. George Whitefield, in Boston, had a congregation of two thousand people at six o’clock in the morning to hear him "expound the Bible." The people trod on Jesus to hear the Word of God, and if pastors only knew it, it is the way to get and to hold the people still. D. L. Moody and the International Bible Classes. My experience in the premises soon began to be that of others. Some theological students under my care at the time undertook the mastery of the English Bible in the same way and with the same blessing. Then the work began to broaden, and God’s further purpose to reveal itself. Such Bible institutes as those already spoken of, organised for the purpose of training Christian young men and women as evangelists, pastors’ helpers, missionaries and gospel workers generally, were in need of some simple, yet practical, method of putting their students in possession of the facts of the Word of God for use among the people with whom they had to deal, and God had been making ready to supply their need. But out of these institutes again have grown those large interdenominational Bible classes which have become a feature of our church life in different parts of the country. Their origin is traceable, like that of so many other good things of the kind, to the suggestion and support of the late D. L. Moody. One summer, while conducting a special course of Bible study in the Chicago Institute, he said to the writer: "If this synthetic method of teaching the Bible is so desirable for and popular with our day classes, why would it not take equally well with the masses of the people on a large scale? If I arrange for a mass meeting in the Chicago Avenue Church, will you speak to the people on ’How to Master the English Bible’ and let us see what will come of it?" The suggestion being acted upon, as a result about four hundred persons out of some one thousand present that evening resolved themselves into a union Bible class for the synthetic study of the Bible under the leadership of Mr. William R. Newell, then assistant superintendent of the Institute. This class continued to meet regularly once a week with unabated interest throughout the whole of that fall and winter, and the next year had multiplied into five classes held in different parts of the city, on different evenings of the week, but under the same teacher, and with an aggregate membership of over four thousand. The year following, this had increased to over five thousand, two or three of the classes averaging separately an attendance of twelve hundred to fifteen hundred. Since that time several similar classes have attained a membership approaching two thousand, and one, in Toronto, to nearly four thousand. At the time of this writing, in the heat of the summer, such a class is being held weekly in Chicago. From Chicago the work spread in other cities of the East and Middle West, and under other teachers. Classes for briefer periods have been carried on in Canada and Great Britain. A religious weekly organised a class to be conducted through its columns, enrolling tens of thousands in its membership, and through its influence many pastors, Y.M.C.A. and Y.W.C.A. workers have instituted classes in their own fields which have, in turn, multiplied the interest in the popular study of the English Bible in increasing ratio. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 53: 04.2. EXPLANATION OF THE METHOD ======================================================================== EXPLANATION OF THE METHOD PART II The contents of the preceding pages may be said to be preliminary to the definition or description of what the synthetic study of the Bible is; for by that name the method to be described has come to be called. The word "synthesis" suggests the opposite idea to the word "analysis." When we analyse a subject we take it apart and consider it in its various elements, but when we "synthesise" it, so to speak, we put it together and consider it as a whole. Now the synthetic study of the Bible means, as nearly as possible, the study of the Bible as a whole, and each book of the Bible as a whole, and as seen in its relation to the other books. A Coloured Critic. A very dear Christian friend and neighbour, the late A. J. Gordon, D.D., used to tell an amusing story of a conversation with a deacon of a church for coloured people in his proximity. He asked the deacon how the people liked their new pastor, and was surprised to hear him say, "Not berry much." When pressed for an explanation he added that the pastor told "too many ’antidotes’ in the pulpit." "Why," said the doctor, "I’m surprised to hear that; I thought he was a great Bible man." "Well," replied the deacon, "I’ll tell yer how ’tis. He’s de best man I ebber see’d to tak’ de Bible apart, but he dunno how to put it togedder agin." Principal Cairns, I think it was, who heard this story, said it was the best illustration of the distinction between the constructive and destructive criticism to which he had ever listened. The synthetic study of the Bible, it may be said in a word, is an attempt to put it together rather than to take it apart. Illustrations of the Method. To illustrate, I have always felt a sort of injury in the way I was taught geography; capes and bays, and lakes and rivers were sought to be crowded on my understanding before I ever saw a globe. Should not the globe come first, then the hemispheres, continents, nations, capitals and the rest? Does not a view of the whole materially assist in the comprehension of the parts? Is it not vital to it, indeed? And history—what is the true method of its study? Is it not first the outline history of the world, then its great divisions, ancient, mediaeval, modern, then the separate peoples or kingdoms in each, and so on? How could you hope to interest a child in botany who had never seen a flower? How would you study a picture of a landscape? Would you cover the canvas with a cloth and study one feature of it at a time? What idea of it would you obtain under such circumstances? Would you not rather say, "Hang it in the proper light, let me get the right position with regard to it, and take it all in at a single glance, fasten the whole of it at once on the camera of my consciousness, and then I shall be able and interested afterward to study it in detail, and to go into the questions of proportion, and perspective, and shading, and colouring and all that"? Is it not the failure to adopt the corresponding plan in Bible study which accounts in large measure for the lack of enthusiastic interest in its prosecution on the part of the people? The American Bible League. It is assuring to discover that the American Bible League, which promises to do much to quicken Bible study among the people along lines of faith in its integrity as the revealed Word of God, has reached almost precisely the same conclusion as to method. The esteemed secretary of that league, Rev. D. S. Gregory, D.D., LL.D., a man of wide experience in educational and literary lines other than those of the promulgation of Bible truth, charges the present ignorance of the Bible, "everywhere in evidence," to the failure of the old methods of its study. To quote his words in theBible Student and Teacher: "The fragmentary method was tried for a generation or two. We were kept studying the comments upon verse after verse, on the tacit assumption that no verse had any connection with any other verse, until we wearied of that, and would have no more of it. "So the lesson systems came in, and we have had series upon series of such systems, showing that men deeply felt that there was need of system in the study of the Bible. But these systems have been artificial, all of them; the latest of all the most so of all. The men who have been engaged in preparing them deserve our gratitude. They have done the best they could, doubtless; and we will look for more light and improvement for the time to come. But you hear everywhere that the people are weary of lesson systems. They are so because the systems are artificial, and because they do not take you directly to the Bible as the Word of God, but rather by means of most useful lesson leaves and other devices take you away from it. "And it is impossible to grasp the system, however valuable it may be. You study in seven years your three hundred and fifty lessons in a so-called system; and at the end of the seven years the best memory in Christendom has been found unable to hold that system so as to tell what has been taught in that time. When you have passed on from each lesson you have lost its connection with the Bible, and lost the lesson, too." Rationalism in the Sunday School. It is the judgment of this same observer that these "fragmentary methods" account, in part, for the assault of the rationalistic critics upon the work of the Sunday school. "There was a call for something better, a ’vacuum’ in the minds of teachers and professors in charge of instruction in the Bible, and just at the psychological moment there came all this German material—interesting, ingenious, imaginative, ready to fill that vacuum. The two needs met, and so we have had our recent development of the critical system of studying and presenting the Bible, which they are seeking now to introduce into all the schools and colleges and Sunday schools. "That critical method has taken the Bible apart into bits and scraps and scattered it to the ends of the earth, as we have heard and have reason to know. When one comes upon its results he feels that he does not know exactly where he is." Men hate bits and scraps, as this writer says, and as Bible teachers we should bring our methods into harmony with their natural constructive sense. Like the expert mountain climber, let us take them to the highest peak first, that they may see the whole range, and then they can intelligently and enthusiastically study the features of the lower levels in their relation to the whole. The opposite plan is confusing and a weariness to the flesh. Give people to see for themselves what the Bible is in the large, and then they will have a desire to see it in detail. Put a telescope in their hands first, and a microscope afterwards. Luther and the Apple Tree. Martin Luther used to say that he studied the Bible as he gathered apples. He shook the tree first, then the limbs, then the branches, and after that he reached out under the leaves for the remaining fruit. The reverse order is monotonous in either case— studying the Bible or gathering apples. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 54: 04.3. THE PLAN AT WORK ======================================================================== THE PLAN AT WORK PART III Begin at the Beginning. There are certain simple rules to be observed in the synthetic study of the Bible if we want to master it, and the first is to begin to study it where God began to write it, i.e. at the book of Genesis. The newer criticism would dispute this statement about the primary authorship of Genesis, but the best answer to the objection is to try the plan. As Dr. Smith says in his The Integrity of Scripture: "Inherent in revelation there is a self-witness. The latest portion points to the beginning, and the beginning, with all that may be limited and provisional, contains the germ of the end. God’s discovery of Himself is not an episode, but rooted in a vast breadth of the world’s life, intertwined with human history, and growing from less to more, as in this divine education and discipline man became capable of receiving the full self-unveiling of God." Dr. Ashmore, for fifty years an honoured missionary of the American Baptist Missionary Union at Shanghai, relates the following, which furnishes a practical illustration of this thought. At one time he and his brother missionaries started a Bible school for their young converts, and began to teach them the Epistle to the Hebrews. Now the Chinese are remarkable for an inquiring disposition, and questions began to descend upon the teachers to such a degree that they were compelled to forego their purpose to teach Hebrews and go back to Leviticus as explanatory of or introductory to it. But the teaching of Leviticus produced the same result, and they went back to Exodus. And from Exodus they were driven to Genesis, when the questions materially abated. The Bible is wondrously self-interpretive if we will give it an opportunity, and that opportunity is afforded if in its perusal we will wisely and submissively follow the channel marked out by its divine Author. Read the Book. The second rule is to read the book. It is not asked that it be studied in the ordinary sense, or memorised, or even sought to be understood at first; but simply read. The purpose is to make the task as easy, as natural, and as pleasant as possible. It matters not, for the time being, how rapidly you read it, if you but read it. But is it not strange that this is one of the last things many really earnest Christians and seekers after Bible truth are willing to do? They will read books about the Bible almost without limit, but to read the books of the Bible itself is another matter. But how could one master any corresponding subject by such a method? And is it not dishonouring to God for any reason to treat His authorship thus? We are living in a time when, if only for good form, we feel an obligation to be acquainted with the best authors. But shall we say that Dante, or Shakespeare, or any other of the masters is able to interest us in what he wrote, while He who created him is unable to do so? Are we prepared to confess that God cannot write a book as capable of holding our attention as that of one of His creatures? What an indictment we are writing down against ourselves in saying that, and how it convinces us of sin! I know a lady who once travelled a long distance on a railroad with her trunk unlocked, and when she met her husband at the terminus and reported the circumstance there was naturally some emotion in her speech. She had been unable to find the key anywhere, she said, and only discovered its loss at too late a moment to have another fitted before she started upon her journey. And the trunk with all its treasures had come that whole distance with only a strap around it. "Why," exclaimed her husband, "do you not recall that when we come home from a journey I always fasten the key of the trunk to one of its handles? There’s your key," pointing to the end of the trunk. The incident is recalled by the so frequent inquiry one hears for a "key" to the Bible. Its Author has provided one, and to the average person, at least in this enlightened country, it is always at hand. Read the book. Read It Continuously. The third rule is, read the book continuously. I think it is in his lecture on "The Lost Arts" that Wendell Phillips tells the story of the weaver who turned out so much more material from his loom than any other workman in the mill. How was it done? In vain was the secret sought, until one day a bribe from one of his employers elicited the information,"Chalk the bobbins."Each morning he had carried a piece of chalk with him to his loom, and when unobserved, applied it to that small but important part of the machinery. The result was astonishing. The application of the chalk to every bobbin of every loom of every workman made his employers rich. Who cannot supplement this story with some other where a principle just as simple wrought results as great? Try it in the case of the continuous reading of a given book of the Bible, and see what it will do. But what is the meaning of "continuous" in this instance? The adjective may not be the most lucid, but the idea is this: It stands for two things—the reading of the book uninfluenced by its divisions into chapters and verses, and the reading of the book in this wayat a single sitting.The divisions, it should be remembered, are of human origin and not divine, and, while effecting a good purpose in some particulars, are a hindrance to the mastery of the book in others. Sometimes a chapter or a verse will cut a truth in half, whose halves state a different fact or teach a different doctrine from that intended by the whole, and necessarily affecting the conception of the outline. As to the "single sitting," the reason for it is this. Many of the books of the Bible have a single thread running through the whole—a pivotal idea around which all the subsidiary ones resolve—and to catch this thread, to seize upon this idea, it is absolutely necessary to unravel or break up the whole in its essential parts. To read Genesis in this way, for example, will lead to the discovery that, large as the book is, it contains but five great or outline facts, viz.: The history of creation. The history of the fall. The history of the deluge. The history of the origin of the nations. The history of the patriarchs. It is, then, a book of history, and the larger part of it history of the biographical sort. This last-named fact can be subdivided again into four facts, viz., the histories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, and thus the whole book can be kept in mind in a very practical way in eight words. Moreover, the reading necessary to have gained the eight words will unconsciously have fastened upon the understanding the subsidiary facts associated with each word, so that a very satisfactory examination might be passed as to the contents of the whole book. Read It Repeatedly. The fourth rule is to read the book repeatedly. The reader will understand that by the "book" in every case is meant the particular book of the Bible, Genesis, for example, which it is now being sought to master, and which is not to be laid aside for any other succeeding book of the Bible until the mastery is assured. This cannot usually be accomplished by one reading, but only by repeated readings after the manner designated. A stranger sailing along the New England coast on a foggy morning could hardly believe there was a coast. But later, when the sun rises and the fog begins to dissipate, there is, at first, a line of sandy beach discernible, then a cluster or two of rocks, then a little verdure, a house or two, a country road, the wooded hillside, until at length the whole of the beautiful landscape stands out in view. It is much the same in the synthetic reading of a given book of the Bible. The first view is not always satisfactory, and it requires a little courage to try again and again; but the effort brings a wonderful and inspiring result at last. The first reading of Genesis may not reveal what was spoken of above, but two or three readings will reveal it. Leviticus is more difficult than Genesis or even Exodus, because it is dealing with laws and ordinances rather than historic happenings; but as soon as you discover that its theme is laws, these latter will begin to differentiate themselves before your mind and naturally suggest a simple classification such as this: The law of the offerings. The law of the consecration of the priests. The law of the clean and the unclean. The law of the day of atonement. The law of the feasts. The law of the redemption of land and slaves. The law of the year of jubilee. What a great and indispensable aid such a classification is for any further study of that book or, for that matter, any other part of the Bible to which this revelation of the ceremonial law is particularly related! Even the Old Testament prophets, which some have described as "the desert of the Scriptures," will "rejoice and blossom as the rose" under such treatment as this, the discourses readily distinguishing themselves by structure and subject. And, of course, the New Testament will possess far less difficulty than the Old. Read It Independently. The fifth rule is to read it independently—i.e.independently, at first at least, of all commentaries and other outside aids. These are invaluable in their place, of course, but in the mastery of the English Bible in the present sense, that place is not before but after one has got an outline of a given book for himself. Indeed, an imperfect or erroneous outline of one’s own is better than a perfect outline of another. The necessity to alter it when, by comparison, the error is discovered may prove a valuable discipline and education. The independent reading of a book in this sense is urged because of its development of one’s own intellectual powers. To be ever leaning on help from others is like walking on stilts all one’s life and never attempting to place one’s feet on the ground. Who can ever come to know the most direct and highest type of the teaching of the Holy Spirit in this way? Who can ever understand the most precious and thrilling experiences of spiritual illumination thus? Should you wish to teach others, how could you communicate to them that sense of your own mastery of the subject so vital to a pedagogue had you never really dealt with it at first hand? One of our millionaires is reported as carrying a cow around with him on his yacht because he dislikes condensed milk. It is a great gain to so know the Bible for yourself that, carrying it with you wherever you go, you may be measurably independent of other books in its study and use. But there is another reason for the independent reading of the book, and that is the deliverance from intellectual confusion which it secures. The temptation is, when an interpretive difficulty is reached, to turn at once to the commentary for light, which means so very often that the reader has become side-tracked for good, or rather bad, as the situation is now viewed. The search for the solution of one little difficulty leads to searching for another, and that for another, until, to employ F. B. Meyer’s figure, we have "become so occupied with the hedgerows and the copses of the landscape as to lose the conception of the whole sweep and extent of the panorama of truth." The "intensive" has been pursued to the great disadvantage of the "extensive," and usually there is nothing to be done but to begin all over again, for which every reader does not possess the required courage. And there is an advantage in this independent reading from the teacher’s point of view, too, as well as that of the learner. How many pastors through the country have spoken of the success the synthetic method has been to them in attracting their people to the house of God and awakening in them a real interest in Bible study! That is, what a success it has been up to a certain point, when they got "swamped," to use the very expressive word of more than one of them! Swamped? How? Investigation has always revealed the one cause, and brought the one confession—a failure to diligently and faithfully pursue the method in consequence of the temptation to investigate minutiae and multiply details. There is lying before me at this moment thedebrisof a collapse of this kind. A devoted pastor sends me the printed syllabus of his work with his congregation covering the Hexateuch. They were so delighted and so helped by it until now, when there has come a "hitch." He fears he is getting away from the plan, and giving and expecting too much. And his work reveals the ground of his fears. Such work belongs to the pastor in his study, but not on the platform before a popular audience in Bible teaching. And if it will "swamp" the trained and cultivated teacher, how much more the inexperienced learner! A faithful reading of the various books on an independent basis will secure a working outline, and this should be carried with one in his mind, and on his notebook, as he proceeds from book to book, until the work is done. Then he can successively begin his finer work, and analyse his outline, and study helps, and gather light, and accumulate material, without confusion of thought, without a false perspective, and with an ever-increasing sense of joy and power. Read It Prayerfully. The most important rule is the last. Read it prayerfully. Let not the triteness of the observation belittle it, or all is lost. The point is insisted on because, since the Bible is a supernatural book, it can be studied or mastered only by supernatural aid. In the words of William Luff, "It is the Spirit’s Bible! Copyright every word! Only His thoughts are uttered, only His voice is heard!" Who is so well able to illuminate the pages of a given book as the author who composed it? How often when one has been reading Browning has he wished Browning were at his side to interpret Browning! But the Holy Spirit, by whom holy men of old wrote, dwells within the believer on Jesus Christ for the very purpose of bringing things to his remembrance and guiding him into all the truth. Coleridge said, "The Bible without the Holy Spirit is a sundial by moonlight," and a greater than he said, "We have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given us of God" (1 Corinthians 2:12). That dear old Scottish saint, Andrew Bonar, discriminated between a minister’s getting his text from the Bible, and getting it from God through the Bible; a fine distinction that holds good not only with reference to the selection of a text to preach upon, but with reference to the apprehension spiritually of any part of the Word of God. "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him; but God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit" (1 Corinthians 2:9-10). The inspired apostle does not say God has revealed them unto us by His Word, though they are in His Word; but by His Spirit through His Word. "For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so, the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." There is a parallel passage to the above in the first chapter of Ephesians which has always impressed the writer with great force. Paul had been unveiling the profoundest verities of holy writ to the Ephesians, and then he prays that the eyes of their heart (R.V.) might be enlightened to understand, to know what he had unveiled. He had been telling them what was the hope of their calling, and the riches of the glory of God’s inheritance in the saints, and the exceeding greatness of His power toward them that believe; but how could they apprehend what he had told them, save as the Holy Spirit took of these things of Christ and showed them unto them? The Word of God is not enough without the Spirit of God. In the light of the foregoing, let the reader punctuate the reading of it and every part of it with prayer to its divine Author, and he will come to know "How to Master the English Bible." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 55: 04.4. RESULTS IN THE PULPIT ======================================================================== RESULTS IN THE PULPIT PART IV In the preceding pages the consideration of the lay reader has been in the foreground, though the ministry has not been out of mind. But in what follows the writer ventures to address his brethren of the ministry, especially his younger brethren, most particularly. In vain we seek to interest the people in Bible study in any permanent or general way except as they are stimulated thereto by the instruction and example of their ministers. A Vitiated Taste. There must be even more than an example. In connection with a Bible conference in a city of the Middle West, a private gathering of pastors was held, at which one of them arose and with deep emotion said: "Brethren, I have a confession to make. I know not whether it will fit in with the experience of any others, but I have been guilty of cultivating in my peoplea vitiated tastefor preaching, and henceforth, by God’s help, I intend to give them His own Word." To search the Scriptures on their own account, the people of our churches must acquire a taste for their contents. They must be constantly fed with the bread of life to have an appetite for it. They will "desire the sincere milk of the word," if so be "they have tasted that the Lord is gracious." But to what extent do they "taste" it in the ordinary pulpit ministrations of the day? Secretary Shaw. The Honourable Leslie M. Shaw, Secretary of the Treasury, gave an address recently in Washington, on the occasion of a Sunday school jubilee, which interested the writer deeply. He was pleading for the Sunday school on the ground that it was the only place at present in which the Bible was taught. "It is not now taught in the public schools," said he, "nor am I here to say that it ought to be taught there. In our busy life it is not taught in our homes. The head of the family ought to be a priest, but the Bible is seldom read, much less taught, in the home. It is seldom taught in the pulpit. Not that I am criticising the ministry. But take up a paper and see what the sermons are to be about. You will learn about the plan of salvation if you listen to the sermons, but you will not know much about the Bible if you depend on getting your knowledge of it from the pulpit." He then went on to say that "the only place on this earth where the Bible is taught is in the Sunday school." When, however, we consider the character of the average Sunday school, the scraps and bits of the Bible there taught, the brief period of time devoted to the teaching, the lack of discipline in the classes, and the inadequate training and preparation of the average teacher, we begin to inquire, Where is the Bible taught? and wonder whether we have fallen on the times of the prophet: 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; and they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.—Amos 8:11-12. Professor Mathews on the Sunday School. I am with Professor Shailer Mathews, D.D., in some of his strictures on the modern Sunday school, if only it be allowed that there are not a few blessed exceptions to the rule he lays down. I do not know how we should agree as to a remedy for present conditions, but one remedy would be, where there is a Bible expositor in the pulpit, to do away with certain features of the Sunday school altogether for the time being. The infant or primary departments might be retained as they are, and possibly the Bible classes for older adults, but the intermediate classes would do well to be gathered together under the instruction only of the pastor himself. In time, such a plan would beget enough teachers of the right quality and spirit to return to the former method if desired. The cabinet officer’s warning and appeal are timely, for an awful harvest of infidelity and its attendant evils must be reaped in the next generation should the Church fail to arise to her responsibility as to the teaching of the unadulterated Word of God in the present one. It is for this reason that the writer pleads with his brethren to make expository preaching the staple of their pulpit ministrations. Should they have read the previous chapters in a sympathetic spirit, they will begin to do this without much urging even where they have been strangers to it hitherto. But if otherwise, then a further word, before our concluding chapter, as to the history and practicality of that kind of preaching, may throw them back on what has been said before in such a way as to catch the spirit of it and be influenced by it. Expository Sermons Defined. Expository sermons differ from the textual not so much in kind as in degree. For example, the text is usually longer, and more attention is given to the explanation of the words. The text, indeed, may cover several verses, a whole chapter, or parts of more than one chapter. And the treatment need not necessarily be confined to the definition of words, but include the adjustment of the text to the context, and the amplification and illustration of the various ideas suggested. Dr. James W. Alexander, from whoseThoughts on PreachingI draw generously in what follows, says: The Notion of a Sermon. "Suppose a volume of human science to be placed in our hands as the sole manual or textbook to elucidate to a public assembly, in what way would it be most natural to go to work? Certainly we would not take a sentence here, and another there, and upon these separate portions frame one or two discourses every week! No interpreter of Aristotle or Littleton would dream of doing that. Nor was it adopted in the Christian Church, until the sermon ceased to be regarded in its true notion, as an explanation of the Scripture, and began to be viewed as a rhetorical entertainment, which might afford occasion for the display of subtlety, research and eloquence." Inspired Sermons. The same author recites some interesting facts that might be summed up under the general head of the history of expository preaching. For example, he reminds us that as early as the time of Ezra we find the reading of the law accompanied with some kind of interpretation. See Nehemiah 8. In the synagogues, moreover, after the reading of the law and the prophets, it was usual for the presiding officer to invite such as were learned to address the people, and it was in this way that our blessed Lord Himself—as well as His apostles, subsequently—was given the opportunity to open up the Scriptures. See our Lord’s discourse in the synagogue at Nazareth, reported in the fourth of Luke, and observe that it was an expository treatment of Isaiah 61:1-11. Notice, also, the discourses of Peter and Paul in the book of the Acts. The Christian Fathers. The early Christian assemblies adopted this method in their religious services, as we may judge from allusions and examples in the writings of Justin Martyr, Origen, Augustine and Chrysostom. Their homilies, especially in the instances of the last mentioned two, were usually of the nature of "a close interpretation, or running commentary on the text, followed by a practical application." Chrysostom, quoted by Neander, says: "If anyone assiduously attend public worship, even without reading the Bible at home, but carefully hearkening here, he will find a single year sufficient to give him an intimate acquaintance with the Scriptures." In how many of our churches could the same be said today? But ought it not to be said in all? Dr. Alexander is further sponsor for the statement that it was about the beginning of the thirteenth century when the method of preaching from insulated texts came into vogue, and the younger clergy adopted subtle divisions of the sermon. And he says, too, that it was warmly opposed by some of the best theologians of the age, as "a childish playing upon words, destructive of true eloquence, tedious and unaffecting to the hearers, and cramping the imagination of the preachers." He is not prepared to entirely accept this criticism of the theologians, however, nor am I, believing that both the topical and the textual methods of preaching have their attractions and advantages. The Reformation Period. Nevertheless, it is a pleasure to record that "when the light of divine truth began to emerge from its long eclipse, at the Reformation, there were few things more remarkable than the universal return of evangelical preachers to the expository method. Book after book of the Bible was publicly expounded by Luther, and the almost daily sermons of Calvin were, with scarcely any exceptions, founded on passages taken in regular course as he proceeded through the sacred canon. The same is true of the other reformers, particularly in England and Scotland." In the times of the Nonconformists the textual method came into practice again; but, notwithstanding, exposition was considered a necessary part of ministerial labour. Matthew Henry is a conspicuous example of this, who, although he frequently preached from single texts, yet "on every Lord’s day morning expounded a part of the Old Testament, and in the evening a part of the New, in both instances proceeding in regular order." Modern Examples. In modern times Charles H. Spurgeon has followed the example of Matthew Henry to a great extent. He preached topically, with great interest and power, but at almost every service the exposition of Scripture was made a distinctive, and always popular, feature of the exercises. The late Dr. Howard Crosby was heard to say that, in the course of his pastorate in New York, he had thus given instruction to his people on every verse in the Bible. The writer, also, can add his testimony to the fact that this method of preaching is delightful both to pastor and people. Both need training for it, but when once the taste has been acquired it demands constant gratification. Let me now supplement these observations on the nature and history of expository preaching with some remarks upon its practicality and value. The Easy Way. In the first place, when the art is learned, it is the easiest form of preaching; and this is saying a good deal in an era of the conservation of energy. The other day my attention was called to an announcement of a series of Sunday evening discourses by a city pastor, on "The Gospel in Recent Fiction," in the course of which he proposed to speak of the spiritual and ethical teaching of some half-dozen of the popular novels of the day. I could not but think if he had put the same time and interest into the reading and analysis of as many books of the Bible, he would have worked less and accomplished more. It might be said he would not get as many people to hear him, but I doubt the truth of that statement, if it were known what he was going to do, and if he did it well. Moreover, there is another side to the question. TheWatchmansays: "Time and again we have seen Sunday congregations increased greatly under the stimulus of what is called ’up-to-date’ preaching, but the church as a spiritual body, effective for achieving the true ends of a church, became progressively weaker. The outsiders said that it was doing a tremendous work, but really it was not doing anything like the work it did in the days of its comparative obscurity." At the risk of enlarging upon this idea beyond its due proportion, it is difficult to resist the temptation to quote a further paragraph from theInterior, to the effect that "nothing is of less value to the church than a full house—except an empty one. We happened the other morning," says the editor, "—it was Monday—to meet the treasurer of an important city church whose doors had been crowded the night before. We congratulated him upon the success of his pastor in ’filling the pews.’ ’Yes,’ was the hesitating reply, ’he has filled the pews, and filled the vestibule, and filled the pulpit steps—but he has emptied the collection baskets. We have the biggest audience in the city, and will soon have the biggest debt.’ In another city two thousand miles distant, and in another denomination, we came upon a church from whose doors hundreds were turned nightly away. Three years later we asked the principal layman how the church was doing now, and he replied, with a tinge of sadness, ’We had a grand debauch under Brother X., and we haven’t quite recovered from it yet.’" The Proper Way. It is not only the easiest but the most appropriate form of preaching,i.e.it assumes and compels on the part of the preacher a large knowledge of the Word of God and aptness in imparting it. As was remarked in part, before, in another connection, where no extended exposition is attempted the preacher is naturally induced to draw upon systematic treatises, philosophical theories, works of mere literature, or his own ingenuity of invention and fertility of imagination; with the result that the rhetorical aspect of preaching attracts undue attention, and the desire to be original, striking, ingenious and elegant supersedes the earnest endeavour to be biblical. There are few ministers, honest with their own souls, who will not admit the truth and the seriousness of this implication. Here, too, is how heresy comes to raise its head and grow apace. The biblical preacher is always orthodox and evangelical, and has no trouble in remaining so. And this is the same with his congregation, for here we have a rule that works both ways. A biblical preacher comes, in time, to make a biblical church, and should that not be the aim of every minister? Should not his example be that of Paul, "teaching every man in all wisdom, that he may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus"? The truth, however, is, as the authority quoted above says, that "the scriptural knowledge possessed by our ordinary congregations, amidst all our boasted light and improvement, bears no comparison with that of the Scottish peasantry of the last generation, who, from very infancy, were taught to follow the preacher, in their little Bibles, as he expounded in regular course." Why hear we so much in these days of Bible Training Schools and Bible Conventions, and Union Bible Classes and the like? They are good signs of the times, and bad signs. They demonstrate a hunger on the part of some of the people of God for His Word, and an inability to have it satisfied in the place where they naturally belong. Every church should be more or less truly a Bible Training School, and the pastor the head of it. It is the most useful form of preaching. Dr. Alexander has some excellent observations that fit in under this head, every one of which I have experienced to be true in my own ministry, and earnestly recommend to the prayerful consideration of my brethren. The Useful Way. For example, expository preaching affords inducement and occasion to the preacher to declare the whole counsel of God. It keeps him from neglecting many important doctrines and duties which otherwise would almost necessarily be overlooked. It gives a symmetry and completeness to his pulpit efforts. It promotes variety and enables him to escape ruts. To how many people are such biblical truths as predestination and election unwelcome! Yet, how important they are, how necessary to be discussed and explained by the minister of the Gospel, and how likely to be avoided nonetheless! But let him be expounding Romans, and he must deal with those difficulties, and glorify God in the doing of it. I say glorify God; for the reason that those doctrines, and some others, are abhorrent to the popular mind, is chiefly that they are usually set forth in their "naked theological form," and not in their scriptural connection. And then, too, there are certain sins which every pastor feels he ought to inveigh against once in a while, but from which he is prevented either from delicacy, or through fear of being considered personal in his remarks. Let him adopt the expository method of preaching, however, and his hesitation in these respects will be removed as he comes across the very themes that should thus be touched upon, in a natural way. The Popular Way. It may become the most popular form of preaching. Indeed, it should become so. The fault is ours,i.e.the ministers’, if such is not the case. We should keep at it till we learn to do it well. We should besiege the throne of grace for power and wisdom to do it well. Who doubts that the Author of the Holy Scriptures would answer such entreaties? Chalmers’ lectures on Romans, Archbishop Leighton’s lectures on First Peter, F. W. Robertson’s on First Corinthians, are old, but standard types of what may be done in this respect. I doubt not that Archbishop Trench delivered the substance of his book on theEpistles to the Seven Churchesto his congregation before it appeared in print; and so in the case of Bishop Ryle and hisExpository Thoughts on the Gospels, and Dr. Moule and hisStudies in Philippians. I, myself, have seen large congregations held from week to week in city churches, where the chief attraction was the exposition of the Bible text. God wrote the Bible for the "common people," and it is irreverent to suppose that they cannot be interested in the reading and explanation of it. There is no other book in the world which sells like God’s Book; it leads the market! How short-sighted, then, are we ministers who fail to take advantage of the fact, and utilise it to draw our audiences, and interest them, and nourish them with the bread of life! [1] [1] A part of what the author has here written on the subject of expository preaching formed the substance of a previous communication from his pen in Current Anecdotes, a monthly magazine for ministers, F. M. Barton, Cleveland. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 56: 04.5. EXPOSITORY OUTLINES ======================================================================== EXPOSITORY OUTLINES PART V Our concluding chapter has been reserved for one or two "sample" expository outlines that may prove helpful as suggestions to inexperienced beginners. The first is drawn from the author’s own store, and the second is that of Pastor F. E. Marsh, of Sunderland, England, which has come under the author’s observation and affords a good illustration of another variety of the species. How Obtained. The principle on which the first-named was obtained was that explained in the previous chapters. The synthetic reading of Romans led to certain discoveries, as follows: (1) That epistle contains a single theme, viz., the gift of God’s righteousness to men. (2) This theme is developed along three main lines: its necessity, its nature, and its effect upon man. (3) Its effect upon man is developed again along three lines: his relations to God, his own experience, and his relations to others. (4) The last-named subdivision (his relations to others) covers Romans 12:1-21, Romans 13:1-14, Romans 14:1-23, Romans 15:1-33, Romans 16:1-27, and expands the idea socially, politically, and ecclesiastically. The Strong and the Weak. Some time before this final thought was arrived at, the consideration of the epistle had already yielded material for several expository discourses, but it was conceived that still a good one of a very practical order lay embedded, say, in chapters Romans 13:8-14, Romans 14:1-23, Romans 15:1-7, where the inspired writer is dealing with the Christian in his church or ecclesiastical relations. A sample better in some respects might readily be given, but this is chosen because it lies at hand, and also because it is not a "stock" piece got up for the occasion, but such an one as lies upon the surface of the text, and which any young beginner might evolve on his own account with a little pains. The theme decided on was this: The Strong and the Weak, or the Christian’s Debt to His Brother.Romans 13:8-14, Romans 14:1-23, Romans 15:1-7. 1. We have here the command for Christians to love one another. Romans 13:8-10. 2. The urgency for its observance. Romans 13:11-14. 3. The particular call for its application (fellowshiping the weak). Romans 14:1. 4. The description of the weak (conscientious scruples as to eating, and the observance of days). Romans 14:2; Romans 14:5. 5. The way in which fellowship is to be shown: (a) by not judging them, Romans 14:3-12; (b) by not putting a stumbling-block in their way, Romans 14:13-19; (c) by edifying them, Romans 14:20-23. 6. The motive in the premises (the example of Christ). Romans 15:1-4. 7. The object in view (the glory of God). Romans 15:5-7. In developing division 5 it was shown (a) that we should not judge the weak brother, for the following reasons: (1) God has received him. Romans 14:3. (2) He is accountable to God only. Romans 14:4, first part. (3) God can make him stand. Romans 14:4, last part. (4) Each man must be fully persuaded in his own mind. Romans 14:5. (5) The weak brother may be honouring and serving God even under the conditions named. Romans 14:6. (6) Each one of us must give account of himself to God. Romans 14:10-12. It was shown (b) that we put a stumbling-block in the way of our weak brother by an undue insistence on our liberty (Romans 14:14-15), and that such insistence may itself become sin. Romans 14:16-18. Finally it was shown (c) that we edify one another by following after things which make for peace (Romans 14:19), and that it makes for peace sometimes to control our zeal. Romans 14:22. Some Practical Hints. Of course it is almost vital to the best results of expository preaching that the people bring their Bibles to Church, and use them more or less in following their minister. Frequently it is desirable for them to read the text aloud with him responsively, or in unison. A little gentle coaxing at first, preceded by private prayer, will get them to do both these things, bring their Bibles and read the text, while afterwards they will delight to do them. It will cause church-going and sermon-hearing to become a new and living experience to them. Young and old will like it, and sinners as well as saints. But another almost necessity is to select a subject and treat it in such a way as to obviate as far as possible the turning over of the leaves or pages of the Bible during the progress of the exposition. The best plan is to limit the exposition, where you can, to the page or two just before the reader’s eye. But if turning must be done, let it be on the principle of Edward Everett Hale’s "Ten Times Ten" or "Lend-a-Hand" Society,i.e.forward and not backward. It is especially confusing and wearisome to a congregation to be turning pages backward, and then forward, and then backward again, and will not be relished as an innovation. Row with the tide. In the outline now to follow there are leaves to turn, for it covers a whole epistle. And yet with a single (and perhaps unnecessary) exception, there is progress in each division. The hearers are stimulated by the thought of getting on, and that there is an end in sight. It might be styled: The Character of the New Born. What kind of persons are those who are born again? We have only to turn to the First Epistle of John for the answer. Mark the words "born of him," or "born of God," which we have again and again in the epistle. We get seven characteristics of those who are begotten of God: 1. The people who are born of God are righteous. "Every one that doeth righteousness is born of him" (Romans 2:29). If I am not doing righteously, what evidence have I that I am born of Him? 2. Those born of God are an unsinning people. "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin" (Romans 2:9). Sin is not the habit of life of the one who has been born again. The trend of his life is not in the old paths of sin. 3. Those who are born of God are an abiding people. "His seed abideth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (Romans 3:9). 4. Those who are born of God are a loving people. "Every one that loveth is born of God" (Romans 4:7). 5. They are a believing people. "He that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (Romans 5:1). It is not merely that they say that Christ is Christ, but they know Him experimentally as the Christ in power. 6. Those who are born of God are an overcoming people. "Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world" (Romans 5:4). The evidence, therefore, of being born of God is victory over the world. 7. Those born of God are a preserved people. "Whosoever is born of God sinneth not, but he that was begotten of God keepeth him" (Romans 5:18, R.V.). Those who have been born of God are kept by the power of God. These are the people who constitute the church of God, and they answer to everything that is said of those who are found faithful, and who escape the things that are coming on the world. The author lingers over the closing word, for he is enamoured of the theme and loath to leave it. No typewriting machine has ground out these pages for the press; the subject has been too sacred for other than his own pen. He covets the love of it for every fellow-member of the body of Christ. He sees the regeneration of the Church in the general adoption of the plan. He sees the sanctification of the ministry. He sees a mighty quickening in the pews. He sees the worldwide revival for which a thousand hearts are praying. He sees the unmasking of a Christianised rationalism, and the utter rout of a rationalised Christianism. He sees the first thing in the world getting the first place in the world. He sees the solution of a score of civic problems. He sees the protection of vested rights against lawlessness, and the labourer receiving the due reward of his hire. He sees the oppressed set free; no longer "Condemned by night, enchained by day, Drowned in the depths of grim despair; While running brooks sing roundelay, And God’s green fields are ev’rywhere." He sees the missionary treasuries repleted. He sees the hastening of the day when this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached as a witness to all nations (Matthew 24:14), and when He who is our life shall appear, and we also shall appear together with Him in glory (Colossians 3:4). O brethren of the ministry and the laity, get back to the Bible! Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom (Colossians 3:16). Let us preach the preaching that God bids us (Jonah 3:2). Diminish not a word (Jeremiah 26:2). Let us be as His mouthpieces, nothing more, nothing less, taking forth the precious from the vile (Jeremiah 15:19), for who knoweth if He will return and repent, and leave a blessing behind Him? (Joel 2:14) ======================================================================== CHAPTER 57: 05.0. THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE ======================================================================== THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE —DEFINITION, EXTENT AND PROOF BY JAMES M. GRAY, D. D., Dean Of Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Ill. The Inspiration of the Bible — Definition, Extent and Proof 1. Definition of Inspiration 2. Extent of Inspiration 3. Proof of Inspiration A. Argument for the Old Testament B. Argument for the New Testament C. Argument for the Words 4. Difficulties and Objections http://www.biblecentre.net/solascript/art/gray/ins-Index.html In this paper the authenticity and credibility of the Bible are assumed, by which is meant (1), that its books were written by the authors to whom they are ascribed, and that their contents are in all material points as when they came from their hands; and (2), that those contents are worthy of entire acceptance as to their statements of fact. Were there need to prove these assumptions, the evidence is abundant, and abler pens have dealt with it. Let it not be supposed, however, that because these things are assumed their relative importance is undervalued. On the contrary, they underlie inspiration, and, as President Patton says, come in on the ground floor. They have to do with the historicity of the Bible, which for us just now is the basis of its authority. Nothing can be settled until this is settled, but admitting its settlement which, all things considered, we now may be permitted to do, what can be of deeper interest than the question as to how far that authority extends? This is the inspiration question, and while so many have taken in hand to discuss the others, may not one be at liberty to discuss this? It is an old question, so old, indeed, as again in the usual recurrence of thought to have become new. Our fathers discussed it, it was the great question once upon a time, it was sifted to the bottom, and a great storehouse of fact, and argument, and illustration has been left for us to draw upon in a day of need. For a long while the enemy’s attack has directed our energies to another part of the field, but victory there will drive us back here again. The other questions are outside of the Bible itself, this is inside. They lead men away from the contents of the book to consider how they came, this brings us back to consider what they are. Happy the day when the inquiry returns here, and happy the generation which has not forgotten how to meet it. Reformatted for e-Sword by Stored on http://www.davidcox.com.mx/ ======================================================================== CHAPTER 58: 05.1. DEFINITION OF INSPIRATION ======================================================================== 1. DEFINITION OF INSPIRATION 1. Inspiration is not revelation. As Dr. Charles Hodge expressed it, revelation is the act of communicating divine knowledge to the mind, but inspiration is the act of the same Spirit controlling those who make that knowledge known to others. In Chalmer’s happy phrase, the one is the influx, the other the efflux. Abraham received the influx, he was granted a revelation; but Moses was endued with the efflux, being inspired to record it for our learning. In the one case there was a flowing in and in the other a flowing out. Sometimes both of these experiences met in the same person, indeed Moses himself is an illustration of it, having received a revelation at another time and also the inspiration to make it known, but it is of importance to distinguish between the two. 2. Inspiration is not illumination. Every regenerated Christian is illuminated in the simple fact that he is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but every such an one is not also inspired, but only the writers of the Old and New Testaments. Spiritual illumination is subject to degrees, some Christians possessing more of it than others, but, as we understand it, inspiration is not subject to degrees, being in every case the breath of God, expressing itself through a human personality. 3. Inspiration is not human genius. The latter is simply a natural qualification, however exalted it may be in some cases, but inspiration in the sense now spoken of is supernatural throughout. It is an enduement coming upon the writers of the Old and New Testaments directing and enabling them to write those books, and on no other men, and at no other time, and for no other purpose. No human genius of whom we ever heard introduced his writings with the formula, “Thus saith the Lord,” or words to that effect, and yet such is the common utterance of the Bible authors, No human genius ever yet agreed with any other human genius as to the things it most concerns men to know, and, therefore, however exalted his equipment, it differs not merely in degree but in kind from the inspiration of the Scriptures. In its mode the divine agency is inscrutable, though its effects are knowable. We do not undertake to say just how the Holy Spirit operated on the minds of these authors to produce these books any more than we undertake to say how He operates on the human heart to produce conversion, but we accept the one as we do the other on the testimony that appeals to faith. 4. When we speak of the Holy Spirit coming upon the men in order to the composition of the books, it should be further understood that the object is not the inspiration of the men but the books — not the writers but the writings. It terminates upon the record, in other words, and not upon the human instrument who made it. To illustrate: Moses, David, Paul, John, were not always and everywhere inspired, for then always and everywhere they would have been infallible and inerrant, which was not the case. They sometimes made mistakes in thought and erred in conduct. But however fallible and errant they may have been as men compassed with infirmity like ourselves, such fallibility or errancy was never under any circumstances communicated to their sacred writings. Ecclesiastes is a case in point, which on the supposition of its Solomonic authorship, is giving us a history of his search for happiness “under the sun.” Some statements in that book are only partially true while others are altogether false, therefore it cannot mean that Solomon was inspired as he tried this or that experiment to find what no man has been able to find outside of God. But it means that his language is inspired as he records the various feelings and opinions which possessed him in the pursuit. This disposes of a large class of objections sometimes brought against the doctrine of inspiration — those, for example, associated with the question as to whether the Bible is the Word of God or only contains that Word. If by the former be meant that God spake every word in the Bible, and hence that every word is true, the answer must be no; but if it be meant that God caused every word in the Bible, true or false, to be recorded, the answer should be yes. There are words of Satan in the Bible, words of false prophets, words of the enemies of Christ, and yet they are God’s words, not in the sense that He uttered them, but that He caused them to be recorded, infallibly and inerrantly recorded, for our profit. In this sense the Bible does not merely contain the Word of God, it is the Word of God. Of any merely human author it is the same. This paper is the writer’s word throughout, and yet he may quote what other people say to commend them or dispute them. What they say he records, and in doing so he makes the record his in the sense that he is responsible for its accuracy. 5. Let it be stated further in this definitional connection, that the record for whose inspiration we contend is the original record — the autographs or parchments of Moses, David, Daniel, Matthew, Paul or Peter, as the case may be, and not any particular translation or translations of them whatever. There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists, unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it. But does this make nugatory our contention? Some would say it does, and they would argue speciously that to insist on the inerrancy of a parchment no living being has ever seen is an academic question merely, and without value. But do they not fail to see that the character and perfection of the God-head are involved in that inerrancy? Some years ago a “liberal” theologian, deprecating this discussion as not worth while, remarked that it was a matter of small consequence whether a pair of trousers were originally perfect if they were now rent. To which the valiant and witty David James Burrell replied, that it might be a matter of small consequence to the wearer of the trousers, but the tailor who made them would prefer to have it understood that they did not leave his shop that way. And then he added, that if the Most High must train among knights of the shears He might at least be regarded as the best of the guild, and One who drops no stitches and sends out no imperfect work. Is it not with the written Word as with the incarnate Word? Is Jesus Christ to be regarded as imperfect because His character has never been perfectly reproduced before us? Can He be the incarnate Word unless He were absolutely without sin? And by the same token, can the scriptures be the written Word unless they were inerrant? But if this question be so purely speculative and valueless, what becomes of the science of Biblical criticism by which properly we set such store today? Do builders drive piles into the soft earth if they never expect to touch bottom? Do scholars dispute about the scripture text and minutely examine the history and meaning of single words, “the delicate coloring of mood, tense and accent,” if at the end there is no approximation to an absolute? As Dr. George H. Bishop says, does not our concordance, every time we take it up, speak loudly to us of a once inerrant parchment? Why do we not possess concordances for the very words of other books? Nor is that original parchment so remote a thing as some suppose. Do not the number and variety of manuscripts and versions extant render it comparatively easy to arrive at a knowledge of its text, and does not competent scholarship today affirm that as to the New Testament at least, we have in 999 cases out of every thousand the very word of that orignal text? Let candid consideration be given to these things and it will be seen that we are not pursuing a phantom in contending for an inspired autograph of the Bible. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 59: 05.2. EXTENT OF INSPIRATION ======================================================================== 2. EXTENT OF INSPIRATION 1. The inspiration of scripture includes the whole and every part of it. There are some who deny this and limit it to only the prophetic portions, the words of Jesus Christ, and, say, the profounder spiritual teachings of the epistles. The historical books in their judgment, and as an example, do not require inspiration because their data were obtainable from natural sources. The Bible itself, however, knows of no limitations, as we shall see: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” The historical data, most of it at least, might have been obtained from natural sources, but what about the supernatural guidance required in their selection and narration? Compare, for answer, the records of Creation, the fall, the deluge, etc., found in Genesis with those recently discovered by excavations in Bible lands. Do not the results of the pick-axe and the spade point to the same original as the Bible, and yet do not their childishness and grotesqueness often bear evidence of the human and sinful mould through which they ran? Do they not show the need of some power other than man himself to lead him out of the labyrinth of error into the open ground of truth? Furthermore, are not the historical books in some respects the most important in the Bible? Are they not the bases of its doctrine? Does not the doctrine of sin need for its starting point the record of the fall? Could we so satisfactorily understand justification did we not have the story of God’s dealings with Abraham? And what of the priesthood of Christ? Dismiss Leviticus and what can be made of Hebrews? Is not the Acts of the Apostles historical, but can we afford to lose its inspiration? And then, too, the historical books are, in many cases, prophetical as well as historical. Do not the types and symbols in them show forth the Saviour in all the varying aspects of His grace ? Has not the story of Israel the closest relation as type and anti-type to our spiritual redemption? Does not Paul teach this in 1 Corinthians 10:6-11? And if these things were thus written for our learning, does not this imply their inspiration? Indeed, the historical books have the strongest testimony borne to their importance in other parts of the Bible. This will appear more particularly as we proceed, but take, in passing, Christ’s use of Deuteronomy in His conflict with the tempter. Thrice does He overcome him by a citation from that historical book without note or comment. Is it not difficult to believe that neither He nor Satan considered it inspired? Thus without going further, we may say, with Dr. DeWitt of Princeton, that it is impossible to secure the religious infalliability of the Bible — which is all the objector regards as necessary — if we exclude Bible history from the sphere of its inspiration. But if we include Bible history at all, we must in the whole of it, for who is competent to separate its parts? 2. The inspiration includes not only all the books of the Bible in general but in detail, the form as well as the substance, the word as well as the thought. This is sometimes called the verbal theory of inspiration and is vehemently spoken against in some quarters. It is too mechanical, it degrades the writers to the level of machines, it has a tendency to make skeptics, and all that. This last remark, however, is not so alarming as it sounds. The doctrine of the eternal retribution of the wicked is said to make skeptics, and also that of a vicarious atonement, not to mention other revelations of Holy Writ. The natural mind takes to none of these things. But if we are not prepared to yield the point in one case for such a reason, why should we be asked to do it in another? And as to degrading the writers to the level of machines, even if it were true, as it is not, why should fault be found when one considers the result? Which is the more important, the free agency of a score or two of mortals, or the divinity of their message? The whole argument is just a spark from the anvil on which the race is ever trying to hammer out the deification of itself. But we are insisting upon no theory — not even the verbal theory — if it altogether excludes the human element in the transmission of the sacred word. As Dr. Henry B. Smith says, “God speaks through the personality as well as the lips of His messengers,” and we may pour into that word “personality” everything that goes to make it — the age in which the person lived, his environment, his degree of culture, his temperament and all the rest. As Wayland Hoyt expressed it, “Inspiration is not a mechanical, crass, bald compulsion of the sacred writers, but rather a dynamic, divine influence over their freely-acting faculties” in order that the latter in relation to the subject-matter then in hand may be kept inerrant, i.e., without mistake or fault. It is limiting the Holy One of Israel to say that He is unable to do this without turning a human being into an automaton. Has He who created man as a free agent left himself no opportunity to mould his thoughts into forms of speech inerrantly expressive of His will, without destroying that which He has made? And, indeed, wherein resides man’s free agency, in his mind or in his mouth? Shall we say he is free while God controls his thought, but that he becomes a mere machine when that control extends to the expression of his thought? But returning to the argument, if the divine influence upon the writers did not extend to the form as well as the substance of their writings; if, in other words, God gave them only the thought, permitting them to express it in their own words, what guarantee have we that they have done so? An illustration the writer has frequently used will help to make this clear. A stenographer in a mercantile house was asked by his employer to write as follows: “Gentlemen: We misunderstood your letter and will now fill your order.” Imagine the employer’s surprise, however, when a little later this was set before him for his signature: “Gentlemen: We misunderstood your letter and will not fill your order.” The mistake was only of a single letter, but it was entirely subversive of his meaning. And yet the thought was given clearly to the stenographer, and the words, too, for that matter. Moreover, the latter was capable and faithful, but he was human, and it is human to err. Had not his employer controlled his expression down to the very letter, the thought intended to be conveyed would have failed of utterance. In the same way the human authors of the Bible were men of like passions with ourselves. Their motives were pure, their intentions good, but even if their subject-matter were the commonplaces of men, to say nothing of the mysterious and transcendent revelation of a holy God, how could it be an absolute transcript of the mind from which it came in the absence of miraculous control? In the last analysis, it is the Bible itself, of course, which must settle the question of its inspiration and the extent of it, and to this we come in the consideration of the proof, but we may be allowed a final question. Can even God Himself give a thought to man without the words that clothe it? Are not the two inseparable, as much so “as a sum and its figures, or a tune and its notes?” Has any case been known in human history where a healthy mind has been able to create ideas without expressing them to its own perception? In other words, as Dr. A. J. Gordon once observed: “To deny that the Holy Spirit speaks in scripture is an intelligible proposition, but to admit that He speaks, it is impossible to know what He says except as we have His Words.” ======================================================================== CHAPTER 60: 05.3. PROOF OF INSPIRATION ======================================================================== 3. PROOF OF INSPIRATION 1. The inspiration of the Bible is proven by the philosophy, or what may be called the nature of the case. The proposition may be stated thus: The Bible is the history of the redemption of the race, or from the side of the individual, a supernatural revelation of the will of God to men for their salvation. But it was given to certain men of one age to be conveyed in writing to other men in different ages. Now all men experience difficulty in giving faithful reflections of their thoughts to others because of sin, ignorance, defective memory and the inaccuracy always incident to the use of language. Therefore it may be easily deduced that if the revelation is to be communicated precisely as originally received, the same supernatural power is required in the one case as in the other. This has been sufficiently elaborated in the foregoing and need not be dwelt upon again. 2. It may be proven by the history and character of the Bible, i.e., by all that has been assumed as to its authenticity and credibility. All that goes to prove these things goes to prove its inspiration. To borrow in part, the language of the Westminster Confession, “the heavenliness of its matter, the efficacy of its doctrine, the unity of its various parts, the majesty of its style and the scope and completeness of its design” all indicate the divinity of its origin. The more we think upon it the more we must be convinced that men unaided by the Spirit of God could neither have conceived, nor put together, nor preserved in its integrity that precious deposit known as the Sacred Oracles. 3. But the strongest proof is the declarations of the Bible itself and the inferences to be drawn from them. Nor is this reasoning in a circle as some might think. In the case of a man as to whose veracity there is no doubt, no hesitancy is felt in accepting what he says about himself; and since the Bible is demonstrated to be true in its statements of fact by unassailable evidence, may we not accept its witness in its own behalf? Take the argument from Jesus Christ as an illustration. He was content to be tested by the prophecies that went before on Him, and the result of that ordeal was the establishment of His claims to be the Messiah beyond a peradventure. That complex system of prophecies, rendering collusion or counterfeit impossible, is the incontestable proof that He was what He claimed to be. But of course, He in whose birth, and life, and death, and resurrection such marvelous prophecies met their fulfilment, became, from the hour in which His claims were established, a witness to the divine authority and infallible truth of the sacred records in which these prophecies are found. — ( The New Apologetic, by Professor Robert Watts, D. D.) It is so with the Bible. The character of its contents, the unity of its parts, the fulfilment of its prophecies, the miracles wrought in its attestation, the effects it has accomplished in the lives of nations and of men, all these go to show that it is divine, and if so, that it may be believed in what it says about itself. A. ARGUMENT FOR THE OLD TESTAMENT To begin with the Old Testament, (a) consider how the writers speak of the origin of their messages. Dr. James H. Brookes is authority for saying that the phrase, “Thus saith the Lord” or its equivalent is used by them 2,000 times. Suppose we eliminate this phrase and its necessary context from the Old Testament in every instance, one wonders how much of the Old Testament would remain. (b) Consider how the utterances of the Old Testament writers are introduced into the New. Take Matthew 1:22 as an illustration, “Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet.” It was not the prophet who spake, but the Lord who spake through the prophet. (c) Consider how Christ and His apostles regard the Old Testament. He came “not to destroy but to fulfill the law and the prophets.” Matthew 5:17. “The Scripture cannot be broken.” John 10:35. He sometimes used single words as the bases of important doctrines, twice in Matthew 22:31-32 and Matthew 22:42-45. The apostles do the same. See Galatians 3:16, Hebrews 2:8, Hebrews 2:11 and Hebrews 12:26-27. (d) Consider what the apostles directly teach upon the subject. Peter tells us that “No prophecy ever came by the will of man, but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, R.V.). “Prophecy” here applies to the word written as is indicated in the preceding verse, and means not merely the foretelling of events, but the utterances of any word of God without reference as to time past, present or to come. As a matter of fact, what Peter declares is that the will of man had nothing to do with any part of the Old Testament, but that the whole of it, from Genesis to Malachi, was inspired by God. Of course Paul says the same, in language even plainer, in 2 Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable.” The phrase “inspiration of God” means literally God-breathed. The whole of the Old Testament is God-breathed, for it is to that part of the Bible the language particularly refers, since the New Testament as such was not then generally known. As this verse is given somewhat differently in the Revised Version we dwell upon it a moment longer. It there reads, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable,” and the caviller is disposed to say that therefore some scripture may be inspired and some may not be, and that the profitableness extends only to the former and not the latter. But aside from the fact that Paul would hardly be guilty of such a weak truism as that, it may be stated in reply first, that the King James rendering of the passage is not only the more consistent scripture, but the more consistent Greek. Several of the best Greek scholars of the period affirm this, including some of the revisers themselves who did not vote for the change. And secondly, even the revisers place it in the margin as of practically equal authority with their preferred translation, and to be chosen by the reader if desired. There are not a few devout Christians, however, who would be willing to retain the rendering of the Revised Version as being stronger than the King James, and who would interpolate a word in applying it to make it mean, “Every scripture (because) inspired of God is also profitable.” We believe that both Gaussen and Wordsworth take this view, two as staunch defenders of plenary inspiration as could be named. B. ARGUMENT FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT We are sometimes reminded that, however strong and convincing the argument for the inspiration of the Old Testament, that for the New Testament is only indirect. “Not one of the evangelists tells us that he is inspired,” says a certain theological professor, “and not one writer of an epistle, except Paul.” We shall be prepared to dispute this statement a little further, but in the meantime let us reflect that the inspiration of the Old Testament being assured as it is, why should similar evidence be required for the New? Whoever is competent to speak as a Bible authority knows that the unity of the Old and New Testaments is the strongest demonstration of their common source. They are seen to be not two books, but only two parts of one book. To take then the analogy of the Old Testament. The foregoing argument proves its inspiration as a whole, although there were long periods separating the different writers, Moses and David let us say, or David and Daniel, the Pentateuch and the Psalms, or the Psalms and the Prophets. As long, or longer, than between Malachi and Matthew, or Ezra and the Gospels. If then to carry conviction for the plenary inspiration of the Old Testament as a whole, it is not necessary to prove it for every book, why, to carry conviction for the plenary inspiration of the Bible as a whole is it necessary to do the same? We quote here a paragraph or two from Dr. Nathaniel West. He is referring to 2 Timothy 3:16, which he renders, “Every scripture is inspired of God,” and adds: “The distributive word ‘Every’ is used not only to particularize each individual scripture of the Canon that Timothy had studied from his youth, but also to include, along with the Old Testament the New Testament scriptures extant in Paul’s day, and any others, such as those that John wrote after him. “The Apostle Peter tells us that he was in possession, not merely of some of Paul’s Epistles, but ‘all his Epistles,’ and places them, canonically, in the same rank with what he calls ‘the other scriptures,’ i.e., of equal inspiration and authority with the ‘words spoken before by the Holy Prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and Savior, through the Apostles.’ 2 Peter 3:2, 2 Peter 3:16. “Paul teaches the same co-ordination of the Old and New Testaments. Having referred to the Old as a unit, in his phrase ‘Holy Scriptures,’ which the revisers translate ‘Sacred Writings,’ he proceeds to particularize. He tells Timothy that ‘every scripture,’ whether of Old or New Testament production, ‘is inspired of God.’ Let it be in the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Prophets, the Historical Books, let it be a chapter or a verse; let it be in the Gospels, the Acts, his own or Peter’s Epistles, or even John’s writings, yet to be, still each part of the Sacred Collection is God-given and because of that possesses divine authority as part of the Book of God.” We read this from Dr. West twenty years ago, and rejected it as his dictum. We read it today, with deeper and fuller knowledge of the subject, and we believe it to be true. It is somewhat as follows that Dr. Gaussen in his exhaustive “Theopneustia” gives the argument for the inspiration of the New Testament. (a) The New Testament is the later, and for that reason the more important revelation of the two, and hence if the former were inspired, it certainly must be true of the latter. The opening verses of the first and second chapters of Hebrews plainly suggest this: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son *** Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard.” And this inference is rendered still more conclusive by the circumstance that the New Testament sometimes explains, sometimes proves, and sometimes even repeals ordinances of the Old Testament. See Matthew 1:22-23 for an illustration of the first, Acts 13:19-39 for the second and Galatians 5:6 for the third. Assuredly these things would not be true if the New Testament were not of equal, and in a certain sense, even greater authority than the Old. (b) The writers of the New Testament were of an equal or higher rank than those of the Old. That they were prophets is evident from such allusions as Romans 16:25-27, and Ephesians 3:4-5. But that they were more than prophets is indicated in the fact that wherever in the New Testament prophets and apostles are both mentioned, the lastnamed is always mentioned first (see 1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 2:20, Ephesians 4:11). It is also true that the writers of the New Testament had a higher mission than those of the Old, since they were sent forth by Christ, as he had been sent forth by the Father John 20:21). They were to go, not to a single nation only (as Israel), but into all the world (Matthew 28:19). They received the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19). And they are to be pre-eminently rewarded in the regeneration (Matthew 19:28). Such considerations and comparisons as these are not to be overlooked in estimating the authority by which they wrote. (c) The writers of the New Testament were especially qualified for their work, as we see in Matthew 10:19-20; Mark 13:11; Luke 12:2; John 14:26 and John 16:13-14. These passages will be dwelt on more at length in a later division of our subject, but just now it may be noticed that in some of the instances, inspiration of the most absolute character was promised as to what they should speak the inference being warranted that none the less would they be guided in what they wrote. Their spoken words were limited and temporary in their sphere, but their written utterances covered the whole range of revelation and were to last forever. If in the one case they were inspired, how much more in the other? (d) The writers of the New Testament directly claim divine inspiration. See Acts 15:23-29, where, especially at Acts 15:28, James is recorded as saying, “for it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.” Here it is affirmed very clearly that the Holy Ghost is the real writer of the letter in question and simply using the human instruments for his purpose. Add to this 1 Corinthians 2:13, where Paul says: “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual,” or as the margin of the Revised Version puts it, “imparting spiritual things to spiritual men.” In 1 Thessalonians 2:13 the same writer says: “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of man, but as it is in truth the word of God.” In 2 Peter 3:2 the apostle places his own words on a level with those of the prophets of the Old Testament, and in 2 Peter 3:15-16 he does the same with the writings of Paul, classifying them “with the other scriptures.” Finally, in Revelation 2:7, although it is the Apostle John who is writing, he is authorized to exclaim: “He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches,” and so on throughout the epistles to the seven churches. C. ARGUMENT FOR THE WORDS The evidence that the inspiration includes the form as well as the substance of the Holy Scriptures, the word as well as the thought, may be gathered in this way. 1. There were certainly some occasions when the words were given to the human agents. Take the instance of Balaam (Numbers 22:38; Numbers 23:12, Numbers 23:16). It is clear that this self-seeking prophet thought, i.e., desired to speak differently from what he did, but was obliged to speak the word that God put in his mouth. There are two incontrovertible witnesses to this, one being Balaam himself and the other God. Take Saul (1 Samuel 10:10), or at a later time, his messengers (1 Samuel 19:20-24). No one will claim that there was not an inspiration of the words here. And Caiaphas also (John 11:49-52), of whom it is expressly said that when he prophesied that one man should die for the people, “this spake he not of himself.” Who believes that Caiaphas meant or really knew the significance of what he said? And how entirely this harmonizes with Christ’s promise to His disciples in Matthew 10:19-20 and elsewhere. “When they deliver you up take no thought (be not anxious) how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” Mark is even more emphatic: “Neither do ye premeditate, but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye, for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.” Take the circumstance of the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4-11), when the disciples “began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.” Parthians, Medes, Elamites, the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, the strangers of Rome, Cretes and Arabians all testified, “we do here them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God!” Did not this inspiration include the words? Did it not indeed exclude the thought? What clearer example could be desired? To the same purport consider Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 14 about the gift of tongues, lie that speaketh in an unknown tongue, in the Spirit speaketh mysteries, but no man understandeth him, therefore he is to pray that he may interpret. Under some circumstances, if no interpreter be present, he is to keep silence in the church and speak only to himself and to God. But better still, consider the utterance of 1 Peter 1:10-11, where he speaks of them who prophesied of the grace that should come, as “searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow, to whom it was revealed,” etc. “Should we see a student who, having taken down the lecture of a profound philosopher, was now studying diligently to comprehend the sense of the discourse which he had written, we should understand simply that he was a pupil and not a master; that he had nothing to do with originating either the thoughts or the words of the lecture, but was rather a disciple whose province it was to understand what he had transcribed, and so be able to communicate it to others. “And who can deny that this is the exact picture of what we have in this passage from Peter? Here were inspired writers studying the meaning of what they themselves had written. With all possible allowance for the human peculiarities of the writers, they must have been reporters of what they heard, rather than formulators of that which they had been made to understand.” — A. J. Gordon in “The Ministry of the Spirit,” pp. 173,174. 2. The Bible plainly teaches that inspiration extends to its words. We spoke of Balaam as uttering that which God put in his mouth, but the same expression is used by God Himself with reference to His prophets. When Moses would excuse himself from service because he was not eloquent, He who made man’s mouth said, “Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say” (Exodus 4:10-12). And Dr. James H. Brookes’ comment is very pertinent. “God did not say I will be with thy mind, and teach thee what thou shalt think; but I will be with thy mouth and teach thee what thou shalt say. This explains why, forty years afterwards, Moses said to Israel, ‘Ye shall not add unto the word I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it.’ (Deuteronomy 4:2.)” Seven times Moses tells us that the tables of stone containing the commandments were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables (Exodus 31:16). Passing from the Pentateuch to the poetical books we find David saying, “The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His word was in my tongue” (2 Samuel 23:1-2). He, too, does not say, God thought by me, but spake by me. Coming to the prophets, Jeremiah confesses that, like Moses, he recoiled from the mission on which he was sent and for the same reason. He was a child and could not speak. “Then the Lord put forth His hand and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold I have put My word in thy mouth” (Jeremiah 1:6-9). All of which substantiates the declaration of Peter quoted earlier, that “no prophecy ever came by the will of man, but man spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.” Surely, if the will of man had nothing to do with the prophecy, he could not have been at liberty in the selection of the words. So much for the Old Testament, but when we reach the New, we have the same unerring and verbal accuracy guaranteed to the apostles by the Son of God, as we have seen. And we have the apostles making claim of it, as when Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:12-13 distinguishes between the “things” or the thoughts which God gave him and the words in which he expressed them, and insisting on the divinity of both; “Which things also we speak,” he says, “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.” In Galatians 3:16, following the example of His divine Master, he employs not merely a single word, but a single letter of a word as the basis of an argument for a great doctrine. The blessing of justification which Abraham received has become that of the believer in Jesus Christ. “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews bases a similar argument on the word “all” in Hebrews 1:8, on the word “one” in Hebrews 1:11, and on the phrase “yet once more” in Hebrews 12:26-27. To recur to Paul’s argument in Galatians, Archdeacon Farrar in one of his writings denies that by any possibility such a Hebraist as he, and such a master of Greek usage could have argued in this way. He says Paul must have known that the plural of the Hebrew and Greek terms for “seed” is never used by Hebrew or Greek writers to designate human offspring. It means, he says, various kinds of grain. His artlessness is amusing. We accept his estimate of Paul’s knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, says Professor Watts, he was certainly a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and as to his Greek he could not only write it but speak it as we know, and quote what suited his purpose from the Greek poets. But on this supposition we feel justified in asking Dr. Farrar whether a lexicographer in searching Greek authors for the meanings they attached to spermata, the Greek for “seeds,” would not be inclined to add “human offspring” on so good an authority as Paul? Nor indeed would they be limited to his authority, since Sophocles uses it in the same way, and Aeschylus. “I was driven away from my country by my own offspring” (spermata) — literally by my own seeds, is what the former makes one of his characters say. Dr. Farrar’s rendering of spermata in Galatians 3:16 on the other hand would make nonsense if not sacrilege. “He saith not unto various kinds of grain as of many, but as of one, and to thy grain, which is Christ.” “Granting then, what we thank no man for granting, that spermata means human offspring, it is evident that despite all opinions to the contrary, this passage sustains the teaching of an inspiration of Holy Writ extending to its very words.” 3. But the most unique argument for the inspiration of the words of scripture is the relation which Jesus Christ bears to them. In the first place, He Himself was inspired as to His words. In the earliest reference to His prophetic office (Deuteronomy 18:18), Jehovah says, “I will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak *** all that I shall command Him.” A limitation on His utterance which Jesus everywhere recognizes. “As My Father hath taught Me, I speak these things;” “the Father which sent Me, He gave Me a commandment what I should say, and what I should speak;” “whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto Me, so I speak;” “I have given unto them the words which Thou gavest Me,” “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63; John 8:26, John 8:28, John 8:40; John 12:49-50). The thought is still more impressive as we read of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the God-man. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me because He hath anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor;” “He through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles;” “the revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto Him;” “these things saith He that holdeth the seven stars in His right hand;” “He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches” (Luke 4:18; Acts 1:2; Revelation 1:1; Revelation 2:1, Revelation 2:11). If the incarnate Word needed the unction of the Holy Ghost to give to men the revelation He received from the Father in Whose bosom He dwells; and if the agency of the same Spirit extended to the words He spake in preaching the gospel to the meek or dictating an epistle, how much more must these things be so in the case of ordinary men when engaged in the same service? With what show of reason can one contend that any Old or New Testament writer stood; so far as his words were concerned, in need of no such agency.” — The New Apologetic, pp. 67,68. In the second place He used the scriptures as though they were inspired as to their words. In Matthew 22:31-32, He substantiates the doctrine of the resurrection against the skepticism of the Sadducees by emphasizing the present tense of the verb “to be,” i.e., the word “am” in the language of Jehovah to Moses at the burning bush. In Matthew 22:42-45 He does the Same for His own Deity by alluding to the second use of the word “Lord” in Psalms 110:1. “The LORD said unto my Lord *** If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?” In John 10:34-36, He vindicates Himself from the charge of blasphemy by saying, “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” We have already seen Him (in Matthew 4:1-25) overcoming the tempter in the wilderness by three quotations from Deuteronomy without note or comment except, “It is written.” Referring to which Adolphe Monod says, “I know of nothing in the whole history of humanity, nor even in the field of divine revelation, that proves more clearly than this the inspiration of the scriptures. What! Jesus Christ, the Lord of heaven and earth, calling to his aid in that solemn moment Moses his servant? He who speaks from heaven fortifying himself against the temptations of hell by the word of him who spake from earth ? How can we explain that spiritual mystery, that wonderful reversing of the order of things, if for Jesus the words of Moses were not the words of God rather than those of men? How shall we explain it if Jesus were not fully aware that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost? “I do not forget the objections which have been raised against the inspiration of the scriptures, nor the real obscurity with which that inspiration is surrounded; if they sometimes trouble your hearts, they have troubled mine also. But at such times, in order to revive my faith, I have only to glance at Jesus glorifying the scriptures in the wilderness; and I have seen that for all who rely upon Him, the most embarrassing of problems is transformed into a historical fact, palpable and clear. Jesus no doubt was aware of the difficulties connected with the inspiration of the scriptures, but did this prevent Him from appealing to their testimony with unreserved confidence? Let that which was sufficient for Him suffice for you. Fear not that the rock which sustained the Lord in the hour of His temptation and distress will give way because you lean too heavily upon it.” In the third place, Christ teaches that the scriptures are inspired as to their words. In the Sermon on the Mount He said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Here is testimony confirmed by an oath, for “verily” on the lips of the Son of Man carries such force. He affirms the indestructibility of the law, not its substance merely but its form, not the thought but the word. “One jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” The “jot” means the yod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet, while the “tittle” means the horn, a short projection in certain letters extending the base line beyond the upright one which rests upon it. A reader unaccustomed to the Hebrew needs a strong eye to see the tittle, but Christ guarantees that as a part of the sacred text neither the tittle nor the yod shall perish. The elder Lightfoot, the Hebraist and rabbinical scholar of the Westminster Assembly time, has called attention to an interesting story of a certain letter yod found in the text of Deuteronomy 32:18. It is in the word teshi, to forsake, translated in the King James as “unmindful.” Originally it seems to have been written smaller even than usual, i.e., undersized, and yet notwithstanding the almost infinite number of times in which copies have been made, that little yod stands there today just as it ever did. Lightfoot spoke of it in the middle of the seventeenth century and although two more centuries and a half have passed since then with all their additional copies of the book, yet it still retains its place in the sacred text. Its diminutive size is referred to in the margin, “but no hand has dared to add a hair’s breadth to its length,” so that we can still employ his words, and say that it is likely to remain there forever. The same scholar speaks of the effect a slight change in the form of a Hebrew letter might produce in the substance of the thought for which it stands. He takes as an example two words, “Chalal” and “Halal,” which differ from each other simply in their first radicals. The “Ch” in Hebrew is expressed by one letter the same as “H,” the only distinction being a slight break or opening in the left limb of the latter. It seems too trifling to notice, but let that line be broken where it should be continuous, and “Thou shalt not profane the Name of thy God” in Leviticus 18:21, becomes “Thou shalt not praise the Name of thy God.” Through that aperture, however small, the entire thought of the Divine mind oozes out, so to speak, and becomes quite antagonistic to what was designed. This shows how truly the thought and the word expressing it are bound together, and that whatever affects the one imperils the other. As another says, “The bottles are not the wine, but if the bottles perish, the wine is sure to be spilled.” It may seem like narrow-mindedness to contend for this, and an evidence of enlightenment or liberal scholarship to treat it with indifference, but we should be prepared to take our stand with Jesus Christ in the premises, and if necessary, go outside the camp bearing our reproach. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 61: 05.4. DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS ======================================================================== 4. DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS That there are difficulties in the way of accepting a view of inspiration like this goes without saying. But to the finite mind there must always be difficulties connected with a revelation from the Infinite, and it can not be otherwise. This has been mentioned before. Men of faith, and it is such we are addressing, and not men of the world, do not wait to understand or resolve all the difficulties associated with other mysteries of the Bible before accepting them as divine, and why should they do so in this case? Moreover, Archbishop Whately’s dictum is generally accepted, that we are not obliged to clear away every difficulty about a doctrine in order to believe it, always provided that the facts on which it rests are true. And particularly is this the case where the rejection of such a doctrine involves greater difficulties than its belief, as it does here. For if this view of inspiration be rejected, what have its opponents to give in its place? Do they realize that any objections to it are slight in comparison with those to any other view that can be named? And do they realize that this is true because this view has the immeasurable advantage of agreeing with the plain declarations of Scripture on the subject? In other words, as Dr. Burrell says, those who assert the inerrancy of the scripture autographs do so on the authority of God Himself, and to deny it is of a piece with the denial that they teach the forgiveness of sins or the resurrection from the dead. No amount of exegetical turning and twisting can explain away the assertions already quoted in these pages, to say nothing of the constant undertone of evidence we find in the Bible everywhere to their truth. And speaking of this further, are we not justified in requiring of the objector two things? First, on any fair basis of scientific investigation, is he not obliged to dispose of the evidence here presented before he impugns the doctrine it substantiates? And second, after having disposed of it, is he not equally obligated to present the scriptural proof of whatever other view of inspiration he would have us accept? Has he ever done this, and if not, are we not further justified in saying that it can not be done? But let us consider some of the difficulties. 1. There are the so-called discrepancies or contradictions between certain statements of the Bible and the facts of history or natural science. The best way to meet these is to treat them separately as they are presented, but when you ask for them you are not infrequently met with silence. They are hard to produce, and when produced, who is able to say that they belong to the original parchments? As we are not contending for an inerrant translation, does not the burden of proof rest with the objector? But some of these “discrepancies” are easily explained. They do not exist between statements of the Bible and facts of science, but between erroneous interpretations of the Bible and immature conclusions of science. The old story of Galileo is in point, who did not contradict the Bible in affirming that the earth moved round the sun but only the false theological assumptions about it. In this way advancing light has removed many of these discrepancies, and it is fair to presume with Dr. Charles Hodge that further light would remove all. 2. There are the differences in the narratives themselves. In the first place, the New Testament writers sometimes change important words in quoting from the Old Testament, which it is assumed could not be the case if in both instances the writers were inspired. But it is forgotten that in the scriptures we are dealing not so much with different human authors as with one Divine Author. It is a principle in ordinary literature that an author may quote himself as he pleases, and give a different turn to an expression here and there as a changed condition of affairs renders it necessary or desirable. Shall we deny this privilege to the Holy Spirit? May we not find, indeed, that some of these supposed misquotations show such progress of truth, such evident application of the teaching of an earlier dispensation to the circumstances of a later one, as to afford a confirmation of their divine origin rather than an argument against it? We offered illustrations of this earlier, but to those would now add Isaiah 59:20 quoted in Romans 11:26, and Amos 9:11 quoted in Acts 15:16. And to any desiring to further examine the subject we would recommend the valuable work of Professor Franklin Johnson, of Chicago University, entitled “The Quotations in the New Testament from the Old.” Another class of differences, however, is where the same event is sometimes given differently by different writers. Take that most frequently used by the objectors, the inscription on the Cross, recorded by all the evangelists and yet differently by each. How can such records be inspired, it is asked. It is to be remembered in reply, that the inscription was written in three languages calling for a different arrangement of the words in each case, and that one evangelist may have translated the Hebrew, and another the Latin, while a third recorded the Greek. It is not said that any one gave the full inscription, nor can we affirm that there was any obligation upon them to do So. Moreover, no one contradicts any other, and no one says what is untrue. Recalling what was said about our having to deal not with different human authors but with one Divine Author, may not the Holy Spirit here have chosen to emphasize some one particular fact, or phase of a fact of the inscription for a specific and important end? Examine the records to determine what this fact may have been. Observe that whatever else is omitted, all the narratives record the momentous circumstances that the Sufferer on the cross was THE KING OF THE JEWS. Could there have been a cause for this? What was the charge preferred against Jesus by His accusers? Was He not rejected and crucified because He said He was the King of the Jews? Was not this the central idea Pilate was providentially guided to express in the inscription? And if so, was it not that to which the evangelists should bear witness? And should not that witness have been borne in a way to dispel the thought of collusion in the premises? And did not this involve a variety of narrative which should at the same time be in harmony with truth and fact? And do we not have this very thing in the four gospels? These accounts supplement, but do not contradict each other. We place them before the eye in the order in which they are recorded. This is Jesus THE KING OF THE JEWS THE KING OF THE JEWS This is THE KING OF THE JEWS Jesus of Nazareth THE KING OF THE JEWS The entire inscription evidently was “This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews,” but we submit that the foregoing presents a reasonable argument for the differences in the records. 3. There is the variety in style. Some think that if all the writers were alike inspired and the inspiration extended to their words, they must all possess the same style as if the Holy Spirit had but one style! Literary style is a method of selecting words and putting sentences together which stamps an author’s work with the influence of his habits, his condition in society, his education, his reasoning, his experience, his imagination and his genius. These give his mental and moral physiognomy and make up his style. But is not God free to act with or without these fixed laws? There are no circumstances which tinge His views or reasonings, and He has no idiosyncrasies of speech, and no mother tongue through which He expresses His character, or leaves the finger mark of genius upon His literary fabrics. It is a great fallacy then, as Dr. Thomas Armitage once said, to suppose that uniformity of verbal style must have marked God’s authorship in the Bible, had He selected its words. As the author of all styles, rather does he use them all at his pleasure. He bestows all the powers of mental individuality upon His instruments for using the scriptures, and then uses their powers as He will to express His mind by them. Indeed, the variety of style is a necessary proof of the freedom of the human writers, and it is this which among other things convinces us that, however controlled by the Holy Spirit, they were not mere machines in what they wrote. Consider God’s method in nature. In any department of vegetable life there may be but one genus, while its members are classified into a thousand species. From the bulbous root come the tulip, the hyacinth, the crocus, and the lily in every shape and shade, without any cause either of natural chemistry or culture. It is exclusively attributable to the variety of styles which the mind of God devises. And so in the sacred writings. His mind is seen in the infinite variety of expression which dictates the wording of every book. To quote Armitage again, “I cannot tell how the Holy Spirit suggested the words to the writers any more than some other man can tell how He suggested the thoughts to them. But if diversity of expression proves that He did not choose the words, the diversity of ideas proves that He did not dictate the thoughts, for the one is as varied as the other.” William Cullen Bryant was a newspaper man but a poet; Edmund Clarence Stedman was a Wall Street broker and also a poet. What a difference in style there was between their editorials and commercial letters on the one hand, and their poetry on the other! Is God more limited than a man? 4. There are certain declarations of scripture itself. Does not Paul say in one or two places “I speak as a man,” or “After the manner of man?” Assuredly, but is he not using the arguments common among men for the sake of elucidating a point? And may he not as truly be led of the Spirit to do that, and to record it, as to do or say anything else? Of course, what he quotes from men is not of the same essential value as what he receives directly from God, but the record of the quotation is as truly inspired. There are two or three ether utterances of his of this character in 1 Corinthians 7:1-40, where he is treating of marriage. At 1 Corinthians 7:6 he says, “I speak this by permission, not of commandment,” and what he means has no reference to the source of his message but the subject of it. In contradiction to the false teaching of some, he says Christians are permitted to marry, but not commanded to do so. At 1 Corinthians 7:10 he says, “Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,” while at 1 Corinthians 7:12 there follows, “but to the rest speak I, not the Lord.” Does he declare himself inspired in the first instance, and not in the second? By no means, but in the first he is alluding to what the Lord spake on the subject while here in the flesh, and in the second to what he, Paul, is adding thereto on the authority of the Holy Spirit speaking through him. In other words, putting his own utterances on equality with those of our Lord, he simply confirms their inspiration. At 1 Corinthians 7:40 he uses a puzzling expression, “I think also that I have the Spirit of God.” As we are contending only for an inspired record, it would seem easy to say that here he records a doubt as to whether he was inspired, and hence everywhere else in the absence of such record of doubt the inspiration is to be assumed. But this would be begging the question, and we prefer the solution of others that the answer is found in the condition of the Corinthian church at that time. His enemies had sought to counteract his teachings, claiming that they had the Spirit of God. Referring to the claim, he says with justifiable irony, “I think also that I have the Spirit Of God” (R. V.). “I think” in the mouth of one having apostolic authority, says Professor Watts, may be taken as carrying the strongest assertion of the judgment in question. The passage is something akin to another in the same epistle at the 1 Corinthians 14:37, where he says, “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” Time forbids further amplification on the difficulties and objections nor is it necessary, since there is not one that has not been met satisfactorily to the man of God and the child of faith again and again. But there is an obstacle to which we would call attention before concluding — not a difficulty or objection, but a real obstacle, especially to the young and insufficiently instructed. It is the illusion that this view of inspiration is held only by the unlearned. An illusion growing out of still another as to who constitute the learned. There is a popular impression that in the sphere of theology and religion these latter are limited for the most part to the higher critics and their relatives, and the more rationalistic and iconoclastic the critic the more learned he is esteemed to be. But the fallacy of this is seen in that the qualities which make for a philologist, an expert in human languages, or which give one a wide acquaintance with literature of any kind, in other words the qualities of the higher Critic, depend more on memory than judgment, and do not give the slightest guarantee that their possessors can draw a sound conclusion from what they know. As the author of “Faith and Inspiration” puts it, the work of such a scholar is often like that of a quarryman to an architect. Its entire achievement, though immensely valuable in its place, is just a mass of raw and formless material until a mind gifted in a different direction, and possessing the necessary taste and balance shall reduce or put it into shape for use. The perplexities of astronomers touching Halley’s comet is in point. They knew facts that common folks did not know, but when they came to generalize upon them, the man on the street knew that he should have looked in the west for the phenomenon when they bade him look in the east. Much is said for example about an acquaintance with Hebrew and Greek, and no sensible man will underrate them for the theologian or the Bible scholar, but they are entirely unnecessary to an understanding of the doctrine of inspiration or any other doctrine of Holy Writ. The intelligent reader of the Bible in the English tongue, especially when illuminated by the Holy Spirit, is abundantly able to decide upon these questions for himself. He cannot determine how the Holy Spirit operated on the minds of the sacred penmen because that is not revealed, but he can determine on the results secured because that is revealed. He can determine whether the inspiration covers, all the books, and whether it includes not only the substance but the form, not only the thoughts but the words. We have spoken of scholars and of the learned, let us come to names. We suppose Dr. Sanday, of Oxford, is a scholar, and the Archbishop of Durham, and Dean Burgon, and Professor Orr, of Glasgow, and Principal Forsyth, of Hackney College, and Sir Robert Anderson, and Dr. Kuyper, of Holland, and President Patton, of Princeton, and Howard Osgood of the Old Testament Revision Committee and Matthew B. Riddle of the New, and G. Frederick Wright and Albert T. Clay, the archaeologists, and Presidents Moorehead and Mullins, and C. I. Scofield, and Luther T. Townsend, for twenty-five years professor in the Theological School of Boston University, and Arthur T. Pierson of the Missionary Review of the World, and a host of other living witnesses — Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Reformed Dutch. We had thought John Calvin a scholar, and the distinguished Bengel, and Canon Faussett, and Tregelles, and Auberlen, and Van Oosterzee, and Charles Hodge and Henry B. Smith, and so many more that it were foolishness to recall them. These men may not stand for every statement in these pages, they might not care to be quoted as holding technically the verbal theory of inspiration for reasons already named, but they will affirm the heart of the contention and testify to their belief in an inspiration of the Sacred Oracles which includes the words. Once when the writer was challenged by the editor of a secular daily to name a single living scholar who thus believed, he presented that of a chancellor of a great university, and was told that he was not the kind of scholar that was meant! The kind of scholar not infrequently meant by such opposers is the one who is seeking to destroy faith in the Bible as the Word of God, and to substitute in its place a Bible of his own making. The Outlook had an editorial recently, entitled “Whom Shall We Believe?” in which the writer reaffirmed the platitudes that living is a vital much more than an intellectual process, and that truth of the deeper kind is distilled out of experience rather than logical processes. This is the reason he said why many things are hidden from the so-called wise, who follow formal methods of exact observation, and are revealed to babes and sucklings who know nothing of these methods, but are. deep in the process of living. No spectator ever yet understood a great contemporary human movement into which he did not enter. Does this explain why the cloistered scholar is unable to accept the supernatural inspiration of the scriptures while the men on the firing line of the Lord’s army believe in it even to the very words? Does it explain the faith of our missionaries in foreign lands? Is this what led J. Hudson Taylor to Inland China, and Dr. Guinness to establish the work upon the Congo, and George Mueller and William Quarrier to support the orphans at Bristol and the Bridge of Weirs? Is this — the belief in the plenary inspiration of the Bible the secret of the evangelistic power of D. L. Moody, and Chapman, and Torrey, and Gipsy Smith, and practically every evangelist in the field, for to the extent of our acquaintance there are none of these who doubt it? Does this tell why “the best sellers on the market,” at least among Christian people, have been the devotional and expository books of Andrew Murray, and Miller and Meyer, and writers of that stamp? Is this why the plain people have loved to listen to preachers like Spurgeon, and McLaren, and Campbell Morgan, and Len Broughton and A. C. Dixon and have passed by men of the other kind? It is, in a word, safe to challenge the whole Christian world for the name of a man who stands out as a winner of souls who does not believe in the inspiration of the Bible as it has been sought to be explained in these pages. But we conclude with a kind of concrete testimony that of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America, and of a date as recent as 1893. The writer is not a Presbyterian, and therefore with the better grace can ask his readers to consider the character and the intellect represented in such an Assembly. Here are some of our greatest merchants, our greatest jurists, our greatest educators, our greatest statesmen, as well as our greatest missionaries, evangelists and theologians. There may be seen as able and august a gathering of representatives of Christianity in other places and on other occasions, but few that can surpass it. For sobriety of thought, for depth as well as breadth of learning, for wealth of spiritual experience, for honesty of utterance, and virility of conviction, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America must command attention and respect throughout the world. And this is what it said on the subject we are now considering at its gathering in the city of Washington, the capital of the nation, at the date named: “THE BIBLE AS WE NOW HAVE IT , IN ITS VARIOUS TRANSLATIONS AND REVISIONS , WHEN FREED FROM ALL ERRORS AND MISTAKES OF TRANSLATORS , COPYISTS AND PRINTERS , (IS) THE VERY WORD OF GOD , AND CONSEQUENTLY WHOLLY WITHOUT ERROR .” ======================================================================== CHAPTER 62: 06.0.1. PRIMERS OF THE FAITH ======================================================================== Primers of The Faith By JAMES M. GRAY, D. D. Minister of the Reformed Episcopal Church, Dean of the Moody Bible Institute, Author of " Synthetic Bible Studies," "How to Master the English Bible," " The Bulwarks of the Faith," "The History of the Holy Dead;"’ etc. I. How We Know The Bible Is Genuine II. How We Know The Bible Is Credible III. How We Know The Bible Is Divine New York Chicago Toronto Fleming H. Revell Company London and Edinburgh ======================================================================== CHAPTER 63: 06.0.2. PUBLISHER'S NOTE ======================================================================== Publisher’s Note The chapters in this book originally appeared in serial form in a religious newspaper. The fol­lowing taken from the announcement of that paper will explain sufficiently how it came into existence as well as its aim or purport: In an address delivered before a recent conven­tion of the American Bible League, the Rev. James A. Worden, D.D., LL.D., superintendent of the Sabbath-school and missionary work of the Presby­terian Church in the United States, laid great em­phasis upon the pressing need of a Bible Primer or Primer of the Faith that would give in simple words the reply to the assaults of the critics upon the Bible. He said, I may be regarded as represent­ing, in a sense, the Bible students of this country. Let me tell you there are 1,200,000 Bible teachers in this country, and among them the best equipped, intelligent, practical Christians. They are firm be­lievers in the inspiration of the Word, despite all that has been written, despite all that has been said for the last twenty-five years. They stand by your side, 1,200,000 strong, convinced, by the self-con­vincing power of the Bible and by the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, that this is a supernatural, divine revelation, and that it is infallibly recorded in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. What can you do for them? These people have their troubles; these teachers hear this criticism made upon the Pentateuch and upon the history in the Bible and upon Isaiah, and they do not know how to answer it. Now, we want Primers. Get the names of the hundred thousand superintendents of our Sabbath Schools. Send to them your plans. Tell them that you mean to resist the assaults made upon the Scriptures, with which they have some little trouble; and you will find they will respond. Of course there has not been a single allegation made by these destructive critics that has not been an­swered a hundred times. They are well known to you and to me. They are well known in the circles of theologically trained men. We have no doubts about them; but the answers have never been cir­culated; they have never been published or printed in elementary form so that our Sabbath School teachers and superintendents could have them in form easily understood so as to satisfy their minds.” There could be no question about the choice of the man for the work. No one in the country fitted it so well as Dr. James M. Gray. His qualifications for just this work are excep­tional. Besides teaching the Bible in great popular Bible classes, and in lessons distributed throughout the United States and Canada through the medium of our columns, he has been an instructor in differ­ent seminaries and Bible institutes in Biblical in­troduction. He is now the Dean of the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, the parent, and still by far the largest of all institutes in this country, if not in the world. For several years all his work has been among young people, from whom he has re­ceived the heartiest response and most grateful appreciation given in recent years to any Bible teacher. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 64: 06.0.3. A FOREWORD ======================================================================== A Foreword Primers of the Faith, as the title indicates, are written not for scholars but for what Abraham Lincoln had used to call the “plain people,” the average layman. They are intended to help Sunday School teachers, Y.M.C.A. and Y.W.C.A. workers, and students of the grade found in such Bible institutes as that with which the author is connected. Some of these will wish to pursue their inquiries further, but for the great majority this is not likely to be true. It is the need of this majority that will be especially kept in view. We have a book called the Bible, for which the claim is made that it is a revelation from God. We want to know how it came into our possession; also whether its statements of fact and truth are to be relied upon; and finally, if they are to be re­lied upon we need to inquire into their source and the influence they should exert upon our daily con­duct and our hope for the life to come. The first of these inquiries will be considered in Part I (page 1) under the general title, “How We Know the Bible is Genuine.” The second in Part II (page 177), under the title, “How We Know the Bible is Cred­ible.” And the last, in Part III (page 277), “How We Know the Bible is Divine.” The author prepared an earlier work on this same general subject entitled, The Bulwarks of the Faith; but discoveries have been made in various branches of study and research which make it desirable to deal with it anew, and in more detail than was contemplated then. References may be made to that work and quotations taken from it from time to time, but otherwise the con­tents of the “Primers of the Faith” will be new. Let us pray for the blessing of God to accom­pany our study together for the strengthening of our faith and our better equipment as his servants in dealing with honest inquirers after truth. James M. Gray The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago ======================================================================== CHAPTER 65: 06.0.4. PREPARED BY BIBLESUPPORT.COM ======================================================================== e-Sword Module Prepared by BibleSupport.com The text has been changed slightly from the print edition. Scripture references were formatted for electronic presentation in e-Sword. Most implicit scripture references were made specific to reference the actual book chapter:verse rather than expecting the reader to deduce the chapter or book. Download thousands of free e-Sword modules, find answers to e-Sword problems, access e-Sword user forums, and fellowship with other e-Sword users. BibleSupport.com is also home to the only e-Sword User’s Guide, the most comprehensive documentation available for e-Sword. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 66: 06.01. HOW WE KNOW THE BIBLE IS GENUINE ======================================================================== Part I ======================================================================== CHAPTER 67: 06.02. THE NAMES OF THE BIBLE ======================================================================== Chapter 1 The Names of the Bible The Bible received its name from the Greek word “Biblos,” which means book, and is divided into the New and Old Testaments. “Testament” means covenant or agreement, and is a term descriptive of the relation existing between God and his people under different dispensations. See Hebrews 8:6-13 for a Scriptural use of this word. In the earlier times among the Jews the Old Testament was divided into three parts, the whole being known as “The Law, The Prophets and The Holy Writings.” The last division was sometimes called “The Psalms.” See, for example, Luke 24:44. The history of this threefold division is not known positively, but it is thought to mark three stages in the origin of the books or in the process of collecting them. By “The Law” was meant the first five books of Moses; by “The Psalms,” or “Holy Writings,” was meant the following named books, which are here given in the order appearing in our Bibles: Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Daniel; by “The Prophets” was meant all the other books of the Old Testament both historical and prophetical. This last-named division was sometimes subdivided again into the “Former” and “Latter” prophets. By the “Former” prophets was meant the historical books, such as Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings; and by the “Latter” was meant the prophetical books distinctively. The Bible is sometimes called “The Canon,” from a Greek word which means a “rod” or “rule.” The word is used to distinguish the accepted books of the Bible from the Apocryphal, which will be spoken of again. The Bible is “The Canon” in the sense that it is the rod or rule by which to determine what is to be believed by the people of God and the standard for them to practice. For its Scriptural use see 2 Corinthians 10:13-16; Galatians 6:16. It should be understood, however, that the canonization of a book does not mean that the Jewish nation in the one case or the Christian church in the other gave to that book its authority; but rather that its authority being already established on other and sufficient grounds, it was in consequence recognized as properly belonging to the Canon and so declared to be. Jewish scholars in the one case and Christian scholars in the other thus formed the Canon under divine guidance, after careful inquiry and investigation concerning what books were of inspired origin and what were not so inspired. Just how this inquiry and investigation were carried on will appear more clearly as our studies proceed. After these preliminary statements we are now in a position to ask and answer the question, how the Bible or the Canon, as we now have it, came to be handed down to us? In other words, we are now to trace the history of the Bible along the stream of time as nearly as possible to its source. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 68: 06.03. TRACING THE RECORDS ======================================================================== Chapter 2 Tracing the Records There is no difficulty in tracing the history of the Bible during the last five centuries because of the art of printing and modern book-making; but when we leave the anchorage of the types and launch forth on the sea of manuscripts we need to know something of navigation. Let it be understood at the outset, that by a manuscript of the Bible is meant not a written copy in any language, but one in the original tongues only. For example, a manuscript of the Old Testament is always in Hebrew, and one of the New Testament is always in Greek. Now there are many written copies of the Bible in other languages known as versions, by which we can trace its history easily down the stream of time to the period of Christ and his apostles, and in the case of the Old Testament much earlier, but as a matter of fact, the earliest manuscript of the Old Testament of which scholars know, is one dating from the tenth century of the Christian era. At once the question arises as to the cause of this. Why is it that we possess no manuscripts of the Old Testament of an earlier date than the tenth century of the Christian era? It is impossible to answer this question with historical precision, but there are one or two facts which aid us to approximate an answer. One is the sublime reverence of the Jews for their sacred writings, and another is the existence for centuries of a class of Hebrew scholars whose office was to study, interpret, and transcribe those writings. A kind of self-perpetuating body of these men, known as the Massoretes, began as early as about the first century of the Christian era to collect and examine manuscripts with a view to the preparation of what would be called in these days an accepted text of the Old Testament. Their work was laboriously and patiently pursued for centuries, closing about the ninth, and it is supposed that with the setting forth of the results of their great work, all preexisting manuscripts were destroyed because of the feeling of reverence previously referred to. Thus, to quote the language of another, “By the work of the Massoretes and their predecessors from the close of the first century onwards, the stream of the transmitted Hebrew text was made to run in a clear-cut channel and guarded from the possibility of defilement.” But as already indicated, it must not be supposed that because we have no Hebrew manuscript of a date earlier than the tenth century of the Christian era, we are therefore unable to trace the history of the Old Testament any further back. As a matter of fact, we have more ways than one of doing this. For example, after the manuscripts, come what are known as the “Targums.” The word “Targum” means literally an “Interpretation.” When the Jews were carried into Babylon, B.C. 688, they gradually ceased to employ the Hebrew as a spoken language, although in their synagogues the sacred oracles were still read in that tongue. Necessity, therefore, compelled its interpretation in their synagogue service, which was done in a kind of running commentary or paraphrase, which at first spoken, came subsequently to be written and to take the name of “Targum.” These “Targums” were in the Chaldea or Eastern Aramaic dialect, and were, no doubt, numerous, although those which have descended to us are all dated after the Christian era, the oldest of which, covering only a part of the Old Testament, dates from about the seventh century. It can readily be seen how important these are in identifying the existence of the Old Testament at that early period. Back of these “Targums” again, we have certain versions of the Old Testament, or copies in the Greek language, of as early a date as the fourth century, and others indeed of the second, of which more will be said in detail when we reach the story of the New Testament, because they are bound up with manuscripts of that part of the Bible as well. It should be added now, however, that all these versions with one possible exception, are copies of a still earlier one known as the Septuagint, dating back as early as the third century before Christ. This version gets its name, which means “seventy,” from a company of Hebrew scholars of that number, engaged it is said by Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt, to prepare the work for the Alexandrian library. It was begun somewhere about 285 B.C. but the date of its conclusion is not so well ascertained. In the early church this version was deemed of great value, and it is that used very frequently by the inspired writers in their quotations in the New Testament. We thus see that by a chain of very few links the Old Testament of our day is joined to that of Christ’s day, and indeed to that antedating Christ’s day by nearly three centuries. These links are the printed Bible down to the fifteenth century, the manuscripts to the tenth, the “Targums” to the seventh, the versions to the fourth and back as early as the second, with the Septuagint carrying us to the third century B.C. One may indeed ask whether it be not a long period to account for between the third century B.C. and the fifth, when lived and flourished Ezra, the latest of the inspired writers? But the answer is in the negative. If the books we call the Old Testament were in canonical form in the third century, it is clear that they must have been in existence as separate books prior to that time. Now two hundred, or even two hundred and fifty years, are not a long time for the formation of a canon, as we shall be able to judge better by and by when we come to consider the history of that of the New Testament. President Patton in his lecture on “The Seat of Authority in Religion,” employs an illustration which fits admirably in this case. “If we are journeying on a railroad train, we do not insist that it shall deposit us in our porte-cochere, but are satisfied to be left at the railroad station because we can easily walk the rest of the way.” If, in other words, the records of the canon of the Old Testament bring us to within two or three centuries of the date of the last of the inspired writers, there is no strain on the imagination in supplying the final connecting link. But any who may not be satisfied with that remark will be able to rest in this. Remember that the Septuagint was in existence and in use in Palestine in the days of Christ and His apostles. He set His seal to its genuineness as the sum and substance of the sacred Scriptures. The Old Testament as we now have it was that which, as a man, “fed the springs of His life, fashioned His thought, molded His message.” and led Him to the cross as the suffering Messiah of which it testified. Can we desire stronger evidence than this? Who would not trust that which Jesus trusted? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 69: 06.04. EXAMINING THE TEXT ======================================================================== Chapter 3 Examining the Text In the last chapter we traced the records of the Old Testament to the time of Christ and his apostles, and beyond; but before entering upon the particular theme of the present chapter we should do the same for the New Testament. After we pass the era of the printed Bible we find the New Testament like the Old in manuscript form, the oldest of which manuscripts carry us back to the fourth century. The three oldest are the Alexandrian, or Codex “A,” the Vatican, or Codex “B,” and the Sinaitic, or Codex “Aleph.” The last two are certainly of the fourth century, and the first named, of the earlier part of the fifth. It is notable also that the custody of these three is divided between the three great branches of the Christian church, the Protestant, the Roman Catholic, and the Greek, in the order named. The first is deposited in the British Museum, the second in the Vatican Library, and the third in the Royal Library at St. Petersburg. The fact that these three manuscripts are thus held by the three branches of the Christian church, in which there has been much rivalry and contention on doctrinal points, has contributed much to the preservation of the integrity of the text and the evidence of its genuineness. Back of these manuscripts we trace the history of the New Testament through the versions of the second century, as in the case of the Old Testament. There are two versions of that century, the Latin and the Syriac, sometimes called the “Peshetta,” which means “literal.” These versions were referred to in speaking of the Old Testament, and it is in order here to say that they contain the Old Testament as well as the New. The former of the two was the Bible of the Western and the latter the Bible of the Eastern church in that early day. Of course, it is not claimed that these versions are in existence today, but through the copies of them which we possess and the testimony concerning them in the writings of the early church fathers, there is no question as to their existence at that time. The Syriac, it is believed, dated from about 150 A.D., but as the books which formed its collection must have existed for sometime previously in a separate form, its history practically brings us back to the close of the apostolic age at the end of the first century when John, the last of the apostles, died. We thus see, in summing up, that as early as the middle of the second century of the Christian era, and in the case of the Old Testament as early as the middle of the third century before Christ, there existed the same books as those now in our Bible, ascribed to the same authority and containing in all material points the same text. This applies to all the books of the Old Testament without exception, and to all of the New with the exception of II Peter. It is true that the Latin version of the second century omitted Hebrews, James and II Peter, and that the Syriac omitted II and III John, Jude, Revelation, and II Peter; but putting these two versions of the same century together we have all the books of our Bible excepting II Peter. And what is even more remarkable we have no other books than those now in our Bible. The reason for the omission of II Peter and the circumstances under which it came subsequently to be received into the Canon, will be presented in a later chapter. We are now ready to proceed with the particular subject assigned for this chapter, namely, the examination of the text. For example, it has been stated above, that our Bible is the same as that of the early manuscripts and versions in all material points, a qualification which at once suggests the query as to the points in which it is not absolutely and precisely the same. In answering this query we come face to face with another concerning the “various readings” of the manuscripts and versions, about which we have been hearing a great deal. To understand this question it should be borne in mind that multitudinous copies of the Bible have been made in different tongues and different ages, showing evidence of misapprehension of the text in some places and carelessness in others. To quote another here, “Even printed books often contain numerous inaccuracies in spite of the most careful reading of proof-sheets; and in writing the risk is much greater than in printing, revision and correction of each copy being necessary and laborious. Sometimes the writer transcribed from a manuscript before him and sometimes from dictation. In the one case his ear was liable to deceive him, in another his eye. Misunderstanding of the manuscript from which the transcriber wrote may sometimes have led to error. Its abbreviations may have been misinterpreted or its words inaccurately divided. Now it is the province of Bible criticism to examine these “various readings” of which there are very many, hundreds of thousands indeed, in order to determine the correct text. There are definite rules by which this examination is conducted, and so scientifically has it been accomplished that, as Bishop Westcott says: “Seven eighths of the words are raised above all doubt whatsoever by a unique combination of authorities, while the questions forming the remaining one eighth are, for the most part, simply those of order and form; so that in the last analysis not the slightest possible question can arise over more than one sixtieth part of the whole text” The late Dr. Ezra Abbott, of Harvard University, an authority on questions of textual criticism, almost as distinguished as Bishop Westcott himself, and quoted by the writer in The Bulwarks of the Faith, dismisses nineteen-twentieths of these “various readings” from consideration altogether as obviously of no importance, nineteen-twentieths of the remainder as relating to matters of spelling, grammar, construction and order of words without affecting the sense; and then adds that even what is still left does not involve an important historical fact or essential doctrine or revelation, but at the farthest only the number of proof-texts by which it may be sustained. Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7-8, are illustrations in point. Neither of these verses appear in the Revised Version, because the testimony to their genuineness did not appear to be sufficient. They refer indeed to doctrines of the greatest importance, but their existence in the text is not at all essential to the enunciation and establishment of those doctrines, as even the most cursory reader of the Bible and the least intelligent of Christians knows. It would be very interesting, indeed, to go further into details in the examination of the text and give illustrations of the “various readings” so called, but for this the reader must be referred to larger and more pretentious works, in which connection I should like to name The Angus-Green Cyclopedic Hand-book to the Bible, by the late Joseph Angus, D.D., to which especially the new edition, indebtedness is acknowledged. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 70: 06.05. THE ENGLISH VERSIONS ======================================================================== Chapter 4 The English Versions In tracing the records of the Bible thus far, we have said more or less about certain versions, but there is one version which interests us more than the rest, and whose history we should be familiar with before proceeding to other branches of our subject. I refer, of course, to the English version or versions. The history of the English versions begins really with the story of the Latin version of the second century, to which reference was made in the preceding chapter. This Latin version is not now in existence, but scholars are agreed that it was the ground-work of another version in the same tongue prepared in the fourth century by Jerome, and known as The Vulgate. The word “Vulgate” in the Latin means the vulgar, or the common, tongue, that is, the vernacular of the people as distinguished from the scholarly and classic Greek. This “Vulgate” was the only Bible of the Anglo-Saxon down until the close of the Middle Ages or the end of the 14th century, and is still the only Bible followed by the Roman Catholics in all their translation work, furnishing the basis of their Douay version of the Old Testament and their Rhenish version of the New Testament. These names are given to those versions from the French cities in which the translation, in each case, was accomplished. Towards the close of the seventh century, metical paraphrases of parts of the “Vulgate” were translated into the Anglo-Saxon tongue by a Yorkshire monk, and a little later the Bishop of Sherborne translated fifty of the Psalms into the same tongue. In the next century (about 735), the Venerable Bede, as he is called, translated the Gospel of John, but it was not until the rise of John Wyckliffe, the Morning Star of the Reformation, in 1382, that the whole Bible was ever known in the English tongue. Although his work was in manuscript, copies of which were expensive, and although its circulation was strongly opposed by the priests, yet it was eagerly sought by the people and had a comparatively large circulation. Wyckliffe preachers, as they were called, went about the country reading its pages to the people and reciting its contents in their sermons. One hundred years later, when printing had become known, William Tyndale utilized it for the publication of another English version of the New Testament, translating it from the original Greek sources. Because of persecution in his own country, most of this work was done at Cologne and at Worms, the whole being completed in 1526, and smuggled into England, packed in bales of cloth and sacks of flour. It also enjoyed a large circulation, stirring up his enemies to various efforts to exterminate it, until finally the Bishop of London purchased and burned all available copies; but with the proceeds thus obtained, a second and better edition followed. The same translator, still an exile, began work on the Old Testament, the successful conclusion of which, however, was defeated by the malice of his foes, who at length caused him to perish at the stake. “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” Tyndale’s work took root, and in less than three years after his death, an edition of the whole of the Scriptures, called The Great Bible, was published under royal authority, and became the first authorized copy of the English Bible. In 1560 the Geneva Bible was published, so named after the city in which the translation occurred, and was the work of a number of scholarly exiles. It was popular for half a century, being the first to appear in Roman type. In 1568 the Bishops Bible appeared, under the auspices of Archbishop Parker and other ecclesiastics of the Church of England, but did not possess the popularity of its immediate forerunner. Finally the King James Version appeared, which has been known as the “Authorized” down to our own day. A company of fifty-four learned and devout men were selected by the king for this undertaking, forty-seven of whom actually engaged in the task which continued for four years, from 1603 to 1607. The value of this version is borne witness to by its long and blessed history. And yet as early as the beginning of the nineteenth century, if not earlier, the leaders of the church felt the necessity for a revised version of the King James, a necessity which became more and more apparent as the church advanced in the knowledge of the original languages of the Bible and as archaeological research caused the converging of greater light upon the meaning of names of persons and places in the sacred text. The Anglo-Saxon tongue itself indeed had been undergoing changes in the course of the centuries which made a revised version desirable, if not necessary. Accordingly, the first international and interdenominational effort to prepare an English version of the Scriptures originated in the Convocation of Canterbury, of the Church of England, May 6, 1870, when sixty-five men were selected for the work, forty one of whom belonged to that church and twenty-four to other Christian bodies, including the Church of Ireland, the Church of Scotland, the Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Methodists, with power to add to their numbers representatives from America. In the following year, the American Committee was formed to cooperate with the English, consisting of thirty-four men of different denominations. The labors of the joint committees covered several years, the New Testament company completing its work November 11, 1880, and the Old Testament company, June 20, 1884. It is an interesting fact to be remembered that when the New Testament revision was published in May 1881, one million copies were sold the first day, the issue appearing on both sides of the Atlantic simultaneously. Moreover, the whole of it was telegraphed from New York to Chicago in time to appear in a secular daily in the last-named city on the following day. Such circumstances as these indicate the strong hold of the Bible upon the popular mind. This English version, known as the “Revised,” is, in my judgment, best used not as a substitute for the King James, but as a commentary upon it. It has not yet supplanted the latter in either public or private use, and it were well that it should not do so. Superior as it is in most particulars, yet some of its textual changes are inferior in scholarship to the King James and even harmful in their tendencies to the Christian faith. 2 Timothy 3:16 is a case in point, and several others are pointed out in Dean Burton’s Revision Revised and Newton’s Remarks on the Revised Version. The changes referred to were made by a two thirds vote of the Committee, and some of the most notable and devout scholars engaged were not always present on these occasions. Let us stand by the King James for a while longer, using the Revised to throw light upon it here and there as a kind of critical commentary. My own plan is to use the Two Version Bible in which I have all the results of the revision very conveniently in the margin. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 71: 06.06. HOW THE BOOKS CAME TOGETHER ======================================================================== Chapter 5 How the Books Came Together In chapters 2 (page 4) and 3 (page 9) we traced the history of the Old and New Testaments to the period of Christ in the one case, and to the third century before Christ in the other, and the remark was made that while sometime had elapsed in both instances between the passing away of the last of the inspired writers and the appearance of the books in canonical arrangement, yet after all the distance was not so great, under the circumstances, as to place an insupportable strain on the imagination in supplying the missing link. We are now to inquire how much of a strain this is, or whether it is a strain at all. We shall try to pierce the darkness and exercise ourselves to find the missing link. How did the books come together? Confining ourselves to the Old Testament in this chapter and those immediately following, we shall consider first, what is known as the traditional view in which the Canon was formed, and then take up each division of the Old Testament in detail, giving attention to the more serious objections to this view, which come under the modern name of the “higher criticism.” The traditional view is somewhat as follows: The first five books of the Law were written by Moses and deposited in the Tabernacle by the side of the Ark of the Covenant in which lay the two tables of the Decalogue (see Deuteronomy 17:1-20; Deuteronomy 18:1-22; Deuteronomy 31:9-26). It was in this same book that Joshua wrote the Covenant of Shechem (Joshua 24:26), and that afterward Samuel added the manner of the kingdom (1 Samuel 10:25). This collection of writings, subsequently transferred from the Tabernacle to the Temple, was used in the consecration of Joash (2 Kings 11:12). Disused and practically lost for a while, it was discovered and brought forth again in the reign of Josiah, B.C. 621, the reading of which promoted a revival (2 Kings 22:8). The earlier prophets were subsequently added to this collection, as indicated by the circumstance that the later prophets were acquainted with them and quoted from them (Daniel 9:2; Zechariah 7:12). Though the Temple was destroyed at the time of the captivity, B.C. 588, yet all the copies of the sacred books could not have been destroyed. Many such, doubtless, had been made for the kings (Deuteronomy 17:18), and also for the schools of the prophets (2 Kings 2:3-5). Moreover, from these books the prophets quoted during the captivity (Daniel 9:2; Daniel 9:11-13), and finally after that event, the worship of the Jews was restored in accordance with their teachings (Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 8:1-18). In all probability the preparation of the Canon so called, was begun at about this time. Prior to the captivity it might be said that there was no need of a Canon or authorized declaration of the inspired books, because between the period of Moses and the captivity Israel had never been left without some living representative of God’s presence and some revealer of His will. For example, the priests and prophets were the custodians of the revelation that had already come, and the latter particularly were the channel through which the revelation continued to come. Then also the Levites stationed at the convenient centers throughout the land instructed the people continually out of the books of the Law and in the history of God’s dealings with them. With the return from exile, however, a new state of things came into existence, and with the passing of Haggai and Zechariah there was no longer one who could say, “Thus saith the Lord,” or whose interpretation of the Law would be received by all. The inspired books only remained, and by degrees, the returning exiles came to feel that none others need be expected and that on these only must their souls be nourished. Ezra, it is thought, gave the earliest stimulus to religious inquiry of this kind, in which he was supported later by Nehemiah. See the books under their names, and consult also, the preface to the Apocryphal book, “Second Maccabees.” in which Nehemiah is said to have “Founded a library into which he gathered books about the kings and the prophets and the books of David,” alluding evidently to the second and third divisions of the Old Testament. The Law, or the first division, had doubtless already been canonized, as we may gather from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah already referred to. After the period of Ezra and Nehemiah, tradition holds that the completion of the Canon was carried forward by a company of scribes known as the “Great Synagogue,” over which Ezra, himself, at first presided, and whose names are recorded probably in Nehemiah 10:1-39. Of course it is not necessary to explain to the reader that this traditional view of the history of the Canon of the Old Testament, especially the Pentateuch or the Law, is disputed by certain critics. Their number is not large as compared with the great body of the church, but they are influential and can be heard a great ways. Consideration will be given to them in succeeding chapters. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 72: 06.07. WHY I BELIEVE MOSES WROTE THE PENTATEUCH ======================================================================== Chapter 6 Why I Believe Moses Wrote the Pentateuch Why do I believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch or the first five books of the Law? This is the question I have been asking myself of late, and which I propose to answer in this chapter. I do this not because my opinion is of so much value to other people, but partly for my own satisfaction and partly because I believe that what will satisfy me will satisfy the average Christian, and it is for such I write. 1. I believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch because the whole Christian church and the whole Jewish nation have believed it, with fewest exceptions, during these past 3500 years; and these exceptions, for the most part, have been grouped together within a century. It is almost inconceivable that the Christian fathers and the leaders of the Jewish nation should have been so indifferent to this question, or so incapable of considering it, as never to have sifted it to the bottom; while on the other hand, living nearer its source they had better opportunities to do so than their successors in the present day. 2. I believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch because Jesus Christ believed it. Read his words in Mark 12:26, Luke 24:44, John 5:46-47, and elsewhere. In these words he speaks of Moses, of Moses’ writings, the book of Moses, the law of Moses, etc., and it is admitted by all the critics that in so doing He has in mind the Pentateuch as we have it today. Moreover, they admit that such was the understanding of His contemporaries, and of the hearers to whom He addressed these words But they add, Jesus was Himself mistaken! To be sure He was God, but in taking upon Him our nature He did, as to that nature, so empty Himself of His Godhead as to limit His capacity to know such things to that of His contemporaries. You may not be ready to accept this, they say, and therefore we offer another hypothesis, viz. that Jesus may have been aware of the error of His contemporaries but felt Himself under no obligation to correct it. I must leave it with my readers as to whether they are prepared to accept either of these hypotheses. As for myself, I am not. My knowledge of the Son of God, gathered from the Gospels, from the teachings of the Old Testament prophets, and from the effects of His life, death and resurrection in all these centuries will not permit me to believe that He was ignorant of the authorship of the Pentateuch, or that knowing it to be other than that of the man Moses, He failed to correct the prevailing error of His time and of all time. 3. I believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch because other Scriptures of the Old Testament bear testimony to it. So frequent are these testimonies as to be quite familiar to every reader of the Bible, without quotation. The “Law,” the “Book of the Law,” the “Law of Moses,” “The Book of the Law of Moses,” how frequently we meet such references, what do they mean? “Oh,” it is answered, “these allusions should be interpreted in accordance with custom. Anonymous books are frequently named after the chief character in them, as in the instances of Ruth and Esther, and this is all that can properly be claimed for the so called law of Moses.” But what if “the so called law of Moses,” unlike the books of Ruth and Esther, for example, does itself claim to have been written by Moses? 4. This brings me to the last argument by which I satisfy myself of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Read Exodus 17:14; Exodus 24:3-4; Exodus 24:7; Exodus 34:27; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 28:58-61; Deuteronomy 31:9; Deuteronomy 31:22; Deuteronomy 31:26; etc. According to these statements Moses wrote the account of the battle with the Amalekites, he wrote all the words of the Lord received in the mount; he wrote the account of the journeyings of Israel, and he wrote all the words of the book of Deuteronomy including those of his song. Some of the critics say, “Yes, he wrote all these things to which his name is attached, but he did not write the rest of the Pentateuch.” But if he wrote all these things, pray what was left, if we omit the book of Genesis? Take Leviticus as an example. It has twenty-seven chapters, but in these twenty-seven chapters Moses’ name is mentioned fifty-four times in some such way as his, “And the Lord spake unto Moses.” To be sure, it does not say Moses wrote all that the Lord thus spake unto him, but who would be more likely to write it, or who more competent? Let us then omit from the book of Leviticus all thus ascribed to Moses, and how much of its contents would remain? The same may be asked of Deuteronomy. Professor Bissell has estimated that about 940 words out of every 1000 in that book are intrinsically associated with its direct claim of Mosaic authorship. And as to Genesis what shall we say? It contains no reference to Moses’ name, but he who has ever read the Pentateuch as a whole must be impressed with its natural connection with that which follows. Moreover no historical evidence exists that it was ever separate from that which follows. Then, too, competent scholars tell us that the language of the whole Pentateuch is of a piece, i.e., it all belongs to the same period of Israel’s history, the earliest period when the language was the purest and best. These things satisfy me, but we shall see in another chapter what the critics say concerning them. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 73: 06.08. WHY QUESTION THE MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH? ======================================================================== Chapter 7 Why Question the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch? After reading the last chapter some young beginner in the study has been led to ask, Why was the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch ever questioned? Well, I think the deep underlying motive that questioned it arose out of the repugnance of the natural heart to believe in a supernatural revelation from God. Mark you, I do not charge this upon all the critics, or believe that such a motive is present to all their minds, but the more one familiarizes himself with the subject the more is he impressed with the abstract fact itself. The evolution theory of creation now in vogue is applied to the sacred Scriptures, and the critics say the Pentateuch is a growth, a development, corresponding to the growth and development of the nation of Israel itself. Their idea is that as need were felt for more legislation by that nation in the course of centuries, it was provided, and associated with the name of Moses to give it sanctity and persuasive force in the minds of the people. Moses wrote the germ of the Pentateuch most of the critics will admit, but later writers, redactors, or editors they are sometimes called, developed these germs and added to them as the occasion called. Still later redactors again added to their work, and so on, until at length, somewhere about the time of Ezra, or a thousand years after Moses’ death, the Pentateuch took on its present literary form. These redactors or editors, the more evangelical of the critics would say, were as divinely inspired for their work as Moses was for his, so that we may repose in the authority by which they spake as well as his. Now all this sounds very simple and very reasonable, and we might well be prepared to believe it if it did not seem to flatly contradict what the Scriptures themselves say as quoted in the preceding chapter, and more; if it did not approach the danger point of deliberately charging those Scriptures with a pious fraud. The case of Deuteronomy illustrates this. The critics boldly affirm that it was not written by Moses but by some priest or Levite in the period of King Josiah, B.C. 621; that it was the book supposed to have been found in the Temple as recorded in 2 Kings 22:10, but really prepared by Hilkiah himself perhaps, and palmed off upon the people as the work of Moses in order to stimulate them more heartily to the work of reform in that reign. What right-minded Christian does not shrink from such an imputation of literary forgery? And what leads the critics to such an imputation? This, that there are differences in some respects between the legislation in Deuteronomy and that in Leviticus, and that one seems to contradict the other. But a rational answer is that these laws were given on different occasions and for different ends. Leviticus was for the priests, Deuteronomy for the people, the nation at large. Moreover, Leviticus was given at Sinai, and Deuteronomy at Moab, with forty years between. When Leviticus was given the people were living in the wilderness, but when Deuteronomy was given they were about to enter on the settled life of Canaan. And, indeed, as the late Professor Green, of Princeton pointed out, some of the laws which on a cursory examination appear contradictory, will, on further reflection, prove to be supplemental. The point of departure for the critics was somewhere about the eighteenth century when a French Roman Catholic physician, by the name of Jean Astruc, thought that he discovered the Pentateuch to be not an original production, but a compilation of earlier and differing documents. The thought was not altogether new with Astruc, for as early as the twelfth century a certain Jew, named Eben Ezea, called attention to it, and from time to time mention had been made of it by others; but Astruc was the first really to force it on the consideration of biblical scholars. He was soon followed by others, by Eichhorn, a German theologian of the same century, by Kuenen, Wellhausen, Canon Driver, Professor Briggs, and many more down to our own time, who have come to be known by the general title of “Higher Critics.” But we should not be misled by that word “Higher” as though it meant a superiority in scholarship or importance, which is not the case. The lower criticism deals with the text, examines the manuscripts and versions as we did, for example, in some of our earlier chapters, while the higher criticism takes the text thus examined and seeks to discover its source and history. Someone suggests that the “Further Criticism” or the “Historical Criticism” would better indicate its chief aim and result. The first thing that fastened itself on the attention of Astruc and his predecessors was a difference in the names of God recorded in Genesis. In the Hebrew we sometimes meet with Elohim, “God,” and sometimes with Jehovah Elohim, “Lord God,” from which has arisen the hypothesis of an “Elohistic” document and a “Jehovistic” document with different authors. These authors are sought to be traced through all the books of the Pentateuch, and latterly in Joshua. Other dislocations have followed this until now by some, the whole of Genesis has been reduced to legend; the Hebrew religion has sprung from Babylonian mythology; the patriarchs are myths; Jacob’s sons are the twelve signs of the Zodiac. Saul and Jonathan are the constellation Gemini; David is a solar hero; and other extravagances are almost without end. We cannot pursue the subject further now, but in the next chapter we shall see something of what may be said on the other side. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 74: 06.09. ANSWERING THE CRITICS ======================================================================== Chapter 8 Answering the Critics A primer of the faith can hardly be expected to state, much less answer, all the objections of the critics, but one or two replies may be hinted at as a kind of sample of the rest. For example, take the question of the different names of the Deity as suggesting different documents and authors. Why should not the critics take the rational, not to say the reverent view, that God may have revealed these different names of Himself to express the different relationships He sustains to His intelligent creatures? “Elohim” stands for God as Creator and Lord of the universe, but “Jehovah” stands for him as the Covenant-keeping God, the God of redemption especially, the God of his own people. It is true that the one Name is used in Genesis 1:1-31 and in the first or outline account of creation, and the other in Genesis 2:1-25 which gives the same account in detail; but may not these two accounts (if they be two indeed), have been brought together by the one inspired pen for the sake of their combined lesson? And what is that lesson? It is that Elohim is Jehovah, and Jehovah is Elohim. The God who made Heaven and earth is no mere tutelary God like those of the nations round about, but omnipotent and supreme, and this God is, in a peculiar sense, the God of Israel, his chosen nation. Is not this a lesson worthy of the bringing together of two such documents by the one hand, and worthy indeed of the employment of the two names in the one account? Moreover, as others have pointed out, this theory of the two names of God, identifying two documents and two human authors, to be credited must be consistent, but it is not consistent. “Elohim” is found in the so called Jehovistic documents and “Jehovah” in the so called Elohistic, and this not merely once or twice but many times. What do the critics say to this? O, only, that the text is corrupt, or that the redactor made a mistake! Now as to the question of the documents themselves, no thinking person will dogmatically deny that Moses may have gathered some of his information recorded in the book of Genesis in this way. The art of writing was known and literature highly cultivated thousands of years before he was born, and the great cities of patriarchal times and earlier, had libraries like the great cities of today. Tradition had handed down stories of the creation, of the fall, of the deluge, of the nations, of the earlier periods of Israel, why should not Moses have had access to these authorities the same as any other historian of that or any other time? Would this affect the question of his divine inspiration? Certainly not, for one may as truly be inspired to compile (and to sift out truth from error as he compiles), as to write down a revelation fresh from the throne of God. Let anyone compare the record of Moses in the book of Genesis with the legendary and mythological accretions on the same subjects in contemporaneous writings, and he will have little difficulty in recognizing the divine guidance by which he was “led through the realms of fable into the region of truth.” And then again, it may be readily granted to the critics that Moses did not write every word of the Pentateuch as we now possess it. It is not vital to its Mosaic authorship to insist on this. Some other hand may have added the record of his own death, for example, just as there are indications of editorial comment in other places (see Genesis 13:7; Genesis 36:31; Exodus 16:35; and Leviticus 18:28, for examples). Sometimes modern names of places, i.e., modern as compared with the period of Moses, are found in the text, and it is perfectly supposable, that they may have been added, or the earlier names altered by a later hand. Ezra may have done this after the captivity in connection with that reading and interpreting of the law mentioned in the book of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 8:1-18); “but however this may have been, the isolated phrases cannot be suffered to weigh against the abundant evidence for the earlier origin of the book that contains them.” There is, of course, very much more that might be said in answer to the critics. One argument against their position which has always had great weight with me is the fact that the nation of Israel would have been without a literature for the first several centuries of its history if their hypothesis be correct. Place the origin of the Pentateuch, or the major part of it away up in the days of the kings or farther, and what did Israel possess before that in the way of national writings? Nothing whatever. Here is an argument that has gained force of late since archaeological research has demonstrated beyond a doubt the great literary activity of contemporaneous nations. If Israel were an unintelligent people at the beginning this might not apply, but we know the opposite to have been the case. And then again, is the corresponding fact that Moses was competent to write the Pentateuch. Learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians was he as few other men of his age. “Egyptian learning was carefully concealed from foreigners,” remarked Dr. S.G. Green, “the priests and the royal family alone having access to it; but to this class must the writer of the Pentateuch have belonged” as judged by a critical examination of its contents; and yet he must have been a Hebrew speaking the language and cherishing the sentiments of his nation. Who fits this condition of things except Moses? We wish space and time afforded the opportunity to go further into the internal evidence of the Mosaic authorship. We should like to speak of the references to Egyptian life many of which were formerly alleged to be incorrect, but are now demonstrated to be true, and true particularly of the time of Moses, but we close with this quotation from the Bible Hand-book (revised edition page 403): “Add to this that Judaism is founded upon the supposed truthfulness of these records. If there be a forgery, when could it have been executed? Not when the Septuagint was made (B.C. 285). Not on the return from Babylon (B.C. 536). Not on the division of the kingdom (B.C. 975). Not in the days of Samuel (B.C. 1095). Not in the four hundred years preceding. For in each successive era there were thousands interested in detecting the forgery and setting aside the burdensome institutions founded upon it. To suppose any man could secure the observance of these things on the plea that they had been observed from the first, and for the reasons assigned, when it must have been known that this statement was untrue, is to suppose a greater miracle than any the record contains.” A greater miracle, I may add, than to suppose that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 75: 06.10. THE EARLY HISTORICAL BOOKS ======================================================================== Chapter 9 The Early Historical Books We have given all the time we can profitably spare to the consideration of the canon of the Law and must now proceed to the second division of the Old Testament, the Prophets. This, as was stated earlier, is sometimes divided into the Former and Latter Prophets, the “Former” including Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, but which are better known to us perhaps, as the early Historical books. These, too, are passing through the crucible of modern literary criticism, although much less is being said and heard about them than the Pentateuch. Tradition names Joshua as the author of the first book, and, from the common sense point of view, that much of its contents could have been known only to himself or to whomsoever he revealed it. In evidence of this see Joshua 1:1; Joshua 3:7; Joshua 5:13; etc. To this fact should be added the further one that the vividness of the descriptions throughout the book indicate the presence of an eyewitness, a suggestion strengthened by the occasional use of the pronouns “We” and “Us,” as, for example, Joshua 5:1-6. And then, too, there is an express statement that Joshua made a record “in the book of the Law of God” (Joshua 24:26). There is indeed a common expression in the book, “unto this day,” (Joshua 4:9; Joshua 6:25; Joshua 8:28), indicating a later hand than Joshua, but in explanation of this the same thing may be said as in the case of the Pentateuch, viz. that while the book was really written by Joshua a subsequent editor gave to it its present literary form. Of course, it might be perfectly satisfactory to say that Joshua added these comments himself towards the close of his life, but even then we have to account for the record of his death (Joshua 24:1-33), which Samuel or some later prophet must have contributed. But no matter whose hand contributed these later allusions it may be safely argued that it was prior to the period of David and Solomon, for the proof of which compare Joshua 15:63 with 2 Samuel 5:7-9, and Joshua 16:10 with 1 Kings 9:16. But let it not be supposed for a moment that the question of the authorship of every word in the book is necessarily bound up with that of its inspiration or its authority. One man may be guided by the Holy Spirit to write a book up to a certain point in time and another to complete it, a thought upon which more light shall be thrown when we reach Part III (page 277) of our work dealing with inspiration: but in the meantime as to the authority of this book let it be remembered what was said in our earlier chapters as to the genuineness of the Old Testament as a whole. Every book, including Joshua as we now have it, was contained in the Septuagint, used by Christ and His apostles, and acknowledged by the whole Jewish nation as canonical. Particular references to Joshua, establishing its authority, are found in 1 Kings 16:34; Habakkuk 3:11; Acts 7:45; Hebrews 10:30; and James 2:25. The book of Judges is thus called from the fact that it gave the history of judges who governed Israel from the time of Joshua to the monarchy a period of between three and four hundred years or thereabouts. Its authorship, though unknown definitely, is usually ascribed to Samuel for the following reasons: 1. It was written after the establishment of the monarchy (Judges 19:1; Judges 21:25). 2. It was written prior to the capture of Jerusalem (Judges 1:21). 3. Jerusalem was captured by David (2 Samuel 5:6-8). 4. It must have been written therefore during Saul’s reign. 5.The most probable author during that reign was Samuel. To be sure there is a captivity of Israel referred to in Judges 18:30, from which some would argue a date for the book as late as Ezra; but it is to be remembered that there were several captivities of Israel, or at least of certain tribes of Israel, prior to that at the hand of the Assyrians about 720 B.C. and it may be to one of these the author refers. Indeed the main purpose of the book seems to be to tell about these captivities, how they came about and |how Israel was delivered from them. Compare for a similar mention of early captivities, Psalms 78:60-61, etc. But in any event, no matter who was the human writer or compiler of the book its authority for us is established beyond question by the arguments used in the case of Joshua, and its quotation in other Scriptures, as for example, 1 Samuel 12:9-12; 2 Samuel 11:21; Psalms 83:11; Isaiah 9:4; Acts 13:20; Hebrews 11:32 and elsewhere. To follow the Jewish classification the book of Ruth should be considered later in connection with the third division of the Old Testament known as the “Holy Writings,” but its proximity to Judges and the natural relationship it bears to that book will make it more convenient to speak of it at this time. That relationship is marked by the very first sentence, and indeed the very first word of the book which, in the Revised Version, is “And.” Its authorship is, like Judges, ascribed to Samuel, and in any event it was written “after the period of the judges when certain Israelitish usages had become antiquated, and probably when David’s house was established upon the throne.” See for these things, Ruth 1:1; Ruth 4:7; Ruth 4:17-22. Quoting the Bible Hand-book in this place, “a chief design of this book is to trace the descent of David, bringing out clearly the fact that a foreigner, one of a hated race, was in the ancestral line. In this connection read also Matthew 1:5, where the further fact is added that Boaz, the husband of Ruth, was a descendant of Rahab. Thus does the purpose of Jehovah show itself superior to positive command (Deuteronomy 23:3), while the facts expressly indicate the catholicity of the divine kingdom, and prefigure the calling of the Gentiles.” This is a good place to notice, although it might have been stated earlier, that the books of the Old Testament in the Jewish canon numbered but twenty-four, while with us they number thirty-nine; but this is because the following were reckoned by the Jews as one book each--I and II Samuel, I and II Kings, I and II Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, the twelve Minor Prophets. As to I and II Samuel tradition ascribes their writing to the prophet himself down to 1 Samuel 24:1-22, and the remainder to Nathan or Gad who were his contemporaries (1 Samuel 10:25; 1 Chronicles 29:29). The authority of these books, like the preceding ones, is established by numerous quotations in other books of the New and Old Testaments which the reader may easily discover by the examination of the marginal references in his Bible. Jeremiah has been regarded as the compiler of the two books of Kings, although it is a point on which there is no absolute certainty. I speak of him as compiler rather than author, however, because there are many indications in the books as to the sources which may have been used in their composition. See 1 Kings 11:41; 1 Kings 14:19; 1 Kings 14:29 and other places. Some of these sources thus referred to may have been the court records of the different kings, and some of them may have been the memoirs of the prophets of the time, such as Elijah and Elisha, which had been preserved in the schools of the prophets of which mention is made in the book. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 76: 06.11. TWO ISAIAHS, OR ONE? ======================================================================== Chapter 10 Two Isaiahs, or One? The Jewish classification of the “Prophets,” as we have seen, was that of “Former” and “Latter;” but as in our last chapter we ventured to change the designation of the “Former” into that of the “Early Historical Books,” to agree with our modern nomenclature, so in this we shall describe the “Latter” prophets by the more customary division of our time, the “Major and Minor Prophets.” The Major prophets include the first four, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, and the Minor all the rest. These first four are called “Major,” however, not because of their greater authority or importance as revelations from God, but because of their greater length. Of these there are only two, the first and the last, Isaiah and Daniel, that have drawn the serious attacks of the critics, and to which it may be necessary for us to give more than cursory reference. Isaiah who is in some respects the greatest of all the prophets, began to prophesy in the last year of the reign of Uzziah, King of Judah (Isaiah 6:1-13), and continued throughout the reigns of his successors Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah (Isaiah 1:1-31). He was, like Daniel, probably a statesman as well as a prophet, for we find him repeatedly speaking and acting in connection with public affairs (see Isaiah 7:1-25; Isaiah 8:1-22 for a conspicuous example). His name means, “Salvation of Jehovah,” and he has commonly been called the Evangelical prophet because his writings deal so much with the Person and Work of the Messiah, the Savior of the world. He has the distinction, too, of being quoted by Christ and his apostles more than any other of the prophets. His book naturally divides itself into two main portions, part one including the first thirty-nine chapters, and part two the remaining twenty-seven. Part one contains prophetic addresses and warnings of different dates, many of them bearing on the present duty and welfare of the Jewish nation, and some relating to the Gentile nations of the period; but part two differs in being a kind of continuous prophetic discourse of which the starting-point is the Babylonian captivity predicted in the last chapter of part one. The leading theme of part two is the deliverance from this captivity, but no one can read it carefully, especially in the light of other Scriptures, without perceiving that the prophet has in mind a still greater deliverance than that from Babylon, even the one spoken of by all the prophets, when the Messiah shall come “a second time without sin unto salvation,” and God’s kingdom shall be indeed set up upon the earth with Israel at its head. Thus the whole of part two has been called by some the “Rhapsody of Redemption.” Now, mainly because of this great difference between the two parts of the book, some modern critics have held that the latter part was the work of a later prophet, a second, or “Deutero-Isaiah,” who wrote during the captivity, and to their arguments we must now give some attention. As already intimated, “the main problem lies in the change of place, time and situation which confronts us in Isaiah 40:1-31. The final prophecy of part one is uttered against Sennacherib about 701 B.C., but the opening one of part two seems addressed to the captives in Babylon in the later years of their exile, say 598-550.” But why, we may ask, should not this be so? Is it not customary for prophets to be carried forward in vision even further than that? Moses in Deuteronomy 28:1-68, sweeps the horizon of 3500 years and this second Isaiah, if, for the moment, we shall designate him thus, covers at least 700 years in Isaiah 53:1-12, unless we are prepared to deny its application to the suffering Savior. There is a great difference in style between the parts, say the critics; but may not the great difference in style be explained by the great difference in subject? Is there any greater difference in the style of the two parts than there is between a literary essay and a state paper of John Milton? It has been discovered also that there are Chaldaisms in part two, i.e., words or expressions foreign to the Hebrew tongue and indicating an acquaintance with that of Babylon as if the writer must have been living there instead of Judea, but closer investigation of part one reveals their presence there as well as in part two, so that this particular argument becomes a kind of boomerang and proves more than is desired. The mention of the name of Cyrus, King of Persia, some two hundred years before his birth (Isaiah 44:1-28; Isaiah 45:1-25), is used as an argument for a later author of part two, on the ground that it is unlike the usual scope of prophecy to do this. But there is a precedent for that in the case of Josiah (1 Kings 13:2), who is named 300 years before he saw the light of day. Jehovah said he knew and aided Jeremiah before his conception (Jeremiah 1:1-19), and why not Cyrus? The whole question, indeed, resolves itself into what we may understand by the words “prophet” and “prophecy” and how much latitude we shall permit the source of inspiration in the exercise of that power. Nor is this last remark an attempt to ridicule the critics as if they were not of the same mind with us in regard to it. They would admit as readily as we, where they admit the supernatural at all, that God is able to reveal anything he wills to reveal and that the question of its character or its period of fulfillment is not before us. But does God will to reveal this or that is the question? Did he reveal the name of Cyrus to is 200 years before his birth, or did a second and later Isaiah write these things about him after the event? All the arguments already presented are in favor of the generally accepted view, but there is yet one which is still stronger; one which throws divine light upon the very meaning and purpose of prophecy itself. I refer to the appeals which God himself makes to the fulfillments of his earlier declarations as a proof of his claim to know the end from the beginning. Should one desire to look into this more particularly I would recommend to him Professor Margoliouth’s, Lines of Defense of the Biblical Revelation, but in the meantime let him examine and compare for himself in this book of Isaiah 41:21-26; Isaiah 43:9-13; Isaiah 44:7-8; Isaiah 45:19-21; Isaiah 46:9-11; Isaiah 47:3-8. It will be seen that in all these places God is challenging his enemies as to himself by the truth of the predictions to which he has given utterance by the prophets. But as another truly says, if these predictions were simply “prophecies after the event,” his challenge fails. The application to the case of Cyrus and its bearing on the question of two Isaiahs, therefore, is very plain. God is in the habit, if one may so say, of predicting things before they come to pass in order that their fulfillment may prove his existence, his truthfulness and power. Why, then, should not He have spoken these things about Cyrus in such a manner, and why should anyone feel necessitated to take up the position of the critics to the contrary? There is still more, indeed, to be said upon this subject, but we will reserve it for another chapter. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 77: 06.12. THE OTHER MAJOR PROPHETS ======================================================================== Chapter 11 The Other Major Prophets In chapter 10 we considered the argument for one Isaiah rather than two merely from the negative point of view, i.e., we took up some of the objections to a single author and the replies that might be made to them. But before addressing ourselves to the other Major prophets there is something more to be said from the positive point of view. For example, the synthetic reading of Isaiah impresses one with its unity, and gives no suggestion of the break at Isaiah 40:1-31, which the critics magnify. Then again, there is only one superscription or introduction to the book, that at the beginning, which in the nature of the case seems to include the whole. Did a second writer come into view at Isaiah 40:1-31, we should naturally expect a second introduction suggestive of it. Then there are other internal evidences of unity, for example, peculiar words or phrases common alike to both sections. Take the title of Jehovah in Isaiah, “The Holy One of Israel,” which is used but thirty times in the whole of the Old Testament, and twenty-five of them in this book. The query at once arises whether it is found in both parts of the book? If it is it becomes a striking testimony to the oneness of authorship of both parts. But as a matter of fact it is not only found in both parts, but as evenly as possible divided between them, twelve times in one part, and thirteen in the other! Furthermore, as many writers have pointed out, the local coloring of part two is as thoroughly Judaic as that of part one; the rocks, and the mountains, the valley streams, the flocks and herds belong to Judah and do not belong to Babylon. And then finally, added to this internal evidence is the historic which should ever be kept in view, and which we have applied from time to time to all the books, viz.--the fact that neither the Jewish nation on the one hand, or the Christian church on the other has ever known of more than one Isaiah. Christ and his apostles never mentioned more than one, and although he and they quoted from both parts of the book many times, there is not the slightest intimation on any occasion that they were not always dealing with one and the same author. Thus much for Isaiah. To pass now to Jeremiah, we have to deal with a prophet as to whose personal history we know more than in the case of any other, and one concerning whom the critics have but little to say. He follows Isaiah about three quarters of a century, and was called to the prophetic office in the reign of Josiah, and while he was still very young. His native place was Anathoth (Jeremiah 1:1), from which he was driven by persecution (Jeremiah 11:21), when, coming to Jerusalem, he entered upon a still more strenuous life to which there was little “let up” until the end of his career. His work in Jerusalem divides itself into four parts chiefly, viz.--the reigns of Josiah, Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, and the period of the remnant left by Nebuchadnezzar after the captivity. By this remnant he was subsequently carried against his will into Egypt where, presumably, his life closed. “His history brings before us a man forced as it were, in spite of himself, from obscurity and retirement into publicity and peril. Naturally mild, susceptible and inclined rather to mourn in secret for the iniquity which surrounded him than to brave and denounce the wrong-doers, he stood forth at the call of God, and proved himself a faithful, fearless champion of the truth, amid reproaches, insults and threats. This combination of qualities is so marked, that it has well been regarded as a proof of the divine origin of his mission.” His prophecies are not arranged in chronological order in his book for some reason difficult to determine, but the chiefest among them are those in which he predicts the dominance of Babylon (Jeremiah 27:1-22), the period of seventy years captivity of Judah (Jeremiah 25:1-38), the return to Jerusalem (Jeremiah 29:1-32), the coming of the Messiah (Jeremiah 23:1-40), the final abrogation of the Mosaic law (Jeremiah 3:1-25), the Gospel dispensation, and finally that of the Millennium (Jeremiah 31:1-40). His authority is abundantly sustained by quotations in other parts of the Bible, and especially in the New Testament, for which, as in other instances, the reader is referred to the marginal notes of his Bible. The book of Lamentations follows Jeremiah and although it was classed by the Jews among the “Holy Writings” rather than the “Prophets,” yet for convenience it will be dealt with here as in the case of Ruth and the book of Judges. Although it does not contain the name of Jeremiah it has always been attributed to him without successful contradiction as far as I am aware. To quote the Bible Hand-book, “The book expresses with pathetic tenderness the prophet’s grief for the desolation of the city and the temple of Jerusalem, the captivity of the people, the miseries of famine, the cessation of public worship, and the other calamities with which his countrymen had been afflicted for their sins. The leading object was to teach the suffering Jews neither to despise ‘the chastening of the Lord’ nor to ‘faint’ when ‘rebuked of him,’ but to turn to God with deep repentance, to confess their sins, and humbly look to him alone for pardon and deliverance. The book consists of five chapters, each being a separate, complete poem.” Ezekiel, like Jeremiah, was a priest as well as a prophet, although neither seems to have served in that capacity. He was carried captive into Babylon during the reign of Jehoiachin, about ten years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and prophesied from that place contemporaneously with Jeremiah in Judea. There seem to be four natural divisions of the book, as follows:-- Ezekiel 1:28, Ezekiel 2:1-10, Ezekiel 3:1-27, Ezekiel 4:1-17, Ezekiel 5:1-17, Ezekiel 6:1-14, Ezekiel 7:1-27, Ezekiel 8:1-18, Ezekiel 9:1-11, Ezekiel 10:1-22, Ezekiel 11:1-25, Ezekiel 12:1-28, Ezekiel 13:1-23, Ezekiel 14:1-23, Ezekiel 15:1-8, Ezekiel 16:1-63, Ezekiel 17:1-24, Ezekiel 18:1-32, Ezekiel 19:1-14, Ezekiel 20:1-49, Ezekiel 21:1-32, Ezekiel 22:1-31, Ezekiel 23:49, Ezekiel 24:1-27; Ezekiel 25:1-17, Ezekiel 26:1-21, Ezekiel 27:1-36, Ezekiel 28:1-26, Ezekiel 29:1-21, Ezekiel 30:1-26, Ezekiel 31:1-18, Ezekiel 32:1-32; Ezekiel 33:1-33, Ezekiel 34:1-31, Ezekiel 35:1-15, Ezekiel 36:1-38, Ezekiel 37:1-28, Ezekiel 38:1-23, Ezekiel 39:1-29; Ezekiel 40:1-49, Ezekiel 41:1-26, Ezekiel 42:1-20, Ezekiel 43:1-27, Ezekiel 44:1-31, Ezekiel 45:1-25, Ezekiel 46:1-24, Ezekiel 47:1-23, Ezekiel 48:1-35. The first (Ezekiel 1:28, Ezekiel 2:1-10, Ezekiel 3:1-27, Ezekiel 4:1-17, Ezekiel 5:1-17, Ezekiel 6:1-14, Ezekiel 7:1-27, Ezekiel 8:1-18, Ezekiel 9:1-11, Ezekiel 10:1-22, Ezekiel 11:1-25, Ezekiel 12:1-28, Ezekiel 13:1-23, Ezekiel 14:1-23, Ezekiel 15:1-8, Ezekiel 16:1-63, Ezekiel 17:1-24, Ezekiel 18:1-32, Ezekiel 19:1-14, Ezekiel 20:1-49, Ezekiel 21:1-32, Ezekiel 22:1-31, Ezekiel 23:49, Ezekiel 24:1-27) consists of prophecies of the usual character in strict chronological order, up until the final destruction of Jerusalem. The nation is charged with sin, and, in perfect agreement with the teachings of Jeremiah, is shown the hopelessness of every effort to shake off the Babylonish yoke, especially through any confederacy with Egypt. The second part (Ezekiel 25:1-17, Ezekiel 26:1-21, Ezekiel 27:1-36, Ezekiel 28:1-26, Ezekiel 29:1-21, Ezekiel 30:1-26, Ezekiel 31:1-18, Ezekiel 32:1-32) is, in a sense, parenthetic, and consists of discourses against the nations. These are not grouped chronologically perhaps, but in accordance with a kind of moral unity. The third part (Ezekiel 33:1-33, Ezekiel 34:1-31, Ezekiel 35:1-15, Ezekiel 36:1-38, Ezekiel 37:1-28, Ezekiel 38:1-23, Ezekiel 39:1-29) is related to Israel again, and is composed of discourses uttered after the destruction of Jerusalem. Like all the preceding prophets, Ezekiel in these discourses speaks chiefly of mercy, salvation and ultimate blessing and triumph for his people. Part four (Ezekiel 40:1-49, Ezekiel 41:1-26, Ezekiel 42:1-20, Ezekiel 43:1-27, Ezekiel 44:1-31, Ezekiel 45:1-25, Ezekiel 46:1-24, Ezekiel 47:1-23, Ezekiel 48:1-35), which really belongs to part three perhaps, shows the return of the glory of God to the land, and the reestablishment of the sanctuary and the twelve tribed nationality in the latter days, or rather in the coming age--(Synthetic Bible Studies). The consideration of Daniel must be postponed to another chapter. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 78: 06.13. "DANIEL IN THE CRITICS DEN" ======================================================================== Chapter 12 “Daniel in the Critics Den” The euphonious and somewhat facetious title at the head of this chapter is that of Sir Robert Anderson’s book on the authenticity of Daniel, and while I have not read it, yet if it approximates the standard of his other works, and I believe it does, every Christian not otherwise equipped for the defense of Daniel, might well become possessed of its contents. And every active Christian should be so equipped. There is no book of the Old Testament, hardly, excepting the Pentateuch, which the destructive critics so desire to abolish as Daniel. Grant the prophetic character of certain of its chapters, and there is enough of the supernatural in them to carry with it all the evidence desired for the divine revelation of the rest of the Bible. Sir Isaac Newton said, that, to reject Daniel’s prophecies was to reject the Christian religion, which is founded on his prophecy concerning Christ. Westcott qualifies this only a little when he says, that “no writing of the Old Testament had so great an influence in the development of Christianity as the book of Daniel.” Daniel was of the tribe of Judah and probably of the royal blood (Daniel 1:3-6). He was carried captive into Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar sometime before Ezekiel, and in the reign of Jehoiakim, and was there trained and qualified for service at the court, attaining a wisdom far superior to the native men of science, and for this reason raised to a dignity of highest rank and power, which he retained, although not interruptedly, through the whole of the dynasties both of Babylon and Persia its successor. He prophesied throughout the captivity. His book was originally classed by the Jews among the “Holy Writings,” as we have seen, but we prefer to treat of it in the present connection for the reasons indicated in the case of certain other books mentioned. I quote here a few isolated sentences from Nathaniel West’s preface to his valuable work entitled, Daniel’s Great Prophecy: The book of Daniel was written to prefigure, in outline, the course of history from the Babylonian exile to the Second Coming of Christ, and to reveal the age of millennial glory following that event. It consists of twelve chapters, of which five are historical, Daniel 1:1-21; Daniel 3:1-30; Daniel 4:1-37; Daniel 5:1-31; Daniel 6:1-28, and seven prophetical, Daniel 2:1-49; Daniel 7:1-28; Daniel 8:1-27; Daniel 9:1-27; Daniel 10:1-21; Daniel 11:1-45; Daniel 12:1-13, the predictions setting forth, by means of symbols and their interpretation, the political and religious struggles of the Jews with the empires of the world with greater clearness than in any other prophet. The labor done in the critical and exegetical study of the book has been very great, but it still remains an anvil on which all hammers are shattered.” The destructive critics have sought to show that certain of its predictions, those in Daniel 7:1-28 and Daniel 8:1-27, for example, having a primary fulfillment in the period of Antiochus Epiphanes, King of Syria, B.C. 170, were written after the event, and somewhere in the times of the Maccabees, 168-164, but the effort falls to the ground One may be quite ready to admit a Maccabean editorship as a similar editorship has been admitted in the case of other books, but this is far from saying that the book is of Maccabean authorship, or even any considerable part of it. But let us consider in detail some of the objections raised to its genuineness or at least to its genuineness as a whole. In the first place, the main interest of the predictive portion of the book beginning at Daniel 7:1-28, centers in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. B.C. 170, and it is suggested that the analogy of other prophetic writings would lead us to suppose that here was the writer’s historical standpoint. If he wrote as a captive in Babylon, as we know Daniel to have been, it is strange that he subordinates the needs and hopes of his own generation to those of posterity (S.C. Green). But to this it may be replied that such is not unusual with the prophets. Isaiah, indeed, does not detach himself from contemporaneous history in the way that Daniel does, but is he not almost equally minute in picturing the distant future? And what about Christ’s prophecy in Matthew 24:1-51? He detaches Himself as much as Daniel does and pictures the distant future with even greater fullness. Another objection is that some of the historical references in the first six chapters are difficult to reconcile with the results of modern discoveries concerning the Persia or Babylon of Daniel’s day. But this is denied by scholars of equal eminence on the other side, like Lenormant, for example, who says that, “whoever is not the slave of preconceived opinions, denying the supernatural, must confess when comparing the chapters with the cuneiform monuments, that they are really ancient, and written at but a short distance from the events themselves.” Linguistic difficulties are emphasized. There are Greek words in Daniel which suggest a later authorship, it is said. These words are the names of the musical instruments mentioned in the earlier chapters, but Professor Margoliouth, of Oxford, shows that there are Greek words in Isaiah 40:1-31, written a long while before Daniel, and that Greek words were borrowed by the Eastern nations as early as the 8th century B.C. There are some scholars who contend also, that it is quite as likely that Greece borrowed the names of these instruments from Babylon as that the latter borrowed them from Greece. A fourth criticism is that there is no mention made of Daniel in the roll of famous men in Ecclesiasticus, an Apocryphal book of about 200 B.C., but as Margoliouth points out in his Lines of Defence of the Biblical Revelation, neither does the writer of that book mention Ezra although he names Nehemiah. The destruction of one link, therefore, destroys the whole chain. Moreover the same writer brings forth other arguments too lengthy and intricate to quote here, which, if they are not in themselves sufficient to prove Daniel genuine do at least “wreck the theories that are at present dominant” (pp. 175 et seq.) Space will not permit the prolongation of this subject, nor is it necessary for the class of readers to which these pages are addressed; but should one desire to consider it still further, he will find help in Kitto’s Biblical Cyclopedia, article, “Daniel,” in Pusey’s lectures on that book, and in the “Introductions” in the Speaker’s and Lange’s Commentaries upon it. It should be remarked before closing, however, that other parts of the Bible abundantly corroborate the genuineness of Daniel. References to it are found in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Zechariah in the Old Testament, and in 1 Corinthians 6:2. 2 Thessalonians 2:4, and Hebrews 11:33-34 in the New Testament. Christ quotes the prophet by name in Matthew 24:15, and it is very evident to any reader of the two books that much of the symbolism of Revelation is clearly related to it. Speaking of Christ’s reference to it, Dr. West says, “I hold it to be unassailable that our Lord had the whole book of Daniel, and especially the vision of judgment (Daniel 7:1-28) directly in his mind when he uttered his great Olivet discourse concerning the end.” “When, therefore, the opposers assail these predictions as apocryphal for the sake of maintaining their working rule, we can reply to them that they assail Christ himself and usurp his place as the interpreter of prophecy and the Heaven sent Teacher of the Church.” ======================================================================== CHAPTER 79: 06.14. THE MINOR PROPHETS ======================================================================== Chapter 13 The Minor Prophets The twelve Minor Prophets may be classified as pre and post-exilic. Those who prophesied before the exile were Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah; and those after that event, Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi. Of the first names, another classification may be made, as follows: 1. Those who prophesied in Israel. 2. Those who prophesied in Judah. 3.Those who, while belonging to Israel or Judah, had a message only to a Gentile nation. To the first of these latter classes belong Hosea, Amos and Micah, concerning each of whom a few words must suffice. Although Hosea comes first in the Bible, yet Amos preceded him in time, prophesying in the reign of Jeroboam II (Amos 1:1). Glimpses of his personal history are found in Amos 3:1-15; Amos 7:1-17. He was by profession a herdsman and gatherer of sycamore fruit, not being trained to the prophetic office, but called to it by an irresistible divine impulse. He speaks of himself as the author of his own book (Amos 7:1-17; Amos 8:1-2), whose canonicity is attested by Acts 7:42-43; Acts 15:15-17. Hosea, while contemporaneous with Amos for a while, prophesied to a still later period, even down to the captivity. Peculiar interest attaches to his book by reason of the impassioned tenderness of his utterances (or rather Jehovah’s utterances through him), to a wicked|idolatrous people, intensified by his own bitter domestic experience growing out of his relations with an adulterous wife. For New Testament citations attesting the authority of the book, consult the marginal references in your Bible; for example, Matthew 2:15; Matthew 9:13; Matthew 12:7; Romans 9:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55; 1 Peter 2:10, etc. Micah, who speaks of himself as a Morasthite, or a native of Moreshethgath, a town twenty miles southwest of Jerusalem, was a contemporary of Hosea, and for that matter, of Isaiah also, since he includes Judah as well as Israel in his ministry (Isaiah 1:1). There is an interesting reference to him in Jeremiah 26:10-19, and he is quoted by other of the prophets, Zephaniah 3:19, Ezekiel 22:27 and Isaiah 41:15. There is one passage in his book, Micah 4:1-3, similar to Isaiah 2:2-4, which presumably was not borrowed by either prophet from the other, but may have been a prediction of an earlier time employed by both as a kind of text. Such correspondences are not unusual among the prophets, and suggest that certain phraseology may have been a common language among them. For the general contents of this book and its teachings, as in the case of the other prophets, the reader is referred to the author’s work, Synthetic Bible Studies, page 128. To the second of these latter classes belong Joel, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. The evidence that Joel prophesied in Judah, however, is only indirect, as, for example, (a), he makes no reference to Israel, but (b), does refer to Jerusalem, the temple, etc., indicating familiarity with Judah (Joel 1:13-14; Joel 2:17, etc.). He is probably the earliest of all prophets except Jonah, a fact which seems to be shown by the circumstance that he mentions none of Judah’s later enemies like Assyria and Babylon, but does mention the earlier ones, Philistia, Phoenicia, Edom, etc. He seems to have lived at a time antedating the extreme depravity of his people, since he makes no mention of idolatry, and since the temple service, as will be seen, was in a flourishing condition. He, too, is attested by one very striking passage in the New Testament--that used of the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:16-21. See also Romans 10:13 and Revelation 9:7-9. Habakkuk and Zephaniah were contemporaries of Jeremiah. The evidence of this in the case of the former is seen in that he does not speak of Assyria, which presumably had been overcome, while he refers very especially to the increase of Chaldea or Babylon. He foretells the destruction of that power. The evidence of the same fact in the case of Zephaniah is seen in Zephaniah 1:1, which speaks of his prophesying “in the days of Josiah” (compare Jeremiah 1:2), but of his personal history nothing further is known. It is this prophet that furnishes the text for that great mediaeval poem “Dies Irae,”--“the day of wrath” (Zephaniah 1:15-18). The third includes Jonah, Nahum and Obadiah. The first named seems to have been the immediate successor of Elisha in Israel, although the message of his book is entirely taken up with the history of Nineveh the capitol of Assyria. His prophecies in Israel seem to have been confined to the single one mentioned in 2 Kings 14:25. No prophet of the Old Testament next to Daniel and Isaiah has received so much attention from the critic of the supernatural in the Bible, and therefore we shall reserve any further consideration of his book to a separate chapter. Nahum, like Jonah, prophesied against Nineveh (or Assyria) probably a hundred years later, or about the date of Isaiah. Nothing is known of his personal history beyond reference to his birthplace (Nahum 1:1), which now is unknown. A passage in Nahum 1:15, used also in Isaiah 52:7, illustrates what was said before concerning a common inheritance of the prophets in certain phraseology. Obadiah prophesied against the Edomites, who, with the Assyrians and Babylonians were the bitterest foes of Israel in those days, and, who, away back in the time of their wilderness wanderings, treated them with peculiar cruelty. There are no quotations from Obadiah in the New Testament. Coming now to the consideration of the three post-exilic prophets, it is to be remembered that Haggai and Zechariah were contemporaneous with Zerubbabel, the first governor of the returned colony, and doubtless also with Ezra. Their mission was to incite the Jews to rebuild the temple after the restoration, although like all the prophets of the earlier periods, their predictions extend nevertheless to the remotest time, to the introduction of the Millennial Age. Haggai is attested by Ezra 5:1; Ezra 6:14, and, in the New Testament, in a very remarkable reference in Hebrews 12:26. Zechariah is more frequently referred to in the New Testament. There is some question as to the genuineness of the second half of his book, to which reference may be made more particularly in the next chapter. Malachi closes the canon of the Old Testament and forms the connecting link with the New. He was doubtless contemporaneous with Nehemiah, whom he assisted in the execution of his later national reforms. The evidence of his date is found in the fact that the temple seems to have been restored (Malachi 1:10; Malachi 3:1-10), and that he censures the same abuses as Nehemiah. (Compare his prophecies with Nehemiah 13:5-30, especially). He has many attestations in the New Testament, as may be seen by a study of the marginal references. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 80: 06.15. IS JONAH HISTORIC? ======================================================================== Chapter 14 Is Jonah Historic? In the preceding chapter a further word was promised concerning Zechariah before treating of the prophet Jonah, the reason for which was that some critics hold to two authors in that book as in Isaiah, the dividing line following Zechariah 8:1-23. The style of the latter half of the book is as different from the first as in the case of the other prophet. Moreover, the evangelist Matthew (Matthew 27:9-10), ascribes Zechariah 11:13 to Jeremiah. This latter apparent discrepancy may be explained by what was said in an earlier chapter about various readings and the errors of copyists; and as to the difference in style, what was said in our treatment of Isaiah applies. Zechariah may have varied his style according to his subject, and those who remember the present writer’s treatment of this book in Synthetic Bible Studies, “Zechariah,” will recall the great difference in subject between the first part and the last. In the first, the prophet’s mind rests mainly on the rebuilding of the temple after the captivity and the reestablishment of the Jewish state at that time, while in the last, he is treating of Millennial conditions for the most part. Then, too, there is only one introduction to the book as in Isaiah’s case. However, when all is said in favor of a single author, it is still well to keep in mind the words of an old puritan divine that the latter chapters being joined to the prophecies of Zechariah, proves no more that they are his than the like joining of Agur’s proverbs to those of Solomon proves that they are Solomon’s, or that all the Psalms are David’s because they are in the book with his. I do not quite agree with this because in the case of Proverbs, Agur’s name is mentioned as an author which is not the case here, but I give the quotation for what it is worth. One thing we do know, however, that whether there were two authors or one, the New Testament quotes both parts of the book as alike authoritative and divine, as may be seen by even a cursory comparison of the marginal references. It is interesting to note, too, that next to Isaiah no Old Testament prophet contains so many foreshadowings of the Person and work of our Lord as Zechariah. We do not undervalue the importance of knowing the human authorship of each of these books, and as we have already seen, in some cases the testimony to this authorship is closely related to that of the authority and infallibility of the Bible itself, but it is not so in every instance. Nor is it in the present one, and we should be careful not to give the opponent of the truth the advantage of using such an argument against us. The late D.L. Moody once said at Northfield, in his hard common sense way, that it was “more important to know what Isaiah said than how many Isaiah’s said it,” a remark which has a wider application than to that particular prophet. For myself, I always go back in the last analysis to Jesus Christ. A Bible that he believed in and used is a good enough Bible for me. Was the Zechariah of the twentieth century that of the first? Was Jesus Christ affected by the question whether it had two authors or one? Were any of the apostles in doubt on this point? All these questions were, I trust, satisfactorily answered in the preceding chapters, and while as we now go into details as to some of them for the sake of broader information, let us rest our faith nevertheless on the main postulates which were there seen to be established. And now as to Jonah. There is only a single reference to any prophesying of Jonah in connection with his own people, and that is found in 2 Kings 14:25. It is a prediction he had made concerning the restoration of the coasts of Israel fulfilled in the reign of Jeroboam II somewhere about 800 B.C. showing that Jonah must have flourished at an earlier date, though how much earlier, no one knows. Of his personal history nothing more can be told than that recorded in the same verse with the exception of what we find in his book. That book contains the record of his special mission to the great Gentile city of Nineveh, the Assyrian capital, a story as familiar as that of any of the old patriarchs. Everyone knows how Jonah refused to comply with the divine command, the punishment which befell him, the repentance which followed, his subsequent obedience and the result of his commission both on Nineveh and on himself. Of course, the question will not down. Is this historic? And this is asked not only by those who would fain destroy the Bible and all belief in it, but by others who are solicitous for its claims as truly as anyone can be. These latter insist that the moral uses of the story are not infringed upon if we suppose it, as to its supernatural part, to be a parable. For one, however, I can no more believe this in the case of Jonah than in the almost similar case of Job. It is not denied by any objector that God could, had he so pleased, have brought it all to pass just as it is recorded. No one will rise up to say that he who made the fish and the man, could not have caused the man to remain alive within the fish. The greater includes the less, and it is not at all a question of God’s power in the premises, but solely a question of his will. Did he will to do this, and did this actually occur? The evidence for the actuality of the whole transaction is found (1), in the way in which it is recorded, there being not the slightest intimation in the book itself, or anywhere else in the Bible, that it is a parable. (2), In the almost unbroken evidence of tradition, the whole of the Jewish nation practically, accepting it as historic. (3). But especially in the testimony of Christ as recorded in Matthew 12:38, and parallel places. There are those who are able to read these words of the Savior in the light of the argument of which they form a part, and say that they allude only to what he knew to be a parable, or an allegory, or a myth, but I am not of their number. Jesus would not have used such an illustration in such a connection, in my judgment, if it were not that of a historic fact. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 81: 06.16. THE "HOLY WRITINGS" ======================================================================== Chapter 15 The “Holy Writings” We have seen the third part of the Old Testament, according to Jewish nomenclature known as the Holy Writings, to consist of Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, and Daniel. Concerning this division as a whole a few introductory remarks may be desirable before considering the books separately. In all probability the Law was canonized first, the constant reference to it in the later books of the Old Testament affording sufficient evidence of that fact. But the canonization of the Law must have given impulse to that of the Prophets, and this as soon as completed, to quote the language of Dr. Macpherson on the subject, must have called attention to the need of treating similarly the remaining books. Some of these books had long been current among the people, and others may have been the work of contemporaries of Ezra or even Malachi. The reason they were not included in the second division of the Canon is doubtless explained by their contents, which in large measure is different from the prophets. Prophecy is found in them, of course, but they are miscellaneous, nevertheless. The name “Prophets” having been appropriated to the second division, that of “The Other Writings,” and subsequently, “The Holy Writings,” came naturally enough to designate this, although the one word “Psalms,” from the chief book of the collection, is sometimes used for the whole. There is no record of any objections raised to the placing of these books in the Canon in the first instance, although disputes concerning them arose afterwards in unsuccessful attempts to have some of them withdrawn. The books objected to were Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Esther. Some Jewish rabbis, away back at about the beginning of the Christian era, sought the elimination of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, because they seemed to contain contradictory sayings. The battle was fought over the last-named book really, and the decision finally rendered in its favor. We have already treated of three of these books as far as our space will permit, Ruth, Lamentations, and Daniel, for reasons stated in each case; but the present chapter affords an opportunity to refer to an important matter concerning the last-named not mentioned hitherto. For example, Why is Daniel placed among the Holy Writings and not among the Prophets? This, indeed, is one of the arguments used against the genuineness of the later chapters of Daniel, as though his place in the last division of the Old Testament were proof of a very late authorship. We have already shown the evidence for regarding the whole of Daniel to have been written by that prophet during the captivity, but the answer to this particular question has been given thus: The real difference between Daniel and the prophets lies in the fact that his book is rather an apocalypse than a prophecy, and belongs more nearly to the poetical books or the Wisdom literature than to those preceding. Taking up the list of the books in the third division not heretofore considered, Chronicles comes first, which originally went by the name of the “Diaries” or “Journals,” because composed, as it was thought, from the diaries or court records of the different kings. They were also called “the things omitted,” because they record many facts unnoticed in the earlier books of Kings. They are of a date later than the captivity, and although their author is unknown, yet their object seems to have been to show the division of families and possessions before that critical event in order to restore the same after the return. Emphasis, as you will find, is laid on the history of Judah rather than Israel, because of the Messianic expectations in that line. Certain apparent discrepancies between Chronicles and Kings may be accounted for in at least two ways: (1), the former omits what the latter gives in sufficient detail and vice versa; and (2), the former being written much later doubtless than the latter, the names of certain localities, etc., may have undergone a change. Ezra was of the priestly order, being of the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron (Ezra 7:1), and probably born in Babylon during the captivity. He joined his brethren at Jerusalem perhaps seventy years after the first return, bringing up with him a second large company of colonists. Parts of his book (Ezra 4:8-24; Ezra 5:1-17; Ezra 6:1-18; Ezra 7:12-26), are written in the Babylonian language and consist of conversations or decrees in that tongue, but the rest is written chiefly in the first person and contains the history of the returning exiles, the rebuilding of the temple, and the story of his own commission as governor, his journey to Jerusalem and his exertions for the religious and political betterment of the people. The whole should be read in connection with the contemporaneous prophets Haggai and Zechariah. According to tradition, as we have seen, it is Ezra who is supposed to have settled the Canon of the Old Testament and given permanence to the threefold division of the Law, the Prophets and the Holy Writings. No serious question of criticism has arisen with reference to the genuineness of his own book, and he is supposed, moreover, to have compiled Chronicles and to have added the history of Nehemiah to his own. Nehemiah, however, was the author of his own book, or the greater part of it, as may be gathered from even a superficial acquaintance with its contents. It takes up the history of the Jews in Jerusalem after the captivity about twelve years subsequent to the events in the book of Ezra, telling of the rebuilding of the city wall and gates and the firmer reestablishment of the colony on a kind of national base. No account is given of the death of Nehemiah, but his book closes the history of the Old Testament. Like Ezra, no serious criticism has arisen as to the genuineness of the book of Nehemiah. Esther belongs somewhere in the period between the time of the going up to Jerusalem of the first company of returning captives under Zerubbabel and the date of Ezra’s mission. Xerxes is on the throne of Persia, who is called in the book “Ahasuerus,” and the narration may have been taken from his court records (Esther 2:23; Esther 6:1), a fact which would account for the secular tone of the book and its entire omission of the name of God. But as another says, “Though the name of God is not in the book, his hand is plainly seen there defeating and overruling evil to the salvation of his people.” The genuineness of the book is supported by the festival of “Purim” instituted at that time and maintained by the Jews to this day. It is supposed by some to be referred to in John 5:1, but if such is not the case there is no allusion to Esther in the New Testament. Nevertheless, let us always remember that it was part of the Canon of the Old Testament in Christ’s day. In the last analysis we tie ourselves up to him. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 82: 06.17. THE POETICAL BOOKS ======================================================================== Chapter 16 The Poetical Books In the category of the Holy Writings, touched upon in the previous chapter, there are certain books particularly identified as the “Poetical Books” of which Job and the Psalms are samples, both of which will be treated of in this chapter. That Job is a historical character would seem to be settled by such Scriptural allusions to him as Ezekiel 14:14, and James 5:11. Added to this the contents of the book itself is a proof of its historicity. Not only is there an absence of any intimation of its unhistorical character, but the details of persons and places in which it abounds testify to the opposite. Such things are not found in an allegory. Dr. Taylor Lewis, the distinguished Hebraist and commentator, says, that since there is nothing in the book itself to lead to the thought that it is unhistorical, it would amount to the perpetration of a fraud, if such were after all, the case. “In this respect,” he goes on to say, “it differs from all the fables, riddles, parables and allegories of the Scripture, which no subsequent inspired writer was ever led to regard as actual history.” It is the apparent strangeness, the very unusual character of the recorded experiences of Job that leads certain critics to doubt its reality, but on comparison with the records of Abraham, Jacob, Joseph and others of his contemporaries, it is not so strange. I agree with those who place the period of Job as early as the patriarchs, and one thing that suggests it is the long life of Job, about 140 years, comparing more nearly with the ages to which men then lived than at any subsequent period. But there are allusions in the text of the book also which help to fix its period. For example, the worship of God described in the first and last chapters, is seen to be that of sacrifice without any officiating priest or any sacred place, just as we find it in the time of the patriarchs, but not in the time of Moses. The allusions to the worship of idolatry also, viz., that of the heavenly bodies (Job 31:26-28), point to the earliest form of idolatry known. But there are certain omissions in the book which are equally strong evidence to its antiquity; for example, it never mentions the books of the Old Testament, or the history of Israel. This is almost incredible on the supposition that such a literature and such a people were in existence. Nor is there any mention of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, though those nations were in the neighborhood of Job’s locality, and would have furnished a strong weapon in the hands of his “friends” to emphasize certain arguments they were insisting upon. Indeed, I find that many expositors place Job as a contemporary of Abraham, and suppose the chronological order of the book to be somewhere between Genesis 11:1-32 and Genesis 12:1-20. The question of the authorship of the book is perhaps indeterminable, some ascribing it to Job himself, some to Elihu, and some, the largest number perhaps, to Moses. Of course, the author may have lived much later than the hero, and gathered his material from tradition and earlier writings, compiling the whole in its present literary form under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as in the case of other books to which reference has been made. Its place in the Old Testament Canon is authenticated by our Lord and his apostles. It was part of the Bible as they knew it, and as they used it. The book of Psalms was in the Jewish Canon the first and most important of the “Holy Writings,” and often gave its name to the whole (Luke 24:44). The Hebrew title (tehilim) means “praises,” but our English word “psalms,” is from the Greek, psalto, which means to strike a stringed instrument. According to tradition the psalms were gathered together by Ezra though some few additions may have been made afterward. Among the authors David is the chief, 73 being ascribed to him by their titles, after him coming Asaph, the sons of Korah, Solomon, Heman, Ethan, and Moses, to the last three being ascribed one psalm each. Many psalms are anonymous, and among those one has been ascribed to Jeremiah (Psalms 137:1-9), one to Haggai (Psalms 146:1-10), and one to Zechariah (Psalms 147:1-20), though without any very strong authority in any case. A modern Higher Critic, one of the most advanced and radical among them, Professor Cheyne, boldly avers that David did not write any of the psalms, and that they were all post-exilic. He asserts this on the supposition that the Israelites were not sufficiently advanced in spiritual culture in David’s day to appreciate such expressions, and that David himself was not a man of such character and qualifications as to have written them. Scholars generally do not accept the view of Cheyne, and the readers of the foregoing chapters will hardly need specific answers to his affirmations. There was no period in Israel’s history so well adapted for the expressions of some of the Davidic psalms as David’s period, and the many-sided nature of the man, to say nothing of his heavenly inspiration, was an abundant equipment for the task. We may safely put over against these words of the English professor the estimates of such men of learning and piety as Athanasius, Basil, Luther, Milton, Hooker, Bishop Hall, Cardinal Newman, Dean Perowne, Charles H. Spurgeon and Alexander MacLaren, who find no difficulty in accepting a Davidic authorship. More of this, however, will be touched upon in the next chapter, and we may close this with a simple reference to the fact, known to every reader of the New Testament, that the latter abundantly authenticates the book of Psalms as a whole “not only by direct citation, but the frequent employment of its phraseology in scattered sentences and phrases.” ======================================================================== CHAPTER 83: 06.18. THE TITLES OF THE PSALMS ======================================================================== Chapter 17 The Titles of the Psalms The larger number of the Psalms, more than two thirds of them indeed, have titles affixed, which are regarded by some as part of the inspired text and possessing the same authority. Among those who question this, it is nevertheless admitted that the title in every case records a tradition about the psalm of more or less historical value, as affording a clue to the time and occasion of its composition. There are certain features about these titles, too, which point to their very early origin, although until recently scholars have been altogether baffled about their meaning. During the past year, however, a book has appeared by James William Thirtle (London), on The Titles of the Psalms, which is not only throwing light upon the subject, but in so doing contributing as well to the traditional view of their antiquity and sustaining the question of their genuineness in that sense. The remainder of this chapter is a quotation from a review of Mr. Thirtle’s book in the Tablet (London) (December 1904). setting forth the whole matter very concisely and perspicuously, the timely value of which is the only apology necessary for its transcription:-- The idea which Mr. Thirtle now brings before the public is suggested in the first place by the psalm found in Habakkuk 3:1, which opens with the words: ‘A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet upon Shigionoth,’ and ends with: ‘To the chief singer on my stringed instruments.’ The possibility of misplacement among the titles in the Psalter occurred to the author. The psalms having been anciently written in continuo, it was difficult to know what belonged to a foregoing psalm and what to a following psalm when in later times divisions were made. After examination, Mr. Thirtle comes to the result that a distinction must be made between the musical and the literary or historical titles found in the Psalter. As in Habakkuk historical and literary notices precede the psalm, the musical titles are added as a subscript at the end of the psalm. A redistribution of these musical titles shows in many cases a clear connection between the titles and the contents of the psalms which precede them, where none whatever exists between them and the psalms which follow, and throws much new light upon the meaning of those obscure terms which have been so long discussed with so little result. As an example we may notice the title which occurs at the head of Psalms 56:1-13, ‘For the chief musician: set to Jonath elem rehokim. A Psalm of David: Michtam: when the Philistines took him in Gath.’ The translation of ‘Jonath elem rehokim’ is given generally as ‘The dove of the distant terebinths,’ or something similar. There is nothing in the psalm over which it stands to suggest an explanation. When according to Mr. Thirtle’s disposition of the titles it is brought into connection with the preceding Psalms 55:6-8 at once offer an interpretation. ‘Oh that I had wings like a dove: etc.,’ and suggest the idea that these words are a pictorial title, founded on verses Psalms 55:6-8. Other titles, thus arranged, get a meaning in accordance with the etymology suggested by the Septuagint, much to be preferred to the fanciful explanations of later times. Thus Gittith, so often explained as a musical instrument, is again brought forward with the meaning of ‘winepresses.’ When the psalms which bear this subscript title are examined the conclusion is reached that these psalms were used at the feast of tabernacles, and that ‘winepresses’ is a term used to designate this autumn festival. “Thus in association with their proper psalms, these titles serve a purpose. According to the author they mark: ‘(1) the reasons for which psalms were used in public worship; (2) commemorations, and other special purposes for which psalms were selected; (3) choirs to which certain psalms were particularly assigned; (4) the topical description of psalms which easily lent themselves to such treatment.’ Such a work as the above must necessarily be tentative and suggestive, rather than fully demonstrative, yet in the 174 pages which comprise the first part of the book, there is much food for thought, and whatever opinion experts may come to in the future regarding the details of the theory, it seems clear that the main point, i.e., the rearrangement of the musical titles, not merely invites but demands consideration. Other conclusions which seem to follow from the main question are briefly referred to. The most interesting is ‘the age of the Psalter.’ If the traditional use of these terms had been lost before the time of the Septuagint, as is evident from the disordered state in which they are presented even at that age, it follows at once that these titles must be very old. And if the liturgical notices attached to the psalms are so ancient, what of the psalms themselves? In the midst of the Greek or Macedonian period of Israel’s history, from the death of Alexander the Great till the time of the Maccabees, the psalms were misunderstood as to their shape, and important features of the worship of the old days were utterly beyond recall. The best that could be done in translating the Psalter into the world-language of the age was faulty and misleading where context failed, and the analogy of common things had nothing to say. If this was the condition of things from 323 to 146 B.C. if then the psalms as a collection had features that baffled the translators, how can it be supposed that the Maccabean period, say the generation of 160 to 130 B.C. should account for important contributions to the Psalter (p. 155)? So the movement is ever backward, to the days of David and his band of singers, of whom the Chronicler speaks, and some of whom are named as authors of the psalms. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 84: 06.19. THE WISDOM LITERATURE ======================================================================== Chapter 18 The Wisdom Literature There are certain books under the general title of the “Holy Writings” that are sometimes designated the Wisdom Literature, particularly Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. To quote another, in many points “these are distinguished from the prophetic literature of Israel in that they express the philosophy of reflective minds rather than the express messages of Jehovah.” They are inspired, of course, but the God who inspired them has more than one style of rhetoric, and uses all classes of minds in the production of his literary works just as he had originally made them to be used. “The human authors of these books do not deal with human experience and the problems of existence with the intense and high-wrought devotion, and the irresistible enthusiasm of the prophets when they exclaim, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ but their thoughts nevertheless are made subservient to the highest purposes, and they utter, like the prophets, truths deeper than they knew, and words which awaited the interpretation of time.” In Solomon’s day, and later, there was a distinct class of leaders among the people, known as “Wise Men,” or “Teachers of Wisdom,” who went about among the people holding classes for instruction something like the philosophers of Greece. They delighted in colloquies and discussions, and the words spoken of Wisdom in the abstract, Proverbs 8:2-4 (Revised Version), had probably a literal fulfillment in the habits and methods of its professors. (The Bible Hand Book, p. 584). The reader will find interest in looking up this passage. A proverb is a short sentence conveying moral truth in a concise and pointed form. It is a style of communication exciting attention, exercising ingenuity, and fastening truth on the mind in an agreeable and impressive way, and in the case of Solomon’s proverbs its elegance and force are increased by the poetic parallelisms in which they are written. Nearly every sentence is antithetical or explanatory, and attending to corresponding clauses will often fix the reading and determine the sense. That Solomon was the principal author of Proverbs, is indicated therein by Proverbs 1:1, and Proverbs 25:1, compared with 1 Kings 4:29-32. The last two chapters, however, seem to be the work of other authors to whom reference is made in the text. Perhaps it is not necessary to suppose even that Solomon collected and edited the whole book, indeed, it contains a plain statement that this was not true of a portion of it. See Proverbs 25:1-28; Proverbs 26:1-28; Proverbs 27:1-27; Proverbs 28:1-28; Proverbs 29:1-27. The ground for ascribing Ecclesiastes to Solomon are fourfold: (1) The indirect claim of the book itself as gathered from Ecclesiastes 1:1; Ecclesiastes 1:12; (2) the general opinion of Jews and Christians from the earliest times; (3) the fitness of Solomon to write it; (4) the lack of agreement among critics as to any other author or period. And yet modern criticism places its composition at a much later period on the ground of the evidence of its language and its contents. If it be asked how this can be done in the face of the indirect claim of the book, it is replied that it is only indirect, and that while the writer may be “identified as Solomon,” it is only ideally, as though his spirit spoke in the words, “I was king.” We quote from our own earlier work on this book when we remark that its design seems to be to show the insufficiency of all earthly objects to confer happiness, and thus prepare man to receive the true happiness in Christ when presented to him. It is not affirmed that this was the design present in the mind of the human writer, but that it was the design of the Holy Spirit who inspired the writing. There are many different plans or theories of the book. In the first place, there are those who conceive of it as a formal treatise on the vanity of human affairs. There are others who think it merely a collection of disconnected thoughts and maxims. A third class speak of it as a kind of sustained dialogue between a teacher and his pupils, as suggested in the introduction to the book of Proverbs. A fourth regard it as a biography of Solomon’s own life, and a fifth, as an ideal book of the experience of the natural as distinguished from the spiritual man. This last does not necessarily exclude any of the others, but rather explains, perhaps, why anyone of them may be taken as the correct view. In the reading of this book it is ever to be kept in mind that some of its conclusions are only partially true and others altogether false, such as Ecclesiastes 2:16; Ecclesiastes 3:19; Ecclesiastes 9:2, etc. And if it be asked, How then can the book be inspired? the answer is that in contending for the inspiration of the Bible we do not claim the inspiration of the men, but the writings; while in the latter case it is not meant that every word thus written is true, and in that sense God’s Word, but that the record of it is true. That is, God caused it to be written down that this or that man felt this or that way, and said thus and so, and hence the record of how he felt and what he said is God’s record, and in that sense inspired. Internal evidence seems to confirm the voice of antiquity that Solomon wrote the Canticles or Song of Songs (see 1 Kings 4:32), whose title carries with it the idea that it is the best of all his songs. Moreover, although it is not quoted in the New Testament, yet it always formed part of the Old as far as we have record, and, like all the other books, was in the canon of sacred Scripture which Jesus and his apostles recognized as such. When it was written is not known, but its imagery seems to be drawn from the marriage of Solomon either with Pharaoh’s daughter or some native of Palestine, espoused some years later, of noble birth, though inferior to her husband. For the first idea compare such places as 1 Kings 3:1; 1 Kings 7:8-51; 1 Kings 8:1-66; 1 Kings 9:1-24, with Song of Solomon 1:9, and Song of Solomon 6:12, and for the second, look at the language of the song, Song of Solomon 2:1; Song of Solomon 7:1; Song of Solomon 1:6. A modern interpretation which Angus and others mention, gives an entirely different turn to the drama. The heroine is betrothed to a shepherd youth in Northern Palestine, where she is seen and wooed by Solomon, who takes her in his train to Jerusalem; but she proves unmovable to his attentions and faithful to her true lover, to whom she is in the end happily married with the king’s approval. The name “Canticles” which the book sometimes bears, however, suggests as a third idea that it is not one continued poem, but “a succession of lyrics, composed to be sung at a marriage feast.” While this view removes some difficulties, it has nevertheless not been very extensively accepted by the scholars. All evangelical expositors are agreed however, that whatever view we take of the origin or groundwork of the book its higher aim is to set forth allegorically the relation of God to his ancient people, or of Christ to his church, or both. Every reader of the Bible knows that the union of Jehovah with Israel, and that of Christ and His church are represented under the same figure of marriage. See such passages as Psalms 45:1-17; Isaiah 54:6; Jeremiah 2:2; Hosea 2:14-23; Matthew 9:15; John 3:29; Ephesians 5:23-27, etc. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 85: 06.20. THE OLD TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA ======================================================================== Chapter 19 The Old Testament Apocrypha It seems hardly necessary from one point of view to add to a work of this limited nature a chapter on the apocryphal books of the Old Testament; and yet there is a good deal of curiosity as to their character and history that ought to be satisfied, to say nothing of the effect it might have negatively, at least, in substantiating the evidence for the canonicity of the other books. The word “Apocrypha” itself literally means “hidden,” in the sense of secret, mysterious, occult, and applied in early times to that sacred literature of certain philosophic and religious sects which was intended only for the initiated or the elect--Such literature, indeed, as is associated in our own time with the metaphysical teachings of the Orient imported into these Western lands. But such an application of the word is far enough away from the idea of the revelation in the Bible. There is nothing secret in that sense in either the Old or New Testament. Christianity, surely, is intended for all men, and the same may have been said of Judaism though from another point of view. The word “mystery” is frequently used in the New Testament, but usually with reference to some divine truth which is about to be explained not to a few but to all who are willing to receive it. All the treasures of knowledge and wisdom are said to be hidden in Christ, but whoever will receive Christ may receive them. “Apocrypha,” therefore, as applied to those books which have had a certain uncanonical relation to the Bible, is not employed so much in the sense of hidden or occult, as in the sense of spurious and false, and spurious and false chiefly, so far as any claim to divine inspiration or authority is concerned. The apocryphal books of the Old Testament, to quote another here, occupy a kind of intermediate place between the inspired Scriptures themselves and that secret or occult literature to which the name originally attached. Some of the contents of these books are of a high literary and historical value, and the churches of the Reformation considered them valuable for “examples of life and instruction of manners,” while rejecting them utterly as of authority in matters of faith. The names of these books are as follows: Tobit; Judith; Esther; The Wisdom of Solomon; The Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus; Baruch; The Song of the Three Holy Children; The History of Susanna; Bel and the Dragon; The Prayer of Manasses; III and IV Esdras; I and II Maccabees. Most of them have an origin somewhat corresponding in time and place to the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament of which mention has been made; i.e., they were written at about that time, or somewhere between the 3rd century B.C. and the 1st century A.D., and emanated, for the most part, from the Jewish Colony in Alexandria. They have found their way into our literature, however, through the avenue of the Roman Catholic Church, being attached first, to the Latin Vulgate, whose history we have touched upon, and thence to certain copies of the Bible in the English tongue. As to the subject matter of these books, it may be interesting to those who have never read them to learn the following data condensed from a larger work upon this subject: Tobit is a fictitious narrative intended to show how a pious Jew living in Nineveh might yet be true to his faith, and enjoy some of the blessed rewards of his fidelity. Judith is a story of about the same place and time, whose heroine, like Jael in the Old Testament, slew her nation’s foe, a Chaldean general, named Holofernes. Esther is a kind of uninspired appendix to the Old Testament book of that name giving additional details, and claiming to quote from original documents of the Persian Court. The Wisdom of Solomon is a Greek imitation of the earlier part of Proverbs and is thought to belong to the Christian era. The Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus, is perhaps, the choicest of all from a literary point of view, and dates from an early period of the 2nd century B.C. Reference has been already made to certain of the contents of this book as substantiating the genuineness of the Old Testament as we now possess it. The recent discovery of an old manuscript has been a kind of bombshell in the camp of the ultra critics. Baruch has been described as “a feeble imitation” of the language and style of Jeremiah, the illusion being strengthened by the use of the name of his former associate and amanuensis. Its date is unknown. The Song of the Three Holy Children purports to have been that uttered in the furnace by Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego (see Daniel 3:1-30). The History of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon are also supplementary to the same canonical book of Daniel. The Prayer of Manasses, or Manasseh, is a penitential psalm placed on the lips of that wicked but humbled king of Judah. Esdras or Ezra 3:1-13; Ezra 4:1-24, give some incidents from the Old Testament related with deviations, and also a series of apocalyptic visions, partly of Jewish, and partly of Christian origin and thought to date from about the close of the first century A.D. Maccabees is an accurate and valuable history of Jewish affairs from the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes, King of Syria, B.C. 175, to the death of Simon Maccabeus (135), The latter was a Jewish prince, one of the line of brothers who were successful for a while in breaking the foreign yoke before the days of the Roman Empire. II Maccabees is an abridgement of a longer history covering about the same period but quite independent of the other. (The Bible Handbook, Revised Ed. pp. 613-614.) If, in closing this chapter, we should seek to answer the question, Why are not these books, or any of them, included in the Canon, or rather, on what ground are they excluded, we might say: 1. They do not claim divine authority as almost all the accepted books do. 2. In some cases they altogether disclaim such authority. (See the Introduction to Sirach, and also 2Ma 11:23; 2Ma 15:38). 3. They contain statements here and there at variance with the facts, at variance with themselves for that matter, not to say at variance with the Scriptures. (Compare Bar 1:2 with Jeremiah 43:6-7. See also 2Ma 12:43 and the following verses). 4. They are not found in any catalog or list of the sacred Scriptures for the first four centuries of the Christian era. 5. The Jews never received them as canonical. 6. Christ and His apostles never quoted them. It is true that the Roman Catholic Church accepts these books as canonical, but even she has only done so since the Council of Trent, 1545. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 86: 06.21. THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON ======================================================================== Chapter 20 The New Testament Canon Its importance justifies an introductory chapter on the general subject of the canon of the New Testament before we take up the consideration of the separate books. And let us begin by saying that those books and none others are regarded as canonical which were known either to have been written by an apostle or received as of divine authority in the apostolic age. The way to reach an understanding upon this subject is very simple. The canon doubtless was formed quite gradually. The books (we speak now of the epistles more particularly), appeared separately, in different localities and at different periods, each bearing the evidence of its own origin with it to the church to which it was addressed. Copies were made, and as they were distributed to other churches the evidence of their genuineness was distributed with them. Exchanges were made in the same way. The church at Rome would in time send a copy of its epistle to the church at Corinth, which in turn, would send a copy of that which it had received to Rome, and so on. By and by lists or catalogs of these books would begin to be made and handed down to succeeding generations and centuries, by which the genuineness of the genuine and the falsity of the false might easily be kept in mind. Dr. Flournoy, the author of a comparatively recent work on this subject, shows from newly recovered documents of the ancients that the canon of the New Testament just as we have it, especially as it applies to the Gospels, was the original and only canon, it being freely quoted by men living in the latter part of the first and the first part of the second century, who recognized the books as standing on a plane of authority not shared by any other books. And Dr. Harnack, the great German critic and theologian of modern times, not prejudiced in favor of evangelical Christianity, to say the least, testifies, that “as regards the text of the Gospels we may conclude that about the year 160 it ran just as it runs now.” But to return to the matter of the catalogs, there were no less than 15 or 16 of them published between the second and the fourth centuries, and these by different authors and in different lands, the greatest pains being taken to secure accurate information. There were “Lower” and “Higher” critics in those days just as there are now, only that they had access to original sources which their modern successors are denied. Sometimes these critics journeyed to Palestine and resided there while sifting evidence, and if they came across a forgery it was treated with the greatest strictness. One such was discovered in the second century, for instance, an Asiatic presbyter published a book called “The Acts of Paul and Thecla,” and tried to palm it off as authentic, but when he was discovered he was deposed, and all the churches duly notified. Let us remember another thing, that the appeal of these inspired writings was to the Christian consciousness, the church consciousness, not to the consciousness of one Christian or one hundred, not to the consciousness of one church or one hundred, but to all, the universal Christian, the universal church consciousness. It is remarkable in this connection, as others have pointed out, that no church council from the earliest times ever undertook to define the canon. It was unnecessary. “The Scriptures of the New Testament were their own attestation. Certain books claiming apostolic authority were for a time accepted in some places, but gradually disappeared from the list and fell in among the apocryphal,” for there are apocryphal books of the New Testament as of the Old. We can readily see how this took place, and why it took place, if we ourselves take the pains to compare these apocryphal books with the genuine. Between the best of the first-named and those of the New Testament “there is a great gulf fixed.” Dr. Samuel G. Green aptly illustrates it by the contrast between modern and ancient cities. The modern has wide suburbs reaching out into the open country so that the exact boundaries are indiscernible, but the ancient were confined within walls and separated from all the waste beyond. The New Testament books are represented by the latter, surrounded by high bulwarks which make them easily defined. As the same writer adds, the Holy Spirit, given to the church, quickened holy instincts, aided discernment between the genuine and spurious, and thus led to gradual, harmonious, and in the end unanimous conclusions. There was in the church, he says, what a modern writer has happily termed an “inspiration of selection.” And this same inspiration, it may be remarked, is in the church still. No one can palm off a spurious book on the church today any more than in the earliest day of her existence. Perhaps the reader would like to know a little more in detail about the catalogs The earliest is now known as the Muratorian Fragment. It is called a “Fragment” because the whole of it is not there, and it is called the “Muratorian” Fragment because of its discovery by an Italian named Muratori in the Ambrosian Library, at Milan, somewhere about 1740. The date of this fragment is that of the second century of the Christian era, but beginning with Luke, which it calls the third Gospel, implying the two preceding ones, it names all the books as we now have them excepting Hebrews, James, I and II Peter, and II and III John. Of about the same date as the Muratorian Fragment may be named once more, the Syriac and Latin Versions which are catalogs of the highest order for they contain the very books themselves as we have seen. The Latin omitted only Hebrews, James and II Peter, and the Syriac, II Peter, II and III John, Jude and Revelation. Moreover of about this same date or a little later, it may be about the first quarter of the third century, we have the testimony of Clement of Alexandria, named in the history of Eusebius, who quotes or refers to all the books except, I believe, James, II Peter, and III John. Tertullian and Justin Martyn of this period may be quoted to the same purport. While Clement was of Alexandria, however, Tertullian was of Carthage and Justin Martyn of Palestine. Then comes Origen, also of Alexandria, and the most illustrious Christian scholar of his age who mentions all and records doubts only of II Peter and II and III John. A strong testimony to the canonicity of the New Testament at this period, the third century, is the fact that certain heretics as well as the faithful admitted it, and on the basis, thereof, sought to defend their heresies. Then follows Eusebius himself, the father of church history, as he has been called, who about 300 A.D., or a little later, published a catalog in which he mentions all, recording doubts, however, as to James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude, and Revelation. These doubts are not his own but those of others whom he records. We need not pursue this farther. Some of the later enemies of the faith have tried to prove that we Christians did not get our Bible till the fourth century. They have said there was a church council about that time in the city of Nice, France, one of whose purposes was to make a Bible. There had been many books floating around, claiming to be inspired, and nobody knew which were and which were not inspired. Copies of all these books were collected at the time of this council and placed under the communion table in the church. Then the bishops gathered around the table and prayed that in some way the inspired books might be indicated from the uninspired, and as they prayed, a number of the books were supernaturally raised from underneath the table and placed on top of it. These were accepted as the inspired books, they say, and this is the way the Christians got their Bible! The grain of wheat in that bushel of chaff is this: That there was such a council at Nice at that time, A.D. 325, and one of the things it did was to set forth a catalog of all the inspired books of the New Testament, which had been so accepted as inspired by the whole church since the first. That catalog is the same as we have today. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 87: 06.22. WHY FOUR GOSPELS? ======================================================================== Chapter 21 Why Four Gospels? In the progress of our studies we have reached the books of the New Testament and the question of the genuineness of the four Gospels. And at the beginning an inquiry suggests itself as to why there are four Gospels? Why was not one enough? And if more than one were needed, why not five, or twenty? Why just four? There must be some reason for this. This, in turn, brings up another question, What is the nature and significance of the Gospels? Why are these first four books of the New Testament called the “Gospels?” The word “Gospel” means good news, and distinctively, that good news of which God is the author, and which Christ came to preach, and of which he is himself the sum and substance in his work for the salvation of men. Strictly speaking, of course, there is, and can be, but one Gospel, but one story of who he is and what he did, although this story may be presented from more than one point of view. Now, when we seek further the why and the wherefore for four points of view, we seem to find it in the Old Testament. Christ as the Coming One is foretold there, and although He is presented variously in type and prophecy, yet when all these preintimations of his person and work are grouped and classified, they range themselves under four heads. He is seen as the Messiah, the King of Israel; He is seen as the Servant of Jehovah; He is seen as the Son of man; and He is seen as the Son of God. As corresponding to this, Matthew’s Gospel presents Him in the first light, Mark’s in the second, Luke’s in the third, and John’s in the fourth. Dr. E.W. Bullinger, in one of his writings, exhibits this from the Old Testament in a very interesting way. There are, for example, twenty Hebrew words translated “Branch,” but only one of them (Tsemech), is used exclusively of the Messiah, and this only four times, as follows: · Jeremiah 23:5-6, “Branch” the king. · Zechariah 3:8, “Branch” the servant. · Zechariah 6:12, “Branch” the man. · Isaiah 4:2, “Branch” Jehovah. There is still another very interesting fact related to this inquiry as to why there are four Gospels. For, just as we find the Savior presented to men under four different aspects, so we find four different classes of men to whom these aspects must have severally appealed. A suggestion of three of these classes is found in Pilate’s inscription on the cross at Golgotha, which was in letters of Hebrew, of Latin and of Greek. These were the languages of the representative races of that day who differed from each other in ways that were very marked. The Hebrews were the children of revelation, and would be interested in no person claiming to be their Messiah who did not fulfill the teachings of the Old Testament prophets concerning Him. Hence Matthew writes distinctively for them as it were, and meets their peculiar need by presenting Jesus from that point of view, and showing Him to be unmistakably the promised King of Israel of whom the prophets spake. The Romans were the active, energetic people of the time. The race that did things. Their ideal was power, as evidenced in their worship of the state, or rather the emperor representing the state, to their mind the highest expression of power. Mark writes distinctively for them, presenting Jesus in such a way as to attract them, the man of power, of energy, the active Servant of Jehovah, the whole Gospel vibrating with movement. The Greeks, on the other hand, were the intellectual and contemplative people. Their ideal was wisdom. They conceived their mission to be to elevate man, not man as a race so much as the individual man. In that sense they were looking for the ideal man, and Luke presents him in Jesus the divine Son of man. These first three Gospels, sometimes called the synoptics for a reason to be named later, did the work now usually ascribed to the foreign missionary. That is, they made converts to the Christian religion from among the three classes of men just described. But these converts by becoming Christians made of themselves a fourth class, they constituted the Christian church for which in a sense, a special Gospel was required. To meet their necessities John wrote a generation later than the other evangelists, recording certain deeds, and especially discourses, of Jesus which they had not recorded, and which were more fitted to answer the deeper questions concerning His person and work that had come up with the progress and development of the church. For further discussion of why there are four Gospels, the reader is referred to the author’s earlier work, Synthetic Bible Studies, “Matthew.” Let us now consider more particularly, that further twofold division of the Gospels already hinted at in the use of the word “Synoptics” as differentiating the first three from the fourth. There is a remarkable agreement among the first three as distinguished from the fourth, an “agreement in the incidents and sayings selected and in the general order in which they are presented. Side by side they yield a synopsis or conspectus, i.e., the same general view or outline,” from which the word describing them is derived. On the other hand, the fourth Gospel stands alone. “The writer’s purpose is not so much to tell the story of the earthly life of Jesus, as to interpret Him as ‘the Christ, the Son of God.’ Familiarity with the facts and persons of the synoptics is constantly assumed, and while here and there the narratives coincide, yet for the most part the incidents are new and selected for the writer’s special purpose.” The question now arises as to the human source of the Synoptics? Of course, as to their divine source it will be shown in a later part of our work the sense in which they were inspired. But the agreements among them seem to point to a common human source, while the differences indicate at the same time a great measure of independence. Scholars are unable to explain this, although all are agreed that there was at first an oral or spoken Gospel, in other words, that the facts about Jesus Christ were told by the apostles and early disciples perhaps for twenty-five or thirty years before it was felt necessary to commit them to writing. This necessity was felt as the first generation of Christians began to pass away and the Lord still tarried. The idea is prevalent in these days that Mark’s Gospel was the earliest of all, and constituted a kind of original from which the first and third Gospels copied adding a little here and there, and changing the arrangement to suit these additions; but whether this was so or not we find in the introduction to the third Gospel, Luke 1:1-4, a very good account of the manner in which anyone of the three might have been put together, at least in part. You will find on reading the verses named that “Luke disclaimed any first-hand knowledge of what he chronicles, but with painstaking accuracy has gathered and sifted his authorities.” Among these latter were the testimonies of “eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,” he tells us, as well as “many” written fragments of which Mark, or even some earlier document may have had the chief place. Scholars know positively of no other earlier document, but imagine one to suit their convenience which they have designated as the “Logia,” which simply means the word or the oracles. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 88: 06.23. THE STORY OF THE SYNOPTICS ======================================================================== Chapter 22 The Story of the Synoptics We shall in this chapter consider the story of the synoptics in the order in which they appear in the Bible. It cannot be determined precisely when they were written, but there is practical unanimity that it was not later than A.D. 65, or about 30 years after our Lord’s ascension. The argument for this was hinted at in an earlier chapter where reference was made to the catalogs and the writings of the early Christian fathers, but those who wish more particular data will find them in Smith’s Bible Dictionary under the head of “Canon of Scripture.” Tradition is a unit in ascribing the first Gospel to Matthew. It has always stood as it does now, the first of the four, and the beginning of the New Testament. Whether this is because of its earliest date, or the nature of its contents, or for some other reason is unknown. Nevertheless as to its authorship, it does to a certain extent bear its own credentials. Its author must have been a Christian Jew. Even a superficial perusal of its contents indicates that. He must also have been an eyewitness of most of what he relates, and familiar with the times as well as the events he describes. All this is seen on the face of the narrative. The only incident related of the writer himself in the book is his call to discipleship (Matthew 9:9). In the corresponding places in Mark and Luke, however, he is designated as Levi, which may have been his real name, while Matthew was an assumed one, taken by him at the time of his call. The latter means, “The Gift of Jehovah.” Mark says that Matthew was the son of Alpheus. Does this mean that he was the brother of James (Matthew 10:3)? Hardly so. Another Alpheus must is meant, for these two are never coupled together in any list of the apostles as is the case where other brothers are referred to. Matthew was a publican, a collector of taxes under the Roman government, an office odious in the sight of the Jews, and stationed at Capernaum. Publicans were classed with the sinners and outcasts of society, and it was the sneer of the Pharisees that Jesus mingled with such. That Matthew, at least, wrote as early as the date already mentioned, is determined by the circumstance that he alludes to Jerusalem and the temple (Matthew 4:5; Matthew 5:35; Matthew 22:7, and elsewhere), in language implying that their destruction (A.D. 70), had not as yet taken place. As has been said, he wrote distinctively for the Jews, a fact borne witness to not only by the writers of the first three centuries of the Christian era, but by the central plan of the Gospel itself. It is very clearly its plan to present Jesus as the Messiah of the Old Testament prophets and the King of Israel. In pursuance thereof the reader will notice that the genealogy of Jesus is traced to Abraham the founder of the Jewish race, that frequent references are made to the Old Testament prophets|the fulfillment of their predictions in Jesus, to the kingdom which Jesus came to set up and other things of the kind not spoken of in the same way or with the same emphasis, in the other Gospels. Furthermore, it will be noticed that unlike Mark for example, and sometimes John, Matthew in speaking of Jewish customs and localities never pauses to explain or describe them, as if those for whom he wrote understood his references. Those who would like to peruse an outline of his Gospel as compared with the others will find help in the author’s Synthetic Bible Studies, “Matthew.” The second Gospel has always been ascribed to Mark, the John Mark of the Acts and the Epistles, although his own personality as its author is nowhere obtruded within its pages. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia, who lived and flourished in the early part of the second century, and who made it his business, he tells us, to inquire of the contemporaries of the apostles about these things, bears record that “Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he remembered of the words and deeds of Christ, although not in regular order.” This connection of Mark with Peter is further borne out by others of the earliest Christian writers following Papias, thus making the basis of the second Gospel that “of the evangelic narrative used by Peter in his public teaching.” Justin Martyn indeed, one of these early writers, speaks of this Gospel as from the “Memoirs of Peter.” For the personal history of Mark one must be referred to such places as Acts 12:12; Acts 12:25; Acts 13:5; Acts 13:13; Acts 15:36-40; Colossians 4:10-11, 2 Timothy 4:11 and 1 Peter 5:13. He was companion of Paul for a while, then of Barnabas, and finally of Peter. The estrangement from Paul recorded in the Acts seems to have been fully healed according to the references in the later epistles. “It is an interesting conjecture,” says one, “that the house of John Mark referred to in Acts 12:12 may have been the house where (in the lifetime of Mark’s father) the Last Supper was eaten (Mark 14:14); that the garden of Gethsemane was the property of its owner; and that Mark himself was the ‘young man’ of the incident related only by him (Mark 14:51-52).” Mark, it has been said, wrote for the Romans, a belief to which all the writers of the first three centuries bear testimony, and which is corroborated by the central plan of the Gospel itself, which is to present Jesus as the energetic servant of Jehovah. The reason for such a presentation was suggested in the preceding chapter, but the proof of it is seen in the brevity of the Gospel, for example, and the omission of the discourses of Jesus rather than the acts. This fact, or rather these two facts, give point to the assumption that Mark was writing for a people more likely to be interested in concrete results than abstract philosophizing. Indeed, the whole construction of Mark’s narrative, and even certain words and phrases he uses constantly, lending vividness and power to his record, are seen to promote this same purpose. Take the word “straightway” for example, sometimes translated forthwith, or immediately, and which he uses forty-two times as compared with thirty-three times in the other Gospels. Observe that whatever its connection, this word uniformly designates rapidity of movement and promptness of action, appealing to the Roman spirit. Mark, moreover, explains Jewish customs and traditions as one would who is addressing a foreign people, see, for example, Mark 7:1-4, etc. For more of these details the reader is referred to Synthetic Bible Studies, “Mark.” There has been some question among scholars as to the genuineness of the latter half of the last chapter of Mark’s Gospel, Mark 16:9-20. Everyone who reads that chapter carefully notices a change at Mark 16:9 from a vivid and continuous narrative to one more condensed and fragmentary, and wonders why? The style is rather unlike Mark in some particulars, and the verses are not found in some of the oldest manuscripts and versions. Nevertheless, while doubt attaches to them, it has not been sufficient to justify the revisers in omitting them, and no mention would have been made of the matter here but that it is occasionally referred to by others. Luke has always been accepted as the author of the third Gospel, no serious question ever having been raised about it since the middle of the second century. Scholars, however, have usually regarded it as the latest of the synoptics, basing their opinion upon the language of the prologue, Luke 1:1-4, referred to in the last chapter, and upon certain touches showing what they conceive to be development in the treatment of the common tradition. Legend has been busy with the name of this author as with other of the primitive Christians, identifying him as a Gentile and native of Antioch, but whether a proselyte to the Jewish faith before his conversion to Christianity or not, is not assumed to be known. His Gentilism is shown by the circumstance that in Colossians 4:11-14, he, with Epaphras and Demas is distinguished from those “who are of the circumcision.” He is spoken of as one of the seventy sent out by our Lord, and one of the two with whom he conversed on the way to Emmaus, but this only on the ground that he alone of the evangelists mentions these things. There is little doubt, however, that as Mark wrote under the direction and influence of Peter, so Luke wrote as a kind of representative of Paul, and as some think during the latter’s imprisonment in Jerusalem and Cesarea. The intimacy of Luke with Paul is seen in such passages as Colossians 4:14, 2 Timothy 4:11, and Philemon 1:24. Significant, too, is the exchange of the historical “they” in the Acts of the Apostles (which, as we shall soon see, Luke also wrote), for the aubiographical “we,” showing that from Troas to Philippi he was with Paul, that he journeyed with him to Jerusalem, spent much of the time with him during his two years’ imprisonment at Cesarea, sailed into Italy with him, and remained during most of his long captivity in Rome (See Acts 10:11; Acts 16:8; Acts 16:21, etc.). “Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by him,” says Irenaeus, writing about A.D. 180, and subsequent writers maintain this tradition unbroken. The same view of the authorship is strengthened by the correspondences between the general scope of this Gospel and Paul’s teaching about grace, forgiveness, justification, and kindred themes. The universality of the Gospel is more marked in Luke than in the other synoptics, suggesting Paul’s preaching to the Gentiles, see especially Luke 17:10; Luke 18:14. The account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper in Luke also, is almost identical with that of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, while there are points of resemblance as well in the accounts of the resurrection, compare Luke 24:1-53 with 1 Corinthians 15:1-7. The universality of the Gospel as set forth by Luke is one of the features relied upon to show that he was writing for the Greeks distinctively--a people more interested in man as man than any other. Other features are found in the classic Greek in which the book is composed, in the fact that the discourses of Jesus are enlarged upon rather than his acts, appealing particularly to the meditative and intellectual side of man, and in the fact that Jesus Himself is set forth as the ideal man, i.e., a perfect humanity united with divinity. To quote Dr. Moorehead here: “Luke’s is the Gospel of the kinsman Redeemer whose compassions go out to all sorts of people, whose pity is as wide as the race of man. His genealogy is traced not merely to Abraham, but up to Adam, the father of the race, thus linking him with all mankind. The key is the midnight song of the angels--the Gloria in Excelsis, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” ======================================================================== CHAPTER 89: 06.24. DID THE APOSTLE JOHN WRITE THE FOURTH GOSPEL? ======================================================================== Chapter 23 Did the Apostle John Write the Fourth Gospel? So far as the Gospels are concerned the storm center of the rationalistic criticism gathers around the last of the four. We have shown why this should be the case. John wrote a generation later than the synoptics. He wrote for the Christian church. He was detained on the earth, the last of the twelve apostles, until the close of the first century for that very purpose. As the church grew and developed, questions would come up and heresies arise concerning the deeper and graver problems of the faith, especially those touching the Person and work of our blessed Lord. Was He divine as well as human? What was the real nature of the work He came into the world to do? How was that work to be carried on after His departure out of the world? Such questions as these are dealt with in no other Gospel as they are in that of John. And they are dealt with not by any philosophizing on John’s part, but by the simple record of doings and discourses of Jesus not found in the synoptics. Did not the writers of the synoptics know of these doings and discourses as well as John? Yes, doubtless, but the time was not ripe for their broadcast publication. There was an occasion when Jesus himself said to his disciples, “I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now;” and there was a sense in which this was true for a while of the early church in the matter of acquainting it with all that “Jesus began to do and to teach until the day in which he was taken up.” John was reserved to say some things about him not said before, and these particular things were calculated to impress the truth of his deity, and the sacrificial character of his death as nothing else had done. The witness of John the Baptist to Christ, recorded only in this Gospel, is one of these things. The raising of Lazarus from the dead is another. The discourses of Jesus on the New Birth (John 3:1-36), on the Living Water (John 4:1-54), on the Bread of Life (John 6:1-71; John 7:1-53), on His own deity (John 5:1-47), and on his departure and return (John 14:1-31; John 15:1-27; John 16:1-33), are another. John’s Gospel is almost entirely new as compared with the synoptics, and the object of the Holy Spirit in its revelation to men cannot be misunderstood. No wonder, therefore, that those who would like to get rid of the supernatural from the Bible, and especially destroy faith in the deity of Jesus Christ, and the necessity of his atonement for a guilty and lost race, should rally all their forces to undermine belief in the genuineness of the fourth Gospel. No wonder they should try to prove that the Apostle never wrote it. No wonder they should seek to discover some other John, a presbyter of the second century say, who had conceived a spurious story and palmed it off upon the church as true! More incredible far is such error than the truth. Now, how may we be assured that John, the Apostle, wrote the Gospel by his name? In the first place, for the personal history of John, especially in his relation to Jesus, if we desire to refresh our memory about it, let us look at the following Scripture passages: Matthew 17:1; Matthew 26:37; Matthew 27:56; Mark 1:20; Mark 3:17; Mark 5:37; John 19:26-27; Acts 3:4; Acts 3:8; Revelation 1:9-11. For his later history after Patmos, we have nothing but tradition, but that, without deviation, locates him at Ephesus between the final departure thence of Paul and the close of the first century. The evidence that he wrote the fourth Gospel is the same in general terms as that already given for the other books of the New Testament. The mss. of the fourth and the versions of the second century A.D., all contain the Gospel and attribute it to John. This is true of all the early catalogs. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, who died A.D. 202, says it was written by “John the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon his breast,” and affirms that “he wrote in Ephesus, where he remained till the time of Trajan (A.D. 98-117).” This is the almost unanimous testimony of the Christian writers of the second and third centuries. To quote the Bible Handbook at this place, not literally, but with practical accuracy, “Recent investigations and discoveries prove the use of this gospel by Tatian and Justin Martyn, who were contemporaries of about the period of A.D. 170. Citations are found from it in Valentinus and Basiledes about A.D. 130 or 125; and a familiarity with it is shown in the writings of Ignatius and Polycarp carrying us back to the very time of John himself, the opening of the second and the close of the first century.” Dr. Plummer, in his “Introduction to the Gospel by John,” in the Cambridge Bible Commentary, puts a pertinent question thus: he says, “Those who deny that St. John wrote the fourth gospel have tried almost every date for it from 110 to 165. Dividing that time in two parts, we have the following dilemma: 1. “If the gospel was published between 110 and 140, why did not the hundreds of Christians then living who had known John during his later life denounce the forgery? 2. “If it was not published till between 140 and 165, how did it become universally accepted by 170?” Reference has been made above to the use of this Gospel by Tatian as early as the date just mentioned in the quotation from Dr. Plummer. There is such an apt and interesting story illustrating its genuineness in connection with his name, that I feel justified in occupying the space to tell it. Tatian was a Christian apologist, that is, a public defender of the faith, during the early period referred to, and put forth among his other works what has been known as his “Diatessaron,” from “dia,” through, and “tessaron,” four, a kind of harmony, in other words, of the four Gospels. All the copies of this work had been lost for centuries and its original existence had been altogether doubted by opponents. The author of Supernatural Religion, a famous work of the rationalistic school, which has passed through many editions since its first publication in 1875, said, very defiantly, “There is no authority for saying that Tatian’s Gospel was a harmony of the four Gospels at all. No one seems to have seen Tatian’s Harmony, probably for the simple reason that there was no such work.” Now at the very time that this blatant expression appeared, there was lying in the Vatican library at Rome a certain Arabic manuscript numbered XIV. No one seems to have known of it till 1883, when one of the Guild of Writers to the Vatican examined it and found it to be a version of this very Diatessaron! He published an essay on it in Paris at the time. About three years later, however, a Visitor Apostolic to the Copts on a journey to the Vatican, happened to see it and declared that he could obtain a duplicate of it in Egypt, which he did. In 1888 this was translated into Latin in honor of the Pope’s jubilee. It opens with the first words of John’s Gospel and contains practically the whole of it. It thus proves that a man living in the early part of the second century had the Gospel of John before him, which must have been in circulation and well-known. Of course it is understood that these versions of the Diatessaron thus discovered, are only copies of the original and not the original itself. But these copies, one of them at least, dates from about the middle of the eleventh century, or earlier, while of course their existence proves that of the original. Thus they utterly demolish the hypothesis of the rationalistic critics that the Gospel was not written by the Apostle John but by some unknown individual not earlier than near the close of the second century. It may be interesting to add that the explanation of the concealment of these written copies of the Diatessaron for so long a time is that they were what are called palimpsests, i.e., a parchment on which one writing covers another. Parchment was expensive material, and when a writing upon it was supposed to have had its day, it was removed by chemicals and another written on the same pages. Sometimes it happened, however, that the removing process was not as thorough or as lasting as was supposed, and the older writing would reappear after a time through the later writing. This appears to have been the case with the writings in question. God has many ways of hiding his witnesses from harm until he is ready to bring them into court. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 90: 06.25. INTERNAL EVIDENCES OF JOHN'S GOSPEL ======================================================================== Chapter 24 Internal Evidences of John’s Gospel In our last chapter we sought to show from the external point of view that the Apostle John wrote the fourth Gospel, quoting the testimony of manuscripts, versions and catalogues of the early Christian writers, down to the period of the Apostle’s death. Of course, the whole thing was in the nature of a bird’s eye view, nothing more, and yet it was true as far as it went, and sufficient because true. But the following words quoted from Archdeacon Farrar in his The Messages of the Books, will help to reassure any who would have liked to examine the subject more thoroughly: It has been my duty to study all that can be urged against the Gospel by John, but in none of the able critics who have persuaded themselves that the Gospel of John was the work of a Gnosticising dreamer in the second century, have I met with any argument that does not seem to me to have been fully and fairly answered. Dr. Westcott especially, in his valuable commentary, has proved in a most decisive manner that the writer was a Jew; a Jew of Palestine; an eye witness; and an Apostle; and when this is established, the inference comes irresistibly that he was the Apostle John. The reference above to what Dr. Westcott says, however, opens up an entirely different line of testimony from that pursued in the previous chapter, namely, the internal evidences to the Johannine authorship; and the deep and current importance of the theme warrants our devoting this chapter to its consideration. As you perceive, the internal evidence is grouped by Westcott, as it is by writers generally, under four heads: That the author was a Jew; a Jew of Palestine; an eye witness; and an apostle. It will be interesting to observe the proofs of these facts and consider their bearing on the genuineness of the Gospel. Dr. Marcus Dods, of Edinburgh, very recently lectured on this subject in America, and from a report of one of his lectures in The Bible Record, I have received liberty to extensively quote. This I am pleased to do, because of his fresh treatment of the subject, and because he is one of the modern theological scholars not always regarded as quotable on the side of the more conservative evangelical teaching: A. That the writer was a Jew he regards as proved (1) by his Hebraistic style. His Gospel, while written in Greek, of course, and while not ungrammatical or awkward is, nevertheless, limited in its vocabulary, and the words used are only such as are familiar in ordinary conversation. Were he a born Grecian, or educated in that tongue like Paul, for example, his style would be very different. (2), That he was a Jew is seen by his knowledge of Aramaic terms, that language which was a kind of mixture of Hebrew and Chaldean. For example, he inserts translations of Aramaic names, see John 1:38-42; John 9:7; John 19:13-17; John 20:24. (3), That he was a Jew is seen in his familiarity with Jewish customs, ideas and institutions. For Jewish customs see John 1:49; John 2:6; John 13:4; John 19:40. For Jewish ideas, John 1:21; John 4:27; John 9:2; John 18:29, and a large part of John 7:1-53. For Jewish institutions, John 1:19; John 2:20; John 10:22; John 18:20. It is but right to add, however, that some have maintained that the Jews and their usages are spoken of in this Gospel as if they belonged to a race different from that of the writer. For instance, the latter speaks of the water pots at Cana as being set “after the manner of the purifying of the Jews,” and in another place, that “the Jews’ Passover was nigh at hand.” A Jew born and bred would never have come to speak so, it is said; but the answer is, that John at the time of writing was a foreigner to Palestine, i.e., for years a resident abroad, and was writing to foreigners who had known little or nothing of Palestine and its people. Under these circumstances such expressions are precisely what might be expected. B. That the writer was a Palestinian, i.e., born and bred in that land is seen (1), by his intimate knowledge of its localities. Our author quotes Professor Ramsay as saying that it is impossible for anyone to invent a tale whose scene lies in a foreign land, without betraying in slight details his ignorance of the scenery and circumstances amid which the event is described as taking place. But the author of the fourth Gospel must have been a resident. Bethany with him is “nigh unto Jerusalem, about 15 furlongs off.” This is “the unconscious gratuitousness of full knowledge.” See John 6:1-71 for a minute description of the movements around the Sea of Galilee. Observe how familiar is the author with the temple, its porches, cloisters and the like. He crosses brooks and gardens in his walks without once stumbling into error. He adds to the name of a town the additional specification by which it must be distinguished from others of the same name. “Bethany beyond Jordan,” “Aenon near to Salim.” It was once charged against the author of this Gospel that he was ignorant of the localities he describes. The critics supposed they knew better than he. But recent research under the direction of the Palestinian Survey has changed all this. It is now admitted on all hands that in these matters, at least, the writer knew what he was talking about. (2), But he is seen to be a Palestinian as well by the copy of the Bible he evidently used. A Jew living in some other part of the world would have almost certainly used the Septuagint Greek Version in his allusions to and quotations from the Old Testament. But the author of the fourth Gospel departs from that and uses language more nearly representing the Hebrew, so nearly indeed, as to leave small doubt in the minds of competent scholars that he translated it for himself. C. That the writer was an eyewitness of what he describes is seen in various ways. (1), He claims to be an eyewitness. Read John 1:14, in comparison with 1 John 1:1, also John 19:35, and John 21:24. The author of these words was either an eyewitness, or else “a forger whose genius for truth and for lying are alike inexplicable.” (2), This claim is confirmed by the character of the Gospel as indicated by multitudinous details. Mark the hour at which Jesus sat by the well, the number and size of the water pots at Cana, the weight and value of the ointment, the number of fish at the last cast, etc., etc. Such details, as Dr. Dods wisely remarks, invite the detection of error. Circumstantiality may be given to a narrative of the imagination, but aside from the fact that the Jews were not writers of fiction, this circumstantiality belongs to the realm of fact, to real objects and events which in many cases can be verified. D. That the writer was the Apostle John follows almost necessarily from the above, but it is further demonstrated thus: In John 21:20-24, especially John 21:24, he is identified with the disciple whom Jesus loved. Who was this disciple? He must have been one of the seven named in John 21:2 as being present on the occasion. Of these seven there were three so frequently named elsewhere as intimates of Jesus on other occasions as to narrow the question to them, viz. Peter, James, and John. But it could not have been the first because he is named separately in the same connection (John 21:20); neither could it have been the second because he died too early to admit of his having written the Gospel (Acts 10:11); it must therefore have been John. Ezra Abbott, in his Critical Essays, says, “there is no trace that in Christian antiquity this title, ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved,’ ever suggested anyone but John.” ======================================================================== CHAPTER 91: 06.26. THE BOOK OF THE ACTS ======================================================================== Chapter 25 The Book of the Acts The opening verse of the Acts of the Apostles offers a starting point for the consideration of its genuineness. The writer addresses himself to an individual, refers to a former treatise he had made, and specifies its contents. The facts fit the Gospel of Luke (compare the opening verses of that Gospel), and suggest immediately that the author of the one was that of the other. Tradition is almost altogether on the side of this supposition, although there is little further internal evidence to prove it. It is clear, however, from the use of the word “we” (Acts 16:10), that the writer was a traveling companion with Paul. To be sure, Paul had several traveling companions besides Luke, and it may have been anyone of these. But Luke was a physician (Colossians 4:14), and an examination of both the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, shows the work of both to be that of a person “familiar with the language of the Greek medical schools, who naturally slipped into the use of medical phraseology.” So far as this can be established, it is a very convincing evidence of the Lucan authorship of both books. Concerning that word “we,” it might be admitted that Luke wrote so much of the Acts as stands related to the employment of that pronoun, while the remainder was the work of another man who simply incorporated Luke’s account with his. But it may be asked, what is the value of such an hypothesis? While on the other hand, there seems to be a unity of plan in the book, characteristics of language and cross-references that make very strongly for a single authorship throughout. The way in which Luke may have gathered his facts is clearly indicated by himself in the opening verses of his Gospel. He had traced all things accurately from the first in that instance, and, doubtless, he had done the same in this. He made notes as he journeyed along with Paul, supplementing them by memory, conversation and research. While this explains the data from Acts 13:1-52 to the end of the book, the previous material may have been gathered in other ways. Acts 1:1-26; Acts 2:1-47; Acts 3:1-26; Acts 4:1-37; Acts 5:1-42; Acts 6:1-15; Acts 7:1-60; Acts 8:1-40; Acts 9:1-43; Acts 10:1-48; Acts 11:1-30; Acts 12:1-25 are taken up chiefly with the ministry of Peter, whom Luke may have met while sojourning with Paul at Rome. At any rate, we know that Mark “the interpreter of Peter,” was with Luke in Rome, as we gather from Colossians 4:10 and Philemon 1:24, and he could have supplied him with most of the information concerning the early events in Jerusalem because of the large place occupied by himself and his household therein (see Acts 12:12). At Cesarea again, Luke staid with Philip the Evangelist (Acts 21:8), and in Jerusalem he met James and the elders (Acts 21:18). All these doubtless supplied him with the facts he has recorded. The story in the Acts carries us down to the period of Paul’s imprisonment at Rome at about 62 or 63, but there are reasons for believing that the book was not published for perhaps 15 to 20 years later. It is of value to note, however, that no matter who may be the human author of this compilation, its historic accuracy and truth are established in a variety of ways. There is an old, but still invaluable work by Dr. Paley, entitled Horae Paulinae, to be obtained in second-hand bookstores at least, whose contents will astonish and delight the reader in the array of undesigned coincidences recorded as between the Acts and the Pauline epistles. Then there are later works of the same general character, like Ramsey’s The Church in the Roman Empire. An always standard book is Conybeare and Howson’s Life and Epistles of Paul. All these books note “the accuracy of the writer in the employment of official titles as well as in references to local or personal characteristics.” Take an example or two. When Paul’s visit to Philippi is spoken of (Acts 16:35), the local authorities are named as magistrates and sergeants, or, as the Greek indicates, “praetors” and “lictors;” but when he reaches Thessalonica the officials are “politarchs.” Now the difference in these names is explained by this, that Philippi was a Roman colony while Thessalonica was a free city. The observance of this distinction is a mark of careful truth. The word “politarch,” indeed, is not found in books, but has been discovered on an inscription in the city of Thessalonica, which is now deposited in the British Museum. A similar circumstance is associated with Paul’s visit at Corinth. There the chief magistrate (Acts 19:12), is described as the “proconsul,” (Acts 18:12, Revised Version), a title used where the Roman province was a Senatorial province. Should it be an imperial province the title would be “propraetor.” Now was Corinth a senatorial province or an imperial province? Singularly enough it was the latter, both before and after Paul’s visit there in 52 or 53, but during that particular period it was a senatorial province. At no other time, therefore, but that particular time could the chief magistrate have been designated correctly as the writer of Acts designates him. It will be interesting for the reader to examine the text of that chapter in the Acts a little further, and notice that the “proconsul” of the period was Gallio. Now Seneca, the brother of this man, describes him in Roman literature as an universal favorite on account of his amiability, and it will be observed that this secular and intimate description of him tallies fully with his ruling in the case of the Jewish charges against Paul, and especially with Luke’s words in verse Acts 18:17, “And Gallio cared for none of these things.” Such coincidences could be multiplied almost indefinitely. That there are no difficulties in reconciling two or three statements in the Acts with themselves or with statements in some of Paul’s epistles one cannot undertake to say, although were there time it might not be so difficult to present a reasonable explanation of them in the light of all that has been said. It may be well to close this chapter with some words of introduction touching the epistles of Paul, which we begin to treat in the next. A familiarity with Paul’s missionary journeys as recorded in the Acts, is almost a necessity to intelligently discuss the genuineness of his written productions. It will be found that there were four such journeys, taking Antioch, in Syria, as the starting point. The first was the most limited in area, and is referred to in Acts 13:1-52; Acts 14:1-28; Acts 15:1-35. There were no epistles written on this journey of which we have any record, and, indeed, the occasion for them hardly appears. The second journey is spoken of in Acts 15:36-41; Acts 16:1-40; Acts 17:1-34; Acts 18:1-22, recording the call into Europe, with the visits to Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens and Corinth, at which last-named place there is reason to believe the first and second epistles to the Thessalonians were penned, constituting them the earliest of all Paul’s writings known to us. The record of the third journey is in Acts 17:23-34; Acts 18:1-28; Acts 19:1-41; Acts 20:1-38; Acts 21:1-17, where we find him spending three years at Ephesus in Asia, and then once more crossing the Aegean and retracing his former steps in Greece. During this period were written, presumably, the first and second epistles to the Corinthians, and those to the Galatians and Romans. The fourth journey practically concludes the history in the book and gives us the story of Paul’s arrest at Jerusalem, his imprisonment at Cesarea, his shipwreck en route to Italy and his stay in the imperial city for at least two years. During this stay as a prisoner in Rome, awaiting his hearing before Caesar, he writes to the Ephesians, Colossians and Philippians, and the personal letter to Philemon. It is after his release that he addresses the first so called pastoral epistle to Timothy, and that to Titus, but later on, when a prisoner at Rome the second time, he writes the latest of all his epistles, the second to Timothy. He is then ready to be offered, having fought the good fight, and finished his course. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 92: 06.27. PAUL'S EPISTLES--THE FIRST AND SECOND GROUPS ======================================================================== Chapter 26 Paul’s Epistles--the First and Second Groups We have seen that the first group of Paul’s epistles embraces only the two addressed to the church at Thessalonica, those written by him at Corinth during his second missionary journey. The story of the first is like this: Paul accompanied by Silas and Timothy, and possibly Luke, had founded the church in that city whence, after a brief stay, he had been driven out by persecution, coming down first to Berea, then to Athens and finally to Corinth. On the route, and after leaving Berea as it would appear, he sent Timothy back to Thessalonica to inquire after the welfare of the young church. The report reached him at Corinth, where he addressed this epistle to them (see Acts 17:1-34; Acts 18:1-28), congratulating them on their spiritual state, expressing his love for them, correcting one or two faults into which they had fallen, and especially setting them right on one important doctrinal error, viz.: the relation of the dead and the living saints at Christ’s Second Coming. The genuineness of this epistle has never been seriously attacked. There was a German scholar named Baur, head of what was called the “Tubingen School,” who in the first half of the nineteenth century undertook to do for the New Testament what the rationalistic critics have of late sought to accomplish against the Old, but his efforts were short lived. This critic was about the first whoever raised a word against the genuineness of Paul’s first epistle to the Thessalonians. He thought its contents unimportant, aimless in some parts, also self-contradictory, and so unlike Paul. It is enough to say in the language of one of his compatriots that he has met with nothing but contradiction, and that his so called criticisms only reveal his own ignorance of the epistle; to understand it is the best vindication of its genuineness. There is a single remark perhaps, that should be added. In the superscription to the epistle found at the close in our King James Bibles, it is stated that it was written from Athens, which is a mistake, as the record in Acts alone would seem to indicate. These superscriptions, it should be remembered, are not part of the inspired record but the work of some human editor, whose research and scholarship are open to investigation the same as that of any ordinary writer of the present day. This cannot be said of the sacred text itself, of course, but only of the superscriptions. The second epistle (II Thessalonians) soon followed the first, being written doubtless from the same city where, as we know, Paul dwelt for eighteen months. Silas and Timothy were still with Paul when he wrote the second epistle, but after the Corinth history (Acts 18:1-28), Silas was no longer the Apostle’s companion. The cause for the second epistle is on the surface. False teachers had entered in|some, indeed, had even dared to forge the name of Paul to a spurious epistle leading astray the young converts on the question of the Day of the Lord and the Second Coming of Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:1-17), whom it was necessary for him to meet and answer. This forgery accomplished some good in a way, in that it caused Paul thereafter to attach a token of validity to all his epistles by which their genuineness might the more readily be established (2 Thessalonians 3:1-18). The external evidence for the genuineness of this epistle, therefore, is the same as that for the former one; while as to the internal, what was said of that may be said of this, that its contents have only to be understood to be accepted as the work of Paul. See Synthetic Bible Studies, “II Thessalonians.” The next group of Paul’s epistles, that associated with his third missionary journey, embraces I and II Corinthians, Galatians and Romans. On this journey Paul had passed three years at Ephesus, the story of which sojourn is found in Acts 19:1-41 (see also Acts 20:1-38). Now Corinth is just across the way from Ephesus, i.e., on the opposite shore of the Aegean Sea, the traffic and travel between the two being about as common as that between Liverpool and New York at the present-time. In the church at Corinth there had been some disorders, |questions of casuistry had arisen, and therefore the proximity of Paul was seized upon to set matters right. Messengers were sent to him with letters asking information, and verbal inquiries, to which he made reply in what we have come to denominate as his first epistle to that church (see 1 Corinthians 1:10-11; 1 Corinthians 7:1, etc.). The genuineness of this epistle is undoubted, the witnesses for it stretching far back into antiquity, even Baur himself, referred to a moment ago, suffering it to go unchallenged. The second epistle (II Corinthians) to this church was written not very long after the first. The Apostle had left Ephesus, however, gone up to Troas, crossed the Aegean at that point, and was somewhere in Macedonia, probably Philippi, en route to Corinth itself. See 1 Corinthians 16:5, for the expression of his purpose to visit that city again by this route; compare also the 2 Corinthians 2:12-13. Paul had enemies in the church at Corinth, opponents of the Gospel as he preached it, and of the ways he used, who were seeking to undermine his authority as an apostle and contradict his teachings. It was to bring these to a more proper understanding that he had planned this second visit; “but that on his arrival he might have less cause for severity, and be better able to unite with them in sincere thanksgiving to God, he anticipates his coming by this epistle.” He reminds them, for example, of “their true relations to himself and to his office,” and explains the occasional severity of his first epistle on the ground of his sincere and loving purpose to bless them in the Gospel of Christ. Both the external and internal evidence of the genuineness of this epistle are incontestable, although some question has been raised at times as to its unity. A careful reading of the epistle will show the occasion for such a question. There have been those who thought that we had here really two epistles instead of one, although there has not been unanimity among them as to the precise divisions of the two. Some would make 2 Corinthians 1:1-24; 2 Corinthians 2:1-17; 2 Corinthians 3:1-18; 2 Corinthians 4:1-18; 2 Corinthians 5:1-21; 2 Corinthians 6:1-18; 2 Corinthians 7:1-16; 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, and 2 Corinthians 13:11-13, one epistle, and the remaining chapters and verses another. It is true, indeed, that subjects of a very different character are discussed in it, and that a different kind of spirit seems to pervade the different parts of this epistle, but in the words of a distinguished commentator, all this is sufficiently accounted for by the circumstances under which it was written. “It was composed in the midst of a journey, under overwhelming cares, by a writer of more than common sympathies, and with reference to persons as different in character and spirit as were the sincere but erring brethren at Corinth, and their corrupt and schismatical seducers.” When properly considered these things make for its genuineness not only, but its unity as well. In my judgment, of the two epistles yet to be treated of in this chapter, Galatians preceeded Romans in time. Paul had visited Galatia, a large province of Asia Minor, on both his second and third journeys, and founded a church or churches there, though no mention is made of any particular city or town in which he labored. He is now dwelling for a while at Ephesus (for this epistle was penned before he started for Macedonia en route to Corinth again), and while here reports reach him of false teachers who are disturbing the flock in Galatia as were others at Corinth. Their plan seemed to be much the same in both places, to undermine faith in Paul himself first, and then in the Gospel he preached, seeking to have the latter supplemented by the works of the Jewish ceremonial law. Paul addresses them, therefore, for the purpose of defending his apostolic authority in the first place (Galatians 1:1-24; Galatians 2:1-21), and then that of the Gospel he preached (Galatians 3:1-29; Galatians 4:1-31). The genuineness of this epistle like that of the preceding ones is unquestioned, the whole church being a unit in regard to it. Paul had not visited Rome up until this time, as is intimated in the first chapter of his epistle to the church at that place, but he had recently completed his epistle to the Galatians in which he had been led by the conditions existing there to open up the great and fundamental doctrine of justification by faith. He seems to have been possessed of a desire to enlarge upon that great truth, and Phoebe, a deaconess, being on her way to visit Rome (Romans 16:1-2), he embraced the opportunity to send a letter of salutation by her using it as a means to speak more fully of that which in the other case he had only touched upon. This is the view of the origin of Romans taken by Dean Alford, in his New Testament for English Readers, and probably as nearly correct as any. I should like to add this, however, that the difference between Galatians and Romans so far as the doctrine of justifying faith is concerned is, that the first reveals that truth from the human side, while the second does so from the divine. From the human side man is justified by believing on Jesus Christ, from the divine side he is justified by receiving as a free gift of grace the righteousness of God the instant he so believes on Jesus Christ. The reference to Phoebe, just above, suggests that this epistle, though following closely that to the Galatians, was nevertheless, not written in Ephesus but in Corinth after Paul’s second arrival there. It not only follows Galatians, therefore, but II Corinthians as well. The evidence for its Corinthian origin is this: In Romans 15:23-28, Paul expresses his purpose to visit Rome after first visiting Jerusalem. This we know to have been his purpose after his second visit to Corinth (Acts 19:21), a purpose subsequently carried out (Acts 24:17). Moreover, he mentions certain persons as being with him at the time of writing the epistle (Romans 16:21-23), the first three of which are known to have been with him at Corinth (Acts 20:4), one indeed, being his host (1 Corinthians 1:14). And finally, Phoebe herself, the bearer of the epistle, was a deaconess in the church at Cenchrea, which was the seaport of Corinth. No serious arguments have ever been presented against the genuineness, i.e., the Pauline authorship of this epistle. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 93: 06.28. PAUL'S EPISTLES--THE THIRD GROUP ======================================================================== Chapter 27 Paul’s Epistles--the Third Group The third group of the Pauline Epistles is that of the period of the imprisonment--including those to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and the personal letter to Philemon. Of course, Paul had more than one imprisonment--a long one at Cesarea, as well as that at Rome (see the story of both in Acts 21:1-40; Acts 22:1-30; Acts 23:1-35; Acts 24:1-27; Acts 25:1-27; Acts 26:1-32; Acts 27:1-44; Acts 28:1-31); but the most conclusive evidence points to Rome rather than Cesarea as the place where these epistles were written. It is perhaps unnecessary for us to go into the details which prove this. There is some question, indeed, as to which of the two first-named were written the earlier, but as to this also the preponderance of opinion is in favor of the order here given. The genuineness of Ephesians would seem to be proven by the text itself, which twice mentions Paul as its author (Ephesians 1:1; Ephesians 3:1). Moreover, these statements are corroborated by certain data in the text bearing upon Paul’s personal history. Finally the whole of the early church, heretical as well as faithful, is practically a unit in substantiating the same fact. The Baur School, and some others in the early part of the last century, ventured to question the genuineness of this epistle on the ground of its literary style and certain of its teachings, and surmised it to have been written by some attendant or disciple of the great apostle, but their objections have all been “fairly and fully confuted.” As one has well said, “Only such a man as Paul could be the author of this epistle. If then, he is not the author, where is the spirit to be found in those times equal to him? Such a one could not walk through the world and leave no trace behind. I ask then, Who and where is he?” Indeed a spurious writer fabricating the name of Paul to such a document as this, is on the face of it, almost inconceivable and self-contradictory. A little less certainty, but only a little less, attaches to the question as to where this epistle was sent. It is true that since the middle of the second century the whole church has called it “the Epistle to the Ephesians,” and it is so stated in the first verse. But the word “Ephesus” in that verse is not found in two of the early manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, an omission which throws some doubt upon it, giving a slight encouragement to those who would attribute its original destination to the Laodiceans, who were in the neighborhood of the Ephesians (compare Colossians 4:16). The contents of the epistle itself, however, and the apostle’s relation to the church at Ephesus, go to sustain the common acceptation, the strongest objection to it on internal grounds being that it contains no personal greetings. It is scarcely possible, some think, that Paul could have written to a church where he was so well known without sending such greetings. But in reply to this, Professor Riddle points out that this was peculiar to Paul, and that there are fewer personal references in those epistles written by him to the churches where he was well known, than in the case of the opposite. Examine the epistles to the Galatians, Philippians and Thessalonians, churches where Paul was well known, and observe that there are practically no personal greetings in them, while in the cases of Romans and Colossians, where he was presumably unknown, there are many. Dr. Hodge thinks, and I am inclined to agree with him, that “the most probable solution of the problem is, that the epistle was written to the Ephesians and addressed to them, but being intended for the Gentile Christians as a class, rather than for the Ephesians as a church, it was designedly thrown into such a form as to suit it to all Christians in the neighboring churches, to whom, no doubt, the apostle wished it to be communicated.” This epistle is regarded with good reason as by far the most difficult of all the writings of Paul, and to quote Dean Alford, “As the wonderful effect of the Spirit of inspiration is nowhere in Scripture more evident than here, so then to discern the things of the Spirit is the spiritual mind here more than anywhere required.” As to the Epistle to the Colossians, there is no doubt as to the place where it was sent, owing to such allusions corroborative of the salutation as are found in Colossians 2:1; Colossians 4:13-16. Colossae was in the vicinity of the cities named in these passages, in the south western part of Asia Minor and in the province known as Greater Phrygia. Paul visited that region on both his second and third journeys as we learn in Acts 10:1-48; Acts 11:1-30; Acts 12:1-25; Acts 13:1-52; Acts 14:1-28; Acts 15:1-41; Acts 16:1-40; Acts 17:1-34; Acts 18:1-28, but nothing is said as to his being in the city of Colossae itself or founding the church there, and the probability is that such was not the case. Indeed, the text itself would lead us to believe that such was not the case, see Colossians 1:3-7; Colossians 1:23; Colossians 2:1; Colossians 2:5. It is true that Paul was acquainted with some of the leaders of that church, such as Epaphras and Philemon, but this might easily be accounted for on other grounds. But if it should be asked, How then shall we account for Paul’s writing an epistle to a church which he did not found, we might reply by pointing to Romans, already mentioned--a church to which he wrote, but which he did not found. The church at Colossae was composed mainly of Gentile Christians, judging by the allusion in Colossians 2:13, and as the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul doubtless felt that he had a relationship and an obligation to that church which fully justified his letter. Touching the genuineness of the epistle, the text itself specifies Paul as its author (Colossians 1:1-24; Colossians 4:18). As in the case of Ephesians it also furnishes other corroborative data, such as allusions to his suffering as an apostle (Colossians 1:29), and especially as an apostle to the Gentiles (Colossians 4:11). It refers to that circle of companions which we know from other sources gathered around the apostle, such as Timothy, Epaphras, Tychicus, Onesimus, Luke, Mark, and Demas, and finally it deals with the same fundamental errors that are combated by Paul in other places, and “in such a way that the points of agreement and diversity are readily perceived.” Indeed, the genuineness of this epistle was never doubted in ancient times, nor indeed in modern times with any measure of success. The heresies which the apostle attacks, have led the Baur School to think that possibly it was written in a post-apostolic era and when those heresies were more developed than in Paul’s time, but this conjecture is unworthy of serious consideration in face of the facts already named. The germs of these heresies were in existence, earlier than the date of this epistle, and can be traced in some of Paul’s writings like Romans 14:12 and Galatians 2:3-4. The character of the Epistle to the Philippians distinguishes it in a marked way from either of the foregoing. To quote a commentator, “It is not divided as they are into a theoretical and hortatory part, but is a genuine out-gush of the heart, and bears more than any other a familiar character.” Its importance, aside from the one doctrinal passage (Php 2:5-11), lies in the province of practical life. More than once had this church contributed to the financial support of the apostle (Php 4:15-16), and now they have done it again, forwarding by a messenger their gifts to him at Rome (Php 4:10-20). It is this last act, together with the return of Epaphroditus (Php 2:25-30), which gave occasion for the letter. The letter itself designates Paul as its author; represents Timothy as one of his associates; refers to his imprisonment and his former preaching in Macedonia, and gives other data like the preceding epistles to substantiate that claim. The testimony of the early church is in the same direction, so that it seems almost foolish to refer to any modern criticism of the point, which is done only as in some other instances, as a matter of literary curiosity. Baur, for example, thought the epistle to contain gnostic ideas, that is, heretical teaching of the period post-apostolic, leading him to doubt its Pauline origin. He thought too that he found an inelegant word in one place, and one or two that were forced out of place in others. There were certain historical allusions, too, very obscure indeed to the average reader, which he thought to be post-Pauline, but in reference to all these things, those in whose judgment we may repose the utmost confidence assure us that when properly understood, they become voucher for the genuineness of the epistle instead of arguments against it. According to Php 1:7; Php 1:13-20 and Php 4:22, Paul was a prisoner when he wrote this epistle, but with freedom not only to write, but to preach. It is evident that he had been in that situation also for sometime. His references to the imperial palace, moreover, indicate, as we have already stated, that the place of his imprisonment was Rome. The letter to Philemon was written at the same time, and sent to the same place and makes mention of the same persons as Colossians. The early church amply attests its genuineness, and from the internal point of view, “it is strongly marked by those incidental relations of thought and expression which indicate an author’s hand. It contains but ten words not found in his other writings.” This last-named circumstance, however, strange to say, has been seized upon by some modern critics to disprove the Pauline authorship rather than to prove it, as if a writer having produced two or three compositions must thereafter confine himself to the very same vocabulary in all his subsequent productions, no matter what his subject or how long the time intervening between his writings. Professor Hackett well says: “This is hypercriticism, betraying a morbid sensibility to doubt.” The internal evidence of genuineness, marked by these relationships of thought and expression, is corroborated in a most interesting manner by many historical allusions, in which the apostle refers to events in his own life or to other persons with whom he was connected, and which harmonize perfectly with similar statements or incidental allusions in his other epistles or in the Acts. The occasion for the epistle is easily discernible from the text. Onesimus was a slave of Philemon, a Christian master, and had fled out of fear of punishment, because, presumably, of a theft he had committed. He comes into contact with Paul at Rome and is won to Jesus Christ. Paul is now sending his fellow laborer Tychicus to Ephesus and Colossae with a letter to those churches, and avails himself of the opportunity to send back Onesimus to Philemon, whom he commends at the same time to the church at Colossae. He also gives the slave this letter to secure him a kind reception on the part of Philemon, and if possible, a remission of his punishment. The entire story reads so much like a romance that it has been difficult for some to believe it to be true, and yet profane history has a parallel related in one of the letters of the younger Pliny; although, as scholars have pointed out, the communication of Paul is very much the superior of the two, “not only in the spirit of Christianity, of which Pliny was ignorant, but in dignity of thought, argument, beauty of style and eloquence.” ======================================================================== CHAPTER 94: 06.29. THE PASTORAL EPISTLES ======================================================================== Chapter 28 The Pastoral Epistles The fourth and last group of the Pauline writings is known commonly as the Pastoral Epistles, and consists of the two to Timothy and that to Titus. They are called “Pastoral” because they are addressed to young pastors and deal, not with the great questions of doctrine and philosophy except incidentally, but with the practical matters of the pastoral and ministerial office. Their genuineness has been questioned more than that of any other writings of Paul on the ground of peculiarities in the phraseology and because that matters of church polity are discussed in a way to indicate a later period of ecclesiastical development, than that of his time; but as the early church received them without question, and as all the peculiarities and other matters may readily be explained by difference of time, subject and other circumstances, there need be no hesitation on our part to receive them as well. It is to be hoped that the preceding chapters have made clear that the question of the genuineness of any of these writings is not identical with that of its inspiration or authority, but only touches its authorship. These epistles may not have been written by Paul, but by some other inspired writer and yet have just the same interest and authority for us, although it must be confessed that the thought of the Pauline authorship is so bound up with them, that to see good evidence to doubt it, would lead one to doubt them. But such evidence, as we have said, does not exist. Timothy, to whom two of these epistles are addressed, was probably a native of Lystra or Derbe (Acts 16:1), the son of a Jewish mother and Greek father, who had received a thorough training in the Old Testament Scriptures (2 Timothy 1:5; 2 Timothy 3:14-15). He was probably converted to Jesus Christ under Paul’s ministry on the occasion of the first visit of Paul to his neighborhood (Acts 14:1-28; 1 Timothy 1:2), and chosen to be his traveling companion and assistant on his second visit. In this capacity he probably continued with more or less interruption until after Paul’s release from his first imprisonment at Rome (for Paul seems to have suffered another imprisonment later than that recorded in the Acts), when he left Timothy at Ephesus, he himself being en route to Macedonia. At Ephesus Timothy seems to have filled the office of bishop or overseer of the church or churches (1 Timothy 1:3), where he labored, apparently, until Paul during his second imprisonment called him again to Rome (2 Timothy 4:21). Later on, he himself seems to have been cast into prison, though when, where or why, we do not know (Hebrews 13:23), and tradition has it that he suffered martyrdom somewhere near the close of the second century. Timothy is everywhere spoken of in terms of praise and as possessing many gifts and graces, but his apparent youth (1 Timothy 4:12), and state of health (1 Timothy 5:23), superadded doubtless to the trying situation in the church of Ephesus everywhere touched upon in the two epistles addressed to him, made it necessary for Paul to admonish him again and again. From these admonitions we gather that Timothy was a man of a somewhat timid, perhaps weak or wavering disposition, requiring constant spurs to activity, although there are those who would disagree in this opinion about him. It is a question, however, which any reader of the Acts and the epistles of Paul may determine for himself. As to the first epistle, Paul was on the road from Ephesus to Macedonia when he wrote it (1 Timothy 1:3), but, as already intimated, this does not refer to the journey spoken of in Acts 20:1-38, after the uproar in the theater, but a much later one, following his liberation from the Roman imprisonment, and not narrated in the Acts. The contents of the epistle show progress and development in ecclesiastical affairs which demand a certain lapse of time from the so-called prison epistles to account for them, bringing us perhaps to A.D. 64 or 65. Heretical teachers had arisen, and Timothy was young and needed counsel for his conduct and encouragement. He needed also a public testimony from the great apostle to the agreement of their respective teachings. This explains the epistle from the human point of view, but from the divine point of view we may feel assured that the Holy Spirit was thinking of and caring for the wants of the church in coming generations, as well as in that place and time. This does not mean that we have here expressed the fixed forms in which church polity must always move from century to century in all lands, but it does mean that here we are to find the great, unchangeable, fundamentals which govern them. The epistle to Titus intervenes before the second to Timothy. Titus is not named in the Acts, and what we learn of him is incidentally mentioned in the Pauline epistles. He was by birth a Greek (Galatians 2:3), and converted to Christianity under Paul (Titus 1:4). He traveled with Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem on the occasion of the first great council (Acts 15:1-41; Galatians 2:1-21), and afterwards with Paul in certain of his missionary journeys. The apostle frequently names him in terms of commendation, several times indeed in 2 Corinthians 7:1-16; 2 Corinthians 8:1-24; 2 Corinthians 9:1-15; 2 Corinthians 10:1-18; 2 Corinthians 11:1-33; 2 Corinthians 12:1-21. At the time of this epistle we do not know the whereabouts of Paul, but Titus was in Crete, an island in the Mediterranean, near the mouth of the Aegean, where he had been left by Paul for much the same reason as Timothy at Ephesus (Titus 1:5), although it is not as easy to determine when this may have taken place. Some imagine it to have been after Paul’s first imprisonment as in the other case. Titus joined Paul in Rome afterward, as there is reason to believe (2 Timothy 4:10); and was with him doubtless in his second imprisonment, although tradition relates that he died and was buried in Crete at the age of 94. Titus had a difficult task in Crete, for the people are described to be “unsteady, insincere, quarrelsome, and given to licentiousness and intemperance.” It was therefore necessary for Titus to be prepared and strengthened for the contest evidently before him by having in his hands the written instructions to which he might appeal and in proof that he was acting in accordance with apostolic mandates. But, as Calvin states, and any reader of the epistle will perceive, it was written scarcely more for Titus himself than for the church as well. The second letter to Timothy was written when Paul was in prison the second time and saw his martyrdom at hand. That it is not the time of his first imprisonment is shown in the fact that Mark is not present with him (2 Timothy 4:11), though he was with him during the earlier imprisonment (Colossians 4:10). Nor was Timothy with him now although he had been with him previously (Php 1:1). Timothy is now at Ephesus where he was on the occasion of the first epistle, and this is sent to him for the purpose of encouraging him in the performance of his duties, and also acquainting him with the condition of the apostle in view of his approaching end, and to urge him to come to see him as soon as possible and bring Mark with him. The tone of the epistle is even more natural and affectionate than the farmer one, and while the apostle still inveighs against the false teachers, he is speaking now more than formerly “in the tender grief of a departing father.” The mention of many individuals is an internal evidence of genuineness, and without any extended argument, the epistle may be said to be “a self-evident and lasting authority for the martyrdom of the great apostle.” Van Oosterzee, from whom the last two sentences are quoted, speaks of it, and truly, as “a treasure to the Christian church of all ages, and a noble crown to Paul’s earlier testimony.” ======================================================================== CHAPTER 95: 06.30. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS ======================================================================== Chapter 29 The Epistle to the Hebrews We are accustomed to consider the epistle to the Hebrews as a work of Paul, but it may be questioned whether the claim is tenable. You will notice that the name of no author is given in the book itself, while that in the title, as found in some of our Bibles, is simply a human suggestion and not a divine authorization. Hebrews, indeed, like Romans, is more of a treatise than an epistle or a personal letter, since it begins with no greetings and contains no messages or salutations to individuals. Its aim is simply to furnish an argument in favor of one definite proposition. Moreover, it is addressed to no particular church, although there are not wanting evidences in the tone of certain passages to indicate that such must have been the case originally, and that the church addressed was not composed of Gentile but Jewish converts to Christianity. Whoever these Jewish Christians were, they had been subjected to severe persecutions, causing a weakening of their faith and creating a desire to return to the rest and ease, to say nothing of the pomp and glory of their old religion of Judaism. It is clear that Jerusalem and the temple were still standing and the elaborate Mosaic ceremonial in operation, which contributed, doubtless, to the power of their temptation. The proof of this is founded on the use of the present tense in speaking of the temple services (Hebrews 9:6-7; Hebrews 10:1, etc.), and, indeed, on the whole scope of the argument. If Jerusalem and the temple had been destroyed at the time, it would have done away with the immediate object of the epistle, because it would have done away with the chief temptation to apostatize to Judaism. This temptation, therefore, was not merely to supplement the faith of the Gospel by the works of the law, as in the case of the Gentile Galatians, but to apostatize altogether and give up Christianity for their old faith. This faith had been introduced by the prophets and spoken by angels; it was associated with the greatness of Moses and the splendor of the Aaronic priesthood; it was hard, therefore, to turn their backs upon it for the substitute offered by a poor, rejected, and crucified carpenter of Nazareth. The inspired writer meets the situation in a very simple and tactful way by demonstrating once for all, the superiority of Christianity over Judaism. There were many ways in which this might have been done, but only one is selected, namely, the superiority of Christianity as seen in its Founder, Christ. He was superior to the prophets, to the angels, to Moses, to Aaron. Between these different parts of his argument, the writer interjects appeals and warnings against apostasy, with glowing exhortations to steadfastness in the faith. The above allusion to the epistle to the Galatians suggests an interesting contrast between the two, which others have pointed out, and which, indeed, is quite apparent to any careful reader. In the first-named epistle, Paul is demonstrating that the law of Moses is not binding upon Gentiles, and that is possessed simply a transitory or intermediate position between the original promise to Abraham and its fulfillment in Christ. He therefore treats the question polemically, using expressions now and again calculated to wound the vanity and arouse the opposition of Jewish readers. But the author of Hebrews pursues a different tack. He is dealing with Judaism, “not as a law but as a system of worship,” and while showing the superiority of the new religion to the old, is able at the same time to do so without detracting from the old. He shows Christianity to be a development of Judaism, of which it is an antitype. If Judaism had its glory, therefore, and he admits its glory, how much greater must be that of Christianity. The authorship of this epistle is scarcely more of a mystery than its destination, some supposing it to have been sent to the church at Jerusalem, some to Alexandria and some to Rome. The advocates of the place last-named would lay stress upon the salutation in Hebrews 13:24, “They of Italy salute you,” but it must be evident that such an expression might have been used in addressing any city in the world, since there must have been Christians everywhere whose home had once been in Italy. But the most interesting question concerning this epistle is that of its human author, who, as already intimated, can hardly be Paul. There are several arguments for this, well marshaled in any of the cyclopedia articles on the subject and in the introductions to the book found in the different commentaries, but that of Dean Farrar in the Cambridge Bible, from which we quote an expression here and there, is particularly full and interesting. For example, one argument against the Pauline authorship is the great difference in style between the epistle to the Hebrews and Paul’s writings generally When Paul’s emotions are stirred he writes with a fervid eloquence that never pauses to round a period, while the writer in this case seems to delight in amplifications and euphonious expressions, possessing more literary self-control. To quote Farrar, “The rhetoric of this writer resembles the flow of a river, while that of Paul, the rush of a mountain torrent amid opposing rocks.” A second argument is found in the source of the quotations from the Old Testament. Paul in his writings usually quotes from the Hebrew manuscripts, while this writer follows the Septuagint version, even when it differs somewhat from the Hebrew. In the next place, while, of course, the writer of this epistle agrees with Paul on all the doctrines of the Gospel, yet he handles them with a different terminology. Paul generally speaks of the Savior as “Our Lord Jesus Christ,” or “Christ Jesus, our Lord,” while this writer usually refers to him as “Jesus,” or “The Lord,” or “Christ.” In all the thirteen epistles of Paul the words “priest” and “high priest” do not occur, while here they are mentioned thirty-two times. Paul, in speaking of the redemptive work of Christ dwells continually upon the mysteries of his death as an expiatory sacrifice, while this writer simply assuming all that Paul has written on that subject, refers simply to the fact that Christ offered himself as a sacrifice, without adding any explanation or comment upon it. Paul uses the word “justification” to describe the result of Christ’s work toward the believer, but this writer uses the word, or its equivalent, “righteousness” in its simple and original sense of moral rectitude. Another feature is spoken of as its Alexandrian (Egypt) character, and the resemblances it contains to the writings of Philo, the chief Jewish philosopher of the Alexandrian school of thought--a line of suggestion hardly within the scope of this chapter to pursue. More important for us is the knowledge that while the Eastern or Asiatic church gave a certain currency to the belief in the Pauline authorship on the ground of superficial points of resemblance, the early Western church seems to have known that it did not belong to Paul. Not a single writer in the Western church for the first three centuries attributes it to Paul, and even as late as the seventh century we find traces of hesitation in so ascribing it although at this time “a loose habit had sprung up of quoting it as his.” Who then, was its author? “From the epistle itself,” thus says Farrar, “we gather with almost a certainty the following facts: That the writer was a Jew; that he was a Grecian Jew; familiar with the writings of Philo; ‘an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures;’ a friend of Timothy; not an apostle but one who had been taught by the apostles (Hebrews 2:3); acquainted with the teachings of Paul and harmonious therewith; writing before the destruction of Jerusalem.” From all of these facts the author just mentioned assumes the writer of the epistle to have been Apollos, who he thinks meets all the requirements. He is not alone in this judgment, but is in the company of an ever increasing line of scholars. We do well to remember, however, that this is only an inference after all, and we cannot be accused of prejudice or blind ignorance if, notwithstanding, we should continue to speak of the epistle as the work of Paul, as the present writer finds himself doing very frequently from the force of habit at least. It is a comfort to know that notwithstanding the doubt as to the authorship of this book, its canonicity is attested beyond question, resting on the fact that it has been accepted from the earliest time both by the Eastern and Western churches. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 96: 06.31. THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES ======================================================================== Chapter 30 The General Epistle of James We have now reached that part of the New Testament containing the General or Catholic epistles. They are so called because they are addressed not to any particular individual or church, but to the church at large. And yet this is not true of all of them, as we shall see, giving us an opportunity to remark that this general title, like the headings to the chapters in our English Bible, and the superscriptions in italics at the end of some of the books are not part of the inspired text, and have no authority but that of the human printer or editor--often not to be relied upon, as in the present case. To begin with the authorship of the first of these epistles, there are three persons named James mentioned in the New Testament. One was the brother of John, another the son of Alpheus, and a third the brother of our Lord. The first named was martyred at an early date in the history of the church (Acts 12:1-25), and is not likely to have been the author, because, although the epistle is doubtless of an early date, yet it reveals a state of Christian or church development more advanced than that likely to have been true then. Nor is it likely to have been written by the son of Alpheus, for nothing is heard of him in the later history of the church, while the James who wrote this epistle is evidently well known and influential, a fact which was also true, it would seem, of James the brother of our Lord. It is he, apparently, who presided at the first council of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-41), and who is distinguished in other places as a leader, notably Acts 12:17; Acts 21:18, Galatians 1:19, Jude 1:1, etc. A peculiar interest attaches to the fact that, as the brother of our Lord, he did not believe on Him as the Messiah up until the resurrection perhaps. Compare John 7:5 with Acts 1:13, and 1 Corinthians 15:7. His conversion may have taken place at the time mentioned in the last named Scripture, which, if so, accounts for his presence with the church as shown in the reference to the Acts. Tradition teaches us that he was a particularly holy and just man, being designated indeed, “James the Just;” and that he ended his life in martyrdom, being stoned to death under one of the high priests, sometime after the death of Festus mentioned in the Acts. As to his religious character, he was a very strict Jew, a faithful observer of the law, both moral and ceremonial, without, of course, relying upon it as a ground of salvation. He gave Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship in their work among and for the Gentiles, but personally he remained more firmly attached to the Jewish form or aspect of Christianity. His place in the Christian scheme was to win over the Jewish people, and no one probably was better fitted for this than he. The epistle is addressed “to the twelve tribes scattered abroad,” which proves its Jewish designation; but that they were Christian Jews nevertheless is shown in the further language of the salutation, where James styles himself “a servant of Jesus Christ.” There are several indications in the epistle of their Jewish origin, however; for example, their place of assembly is called a “synagogue,” (James 2:2, Revised Version), and there are several references to the law. As to their social condition they seem to have been composed of rich and poor, the tendency of some of the former being both to oppress and despise the latter. Like all the other classes of Christians, they were passing through trials of various kinds, and like them, too, they were more or less under the influence of false teachers. The doctrine of justification only by faith was especially being perverted among them, and from various points of view, indeed, their condition was disclosed as quite unsatisfactory. The writer comforts them in their trials, but he sternly rebukes them for their sins, and seeks throughout to give them much needed instruction concerning the matters in which they were in error--(Quoted from Synthetic Bible Studies, “James”). There are indications, as already intimated, that this epistle was written at an early date, perhaps the earliest of all the epistles. For example, no reference is made to the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-41), which would have been likely to have been done had it yet taken place. Moreover, the epistle contains no recognition at all of any Gentile Christians, while the word “synagogue” is the only one employed to designate a place of Christian worship. These circumstances are not convincing, of course, but suggestive. The canonicity of the epistle is firmly established. While at first, it was questioned in the Western church, I believe, yet the Eastern received it from the beginning, and at an early date, comparatively speaking, it was universally recognized. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 97: 06.32. THE GENERAL EPISTLES OF PETER AND JUDE ======================================================================== Chapter 31 The General Epistles of Peter and Jude The second of the authors of the so-called “General” epistles in the order of our Bibles is Peter, for whose personal history it is only necessary to examine such passages as John 1:35-42; Mark 8:29-30; Matthew 4:18-22; Matthew 16:13-23; Matthew 26:57-75; Acts 1:1-26; Acts 2:1-47; Acts 3:1-26; Acts 4:1-37; Acts 5:1-42; Acts 6:1-15; Acts 7:1-60; Acts 8:1-40; Acts 9:1-43; Acts 10:1-48; Acts 11:1-30; Acts 12:1-25, and Galatians 2:11-21. Of the latter part of his life nothing is definitely known, although tradition holds that after his visit to Antioch mentioned in the Scripture last referred to, he remained at Jerusalem some years, then visited Syria and the Asiatic provinces mentioned in his first epistle (where he wrote that epistle), afterwards going to Rome where he was crucified in the reign of Nero, according to the prediction shadowed forth in John 21:18-19. The question of Peter’s visiting Rome, however, is one still open to very earnest dispute; Roman Catholics alleging that he was the founder of the church there, actually residing in that city for twenty-five years; others denying that he ever visited the city at all; while a third class maintains the position indicated in the former paragraph. That Peter was not the founder of the church of Rome, however, would seem to be almost necessitated by Paul’s words in Romans 1:8-15, compared with his declaration in 2 Corinthians 10:15-16. The destination of the first epistle as indicated in the opening verse, suggests that of James dealt with in the preceding chapter. These “strangers” were doubtless “sojourners of the dispersion,” i.e. Jewish Christians for the most part, scattered abroad in these various provinces, although some Gentiles were also distributed among them as we may judge by such allusions as 1 Peter 1:14; 1 Peter 4:3, etc. The place where the epistle was written seems to have been Babylon (1 Peter 5:13), which some writers, chiefly Roman Catholics, have affected to apply, mystically, to Rome. There is, however, no conclusive evidence that at the time the epistle was written such a title as “Babylon” was ever given to Rome, although afterwards ecclesiastical writers accepted it, basing their opinion on certain allusions to Babylon in the book of Revelation, has, for example, Revelation 14:1-20). Late interpretations of this mysterious book of Revelation are increasingly in favor of the idea that Babylon therein means the ancient city of that name, revived in the last days, preparatory to the final judgment falling upon her, in the fulfillment of the early prophecies in Isaiah and Jeremiah. But at the time of the Reformation, and incident thereto, the interpretation was all the other way, and Babylon was none other than Rome, whose judgment for her wicked treatment of the saints was soon to be executed. It was this that gave countenance on the part of Protestants to the old time holding of the Roman Catholics that Babylon in I Peter may have meant Rome. But as we have intimated, there is no good reason why such a figurative name should have been given to it in the time of Peter, while as another pointedly says, “such a piece of symbolism is plainly unsuited to epistolary writing.” The general object of the epistle is stated by its author in 1 Peter 5:12, as that of “exhorting and testifying” concerning “the true grace of God.” This “true grace of God” is revealed practically in the first twelve verses of the epistle which conclude the doctrinal part, the remainder being given to the application of the truth in those verses. Another way to analyze the epistle is to style its theme “The Living Hope and its Obligations.” The “living hope” is set before us in the doctrinal verses referred to; and the obligations follow to the end of the epistle. Happily, no doubt has ever existed from the beginning as to the genuineness or canonicity of this book. The same cannot be said, however, of the second epistle of this same author, which was not mentioned by any of the earliest Christian writers. The reason for the doubt as to its authorship is found altogether in the differences of its tone and style from that of the first epistle, but this reason is hardly conclusive in view of the points of resemblance between the two epistles which may easily be discovered, and also in view of the fact that the second epistle is treating of an entirely different subject from the first|in an entirely different way. “The first epistle is chiefly hortatory, the second polemical.” Furthermore, while the earliest Christian writers do not mention the epistle, the later writers do, i.e., those of the fourth century, all of whom attribute it to Peter, and all of whom had better opportunity for original investigation of the matter than have we today. The second epistle seems to have been addressed to the same persons as the first (see 2 Peter 3:1-18); but while the first was, to a great extent, an exhortation to patience under trial and suffering, the second is an exhortation to fidelity and “perseverance in the truth amid prevailing error.” It is interesting to note, too, that this prevailing error related to the second coming of Christ which the scoffers of that early period denied, as do their successors in our own time. “Among the peculiarities of this epistle is a remarkable resemblance of certain passages, especially in the second chapter, to the epistle of Jude; from which it is impossible to resist the conclusion, either that one writer quoted from the other, or both from a common source.” Some think Jude was the original and some think Peter, but it is impossible to determine the point nor is it essential. Speaking of Jude, we feel led to incorporate our allusions to him in this chapter, somewhat out of his proper place, in order to devote the following one to the concluding writings of John. While Jude describes himself as the brother of James he omits to designate which James, and we have seen in a previous chapter that there were three leading personages of that name in the apostolic church. There was indeed an apostle by the name of Jude, other than Judas Iscariot, but this could hardly have been he, it is thought, because he would have so designated himself rather than as brother of James. Jude 1:17 also intimates that he was not an apostle. Most commentators or expositors regard him as the brother of James the author of the epistle, and hence as being himself, like that James, one of the brothers of our Lord, but nothing further is known concerning him. The epistle seems to be addressed to Christians in general, though it contains so many allusions to the contents of the Old Testament as to suggest that Jews rather than Gentiles may have been especially in mind. For such allusions see Jude 1:5; Jude 1:7; Jude 1:11, etc. The epistle is notable also for its non Biblical or rather extra Biblical allusions (see Jude 1:2; Jude 1:14 particularly). These allusions are to Jewish apocalyptic books of about the time of Christ or a little earlier, and while such books cannot be classed as canonical or inspired for reasons already given in this work, yet the quotations from or allusions to their contents, herein indicated, take on all that character because of their employment by the pens of those who were as truly inspired to quote from truth or fact elsewhere expressed as to express themselves in an original form. The canonicity or genuineness of Jude may be accepted without question. Similar objections may be raised against it as have appeared in connection with other of the epistles treated heretofore, but the replies would be practically of the same character as well. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 98: 06.33. THE EPISTLES AND REVELATION OF JOHN ======================================================================== Chapter 32 The Epistles and Revelation of John The last of the General epistles are the first, second and third of John, to which for the purpose of this concluding chapter of part I, we shall add the book of Revelation written by the same author. But how do we know that the so called First Epistle of John was written by that apostle? His name is not prefixed to it, indeed, but it has always been attributed to him nevertheless, from the earliest times, and this, as much as for any other reason, because of the remarkable similarity of its style and contents to the fourth Gospel. It is very evident, in any event, that it must have been written by an eyewitness of the earthly life of our Lord (1 John 1:1-4; 1 John 4:14, etc.), although the nature of the doctrinal errors it condemns indicates that the date of its writing must have been in an advanced period of the development of the church, possibly the last decade of the first century. Those doctrinal errors seem to have been of a threefold character--all centering in the Person of our Lord. There were those who already denied the deity of Christ, others who denied His humanity, and still a third class who denied the union of the two natures in the one Person from the beginning of His life in the flesh. The first are attacked in such passages as 1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:15; 1 John 5:1; the second in 1 John 1:1; 1 John 4:3; 1 John 5:6; while the third are met in the harmonization of these apparent contradictory teachings. But, of course, while the offsetting of these errors may have been the governing reasons for the writing of the epistle, yet its contents include much more. The theme of the whole as stated by the writer himself in 1 John 1:1-10, is that of “Fellowship with God,” and it is beautiful, indeed, to observe the manner in which the theme is wrought out. Three definitions of God are given. Light, Righteousness, and Love, and it is shown that fellowship with him involves one’s walking in the light, doing righteousness, and experiencing and manifesting love. The whole idea is worked out more fully in the author’s Synthetic Bible Studies, “I John.” The epistle is not addressed to any particular church or individual, but there are internal reasons for regarding it as meant for Gentile Christians chiefly, and doubtless in the region of Asia Minor where John himself labored. See 1 John 2:7; 1 John 2:12-14; 1 John 2:20-27. The second epistle is addressed to “the elect lady,” although some would render it “the elect Kyria,” making the last word a proper name. She was some Christian mother of prominence in the church, dwelling at Ephesus it may be, and probably a widow, since no mention is made of her husband. The letter is addressed to her and her children for the purpose of encouraging them in the truth and strengthening them against false teachers. While it is not stated therein that it was written by John, or even an apostle, but “the elder” or “presbyter,” yet there has never been any question in the church as to the identity of its source with that of the first epistle. Indeed, nearly three-fifths of its contents are identical in substance with that epistle, leading an able expositor to say in substance, that “both epistles (the second and the third), present such an affinity with the first, both generally and in particulars, as to lead us to attribute them to the same writer. This affinity cannot be explained as an imitation. Moreover the little that is peculiar to the whole three as distinct from the Gospel of John, is not of a character to warrant the supposition that they have come from a different hand, and is far outweighed by the points of resemblance.” Gaius, or Caius, was the name of the individual saint to whom the third epistle was addressed. Perhaps he was the same one mentioned in Romans 16:23 and 1 Corinthians 1:14, and yet the name was not an uncommon one, and he may have been another person altogether. It has always been attributed to the apostle John, practically without any dispute. Its contents also are of interest outside of their immediate application, from the insight they afford of the church life in the closing years of the apostolic age. The Apocalypse, or Revelation, states in Revelation 1:1 that its human means of communication to man was John, and although it is not stated that this was the apostle John, yet any other supposition has never seriously been contended for. There was an hypothesis, as old as the fourth century, that it might be ascribed to a “Presbyter John,” perhaps a contemporary of the apostle, and living in the second century, but it is now, I believe, regarded as altogether untenable. But while there is practically no dispute as to the author, there is nevertheless, quite a difference of opinion as to the date when Revelation was written. The text of the first chapter informs us that the author was an exile on Patmos in the Aegean Sea at the time of some (Roman) persecution, and it seems impossible to determine absolutely whether this was in the reign of Nero in the sixties, or that of Domitian in the nineties. Irenaeus, one of the Christian fathers, who died A.D. 170, explicitly places it in the latter reign, while Tertullian, 50 years subsequently, assigns it by tradition to the former. A strong argument in favor of the tradition is the difference in language or style between the Revelation and the Gospel of John, so great as to be “explained only by the Gospel having been a later work by many years,” for the Gospel is in smooth and beautiful Greek compared with the Revelation which is very rugged, “Hebrew and Greek constructions being intermingled very strangely.” The Gospel, it is thought, and this is true also of the three epistles of John, must have been penned after a long residence in Ephesus “amid the influence of Greek culture and civilization,” while the Revelation bears more of the marks of the Galilean fisherman. The reference also to Jerusalem and the temple in Revelation 2:1-29, seems to imply their existence when Revelation was written, which would place the date before 70. Much may be said, however, in favor of the later date which, in my opinion, is the correct one. One argument is the advanced stage of ecclesiastical development as shown in the condition of the churches addressed in the first three chapters. Another is the use of the phrase “The Lord’s Day,” as distinguishing the first day of the week, which was the designation of the earlier time. A third is the evidence of a more general state of persecution which these same epistles to the churches present as compared with what we know to have been the case in the sixties. We cannot undertake to give anything of an outline of this mysterious book (Revelation), for which the reader is referred to the author’s earlier work alluded to above. But it may be well to add this, that the more study and reflection he bestows upon it, the more is he persuaded that, excepting the first three chapters, the book is largely Jewish in its application, and is to find its fulfillment in a comparatively brief period of time, known in the prophet Daniel as the last of the seventy weeks, or the culmination of the present age. The Jews will have been restored to their own land in that day, though still in an unconverted state, and the Gentile nations of the Roman world will be gathered against them under the leadership of the Anti-Christ. The judgments depicted in the book are those which are to fall on Israel in part, on those Gentile nations, and on that Wicked One who is at the head of them. It is at the close of these events that the Millennium is introduced upon the earth as indicated in Revelation 20:1-15. ======================================================================== Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/writings-of-james-m-gray-volume-1/ ========================================================================