======================================================================== WRITINGS OF SIR ROBERT ANDERSON - VOLUME 1 by Sir Robert Anderson ======================================================================== A collection of theological writings, sermons, and essays by Sir Robert Anderson (Volume 1), compiled for study and devotional reading. Chapters: 100 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TABLE OF CONTENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. 0.00 - Title/Conent 2. 1. The Works of Sir Robert Anderson 3. 1.00.1-A DOUBTER'S DOUBTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND RELIGION 4. 1.01.00.2. PREFACE 5. 1.01.01. CHAPTER 1: HOW DID LIFE BEGIN? 6. 1.01.02. CHAPTER 2: THE DARWINIAN THEORY 7. 1.01.03. CHAPTER 3: HERBERT SPENCER'S SCHEME 8. 1.01.04. CHAPTER 4: HAVE WE A REVELATION? 9. 1.01.05. CHAPTER 5: IS CHRISTIANITY DIVINE? 10. 1.01.06. CHAPTER 6: MR. A. J. BALFOUR'S SCHEME 11. 1.01.07. CHAPTER 7: THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS 12. 1.01.08. CHAPTER 8: "AN AGNOSTIC'S APOLOGY" 13. 1.01.09. CHAPTER 9: THE IRRATIONALISM OF INFIDELITY 14. 1.01.10. CHAPTER 10: A SCEPTIC'S PLEA FOR FAITH 15. 1.01.11. CHAPTER 11: HOW TO READ THE BIBLE 16. 1.01.12. CHAPTER 12: THE HIGHER CRITICISM 17. 1.01.13. APPENDIX 18. 1.02.0. CHRIST AND CRITICISM 19. 1.02.1. CHRIST AND CRITICISM. 20. 1.03.00.1. THE COMING PRINCE 21. 1.03.00.2. PREFACE TO THE TENTH EDITION 22. 1.03.00.3. PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION A DEFENSE OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL..... 23. 1.03.01. CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY 24. 1.03.02. CHAPTER 2. DANIEL AND HIS TIMES 25. 1.03.03. CHAPTER 3. THE KING'S DREAM AND THE PROPHET'S VISIONS 26. 1.03.04. CHAPTER 4. THE VISION BY THE RIVER OF ULAI 27. 1.03.05. CHAPTER 5. THE ANGEL'S MESSAGE 28. 1.03.06. CHAPTER 6. THE PROPHETIC YEAR 29. 1.03.07. CHAPTER 7. THE MYSTIC ERA OF THE WEEKS 30. 1.03.08. CHAPTER 8. "MESSIAH THE PRINCE" 31. 1.03.09. CHAPTER 9. THE PASCHAL SUPPER 32. 1.03.10. CHAPTER 10. FULFILLMENT OF THE PROPHECY 33. 1.03.11. CHAPTER 11. PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION 34. 1.03.12. CHAPTER 12. FULLNESS OF THE GENTILES 35. 1.03.13. CHAPTER 13. SECOND SERMON ON THE MOUNT 36. 1.03.14. CHAPTER 14. THE PATMOS VISIONS 37. 1.03.15. CHAPTER XV. THE COMING PRINCE 38. 1.03.17. APPENDIX 2. MISCELLANEOUS: WHO AND WHEN 39. 1.03.18. APPENDIX 3. A RETROSPECT AND A REPLY 40. 1.04.00. DANIEL IN THE CRITICS' DEN 41. 1.04.01. PREFACE 42. 1.04.02. PREFATORY NOTE TO THE THIRD EDITION 43. 1.04.03. CHAPTER 1: THE "HIGHER CRITICISM," AND DEAN FARRAR'S ESTIMATE OF THE BIBLE 44. 1.04.04. CHAPTER 2: THE "HISTORICAL ERRORS" OF DANIEL 45. 1.04.05. CHAPTER 3: HISTORICAL ERRORS CONTINUED: BELSHAZZAR AND DARIUS THE MEDE 46. 1.04.06. CHAPTER 4: "PHILOLOGICAL PECULIARITIES": THE LANGUAGE OF DANIEL 47. 1.04.07. CHAPTER 5: THE POSITIVE EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF DANIEL 48. 1.04.08. CHAPTER 6: "VIOLENT ERRORS" 49. 1.04.09. CHAPTER 7: PROFESSOR DRIVER'S "BOOK OF DANIEL THE EVIDENCE OF THE CANON" 50. 1.04.10. CHAPTER 8: THE VISION OF THE "SEVENTY WEEKS" THE PROPHETIC YEAR 51. 1.04.11. CHAPTER 9: THE FULFILMENT OF THE VISION OF THE "WEEKS" 52. 1.04.12. CHAPTER 10: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 53. 1.04.13. APPENDIX I: NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S FIRST INVASION OF JUDEA 54. 1.04.14. APPENDIX II: THE DEATH OF BELSHAZZAR 55. 1.04.15. APPENDIX III: THE PUNCTUATION OF Dan_9:25 56. 1.04.16. APPENDIX IV: THE JEWISH CALENDAR 57. 1.04.17. APPENDIX V: THE TWENTIETH YEAR OF ARTAXERXES 58. 1.04.18. APPENDIX VI: THE DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 59. 1.04.19. APPENDIX VII: PROFESSOR DRIVER'S INDICTMENT OF DANIEL 60. 1.05.0. ELECTION AND LORDSHIP 61. 1.05.1. ELECTION AND LORDSHIP 62. 1.06.00. FORGOTTEN TRUTHS 63. 1.06.01. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION 64. 1.06.02. CHAPTER 1: QUESTIONS RAISED 65. 1.06.03. CHAPTER 2: ETERNAL WORD OF GOD 66. 1.06.04. CHAPTER 3: BLESSING FOR GENTILES 67. 1.06.05. CHAPTER 4: GRACE ENTHRONED 68. 1.06.06. CHAPTER 5: THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST 69. 1.06.07. CHAPTER 6: THE LORD JESUS' RETURN 70. 1.06.08. CHAPTER 7: THE GENTILE CHURCH 71. 1.06.09. CHAPTER 8: THE SECOND COMING, WHEN? 72. 1.06.10. CHAPTER 9: MEANTIME, THE CHURCH AGE 73. 1.06.11. CHAPTER 10: WHY THE DELAY? 74. 1.06.12. CHAPTER 11: "BEMA" OF CHRIST 75. 1.06.13. CHAPTER 12: EVANGELIZATION OF THE WORLD 76. 1.06.14. APPENDIX 1: THE ERAS OF SERVITUDE 77. 1.06.15. APPENDIX 2: IS THE CHURCH THE BRIDE OF CHRIST? 78. 1.06.16. APPENDIX 3: THE LORD'S COMING IN GREEK WORDS 79. 1.06.17. APPENDIX 4: Php_3:8-21 80. 1.06.18. APPENDIX 5: EXCLUSION FROM MILLENNIAL KINGDOM 81. 1.07.00. HUMAN DESTINY AFTER DEATH WHAT? 82. 1.07.01. PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION. 83. 1.07.02. CHAPTER 1: THE QUESTION STATED. 84. 1.07.03. CHAPTER 2: "ETERNAL HOPE." 85. 1.07.04. CHAPTER 3: "SALVATOR MUNDI" 86. 1.07.05. CHAPTER 4: "THE RESTITUTION OF ALL THINGS." 87. 1.07.06. CHAPTER 5: "THE WIDER HOPE." 88. 1.07.07. CHAPTER 6: WHAT IS LIFE? 89. 1.07.08. CHAPTER 7: "ETERNAL LIFE IN CHRIST." 90. 1.07.09. CHAPTER 8: ANNIHILATION 91. 1.07.10. CHAPTER 9: CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY. 92. 1.07.11. CHAPTER 10: THE QUESTION RESTATED. 93. 1.07.12. CHAPTER 11: THE QUESTION DISCUSSED. 94. 1.07.13. CHAPTER 12: THE QUESTION ANSWERED. 95. 1.07.14. APPENDIX 96. 1.08.00. MISUNDERSTOOD TEXT OF THE BIBLE 97. 1.08.01. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER 98. 1.08.02. CHAPTER 2: ONE CUBIT 99. 1.08.03. CHAPTER 3: BORN OF WATER AND THE SPIRIT 100. 1.08.04 CHAPTER 4: BRANCH IN CHRIST ======================================================================== CHAPTER 1: 0.00 - TITLE/CONENT ======================================================================== Anderson, Sir Robert - Library Anderson, Sir Robert - The Works of Sir Robert Anderson 01.00 - A DOUBTER’S DOUBTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND RELIGION 02.00 - CHRIST AND CRITICISM 03.00 - THE COMING PRINCE 04.00 - DANIEL IN THE CRITICS’ DEN 05.00 - ELECTION AND LORDSHIP 06.00 - FORGOTTEN TRUTHS 07.00 - HUMAN DESTINY AFTER DEATH WHAT? 08.00 - MISUNDERSTOOD TEXT OF THE BIBLE 09.00 - SIN AND JUDGMENT TO COME 10.00 - SPIRIT MANIFESTATIONS AND THE GIFT OF TONGUES 11.00 - THE BIBLE OR THE CHURCH 12.00 - THE HONOUR OF HIS NAME 13.00 - THE LORD FROM HEAVEN 14.00 - THE RESURRECTION 15.00 - REDEMPTION TRUTHS 16.00 - TYPES IN HEBREWS 17.00 - THE GOSPEL AND MINISTRY 18.00 - THE BIBLE AND MODERN CRITICISM 19.00 - THE ENTAIL OF THE COVENANT 20.00 - UNFULFILLED PROPHECY 21.00 - REDEMPTION TRUTHS 22.00 - "THE WAY" 23.00 - SILENCE OF GOD Anderson, Sir Robert - Vital Church Truths S. Spirit Manifestations and the Gift of Tongues ======================================================================== CHAPTER 2: 1. THE WORKS OF SIR ROBERT ANDERSON ======================================================================== The Works of Sir Robert Anderson ======================================================================== CHAPTER 3: 1.00.1-A DOUBTER'S DOUBTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND RELIGION ======================================================================== PART 1: A DOUBTER’S DOUBTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND RELIGION ======================================================================== CHAPTER 4: 1.01.00.2. PREFACE ======================================================================== PREFACE SOME of the following chapters we printed in a volume a few years ago. Itmay be thought perhaps that the criticisms they contain are out of date, now that Spencer-ism is dead and Darwinism discredited. But though biological theories which reigned supreme a few years ago have been abandoned or modified by "men of light and leading," their influence still prevails with the general public; and in response to appeals from several quarters I have reproduced the chapters in question. The fact that A Doubter’s Doubts was published anonymously may indicate how little its author thought of it. But among many signal proofs that it was appreciated by others, the most important was Mr. Gladstone’s notice of it. And the circumstances in which the following letter was written lend to it a peculiar interest. The extracts from his diary, given in Mr. Morley’s Life of Mr. Gladstone, record that December 18, 1889, was the occasion of Parnell’s historic visit to Hawarden, and that the day was devoted to reviewing and reconsidering the whole Irish question, and discussing it with the Irish leader. And yet on that very day Mr. Gladstone found leisure to read my book, and to write to me about it. I should add that I had not sent it to him, nor was I aware that he possessed it. H.A WARDEN, December 18, 1889. DEAR SIR, I do not know whom I have the honour of addressing, but I wish to thank you for your Doubter’s Doubts, and to say that I have read it with a great deal of sympathy and concurrence in the main argument. It implies no abatement of this declaration if I take upon me to offer a particular criticism. You strongly censure sacerdotalism, and so do I, inthe sense in which I understand it; for it takes the reins of government out of the hands of those whom God has made free and responsible for their freedom, and gives them to another, under the system which is called direction. But I question whether you have stated with your usual precision the constituent portions of it which you select for special condemnation. I apprehend that the best Roman Catholic Divines would not place the consecration of the elements in the Holy Eucharist within the category of miracles; and neither Roman nor Anglican doctrine claims for the clergy the exclusive power of valid Baptism. That power was more restricted in the views of the Puritans, and of foreign Protestants, than of their opponents. I presume to hope that you will follow up the subjects of your volume with the same care, force, and exactitude which in it you have bestowed especially upon the treatment of the main argument, and I remain, dear Sir, Your faithful and obedient, W. E. GLADSTONE. The Author of A Doubter’s Doubts. In my reply I acknowledged my error respecting baptism- an error which hasnow been corrected; but I urged that for the purpose of my argument I wasentitled to insist that the change of the elements in transubstantiation was in the strictest sense a miracle. This brought me a further letter from Hawarden, from which the following is an extract - "I agree with you about dilapidation in some quarters, and danger in more. I think that to counterwork the process, and try to build up his fellow- creatures in the faith, is the highest way a man has of serving them. I opine that you are not very far from this sentiment; and I heartily hope your book may be useful, and that you will pursue the paths of knowledge congenial to it." So much for the earlier chapters of this volume. As a whole it is addressed to men of the world, and from the standpoint of skepticism- the true skepticism which tests every-thing, not the sham sort which credulously accepts anything that tends to discredit the Bible. In an age that has seen not only a revival of some venerable superstitions but the rise of many new fangled superstitions of various kinds, genuine skepticism is an ally to faith. And, writing from this standpoint, destructive criticism is in the main my method. To some the book will seem unsatisfactory on this account, and yet they must recognize the importance of thus refuting the claims which infidelity makes to superior enlightenment. Others may think that in these pages the difficulties which perplex the Bible student are dismissed too lightly. Here I must either accept the criticism, or risk a charge of egotism if I appeal to my other books in proof that I neither ignore difficulties nor attempt to minimize them. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 5: 1.01.01. CHAPTER 1: HOW DID LIFE BEGIN? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 1: HOW DID LIFE BEGIN? THERE is one fact which not even the dreamiest of egoists can doubt, and that is, his own existence. Here at least knowledge is absolute. That I exist is certain; but how did I come to exist? I live; but how did life begin? The question is one to which every man is bound to find a reasonable answer. To say I am descended through generations numbered or innumerable from a first man, is merely to put the difficulty back. Where did the first man come from? Religion answers in one word- Creation. But this is to cut the knot, as it were, without even an attempt to untie it. It must not be taken for granted that man is incapable of reasoning out the problem of his own existence. Between the higher organisms and the lowest there is a gulf which might well be regarded as impassable. But closer observation and fuller knowledge will disclose the fact that between these extremes there are unnumbered gradations of development, and that the distance between the several steps in the series is such as, in theory at least, might be passed by the operation of known laws. The problem, therefore, which religion would solve by the one word "creation," science answers by the one word "evolution." And science claims priority of audience. But here let us take the place of skeptics. There are no skeptics in the old scholastic sense. The most ardent Pyrrhonist, if robbed of his purse, or struck over the head by a burglar, promptly forgets his theories, and gives proof of his belief in the certainty of objective knowledge. Philosophic skepticism, so called, is merely a conceit of sham philosophers; it never invades the sphere in which a man’s interests require that he should believe and know. And, as Kant has aptly said, it is "not a permanent resting-place for human reason." But skepticism is not necessarily Pyrrhonism. Pyrrho did not invent the word; he only perverted and degraded it. He considers, reflects, hesitates, doubts. An admirable habit, surely, if kept within due limits, but proof of moral deterioration if abnormally developed. Let us not forget then, as we proceed, to reflect, hesitate, doubt; and, above all, let us cast away prejudice. Let us take the place of free thinkers and real skeptics, not shams. Many people reserve their skepticism for the sphere in which religion is the teacher, while in the presence of science they are as innocent and simple in their receptivity as the infant class in a Sunday-school. We shall only deceive ourselves if we begin by over-stating the evidence on which the doctrine of evolution rests. It must be conceded that its foundation largely depends on the researches of the Paleontologist. And here and some direct proof that the fossil remains belong to the same economy or system as the living organisms we compare them with. But there is no such proof, and it is a question whether the presumption be not the other way. Let that pass, however, for a more serious question claims attention. It may be admitted that the development of plants and animals from their simplest to their most complicated forms may be explained by natural causes. But this is only theory. What direct evidence is there that the phenomena have, in fact, been thus produced? The horse may have been developed from a pig-like animal, and man may be "descended from a hairy quadruped furnished with a tail and pointed ears." (Descent of Man) But what direct proof is there that either the horse or the man was, in fact, developed or evolved in this way? The answer must be, Absolutely none. It is a matter of inference only. (Marvellous results are produced by culture, but they are subject to the seemingly inexorable laws of degeneracy and the sterility of hybrids.) The prisoner in the dock may have committed the murder we are investigating. The theory of his guilt will account for all the facts. Therefore let him be convicted and hanged. This sort of argument would not pass at the Old Bailey. Men are skeptics there, and free thinkers. Proof that the prisoner may have committed the crime is worthless, unless we go on to prove that it could not have been committed by any one else. But with that further proof the case is clear, and the accused goes to the gallows. And so here. If the facts of biology can in no other way be accounted for, evolution holds the field. But are we not forgetting the nature of the problem to be solved? The first and greatest question relates, not to the phenomena of life, but to its origin. How did life begin? That was the question we set out with. And here, evolution affords no answer, and must stand aside. Let the existence of life be taken for granted, and evolution may explain the rest. But the sceptic takes nothing for granted. How did life begin? Science answers - - - -! In presence of a question which lies across the threshold of knowledge, science, the very personification of knowledge, turns agnostic and is dumb. "Creation" is the answer religion gives. The rejoinder which science ought to make is that life first sprang out of death, out of nothing; in a word, abiogenesis. And this is, in fact, the answer which science would formerly have given. But the experiments which at one time seemed to establish the principle of spontaneous generation, have proved worthless when subjected to severer tests. Huxley admits that "the present state of knowledge furnishes us with no link between the living and the not living." With still greater candour, Tyndall declares that "every attempt made in our day to generate life independently of antecedent life has utterly broken down." Or, if we turn to a teacher, happily still with us, whose dictum will carry still greater weight, Lord Kelvin will tell us that "inanimate matter cannot become living except under the influence of matter already living. This is fact in science which seems to me" he declares, "as well ascertained as the law of gravitation." And he goes on to say, "I am ready to accept as an article of faith in science, valid for all time and in all space that life is produced by life, and only by life." (Brit. Assoc., Edinburgh, 1871.) Abiogenesis is merely a philosophic theory, unsupported by even the faintest shadow of evidence. But more than this, it is practically incapable of proof, for the problem implies the proof of a negative in circumstances which render the difficulties of such proof overwhelming. To establish the fact of spontaneous generation in a world teeming with life, would be as hopeless as the attempt to prove that the displacement of a table in a dark room crowded with people was caused without interference on their part. But, we are told, the fact that we know absolutely nothing of the origin of life, and that there is not a shadow of direct evidence that abiogenesis has ever taken place, does not interfere with the conclusion "that at some time or other abiogenesis must have taken place. If the hypothesis of evolution be true, living matter must have arisen from not-living matter." (Professor Huxley, Encyc. Britt, "Biology.") Therefore life did originate thus, and the truth of evolution is established. Thus argue the professors and scientists. But the man who considers, reflects, hesitates, doubts, will call for the evidence; and, finding there is none, he will reject the conclusion, and also, if necessary, the dependent hypothesis. We set out to solve the mystery of life. Science claimed to possess theclew, and offered to be our guide. And now, having been led back to the identical point from which we started, we are told we must shut our eyes and take a leap in the dark. It is a bad case of the "confidence trick." "Besides being absolutely without evidence to give it external support, this hypothesis cannot support itself internally- cannot be framed into a coherent thought. It is one of those illegitimate symbolic conceptions so continually mistaken for legitimate symbolic conceptions, because they remain untested. Immediately an attempt is made to elaborate the idea into anything like a definite shape, it proves to be a pseud-idea, admitting of no definite shape." It "implies the establishment of a relation in thought between nothing and something - a relation of which one term is absent - an impossible relation". "The case is one of those where men do not really believe, but rather believe they believe. For belief, properly so called, implies a mental representation of the thing believed; and no such mental representation is here possible." ( The words are Herbert Spencer’s (Principles of Biology, § 112); the application of them is entirely my own.) Evolution assumes the existence of life; postulates it, as the scientistswould say. No more is needed than one solitary germ of living matter. Indeed, to seek for more would be unphilosophical. ("If all living beings have been evolved from pre-existing forms of life, it is enough that a single particle of living protoplasm should have once appeared on the globe, as the result of no matter what agency. In the eyes of a consistent evolutionist any further independent formation of protoplasm would be sheer waste." - Professor Huxley, Encyc. Brit., "Biology.") But this primeval germ must be taken for granted. The sceptic will refuse to assign to it an origin which contradicts all our experience and surpasses our knowledge. The only hypothesis he can accept is that life has existed without any limitation of time; that the original life-germ was eternal and practically self-existent. And of course nothing could be evolved from it which was not inherent. It must have been pregnant with all the forms and developments of life with which the world is full. Moreover it is only ignorant conceit to maintain that evolution has reached its limits. If man has sprung from such an origin, we must suppose that, in the far-distant future, beings will be developed as superior to mankind as we ourselves are superior to the insects crawling on the earth. According to this hypothesis the latent capacities of the first life-germ were infinite. " Capacities," remember, not tendencies. Unknowable force may account for tendencies, but it cannot create capacities. Not that this distinction will save us from the pillory. The philosopher will condemn the statement as unphilosophical-" a shaping of ignorance into the semblance of knowledge" and I know not what besides.’ (Principles of Biology, § 144. I have no wish to shelter myself behind Professor Huxley, but I claim his com-panionship and sympathy in the pillory. He says, "Of the causes which have led to the origination of living matter, then, it may be said that we know absolutely nothing. But postulating the existence of living matter endowed with that power of hereditary transmission and with that tendency to vary which is found in all such matter, Mr. Darwin has shown good reasons for believing," &c. (Encyc. Brit., "Biology "). The primordial germ, mark, is "endowed" with a "power" and a "tendency." What had Mr. Spencer to say to this? All that I assert here is the "power"; to predicate the "tendency" is unnecessary and therefore unphilosophical.) But these bravewords can be tested at once by assuming the contrary to what is here asserted. Let us take it, then, that the primordial germ had no latent capacities whatever. And yet we are to accept it as the origin of all the amazing forms and phenomena of life in the world. If we may not suppose such an aptitude naturally possessed by organisms, we must assume an inaptitude; and the question is no longer whether the cause be adequate to the effects, but whether effects are to be ascribed to what is no cause at all. May we not retort that this is indeed "a cause unrepresentable in thought "-one of those illegitimate symbolic conceptions which cannot by any mental process be elaborated into a real conception? ’ In the spirit of a true philosopher, Charles Darwin declared that "the birth both of the species and of the individual are equally ’ parts of that grand sequence of events which our minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance." (Descent of Man) By what word, then, shall this " particle of living protoplasm" be called; this great First Cause; this Life- germ, eternal, self-existent, infinite in essential capacities ? There is but one word known to human language adequate to designate it, and that word is GOD. Evolution - that is, Science - thus leads us to a point at which either we must blindly and with boundless credulity accept as fact something which is not only destitute of proof, but which is positively disproved by every test we are at present able to apply to it; or else we must recognise an existence which, disguise it as we may, means nothing less than God. There is no escape from this dilemma. Our choice lies between these alternatives. The sceptic will at once reject the first; his acceptance of the second is, therefore, a necessity. Men whose minds are enslaved by a preconceived determination to refuse belief in God must be content here to stand like fools, owning their impotency to solve the elementary problem of existence, and, as humble disciples in the school of one Topsy, a negro slave-girl, dismissing the matter by the profound and sapient formula "I ’spect I grow’d"! But the free thinker, unblinded by prejudice, will reject an alternative belief which is sheer credulity, and, unmoved by the sneers of pseudo-scientists and sham-philosophers, will honestly and fearlessly accept the goal to which his reason points, and there set up an altar to an unknown God. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 6: 1.01.02. CHAPTER 2: THE DARWINIAN THEORY ======================================================================== CHAPTER 2: THE DARWINIAN THEORY "IT’S lovely to live on a raft. We had the sky up there all speckled withstars, and we used to lay on our backs and look up at them and discussabout whether they were made, or only just happened. Jim he allowed theywas made, but I allowed they happened; I judged it would have took too longto make so many. Jim said the moon could ’a laid them; well, that lookedkind of reasonable, so I didn’t say nothing against it, because I’ve seen a frog lay most as many, so of course it could be done. We used to watch the stars that fell, too, and see them struck down. Jim allowed they’d got spoiled and was hove out of the nest." In this charming piece of fooling, Mark Twain states the problem admirably. The question is whether things were made, or "only just happened." But Jim, being a philosopher, suggested evolution as a compromise, and Huck Finn’s deism was not intelligent enough or vigorous enough to resist it. “Only just happened” - that supreme folly of nineteenth-century philosophy, is as really a positive creed as the Mosaic cosmogony. And surely a venerable faith of any sort is preferable to a new-fangled superstition which has no rational sanction and is devoid even of that kind of respectability which antiquity can sometimes impart. In our search after the origin of life reason guides us in a path which leads direct to God. Nor let any one here object that this is but a veiled appeal to revelation. Unless reason points to the existence of a God, the question of a revelation cannot even arise. And if anyone should raise the difficulty which robbed Professor Tyndall of his sleep in childhood, "Who made God?" the solution is to be found, not in attempting to answer the question, but in exposing its absurdity. "Science" Lord Kelvin declares, positively affirms creative power. And it is because science leads us back to an existence which never had a beginning that, for want of any other term by which to designate it, we call it God. But here we must turn back upon the ground already traversed. We have been dealing hitherto with evolution, not as an hypothesis to account for the origin of species, but merely as a pretended explanation of the origin of life; and we have found that, thus regarded, it is but a blind lane which leads nowhere. The inquiry suggests itself, therefore, whether the conception of God be a true one which we have thus reached by escape from a wrong path. The question whether there be a God is no longer open. What concerns us now is merely to decide what kind of God we shall acknowledge. Shall we be content with the mystic Pantheism which a false system of biology would offer us, or shall we adore an intelligent Ruler of the universe? The man who can give no account of his own existence is a fool; and he who denies a God can give no account of his existence. In the old time men whispered their folly within their own hearts; nowadays they proclaim it on the housetops, or, to translate the Oriental figure into its Western correlative, they publish it in printed books. But philosophy is not folly, and folly has no right to call itself wisdom. There is a God - that is certain: what then can reason tell us of Him? As heathen poets wrote two thousand years ago, "We are also His offspring." It behooves us, therefore, to ascribe to Him the highest qualities which His creatures are endowed with. To admit, under pressure of facts which we can neither deny nor ignore, the conception of a God, and then to minimise that conception so that it becomes inadequate to account for the facts - this is neither reason nor philosophy, but crass folly. Since reason shuts us up to belief in God, let us have the courage of free thought, and instead of taking refuge in a vague theism, let us acknowledge a real God - not the great primordial germ," but the Creator of the heavens and the earth. Regarded as a theory to account for life, evolution is the wildest folly; but as an thesis to account for the varied forms of life, it claims a hearing on its merits. And viewed in this light, no one need denounce it as necessarily irreligious. As the apostle of evolution with fairness urges, he who thus denounces it "is bound to show why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through laws of ordinary reproduction. The birth both of the species and of the individual are equal parts of that grand sequence of events which our minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance . The understanding revolts at such a conclusion." Darwin might, indeed, have stated the matter much more strongly. To call into existence a lowly organised form of life, endowed with latent capacities so wonderful and so exquisitely adjusted that only when a certain stage of development is reached, the moral qualities spring into exercise, immortality is attained, and there arises in the mind "the idea of a universal and beneficent Creator of the universe" - this is a far more amazing act of creative power than the Mosaic account of the genesis of man supposes. But, on the other hand, this very admission suggests a question the importance of which none but the superficial and the ignorant will doubt, Is not the Mosaic account, for that very reason, the more philosophical hypothesis? It is obvious that if we acknowledge " a beneficent Creator of the universe," the existence of man is explained by the necessary admission that he is a creature; and no theory of development from a lower form of life would be tenable for a moment, were it not for reasons which lie hidden, and do not appear upon the surface. Of that very character, however, are the grounds upon which the hypothesis of evolution rests. These may be summarised in a single sentence, as "the close similarity between man and the lower animals in embryonic development, as well as in innumerable points of structure and constitution, both of high and of the most trifling importance - the rudiments which he retains, and the abnormal reversions to which he is occasionally liable." But these facts, indisputable and striking though they be, may one and all be accounted for by an hypothesis of an exactly opposite character. Instead of assuming that the protoplastic organism was of the humblest form but endowed with capacities of development, why should we not suppose that man himself was the primordial creature and that he came from the creator’s hand stamped with the characteristics "in innumerable points of structure and constitution," to warn him that he was made liable to a law degeneration and decay and that the neglect or perversion of his noble powers would degrade him indefinitely in the scale of life? It is certain that this hypothesis is more in accordance with the traditional beliefs of the heathen world than that of evolution, and it would be easy to maintain that it is more philosophical.’ We shall gain nothing by misrepresenting facts, and no fair person will pretend that experience warrants the hypothesis that any race of men, that any individual even, ever advanced in the scale of life save under the constant pressure of favouring circumstances. But while culture alone will, so far as our experience teaches us, account for an advance, the tendency to degenerate seems universal. "In the Australian bush," for example, "and in the backwoods of America, the Anglo-Saxon race, in which civilisation has developed the higher feelings to a considerable degree, rapidly lapses into comparative barbarism, adopting the moral code, and sometimes the habits, of savages." And evolution, while, in theory at least, accounting for the physical facts it appeals to, makes no reasonable attempt to explain the moral phenomena which claim our attention, though these are far more significant and important. We know what it is to meet with people over whose origin or career some mystery evidently hangs. A bar sinister has crossed their pedigree, or their life is darkened by some strange secret. And is there not something akin to this in the history of our race? Can any intelligent observer look back upon the history of the world, or honestly face the dismal facts of life around us - "the turbid ebb and flow of human misery" - and fail to find traces of some mysterious disaster in primeval times, which still disturbs the moral sphere? According to the evolutionist, man is but an upstart, a biological parvenu, ever in danger of betraying his humble origin, and occasionally showing a tendency to revert to his former state. But surely it is only a base materialism which would assign to the phenomena on which this theory rests the same importance as that which we ascribe to the mysteries of man’s inner being. The presence in embryo of organs properly belonging to a brute, or such" reversions " as " the occasional appearance of canine teeth " - what are these in comparison with the fact that life from the cradle to the grave is marked by baffled apirations after an unattainable ideal, and unsatisfied cravings for the infinite? Are we to believe that these cravings and aspirations are derived from the "hairy quadruped with a tail and pointed ears"? "As soon as man grew distinct from the animal he became religious." A sense of humour would have saved Renan from offering a suggestion so grotesque as this. We might admit for the sake of argument that the descendant of an ape might become philosophical and mathematical and musical; but how and why should he become religious? "To call the spiritual nature of man a ‘by-product’ is a just too big for this little world." "Man, the evolutionist declares, "still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin." His inner being, we may with greater truth reply, gives unmistakable proof that his origin was a high and noble one. Evolution, remember, is not fact, but only theory. The facts are the pearls; evolution is but the string on which we are asked to hang them. And we shall seek in vain for a single shred of direct evidence in support of it. It is significant that naturalists who suppose new species to be originated by evolution "habitually suppose the origination to occur in some region remote from human observation." These results are supposed to have been produced during "those immeasurable epochs," "untold millions of years" before "beings endowed with capacity for wide thought" existed on the earth." To which the sceptic will make answer: First, that there is no proof that this earth has so long existed in a habitable state; it is a mere inference based upon a certain geological theory which is wholly unproved and by no means universally accepted. And, secondly, that as neither the course of nature within known periods, nor the skill of man, has ever produced a species, we may be merely stultifying our minds by dismissing the difficulty to a mythical past about which we may conjecture and romance, but concerning which we know absolutely nothing. But let us for a moment assume these "untold millions of years," these "immeasurable epochs" of an "abysmal past," during which the evolutionary process has been developing. Further, let us concede that the supposed process is so slow that no appreciable change may be looked for within the period of historic time. In fact, let us, for the sake of argument, admit everything assumed by the evolutionist, excepting only the hypothesis of evolution itself, and we can at once subject that hypothesis to a practical test of the simplest kind, which will either establish its truth or demonstrate its falseness. Suppose our world were visited by a being of intelligence, able to converse with men, but wholly ignorant of an existence like ours, marked by development and decay. Brought face to face with puling infancy, vigorous manhood, and the senile decrepitude of extreme old age, such a being might express incredulous wonder on hearing that these were successive stages in human life. And he might answer fairly and with shrewdness, "If such a statement be true, then there must be individuals in the world of every possible age, from a minute to a hundred years, and manifesting every imaginable degree of growth and decline." To which the unequivocal reply we should of course be able to offer would put an end to his skepticism. But suppose we were to make some such answer as this: "True it is that never a moment passes but that some new life enters the world, and some blighted or withered life disappears from it; the processes of generation and growth and decay are all unceasing and constant; but yet we cannot satisfy the test you put to us. We can show you large children and small adults, smooth-faced boys and full-bearded men, types of failing manhood and of hale old age, but there are ‘missing links’ which we cannot supply. Of some of these we have ‘archeological evidence,’ there are fossil specimens in our museums; and the learned tell us that others no doubt exist and will yet be found; but of living specimens there are none, though all the resources of nature and of science have been appealed to in the effort to produce them." With such an answer our ephemeral visitor might well return to his celestial home perplexed with grave misgivings respecting our honesty or our intelligence. And so here. The cases are entirely parallel.’ If the processes of evolution have been in operation during infinite eons of time and be still at work, "missing links" are out of the question. The naturalist will, of course, be able to point to types of every imaginable stage; of development, from the simplest and humblest to the most exquisitely complex and perfect. But the naturalist can do no such thing. There are almost innumerable gaps in the chain which could only be accounted for by the supposition that evolution has again and again been interrupted during intervals so prolonged, that in comparison with them the entire period of historic time is but as a tick of the clock. Therefore it is that at every step the naturalist has to appeal to the Paleontologist. As Huxley will tell us, "The only perfectly safe foundation for the doctrine of evolution lies in the historical, or rather archeological evidence, that particular organisms have arisen by the gradual modification of their predecessors, which is furnished by fossil remains." The evolutionist professes to account for the origin of species, but, finding as he proceeds that, under his hypothesis, the problem remains inexplicable, he strives to conceal its real character. Whence the distinctions which he thus classifies? How can he account for species itself? He struggles to escape from the difficulty by representing all such distinctions as being purely arbitrary. But such a piece of "special pleading" only betrays the weakness of his position. The lines which separate one species from another are clearly marked, as is evidenced by the undoubted fact that the effects of both culture and neglect are strictly limited by them. The reality of the difficulty, moreover, the evolutionist himself acknowledges by the recognition of missing links, and by his appeal to the fossils to supply them. The necessity for the admission and the appeal are a conclusive proof that his hypothesis is untenable. Let us then keep clearly in view, first, that evolution is merely a philosophic theory, second, that it is unproved, third, that it is inadequate and fourth, that (as will appear more plainly in the sequel) it is unnecessary except of course with those scientists who cling to any plank that will save them from having to acknowledge God. And, it may be added, there is a fashion in science as well as in dress, and the fashion changes almost as rapidly in the one sphere as in the other. And so, as Karl von Hartmann wrote: "In the sixties of the past century the opposition of the older group of savants to the Darwinian hypothesis was still supreme. In the seventies the new idea began to gain ground rapidly in all cultured countries. In the eighties Darwin’s influence was at its height, and exercised an almost absolute control over technical research. In the nineties, for the first time, a few timid expressions of doubt and opposition were heard; and these gradually swelled into a great chorus of voices, aiming at the overthrow of the Darwinian theory. In the first decade of the twentieth century it has become apparent that the days of Darwinism are numbered." (Taken from a translation given in The Pall Mall Magazine for September, 1904.) As a commentary upon it I may add the following extract from an article entitled "The Riddle of Evolution," which appeared in The Times Literary Supplement of June 9, 5905: "No one possessed of a sense of humour can contemplate without amusement the battle of evolution, encrimsoned (dialectically speaking) with the gore of innumerable combatants, encumbered with the corpses of the (dialectically) slain, and resounding with the cries of the living, [as they hustle together in the fray. [Here follows a lengthy list of the various schools and sects of Evolutionists.] Never was seen such a mêlée. The humour of it is that they all claim to represent ‘Science,’ the serene, the majestic, the absolutely sure, the undivided and immutable, the one and only vicegerent of Truth, her other self. Not theirs the weakness of the theologians or the metaphysicians, who stumble about in uncertainty, obscurity, and ignorance, with their baseless assumptions, flimsy hypotheses, logical fallacies, interminable dissensions, and all the other marks of inferiority on which the votaries of Science pour ceaseless scorn. Yet it would puzzle them to point to a theological battlefield exhibiting more uncertainty, obscurity, dissension, assumption, and fallacy than their own. For the plain truth is that, though some agree in this or that, there is not a single point in which all agree; battling for evolution they have torn it to pieces; nothing is left, nothing at all on their own showing, save a few fragments strewn about the arena. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 7: 1.01.03. CHAPTER 3: HERBERT SPENCER'S SCHEME ======================================================================== CHAPTER 3: HERBERT SPENCER’S SCHEME THE hypothesis of degeneration has been here suggested as a rival to that of evolution. It equally accounts for the facts, and is less beset with difficulties. Are we then to accept it? By no means. Both alike are mere theories, wholly unsupported by direct evidence; and therefore the sceptic will reject both, unless they be alternatives, and he is thus compelled to make choice between them. But they are not alternatives. The facts submitted to our notice by the naturalist would be still more fully accounted for by the assumption that every kind of creature sprang from the same Creator’s hand. And this is, in fact, the only alternative which the evolutionist admits. “We have to choose between two hypotheses,” he tells us - "the hypothesis of special creations, and the hypothesis of evolution." The necessity for this admission, be it observed, is by implication a conclusive proof that evolution is unproved. Let us, then, consider the suggested alternative. Herbert Spencer will tell us that, "however regarded, the hypothesis of special creations turns out to be worthless - worthless by its derivation; worthless in its intrinsic incoherence; worthless as absolutely without evidence; worthless as not supplying an intellectual need; worthless as not satisfying a moral want. We must, therefore," he concludes, "consider it as counting for nothing in opposition to any other hypothesis respecting the origin of organic beings." Upon the legal mind the effect of this sort of onslaught is merely to excite suspicion that some weak point in the case requires to be concealed. Such dogmatism of assertion must only serve to encourage us in our investigation of the argument. First, then, we are told that the notion of a creation is a primitive one, and "early ideas are not usually true ideas." But this is a very transparent device; for unless we assume that evolution is true, which is precisely what has to be proved, the statement is of no force whatever. Herbert Spencer proceeds to urge that a belief in creation is discredited by "association with a special class of mistaken beliefs." Now this, of course, is a reference to the Mosaic account of the creation, and it is sufficiently answered by the fact that that account is accepted by many men of competent attainments and of the highest intellectual capacity. Again, we are told that not only is this hypothesis " not countenanced by a single fact," but further, that it "cannot be framed into a coherent thought," and is "merely a formula for our ignorance." "No one ever saw a special creation." True; but a similar objection may be made to the hypothesis of evolution; and it has, in fact, been urged in these pages in the very words here used by Herbert Spencer. It is admitted that no new species has ever been evolved within human experience, and the supposed origination is referred to "an abysmal past," which may, for aught we know, be purely fabulous. The objection, if of force at all, is equally valid against both hypotheses. For let us keep clearly in view what our author studiously conceals, that at this point the real question is not the origin of species, but the origin of life. Until he can give us some reasonable account of the existence of life, we shall continue to believe in "a beneficent Creator of the universe"; and though Herbert Spencer will deplore our "ignorance" and despise our " pseud-ideas," we shall console ourselves by the companionship of a long line of illustrious men, whose names perchance will be increasingly venerated in the world of philosophy and letters when some new generation of scientists shall have arisen to regard with patronising pity the popular theories of to-day. "No one ever saw a special creation," and the hypothesis "cannot be framed into a coherent thought." This implies, first, an admission that if we were permitted to see a special creation we could frame the coherent thought; and, secondly, an assertion that our ability to frame ideas is limited by our experience. The admission is fatal, and the assertion is obviously false. Herbert Spencer’s remaining objections to special creations are an enumeration of certain theological difficulties, in which those who espouse the hypothesis are supposed to entangle themselves. These might be dismissed with the remark that a mere ad hominem argument is of no importance here. If valid, it could only serve to discredit theology, without strengthening the author’s position. But let us examine it. The objections are briefly these. Theology is supposed to teach that special creations were designed to demonstrate to mankind the power of the Creator: "would it not have been still better demonstrated by the separate creation of each individual?" It is quite unnecessary to discuss this, for there is not a suggestion in the Bible from cover to cover that creation had any such purpose. What evolution assumes the Bible asserts, namely, that man did not appear in the world until after every other form was already in existence. But the next and final difficulty appears at first sight to be more serious. "Omitting the human race, for whose defects and miseries the current theology professes to account, and limiting ourselves to the lower creation, what must we think of the countless different pain inflicting appliances and instincts with which animals are endowed?" "Whoever contends that each kind of animal was specially designed, must assert either that there was a deliberate intention on the part of the Creator to produce these results, or that there was an inability to prevent them." This difficulty, moreover, is greatly intensified by the fact that "of the animal kingdom as a whole, more than half the species are parasites, and thus we are brought to the contemplation of innumerable cases in which the suffering inflicted brings no compensating benefit." Now, in the first place, these objections are applicable as really, though, possibly, not to the same extent, to the hypothesis of creation in general. And that hypothesis is no longer in question; for, as we have seen, "scientific thought is compelled to accept the idea of creative power." And, in the second place, we must remember that these difficulties are purely theological. They have no force save against those of us who believe the Bible. Such people, according to the argument, must abandon either the Biblical account of creation or the Biblical representation of God. They must assert either that the Creator intended to produce the results here under observation, or that there was an inability to prevent them. In other words, God is deficient either in goodness or in power.This introduces a question which hitherto has been avoided in these pages. Nor shall it here receive more than the briefest notice; for even a conventional acquaintance with the Biblical scheme will enable us to find the solution of Herbert Spencer’s difficulties. The validity of his dilemma depends upon ignoring one of the fundamental dogmas of theology. The teaching of the Bible is unmistakable, that Adam in his fall dragged down with him the entire creation of which he was the federal head; that the suffering under which the creature groans is not the result of design, but of a tremendous catastrophe which has brought ruin and misery in its train; that not only is the Creator not wanting in power to restore creation to its pristine perfectness, but that He has pledged Himself to accomplish this very result, and that the restoration will be so complete that even the destructive propensities of the brute will cease. Such is the teaching of the Bible, unfolded not merely in the poetry of the Hebrew prophets, but in the dogmatic prose of the Apostle of the Gentiles. The question here is not whether it be reasonable, whether it be true. All that concerns us is the fact that it forms an essential part of the Biblical scheme, and thus affords a complete refutation of an ad hominem argument which depends for its validity upon misrepresenting or ignoring it. Herbert Spencer’s indictment against belief in special creations thus begins and ends by disingenuous attempts to prejudice the issue. And in asserting that the hypothesis is incapable of being "framed into a coherent thought," he urges an objection which from its very nature admits of no other answer than that which has been already given to it. If we call for a poll upon the question, we shall find on one side a crowd of illustrious men of unquestionable fame, and of the very highest rank as philosophers and thinkers; and on the other, Herbert Spencer and a few more besides, all of whom must await the verdict of posterity before they can be permanently assigned the place which some of their contemporaries claim for them. An assertion which thus brands the entire bead-roll of philosophers, from Bacon to Charles Darwin, as the dupes of a "pseud-idea," a "formula for ignorance," is worthless save as affording matter for a psychological study of a most interesting kind. The alleged absence of evidence of a special creation has been already met by pointing out that the objection equally applies to the hypothesis of evolution. But perhaps it deserves a fuller notice. "No one ever saw a special creation," we are told. The author might have added that if the entire Royal Society in council were permitted to "see a special creation," the sceptic would reject their testimony unless there were indirect evidence to confirm it. He would maintain that in the sphere of the miraculous, direct evidence, unless thus confirmed, is of no value at second hand. His language would be, "Produce for our inspection the organism alleged to have been created, and satisfy us, first, that it had no existence prior to the moment assigned for its creation, and, secondly, that it could not have originated in some way known to our experience, and then, indeed, we shall give up our skepticism and accept the testimony offered us." But Herbert Spencer goes on to aver that "no one ever found proof of an indirect kind that no special creation had taken place." This is a choice example of the nisi prius artifice at which our author is such an adept. The existence of a world teeming with life has been accepted by the greatest and wisest men of every age as a conclusive proof that a special creation has taken place. But this is boldly met by sheer weight of unsupported denial. If we approach the subject, not as special pleaders or partisans, but in a philosophic spirit, we shall state the argument thus:-The admitted facts give proof that species originated either by special creations or by evolution. If either hypothesis can be established by independent evidence, the other is thereby discredited. But, in the one case as in the other, positive proof is wholly wanting. We must, therefore, rely upon general considerations. On the evolution theory, proof is confessedly wanting that the alleged cause is adequate to account for the admitted facts.’ Not so on the creation hypothesis, for as we admit that life originated by creation, there can be no difficulty in assigning a similar origin to species. In a word, as we side with Darwin in believing in "a beneficent Creator of the universe," the evolution hypothesis is unnecessary and therefore unphilosophical. But further, the concealed consequences of the argument under review must not be overlooked. If it be valid for any purpose at all, it disproves not only the fact of a creation, but the existence of a Creator. "No one ever saw a special creation": neither did anyone ever see the Deity. If, as alleged, we have no evidence of His handiwork, neither have we proof of His existence. At a single plunge we have thus reached the level of blank atheism, which is the extreme depth of moral and intellectual degradation. "The birth both of the species and the individual " must equally be ascribed to "blind chance," "coercion" being appealed to, I suppose, to quell the inevitable "revolt of the understanding." And the strange religious propensities common to the race, whether civilised or savage, must also be suppressed; or, at all events, our Penates must be strictly limited to an effigy of our hairy quadrumanous ancestor with pointed ears, supplemented possibly by some "symbolic conception" of the primordial life-germ. wrapped in cloud, and a copy of Herbert Spencer’s System of Philosophy to guide and regulate the cult. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 8: 1.01.04. CHAPTER 4: HAVE WE A REVELATION? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 4: HAVE WE A REVELATION? SKEPTICISM is "not a permanent resting-place for human reason." The knowledge that there is bad money in circulation does not make us fling our purse into the gutter, or refuse to replenish it when empty. The sceptic tries a coin before accepting it, but when once he puts it in his pocket, his appreciation of it is, for that very reason, all the more intelligent and full. A convinced doubter makes the best believer.As Lord Kelvin declares, "Scientific thought is compelled to accept the idea of creative power." With an open mind, therefore, and unwavering confidence the true sceptic acknowledges "the beneficent Creator of the universe." And in no grudging spirit, but honestly and fully, he will own the obligations and relationships which this involves. Religion is implied in the acknowledgment of God. And further, this acknowledgment removes every a priori objection to the idea of a revelation. It creates indeed a positive presumption in its favour. For if we are the offspring of a "beneficent Creator," it is improbable that, in a world so darkened by sorrow and doubt, He would leave us without guidance, and without light as to our destiny. At all events, our belief in God makes it incumbent on us to examine any alleged revelation which is presented to us with reasonable credentials. If some one brings me what purports to be a message or letter from my brother, I may dispose of the matter by answering, " I have no brother"; but if I possess an unknown lost brother, I cannot refuse to receive the communication and to test its claims on my attention. But here we must keep our heads. There is no sphere in which the functions of the constable are more needed. The existence of a lost brother is no reason for sheltering impostors. Our belief in God is no reason for abandoning ourselves to superstition, or submitting to be duped by foolish or designing men. Yet another caution is needed here. We have now reached ground where the judgment of men of science is of no special value whatever. So long as it is a question of investigating and describing the facts and phenomena of nature, we sit at their feet with unfeigned admiration of their genius and industry; but when it becomes a question of adjudicating upon the evidence with which they furnish us, they must give way to those whose training and habits of mind make them better fitted for the task. We place the very highest value upon their testimony as experts in all matters within their own province, but we cannot consent to their passing from the witness-box to the judicial bench; least of all can we consent to their occupying such a position where the subject-matter is one of which they have no special cognizance.’ In such a case a dozen city merchants, with a trained lawyer to guide their deliberations, would make a better tribunal than the Royal Society could supply. The extreme point to which reason leads us is the recognition of an unknown God. What now concerns us is the inquiry whether He has revealed Himself to men. Have we a revelation? A discussion of this question on a priori lines would have many advantages. But, on the whole, the practical view of it is the best. And it would be mere pedantry to ignore the peculiar claims which Christianity has upon our notice. In fact, the question narrows itself at once to this plain issue, Is Christianity a Divine revelation? If this question be answered in the negative, it is really useless to discuss the merits of Islam; and as forBuddha, his popularity in certain quarters in England as a rival to Christ is proof only of the depth of Saxon silliness. There is a sense, of course, in which all enthusiasm is inspiration, but for our present purpose this is a mere fencing with words. The question is perfectly definite and clear to every one who wishes to understand it, Is Christianity a revelation from God? Let us examine the witnesses. If we ask in what form this alleged revelation comes to us, all Christians are agreed in placing in our hands a Book; in a word, they point us to the Bible. But here, at the very threshold, their unanimity ceases. While some would insist that this is the only revelation, the majority of Christendom would point us also to a certain class of men so supernaturally gifted and accredited that they are themselves a revelation. This system, which is popularly associated with Rome, deserves priority of consideration because of the prestige it enjoys by reason of the antiquity of its origin, and the influence and number of its disciples. Moreover, if its claims be accepted, the truth of Christianity is established; and if on examination they be rejected, the ground is cleared for the consideration of the main question on its merits. The founders of Christianity, we are told, in addition to their ability to work miracles such as the senses could take notice of, possessed also supernatural powers of a mystic kind. By certain mystic rites, for instance, they were able to work such a transformation in common bread and ordinary wine, that, although no available test could detect the change, the bread really became flesh, and the wine blood. Further still, we are assured that these powers have been transmitted from generation to generation, and are now possessed by the successors of the men who first received them direct from Heaven. And more than this, we are asked to believe that these miracles are actually performed in our own day, not in isolated and remote places far removed from observation, but in our midst and everywhere; and that, too, in the most public and open manner.If this be true, it is obvious that not only the miracles which are thus wrought in our presence, but the very men themselves who cause them, are a Divine revelation. We are no longer left to reach out toward the Supreme Being by the light of reason; we are thus brought face to face with God. Indifference is impossible in the presence of such demands on our faith. If these men in fact possess such powers, it is difficult to set a limit to the respect and veneration due to them. But if their pretensions be false, it is monstrous that they should be permitted to trade upon the credulity of mankind. Suppose we admit for the sake of argument that the apostles possessed these powers, the question remains, Are these same powers in fact possessed by the men who now claim to exercise them ? It is not easy to decide what amount of evidence ought to be deemed sufficient in such a case. But is there any evidence at all? These powers are not supposed to be conferred immediately from Heaven, but mediately through other men, who in turn had received them from their predecessors, and so on in an unbroken line extending back to the days of the Apostles. No man who is satisfied with the evidence upon which evolution rests can fairly dispute the proofs of an apostolic succession. Let us, therefore, go so far in our admissions as even to accept this also; and that, too, without stopping to investigate the lives of those through whom the "succession" flowed. Some of them were famous for their piety, others were infamous for their crimes. But passing all this by, let us get face to face with the living men who make these amazing demands upon our faith.Some of these men were our playmates in childhood, and our class-fellows and companions in school and college days. We recall their friendly rivalry in our studies and our sports, and their share in many a debauch that now we no longer speak of when we meet. Some of them are the firm and valued friends of our manhood. We respect them for their learning, and still more for their piety and their self-denying efforts for the good of their fellow-men. Others, again, have fallen from our acquaintance. Although, ex hypothesi, equally endowed with supernatural gifts which should make us value their presence at our deathbed, they are exceptionally addicted to natural vices which lead us to shun them in our lifetime. And this disposes of one ground on which possibly a prima facie case might be set up. If all those who are supposed to possess these extraordinary powers were distinguished from their fellow-men by high and noble qualities, their pretensions would at least deserve our respect. But we fail to find any special marks of character or conduct, which even the most partial judge could point to for such a purpose. On what other ground, then, can these claims be maintained? It is idle to beat about the bush. The fact is clear as light that there is not a shadow of evidence of any description whatsoever to support them. This being so, we must at once recall one of the admissions already made, lest these men should take refuge in an appeal to the New Testament as establishing their position. The enlightened Christianity of the Reformation emphatically denies that even the Apostles themselves possessed such powers, or that the Bible gives any countenance whatever to the assumption of them. In a word, Christians who are the very elite of Christendom maintain that such pretensions have no Scriptural foundation whatever. If Christianity be true, we need not hesitate to believe that certain men are divinely called and qualified as religious teachers. But this position is separated by an impassable gulf from the mystic pretensions of priestcraft. In truth, sacerdotalism presents extraordinary problems for the consideration of the thoughtful. If it prevailed only among the ignorant and degraded, it would deserve no attention. But the fact is beyond question that its champions and votaries include men of the highest intellectual eminence and moral worth. The integrity of such men is irreproachable. They are not accomplices in a wilful fraudupon their fellows; they are true and honest in their convictions. How, then, are we to account for the fact that many who hold such high rank as scholars and thinkers are thus the dupes of such a delusion? How is it to be explained that here in England, while we boast of increasing enlightenment, this delusion is regaining its hold upon the religious life of the nation? The national Church, which half a century ago was comparatively free from the evil, is now hopelessly leavened with it. The more this matter is studied the more inexplicable it seems, unless we are prepared to believe in the existence of spiritual influences of a sinister kind, by which in the religious sphere the minds even of men of intellect and culture are liable to be warped and blinded.’ Footnote To discuss the legality of such views and practices in the Church of England would be foreign to my argument, and outside the scope of my book; and moreover, having regard to Articles XXVIII. and XXXI., I cannot see that the question is open. Here is one clause of Article XXVIII. "Transubstantiation(or the change of the substaace of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions." It may be interesting to notice here that this vetoes the superstitious meaning which almost universally attaches to the word "sacrament." It is the equivalent of the Greek word, which is used by the LXX in Daniel 2:18-19; Daniel 2:27-30; Daniel 2:47; Daniel 4:9, and is always rendered secret in our English version. This moreover is its ordinary meaning in the New Testament. But the word was even then acquiring the meaning usually given to it in the Greek Fathers, viz., a symbol or secret sign. See, e.g., Revelation 1:20; Revelation 17:5; Revelation 17:7. And this is the significance of the English word "sacrament." It connotes something which represents something else; and so we find that in old writers Noah’s rainbow, the brazen serpent, &c., are called "sacraments." And in this sense it is that the bread and wine in the "Eucharist" are a "sacrament"; they represent the body and blood of Christ. Therefore to hold that they are in fact His body and blood is to "overthrow the nature of a sacrament." Our practice of kissing the book in taking a judicial oath is in this sense a "sacrament." And there can be no doubt that it was owing to some symbolic act of this kind that the Latin word sacramentum came to mean a soldier’s oath. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 9: 1.01.05. CHAPTER 5: IS CHRISTIANITY DIVINE? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 5: IS CHRISTIANITY DIVINE? Is Christianity a Divine revelation? This question must not be settled by the result of the preliminary inquiry here proposed. In rejecting sacerdotalism, we merely clear the ground for a discussion of the main question upon its merits. "The Reformation," says Mr. Goldwin Smith, "was a tremendous earthquake " which "shook down the fabric of medieval religion." " But," he goes on to say, "it left the authority of the Bible unshaken, and men might feel that the destructive process had its limit, and that adamant was still beneath their feet." To the Bible, then, we turn. But how is such an inquiry to be conducted? The unfairness of entrusting the defence of Christianity to any who are themselves the rejecters of Christianity will be palpable to every one. Here the right of audience is only to the Christian. But, in making this concession, the sceptic may fairly insist in maintaining the place of critic, if not of censor. Until convinced, he will continue to consider, reflect, hesitate, doubt. And it is a suspicious circumstance that so many who claim to be leaders of religious thought, and who are professional exponents of the Christian faith, seem eager not only to eliminate from Christianity everything that is distinctive, but also to divorce it from much with which, in its origin, it was inseparably associated. They are strangely anxious to separate it from the Judaism which it succeeded, and upon which it is so indisputably founded. As a corollary upon this, they struggle to separate the New Testament from the Old, treating the Hebrew Scriptures, and especially the Pentateuch, as persons who have risen in the world are prone to treat the quondam acquaintances of humbler days. As a further step, they betray unmistakable uneasiness when confronted with the miraculous in the Bible; and "the old evangelical doctrine" of inspiration they regard with undisguised dislike, if not contempt. No well-informed person will dispute that this is a fair statement of the position assumed by a school of religious thought which is in its own sphere both influential and popular. But it needs no more than a conventional knowledge of the New Testament to enable us to assert that the Christianity of Christ and His apostles was not a new religion, but rather an unfolding and fulfilment of the Judaism which preceded it. The Christ of Christendom was a crucified Jew-crucified because He declared Himself to be the Jew’s Messiah; and His claims upon our homage and our faith are inseparably connected with that Messiahship. And what were the credentials of His Messiahship? To some extent the miracles which He wrought, but mainly the Hebrew Scriptures. And in His appeal to those Scriptures He implicitly asserted that they were in the strictest sense inspired. Ten times are those Scriptures quoted in the first four chapters of the New Testament as being the ipsissima verba of the Deity, and three of these quotations are from the Book of Deuteronomy, the very book which these theologians are most decided in rejecting. The language of the" Sermon on the Mount" is, if possible, more emphatic still. To understand its full significance we must bear in mind what Josephus asserts, that by all Jews the Scriptures "were justly believed to be Divine, so that, rather than speak against them, they were ready to suffer torture or even death." It was to a people saturated with this belief that such words as the following were spoken: "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." "The ’jot’ (we are told) is the Greek iota, the Hebrew yod, the smallest of all the letters of the alphabet. The ’tittle’ was one of the smallest strokes or twists of other letters." What language, then, could possibly assert more plainly that, so far from coming to set up a new religion, as these Christian teachers would tell us, the Nazarene declared His mission to be the recognition and fulfilment of the old Hebrew Scriptures in every part, even to the minutest detail? And much that is distinctly miraculous in those Scriptures was specially adopted in His teaching; as, for example, Noah’s deluge; the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; Jonah and the fish; Moses and the burning bush; the heaven-sent manna in the wilderness; Elijah and his mission to the widow of Sarepta; Elisha and the cure of Naaman’s leprosy by bathing in the Jordan. But, we are told, though Christ was essentially Divine, He laid aside His Divinity with a view to His mediatorial work. And His ministry was marked by the imperfections of human knowledge. In proof of this, appeal is made to the Apostolic statement that He "emptied Himself." Strange it is that men who hold "verbal inspiration" in such contempt should lay such stress upon the words of Scripture! But let that pass. The subject will come up again: suffice it here to say that the Apostle’s language will not support the heresy that is based upon it. True it is that no stronger term could be found to describe the great Renunciation by which the Son of God stripped Himself of all the insignia of Deity. But this involved no change of personality. When King Alfred became a drudge in the swineherd’s cottage, he divested himself of all the externals of royalty, but he did not cease to be King Alfred. And the story of the burnt cakes loses its significance and charm if we forget that it was with full consciousness of whoand what he was that he bore the peasant’s reprimands. And the words of Christ give overwhelming proof that throughout His earthly ministry He bore His sufferings with full knowledge of His origin and glory, and that His teaching was not characterised by human ignorance, but by Divine authority.If this be forgotten, moreover, the Apostolic exhortation loses all its meaning. For it is based on this, that with full knowledge of His riches the Son of God came down to poverty; that with the fullest consciousness of His Deity "He emptied Himself and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." The dilemma in which this places the Christian is inexorable. If Christ was Divine, the truth of everything adopted and accredited by His teaching is placed beyond question. Toplead that, with a view to advance His Messianic claims, He pandered to Jewish ignorance and prejudice, is not only to admit that He was merely human, but to endanger our respect for Him even as a Rabbi. And yet Christian teachers have the temerity to suggest such an explanation of His words. Such a position is utterly untenable. The Christian is, to borrow a legal term, estopped from questioning the inspiration of the Old Testament, or the reality of the miracles recorded in it; and when teachers who profess to be Christians question both, they cannot be surprised if they are charged with being either dishonest or credulous. But," it may be urged, "it is not the teaching of Christ which is disparaged, but only the record of that teaching. It is here that allowance must be made for Jewish ignorance and prejudice. That the Jews believed their Scriptures to be inspired is admitted, and therefore it was that those who chronicled the words of Christ gave that colour to His doctrine. The New Testament is marked by the same imperfections as the Old. It is of priceless value as the record of Divine facts, but it is upon those facts themselves, and not upon the record of them, that Christianity is founded. "This answer is plausible, but upon examination it will prove to be absolutely fatal. When we turn to the Gospels, we find that of necessity the whole fabric of Christianity stands or falls with our acceptance or rejection of their claims to be, in the strictest and fullest sense, authentic. Most true it is that the system rests on facts, and not on writings merely; and this it is, indeed, which distinguishes it from all other religions. But such is the character of the facts on which it is based, that if the record of them be disparaged, belief in these facts is sheer credulity. The public facts of the ministry and death of Christ are as well authenticated as any other events of ancient history. No one questions them. But the entire significance of those facts depends upon their relation to other facts behind them- facts of a transcendental character, and such as no amount of discredited or doubtful testimony would warrant our accepting. "But," it may perhaps be answered, "though the record was human, the Person of whom it speaks was more than human; the whole argument depends upon ignoring the great fundamental fact of Christianity, that Christ was Himself Divine." But what is the basis of our belief in the Deity of Christ? The founder of Rome was said to be the divinely begotten child of a vestal virgin. And in the old Babylonian mysteries a similar parentage was ascribed to the martyred son of Semiramis, gazetted Queen of Heaven. What grounds have we then for distinguishing the miraculous birth at Bethlehem from these and other kindred legends of the ancient world?At this point we are face to face with that to which, I repeat, no consensus of untrustworthy testimony could lend even an a priori probability. If, therefore, the Gospels be not authentic and authoritative records of the mission and teaching of Christ, we must admit that Christianity is founded on a Galilean legend. And if we accept the New Testament, we are excluded from rejecting the earlier Scriptures which were so unequivocally accredited by Christ Himself. If His authority as a teacher be rejected, or the authenticity of the records of His ministry be denied, there is no longer any foothold for faith, for the foundations of Christianity are thus destroyed. And while the superstitious may cling to an edifice built upon the sand, clear-headed and thoughtful men will take refuge in natural religion. Whatever may be said, therefore, of the theological school here under review, their religion is not Christianity, and their testimony must be rejected as of less value even than that of the sacerdotalists. Nor can any one justly take exception to the fairness of this argument. If we be urged to embark in a gold- mine, we naturally ask whether those who commend it to our confidence have themselves put their money in it. Nor will this avail to satisfy us if we find that they have also invested in other undertakings which we know to be worthless. And so here: we are entitled to put men upon proof, not only of the sincerity and consistency of their faith, but also of its reasonableness. And we find that the faith of Christians of the one school includes tenets the belief in which implies the degradation of reason, and that the unfaith of Christians of the other school under-mines Christianity altogether. The one school believes too much, the other believes too little. With the one, faith degenerates into superstition; with the other, it merges in a skepticism which is as real, though not as rational or consistent, as is that of many who are commonly branded as infidels. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 10: 1.01.06. CHAPTER 6: MR. A. J. BALFOUR'S SCHEME ======================================================================== CHAPTER 6: MR. A. J. BALFOUR’S SCHEME "WE are without any rational ground for believing in science"; "We are without any rational ground for determining the logical relation which ought to subsist between science and religion." Such are among the startling theses maintained by the author of A Defence of Philosophic Doubt. And one of the main results of his argument is stated thus: " In the absence, then, of reason to the contrary, I am content toregard the two great creeds by which we attempt to regulate our lives as resting in the main upon separate bases." A protest this against "the existence of a whole class of ’ apologists’ the end of whose labours appears to be to explain, or to explain away, every appearance of contradiction between the two." But here Mr. Balfour fails of his usual precision. A definition of religion is wanting. He seems sometimes to use the word in its first and widest sense, and at other times as equivalent to a particular system of belief, and, by implication, to Christianity. A consciousness of our own existence is the foundation of all knowledge. And that elementary fact is the first stepping-stone toward an apprehension of the existence of God. It might be fairly argued that our knowledge of the existence of God rests upon a surer basis than our knowledge of the external world, and therefore that religion in that sense takes precedence of science. But such a plea is unnecessary, because our knowledge of the external world is, for the practical purposes of life, absolute and unquestioned, We may be content, therefore, to assert that the two creeds stand upon a perfect equality.’ And, speaking generally, belief in both is universal. There are exceptions, doubtless - as, for example,"street arabs and advanced thinkers"; but this does not affect the argument. Science depends on our belief in the external world; religion on our belief in God. " Religious feeling springs from the felt relation in which we stand to a supreme Power; and, as Tyndall justly says, "religious feeling is as much a verity as any other part of human consciousness, and against it, on its subjective side, the waves of science beat in vain."But this relates to what is called natural religion, and it is not until we pass into the sphere of revealed religion that the seeming conflict with science arises. The difficulties of practical men, moreover, are of a wholly different order from those which perplex the philosophers. Take, for example, the argument against miracles. An intelligent schoolboy can see that the solution of the problem depends on the answer we make to the question whether there be a God. Even John Stuart Mill admits this. To acknowledge the existence of a God possessed of power infinitely greater than that of man, and yet to insist that He must necessarily be a cipher in the world- this may pass for philosophy, but a different sort of word would describe it better. And as with the so-called " laws" of science, so also is it with its theories. Excepting only the evolution hypothesis, which enjoys a certain amount of popularity, common men care nothing for them. What weighs with earnest thinkers who are real truth-lovers is that ascertained facts appear to disprove the truth of what has been received as a Divine revelation. But treatises such as those of which A Defence of Philosophic Doubt is a most striking example, are further defective in that they defend religion upon a ground which leaves the apologist equally free to fall back upon superstition, as to vindicate the claims of the Bible to be a revelation. And as a result of this,in discussing the foundations of belief they ignore the doctrine of transcendental faith, which is characteristic of Christianity. The theological argument from miracles has, at least in its common form, no scientific or Biblical sanction. The fact of a miracle is a proof merely of the presence of some power greater than man’s. That such a power is necessarily Divine is an inference which reason refuses to accept, and Christianity very emphatically denies. ( I have dealt with this subject in discussing Paley’s argument in The Silence of God. Scripture is explicit that miracles have been, and may be, the result of demoniacal or Satanic agency. The Jews accounted thus for the miracles of Christ, and His answer was an appeal to the moral character of His works.) Every one who believes in a God must be prepared to admit that there may be creatures in the universe far superior to man in intelligence and power; and even an atheistic evolutionist would as freely admit this, if he were honest and fearless in his philosophy. It is entirely a question of evidence. But this we need not discuss. As regards the theologian the matter stands thus. He tells us that evil beings exist, endowed with powers adequate to the accomplishment of miracles on earth, and at the same time he maintains that the fact of a miracle is a proof of Divine intervention. But in the New Testament the miracles are never appealed to as an "evidence," save in connection with the preceding revelation to which they are referred. They accredited the Nazarene as being the promised Messiah. And "the fact is allowed," not, as Bishop Butler avers," that Christianity was professed to be received into the world upon the belief of miracles," but that the claimant to Messiahship was rejected as a profane deceiver by the very people in whose midst the miracles were wrought. And it is a further fact that no one of the writers of the New Testament accounts thus for his own faith, or for the faith of his converts. That their faith was an inference from their observation of miracles - that it was due to natural causes at all - is negatived in the plainest terms, and its supernatural origin and character are explicitly asserted. So long as the testimony was to the Jew, miracles abounded; but if the Apostle Paul’s ministry at Corinth and Thessalonica may be accepted as typical of his work among Gentiles, his Epistles to the Corinthians and Thessalonians emphatically disprove the idea that miracles were made the basis of his preaching. A single quotation from each will suffice. The Jews require a sign" (he says; that is, they claimed that the preaching should be accredited by miracles), and the Greeks seek after wisdom" (that is, they posed as rationalists and philosophers) : "but " (he declares, in contrast with both) "we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the Power of God, and the Wisdom of God." And to the Thessalonians hewrites, "When ye received the Word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth the Word of God." Now, no one who will examine these statements fairly can fail to recognise their force and meaning. They do not indicate a belief resulting from the examination of miracles performed by the Apostles, but a faith of an altogether different character. We need no protest against the folly and dishonesty of adapting the teaching of Christ and His apostles to modern views, and calling the name of Christian over the hybrid system thus formed. Such a system may be admirable, but it is not Christianity. For the Christian is supposed to have a faith which is produced and sustained by his being brought into immediate relations with God. No one, of course, will deny that the God whose creatures we are can so speak to us that His Word shall carry with it the conviction that it is Divine. And if it be demanded why it is that all do not accept it, the Christian will answer that man’s spiritual depravity renders a special intervention of the Divine Spirit necessary. No one, again, will deny that formerly this part of the Christian system was generally accepted by professed Christians. But it has been given up, of course, by all who have ceased to regard the Bible as a Divine revelation. Naturally so, for the one part of the system depends on the other. None but the superstitious suppose that God speaks to us save through the Scriptures, and once we give up the old belief of Christendom, that the Scriptures are what they claim to be, the Christian theory of faith becomes untenable. Christianity stands or falls according to the conclusion we arrive at here. Hence the special difficulty which embarrasses the consideration of the question. In litigation, a case can never come before a jury until some definite propositions are ascertained, which the one side maintains and the other side denies. But in this controversy "the issues" are never settled. The lines of attack and defence never meet. The assailant ignores the strength of the Christian position; and the Christian, entrenched in that position, is wholly unreached by the objections and difficulties of the assailant. A Defence of Philosophic Doubt - to revert to that treatise again for a moment - is an attempt to arbitrate between the two without joining hands with either. Its author is liable to be challenged thus: "If your treatise be intended as a defence of natural religion, it is unnecessary; for there is clearly no conflict between science and natural religion. But if it be a defence of revealed religion, that is, of Christianity, it is inadequate; for you must fall back upon the Bible, and if you do so we will undermine your whole position by proving that essential parts of it are inconsistent with" -" the doctrines of science," the scientist is sure to say, thus destroying his entire argument, and leaving himself helplessly at the mercy of Mr. Balfour’s pitiless logic. But if he were not misled through mistaking his hobby for a real horse, he would say, "in-consistent with ascertained facts"; and this position, if proved, would refute Christianity. For example: the miraculous destruction of the cities of the plain is one of the seemingly incrediblethings in Scripture. The scientist rejects the narrative as being opposed to science, just as, on the same ground, the African rejected the statement that water became so solid that men could walk upon it. But if the scientist could fix the site of Sodom and Gomorrah, and point to the condition of the soil as proof that no such phenomenon as is detailed in Genesis could have occurred there, the fact would be fatal not only to the authority of the Pentateuch, but to the Messianic claims of the Nazarene, who identified himself with it. But the scientist can do nothing of the kind. On the contrary, the admitted facts confirm the truth of the Mosaic narrative, and those who regard that narrative as a legend would urge that an ignorant and superstitious age sought thus to account for the extraordinary phenomena of the Dead Sea and the district surrounding it. The narrative of the Jewish captivity in Babylon, again, was formerly a favourite battle-ground in thisway; and in view of the deciphered cuneiform inscriptions, and other discoveries of recent years, it is an interesting question whether the Christians or the skeptics displayed the greatest unwisdom in the controversy. The fight at this moment wages chiefly round the Mosaic account of the creation. And here it must be admitted that while in theological circles no one need hesitate to declare his doubts upon this subject, a man must indeed have the courage of his opinions to own himself a believer in Moses when among the Professors. Intolerance of this kind savours of persecution, and persecution generally secures a temporary success. It is only the few who ever set themselves to make headway against the prevailing current. If the shout, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!" be kept up "by the space of two hours," even staid municipal officials will yield to it; and a two hours’ séance of the Professors will silence the doubts of ordinary folk as to the infallible wisdom of science. Upon any one in whom polemical instincts are strong, the effect is wholly different, and in all seriousness it may be averred that if Moses had written as a heathen philosopher, his cosmogony would now be held up to the admiration of mankind, and his name would be venerated in all the learned societies of the world. But his writings claim to be a Divine revelation: hence the contempt which they excite in the minds of the baser sort of men, who regard everything which savours of religion as a fraud, and the impatience shown, even by "men of light and leading," toward anyone who wishes to keep an open mind upon the subject.The Mosaic cosmogony has been called "the proem to Genesis." But more than this, it is an integral part of the proem to the Bible as a whole. And having regard to the importance of the subject, and to the interest which it excites, a chapter shall be devoted to the consideration of it. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 11: 1.01.07. CHAPTER 7: THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS ======================================================================== CHAPTER 7: THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS I AVOW myself a believer in the Scriptures, and if a personal reference may be pardoned, I would say that my faith is not to be accounted for either by want of thought, or by ignorance of the objections and difficulties which have been urged by scientists and skeptics. But just as the studies which charm the naturalist are an unknown world to those who are ignorant of the book of nature, so also the elements which make the Bible a fascinating volume to the believer do not exist for those who fail to possess the clew to its mysteries. "Truth brings out the hidden harmony, where unbelief can only with a dull dogmatism deny." These words are Pusey’s. And in the same connection he says in effect that the Bible is its own defence, the part of the apologist being merely to beat off attacks. And it is in the spirit of these words that I would deal with the present question. Nor will it be difficult to show that while among scientists generally the cosmogony of Genesis is "a principal subject of ridicule," their laughter may not, after all, be the outcome of superior wisdom. It would be interesting and instructive to recapitulate the controversy on this subject, and to mark the various positions which have been successively occupied or abandoned by the disputants, as one or another of the fluctuating theories of science has gained prominence, or newly found fossils have added to "the testimony of the rocks." But I will content myself with recalling the main incidents of the last great tournament upon "the proem to Genesis." I allude to the discussion between Mr. Gladstone and Professor Huxley in the pages of the Nineteenth Century some twenty years ago. In The Dawn of Creation and Worship Mr. Gladstone sought to establish the claims of the Book of Genesis to be a Divine revelation, by showing that the order of creation as there recorded has been "so affirmed in our time by natural science that it may be taken as a demonstrated conclusion and established fact." Mr. Huxley’s main assault upon this position was apparently successful. His main assault, I say, because his collateral arguments were not always worthy of him. His contention, for example, that the creation of the "air population" was contemporaneous with that of the "water population" depends upon the quibble that both took place within four and twenty hours. Mr. Gladstone proclaimed that science and Genesis were perfectly in accord as regards the order in which life appeared upon our globe. To which Mr. Huxley replied as follows: "It is agreed on all hands that terrestrial lizards and other reptiles allied to lizards occur in the Permian strata. It is further agreed that the Triassic strata were deposited after these. Moreover, it is well known that, even if certain footprints are to be taken as unquestionable evidence of the existence of birds, they are not known to occur in rocks earlier than the Trias, while indubitable remains of birds are to be met with only much later. Hence it follows that natural science does not ’affirm’ the statement that birds were made on the fifth day, and ’everything that creepeth on the ground’ on the sixth, on which Mr. Gladstone rests his order; for, as is shown by Leviticus, the ’Mosaic writer’ includes lizards among his ’creeping things.’" The following is the quotation from Leviticus above referred to:- "And these are they which are unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the great lizard after its kind, and the gecko, and the land-crocodile, and the lizard, and the sand-lizard, and the chameleon. These are they which are unclean unto you among all that creep." "The merest Sunday-school exegesis, therefore" (Mr. Huxley urged) "suffices to prove that when the Mosaic writer in Genesis 1:24 speaks of creeping things he means to include lizards among them." A charming specimen this certainly is of "the merest Sunday-school exegesis." The argument, which so completely satisfied its author and embarrassed his opponent is nothing but an ad capiandum appeal to the chance rendering of our English Bible. If the disputants had referred the question to some more erudite authority than the Sunday-school, they would have discovered that the word translated "creeping thing" in the eleventh chapter of Leviticus has no affinity whatever with the word so rendered in the twenty-fourth verse of the first chapter of Genesis, whereas it is the identical word which our translators have rendered "moving creature" in the twentieth verse which records the first appearance of animal life.’ Science proclaims the seniority of land reptiles in the genesis of life on earth, and the despised Book of Genesis records that "creeping things," which, as Huxley insisted, must include land reptiles, were the first "moving creatures" which the Creator’s fiat called into existence. "Hoist with his own petard" may therefore tersely describe the result of Huxley’s attack.With his old-world courtesy Mr. Gladstone proposed a reference to a distinguished American scientist. "There is no one," Mr. Huxley replied, "to whose authority I am more readily disposed to bow than that of my eminent friend Professor Dana." And Professor Dana’s decision, in the following words, was published in the Nineteenth Century for August, 1886 " I agree in all essential points with Mr. Gladstone, and I believe that the first chapter of Genesis and science are in accord." But this is not all. Six years later I challenged Mr. Huxley on this subject in the columns of the Times newspaper. He sought to evade the issue by pleading that the real question involved was that of the supernatural versus evolution. This evoked a powerful letter from the late Duke of Argyll, denouncing the reference to the supernatural as savouring of "bad science and worse philosophy," and warning Mr. Huxley that in the new position in which he sought to take refuge "he would not have the support of the most eminent men of science in the United Kingdom." In a final letter I restated the question, and again challenged Mr. Huxley either to establish or to abandon his contention that Genesis and science were in antagonism. His only reply was a letter suggesting, in his grandest style, that the public were tired of the controversy. But it was not the public that were tired of it. The fact remains that Mr. Gladstone’s position stands unshaken. The fact remains that one who has had no equal in this age as a scientific controversialist entered the lists to attack it, and retired discomfited and discredited. Mr. Gladstone’s thesis, therefore, holds the field. "The order of creation as recorded in Genesis has been so affirmed in our time by natural science that it may be taken as a demonstrated conclusion and established fact." Are we then to conclude that when Genesis was written biological science was as enlightened and as far advanced as it is to-day? Or shall we adopt the more reasonable alternative, that "the Mosaic narrative" is a Divine revelation? (I cannot refrain from adding the following extract from a letter I received from Mr. Gladstone after the Times correspondence closed "As to the chapter itself" (Genesis 1:1-31 :), "I do not regard it merely as a defensible point in a circle of fortifications, but as a grand foundation of the entire fabric of the Holy Scriptures.") All this of course will weigh nothing with men who have prejudged the question. First, there are the religious teachers of that school whose role it appears to be to import the raw material of German rationalism and to retail it with a veneer of British piety to suit the British market. And, secondly, there are the scientists of the materialistic school, to whom the very name of God is intolerable. A few years since, Lord Kelvin’s dictum, already quoted,’ gave these men an opportunity of "glorying in their shame"; and they eagerly availed themselves of it. His assertion that "scientific thought" compelled belief in God set the whole pack in full cry. The acknowledgment even of "a directive force," they declared, "in effect wipes out the whole position won for us by Darwin." This clearly indicates that the only value they put upon their hypothesis is that it enables them to get rid of God; and if it fails of this it is, in their estimation, worthless. What must be the moral, or indeed the intellectual condition of men who regard the negation of God as "a position won for them"!’ But, it may be asked, what about evolution? The materialistic evolution of Herbert Spencer is as dead as its author. And even Darwin’s more enlightened biological scheme is now discredited. For it is recognised that something more than Darwinism offers is needed to account for the phenomena of life. The evolution hypothesis is thoroughly philosophical; and that is all that can be said for it, for it is unproved and seemingly incapable of proof. That "creative power" may have worked in this way may be conceded. But if so, the process must have been divinely controlled and strictly limited. This much is made clear both by the facts of Nature and the statements of Scripture; but beyond this we cannot go. "Evolution is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion, during which the matter passes from an indefinite incoherent homogeneity to a definite coherent heterogeneity, and during which the retained motion undergoes a parallel transformation." If this cacophonous sentence be translated into English, it will be found to contain some element of truth. Herbert Spencer does not here pretend, as the careless reader of his philosophy might suppose, that matter itself is capable of producing any such results. Every change is due to motion, and behind motion is the power which causes it. What and where that power is, Herbert Spencer cannot tell. He calls it Force, but he might just as well term it Jupiter or Baal. Were he to assert that it is unknown, no one could object, however much he differed from him. But with the aggressive insolence of unbelief he declares it to be "unknowable," thus shutting the door for ever against all religion. The Christian recognises the force, and the effects it has produced, and he refers all to God. He allows a pristine condition of matter described by the philosopher as "an indefinite incoherent homogeneity"; but as an alternative formula for expressing this he confidently offers both to the simple and the learned the well-known words, "The earth was waste and void." As he goes on to consider the" integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion," "And God said" is his method of accounting for the phenomena. The philosopher admits that not even the slightest change can have taken place save as a result of some new impulse imparted by Inscrutable Force. The Christian, in a spirit of still higher philosophy, accounts for every change by Divine intervention. It is thus that he explains the "coherent heterogeneity" -or, to translate these words into the vernacular, the exquisite order and variety of nature. Here I turn to the narrative. The earth existed, but it was "desolate and empty," a mere waste of waters, wrapped in impenetrable darkness. The changes recorded are, first, the dawn of light, and then the formation of an atmosphere, followed by the retreat of the waters to their ocean bed; then "the dry land" became clothed with verdure, and sun and moon and stars appeared. The laughter formerly excited by the idea of light apart from the sun has died away with increasing knowledge; and, in our ignorance of the characteristics of that primeval light, it is idle to discuss the third-day vegetation. It may possibly have been the "rank and luxuriant herbage" of which our coal-beds have been formed; for one statement in the narrative seems strongly to favour the suggestion that our present vegetation dates only from the fifth or sixth day.’ But this brings up the question, What was the creation day? No problem connected with the cosmogony has greater interest and importance; none is beset with greater difficulties. The passage itself seems clearly to indicate that the word is used in a symbolic sense. When dealing with a period before man existed to mark the shadow on the dial, and before the sun could have cast that shadow, it is not easy to appreciate the reason, or indeed the meaning, of such a division of time as our natural day. "Days and years and seasons" seem plainly to belong to our present solar system, and this is the express teaching of the fourteenth verse.’ The problem may be stated thus: As man is to God, so his day of four and twenty hours is to the Divine day of creation. Possibly indeed the "evening and morning" represent the interval of cessation from work, which succeeds and completes the day. The words are, "And there was evening, and there was morning, one day." The symbolism is maintained throughout. As man’s working day is brought to a close by evening, which ushers in a period of repose, lasting till morning calls him back to his daily toil, so the great Artificer is represented as turning aside from His work at the end of each "day" of creation and again resuming it when another morning dawned. Is not this entirely in keeping with the mode in which Scripture speaks of God? It tells us of his mouth and eyes and nostrils, His hand and arm. It speaks of His sitting in the heavens, and bowing Himself to hear the prayer ascending from the earth. It talks of His repenting and being angry. And if any one cavils at this he may fairly be asked, In what other language could God speak to men? Nor let any one fall back on the figment that a Divine day is a period of a thousand years. With God, we are told, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. In a word, the seeming paradox of the transcendental philosophy is endorsed by the express teaching of Scripture that time is a law of human thought. When, therefore, God speaks of working for six days and resting on the seventh, wemust understand the words in the same symbolic sense as when He declares that His hand has made all these things.’ But the mention of the creation sabbath is the crowning proof of the symbolic character of the creation "day." God "rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made." Are we, then, to suppose that He resumed the work when four and twenty hours had passed? Here, at least, revelation and science are at one: the creation sabbath has continued during all the ages of historic time. God is active in His universe, pace the atheist and the infidel, but the CREATOR rests. Having regard then to the admitted fact that the creation sabbath is a vast period of time, surely the working days of creation must be estimated on the same system. My object here, however, is not to frame a system of interpretation, but rather to enter a protest against confounding the express teaching of Scripture with any system of interpretation whatever. Nor am I attempting to prove the inspiration, or even the truth of Scripture. My aim is merely to "beat off attacks." I hold myself clear of the sin of Uzzah. I am not putting my hand upon the ark: as Dante pleaded, I am dealing with the oxen that are shaking the ark- unintelligent creatures who have no sense of its sanctity, or even of its worth. And here I am reminded of Huxley’s words, "that it is vain to discuss a supposed coincidence between Genesis and science unless we have first settled, on the one hand, what Genesis says and, on the other, what science says." This is admirable. Let us distinguish, therefore, between "what Genesis says" and what men say about Genesis. And let us not be either misled or alarmed by attacks upon the Mosaie cosmogony, based on "the merest Sunday-school exegesis" on the one hand, or on the theories of science on the other. The facts of science in no way clash with Scripture. And as the prince of living scientists declares- I quote Lord Kelvin’s words again-" scientific thought is compelled to accept the idea of creative power." Of the origin of our world the first chapter of Genesis tells us nothing save that "in the beginning," whenever that was, God" created" it. It may be, as Tyndall said in his Belfast address, that "for eons embracing untold millions of years, this earth has been the theatre of life and death." But as to this the "Mosaic narrative" is silent. It deals merely with the renewing and refurnishing of our planet as a home for man. And this, moreover, to prepare the foundation for the supreme revelation of redemption. Let the authority of Scripture be undermined, and the whole fabric of the Christian system is destroyed. But in these easy-going days the majority of "those who profess and call themselves Christians," being wholly destitute of the enthusiasm of faith, are helpless when confronted by the dogmatism of unbelief. It is a day of opinions, not of faith, and widespread apostasy is the natural result. (Footnote - While correcting the proofs of these pages I have received a newspaper report of a sermon preached by the Bishop of Manchester in his Cathedral, in which he justifies the rejection of Genesis 1:1-31 :, because "it seems to be an intellectual impossibility that God should reveal to man an exact account of the creation of the universe." But there is not a word in Genesis 1:1-31 : about "the creation of the universe," save in the opening sentence. The word "create" is not used again till we come to the work of the fifth and sixth "days" (Genesis 1:21 and Genesis 1:27). And when it is said that God "made" the two great lights and the stars, the word is the same as that used elsewhere of "making" a feast. And when it is said that He "set" them in the heavens, it is the same word as is used of "appointing" cities of refuge. (See Appendix, Note I.) The inference to be drawn from this I cannot discuss here. But it shows that Huxley was right: "What Genesis says" is but little understood. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 12: 1.01.08. CHAPTER 8: "AN AGNOSTIC'S APOLOGY" ======================================================================== CHAPTER 8: "AN AGNOSTIC’S APOLOGY" "THE natural attitude of a thinking mind toward the supernatural is that of skepticism." Skepticism, not agnosticism. The sceptic halts at the cross-roads to take his bearings; but at sight of a cross-road the agnostic gives up his journey altogether. True skepticism connotes intellectual caution, but agnosticism is intellectual suicide. Not so, it will be said, for agnosticism merely betokens the prudence that refuses to proceed if no plain signpost marks the way. But in this life it is not by plain signposts that we have to direct our steps. The meaning of a word moreover must be settled by use, and not by etymology; and this word was coined to express something quite different from skepticism. It is the watchword of a special school. And no one will dispute that the late Sir Leslie Stephen may be accepted as an authoritative exponent of the teaching of that school. Let us then turn to his treatise entitled An Agnostic’s Apology. A book about dress would not offend us by ridiculing and denouncing our conventional clothing as uncomfortable, unhealthy, and inartistic. But if the writer went on to urge that we should discard all covering, and go about in our native nakedness, his lucubrations would only excite amusement or disgust. And no one who sympathises with the main argument of the preceding chapters would find much fault with Leslie Stephen’s treatise if it were merely an exposure of the superstitions and errors and follies that have corrupted "the Christian religion" and discredited theological controversy. But when hegoes on to preach agnosticism as a positive "faith," and to formulate it as an ideal "creed," he stands upon the same level as the preacher of nakedness. His Apology opens with a definition of agnosticism. "That there are limits to the sphere of human intelligence," no one of course denies. But the agnostic further asserts "that, those limits are such as to exclude at least what Lewes called ’metempirical’ knowledge," and "that theology lies within this forbidden sphere." And the meaning of this is emphasised by his statement of the alternative position-a position which he rejects with scorn-" that our reason can in some sense transcend the narrow limits of experience." Now there is a grotesquely transparent fallacy in this; and I will illustrate it by a grotesquely childish parable. As regards what is happening next door at this moment my condition is that of bland agnosticism. My reason can tell me nothing, and happily the partition wall is thick enough to prevent my senses from enlightening me. But if my neighbour comes in to see me, my ignorance may be at once dispelled, and my reason "transcends the narrow limits of my experience." And so here. Everybody admits that in the spiritual sphere reason can tell us nothing. Therefore, our author insists, we are of necessity agnostics. Not so, the Christian replies, for God has given us a revelation. The agnostic’s rejoinder will be to reject my implied definition of "experience," and to deny the possibility of a revelation. And if he were an atheist his denial would be reasonable and consistent. But Leslie Stephen’s repudiation of atheism undermines his whole position. To acknowledge the existence of a God whose creatures we are, and at the same time to deny on a priori grounds that He can reveal Himself to men - this savours of neither logic nor philosophy. If some one came to my house purporting to be the bearer of a letter from my brother, the fact of my having no brother would be a sufficient reason for refusing to receive him. But if I had a brother I should be bound to admit the visitor and read the letter. My having a brother would not prove the genuineness of the letter, but it would make it incumbent on me to examine it. And while the fact that there is a Goddoes not establish the truth of Christianity, it creates an obligation to investigate its truth. But the agnostic shuts the door against all inquiry. His agnosticism is positive and dogmatic. It is based on a deliberate refusal to consider the matter at all. This being so his Apology is merely a paean in praise of ignorance, and a sustained appeal to prejudice. And he makes free use of the well-known nisi prius trick of diverting attention from the real issue by heaping ridicule upon his opponents. His dialectical juggling about the freewill controversy is a notable instance of this. For as he does not pretend to deny that will is free, his fireworks, effective though they be, all end in smoke. A like remark applies to his discussion about virtue and vice. And his reference to Cardinal Newman is a still more flagrant example of his method. For if Newman is responsible for the statement that "the Catholic Church affords the only refuge from the alternatives of atheism or agnosticism," it merely exemplifies the fact that very great men say very foolish things. In view of the faith of the Jew, and the facts of Judaism, such a dictum is quite as silly as it is false. But even if, for the sake of argument, we should admit everything by which this apostle of agnosticism attempts to establish his opening theses, the great problem which he ignores would remain, like some giant tree round which a brushwood fire has spent itself. For the real question at issue is not whether, as he seems to think, theologians are fools, nor even whether Christianity is true, but whether a Divine revelation is possible. And by his refusal on a priori grounds to accord to Christianity a hearing, he puts himself out of court altogether. His position is not that of enlightened and honest skepticism; it is the blind and stupid infidelity of Hume. It is the expression, not of an intelligent doubt whether "God hath spoken unto us by his Son," but of an unintelligent denial that God could speak to men in any way. It is a deliberate and systematic refusal to know anything beyond what unaided reason and the senses can discover. His agnosticism is - to adopt his own description of it - a "creed"; and were we to emulate his method, it might be contemptuously designated a creed of mathematics and mud. As a philippic against Christianity, An Agnostic’s Apology is all the more effective because its profanities, like its fallacies, are skilfully veiled. And yet the tone of it is deplorable. In England at least, cultured infidels are used to speak of Christianity with respect, remembering that it is the faith of theapostles and the martyrs - the faith, moreover, professed today by the great majority of men who hold the highest rank in the aristocracy of learning. But a very different spirit marks this treatise. In the writer’s estimation the great doctrines of that faith are but "old husks," and the profession of them is only "bluster." And he challenges the Christian to "point to some Christian truth, however trifling," that "will stand the test of discussion and verification." That challenge the Christian can accept without misgiving or reserve. And the doctrine on which he will stake the issue is not a "trifling" one, but the great foundation truth of the Resurrection. In writing to the Christians of Corinth, the Apostle restates the Gospel which had won them from Paganism. And the burden of it is the Saviour’s death and resurrection. "That Christ died for our sins" is a truth which, in the nature of things, admits of no appeal to human testimony. But though the Resurrection is equally the subject of positive revelation, the Apostle goes on to enumerate witnesses of it, whose evidence would be accepted as valid by any fair tribunal in the world. Once and again all the Apostles saw their Lord alive on earth after His crucifixion. And on one occasion He was seen by a company of more than five hundred disciples, most of whom were still living when the Apostle wrote. The Rationalists suggest that belief in the Resurrection was the growth of time, "when a haze of sentiment and mysticism had gathered around the traditions of Calvary." But this figment is exploded by the simple fact that the interval was measured by days and not by years. The disciples, moreover, were quite as sceptical as even these "superior persons" would themselves have been. One of the eleven Apostles, indeed, refused to believe the united testimony of his brethren, and for a whole week adhered to the theory that they had seen a ghost. But the Lord’s appearances were not like fleeting visions of an"astral body" in a darkened room. He met the disciples just as He had been used to do in the past. He walked with them on the public ways. He sat down to eat with them. And more than all this, He resumed His ministry among them, renewing in detail His teaching about Holy Scripture, and confirming their faith by a fuller and clearer exegesis than they had till then been able to receive. Such was their explicit testimony. And in view of it the Rationalist gloss is utterly absurd. It is sheer nonsense to talk of a haze of sentiment, or of Oriental superstition, or of over-strained nerves. If the Resurrection was not a reality, the Apostles, one and all, were guilty of a base conspiracy of fraud and falsehood. Credulous fools they certainly were not, but profane impostors and champion liars - no terms of reprobation and contempt would be too strong to heap on them. And this is what unbelief implies, for in no other way can their testimony to the Resurrection be evaded. And in addition to this direct evidence, there is abundant evidence of another kind. At the betrayal all the disciples were scattered and went into hiding. But at Pentecost these same men came forward boldly, and preached to the Jews assembled in Jerusalem for the festival. And Peter, who had not only forsaken Him, but repeatedly denied with oaths that he ever knew Him, was foremost in denouncing the denial of Him by the nation. Something must have happened to account for a transformation so extraordinary. Andwhat was it? Only one answer is possible – The Resurrection. But further. While the three years’ ministry of Christ and His Apostles produced only about a hundred and twenty disciples in the city of Jerusalem, this Pentecostal testimony brought in three thousand converts. Nor was this the mere flash of a transient success. Soon afterwards the company of the disciples was more than trebled. For we read "the number of the men came to be about five thousand," and we may assume that the women converts were at least as numerous. A little later again, we are told, they were further joined by "multitudes both of men and women." And later still, the narrative records, "the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith." All this, moreover, occurred at a time when the opposition of the Sanhedrim and the priests was fiercer and more organised even than before the crucifixion. How then can it be explained? Only one answer is possible - The Resurrection. But even this is not all. We have other indirect evidence, still more striking and conclusive. To suppose that the Christianity of the Pentecostal Church was "a new religion" is an ignorant blunder. The disciples preached to none but Jews; all the converts without exception were Jews; and by the religious leaders of the nation they were regarded as an heretical Jewish sect. When the Apostle Paul was put on his defence before Felix, the charge against him was not apostasy but heresy. He was a "leader of the sect of the Nazarenes." And what was his answer to that charge? "According to the Way (which they call a sect) so worship I the God of our fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets. His position, he thus maintained in the most explicit terms, was that of the orthodox Jew. Now there was no ordinance to which the Jews adhered more rigidly than that of the Sabbath. How was it then that with one consent they began to observe the first day of the week? The sceptic may hint at parallels for their success in proselytising, but here is a fact that cannot be thus dismissed. Something of an extraordinary kind must have happened to account for it. What was it then? Only one answer is possible- The Resurrection. I am not ignorant of the methods by which infidelity has sought to account for the empty tomb. The lie of the Jewish priests - that the disciples stole the body - is too gross for modern rationalism; and as an alternative explanation, we are told that Christ had not really died! And Dr. Harnack, the greatest of living rationalists, disposes of the matter by treating the Resurrection as a mere "belief." " It is not our business," he says, "to defend either the view which was taken of the death, or the idea that He had risen again." And he adds: "Whatever may have happened at the grave and in the matter of the appearances,one thing is certain: this grave was the birthplace of the indestructible belief that death is vanquished, that there is a life eternal." And again: "The conviction that obtained in the apostolic age that the Lord had really appeared after His death on the cross may be regarded as a coefficient." It is not that the fact of the appearances was "a coefficient," but merely the belief that there were appearances. For his meaning is made clear by his going on to refer to the "coefficient" of a mistaken expectation of Christ’s return. There are no facts of any kind in this scheme, but merely "beliefs" and "views" and "ideas." And this being so it involves the absolute rejection of the Gospel narrative, and therefore it destroys the only ground onwhich discussion is possible. Here then is our answer to the agnostic’s challenge. There are circumstances in which it is idle to speak of spiritual truth; but the resurrection of Christ is a public fact accredited by evidence which will "stand the test of discussion and verification." And when the agnostic denies that Christianity can supply an answer to as much as one of "the hideous doubts that oppress us," the Christian points to that Resurrection as dispelling the most grievous of all the doubts that darken life on earth. For the resurrection of Christ isthe earnest and pledge of the resurrection of His people. Such then is the Christian’s hope. "A sure and certain hope" he rightly calls it; nor will he be deterred by the agnostic’s denunciation of the words as "a cutting piece of satire." Notwithstanding petulant disavowals of atheism, the real issue here involved is not the fact of a revelation, but the existence of God- a real God, not "the primordial germ," nor even the Director- General of evolutionary processes, but "the living and true God" From all who acknowledge such a God we are entitled to demand an answer to the Apostle’s challenge when he stood before Agrippa: "Why should it be thought incredible with you that God should raise the dead?" And this suggests a closing word. Leslie Stephen avers with truth that the "enormous majority of the race has been plunged in superstitions of various kinds." But the philosophers always omit to tell us how this universal craving for a religion can be accounted for. And while they are vainly seeking for the solution of the enigma in the monkey house of the Zoological Gardens, sane and sensible folk who make no pretensions to be philosophers will continue to find it in the Genesis story of the Creation and Fall. (Footnote - No one surely will suppose that the foregoing is a full statement of the evidence for the Resurrection. To compress such a statement into such a compass would be a feat unparalleled in Apologetics. But even this partial and most inadequate statement is amply sufficient as an answer to Leslie Stephen’s challenge. What has here been urged in proof of the Resurrection is proof that it was neither a delusion nor a fraud. For the moral and spiritual elements involved are more significant even than the physiological. I might further appeal to the baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the visible proofs of which are vouched for by the men who experienced it. And I might appeal to the Ascension and, in connection with it, to the Transfiguration, which, I may remark, the Apostle Peter records as matter of evidence (2 Peter 1:15-19).) ======================================================================== CHAPTER 13: 1.01.09. CHAPTER 9: THE IRRATIONALISM OF INFIDELITY ======================================================================== CHAPTER 9: THE IRRATIONALISM OF INFIDELITY "CHRIST is still left" is the solace Mill would offer us as we survey the wreck which rationalism makes of Faith. To that life he appeals as supplying a "standard of excellence and a model for imitation." "Who among His disciples," he demands, "was capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to Jesus, or of imagining the character revealed in the Gospels?" Do not such words as these suggest that if Christianity would waive its transcendental claims and make terms with unbelief, the record of that life might afford the basis for a universal religion, a really "Catholic" faith? But who and what was this "Jesus" of the Rationalist, whose life is to be our model? The answer to this simple question will expose the fallacy of the whole position. The Christ of the Gospels was the Son of God, who worked miracles without number, and who claimed with the utmost definiteness and solemnity that His words were in the strictest sense a Divine revelation. But as regards His miracles, the Rationalist tells us that His biographers were deceived; and as for His teaching they misunderstood and perverted it. But if they blundered thus in matters as to which ordinary intelligence and care would have made error or mistake impossible, how can we repose any trust whatever in their records? What materials have we from which to construct a life of Christ at all? And if we decide that these Scriptures are not authentic, and that Christ was merely human, the Sermon on the Mount sinks to the level of a homily which Matthew framed on the traditions of his Master’s words. And as for the Fourth Gospel, having regard to the time when it was written, and to the fact that the Synoptics know nothing of its distinctive teaching, we must acknowledge that for such chapters as those which purport to record "the most sacred of all sacred words," spoken on the eve of the Crucifixion, we are mainly indebted to the piety and genius of "the beloved disciple." The modern Jew, moreover, cannot be far astray when he insists that Paul was the real founder of the Christian system. His was "the boldest enterprise" as Dr. Harnack declares, for he ventured on it "without being able to appeal to a single word of his Master’s." If men would but use their brains, they would see that once we drift away from the anchorage of the old beliefs, nothing can save us from being drawn into the rapids which end in sheer agnosticism. This does not prove the truth of Christianity, but it exposes the untenableness of the infidel position. These infidel books habitually assume that, if we refuse their nostrums, superstition is our only refuge. This is quite in keeping with the amazing conceit which characterises them. Wisdom was born with the Agnostics! They have monopolised the meagre stock of intelligence which the evolutionary process has as yet produced for the guidance of the race! But there are Christians in the world who have quite as much sense as they have, who detest superstition as much as they do, and who have far more experience in detecting fallacies and exposing frauds. And if such men are Christians it is not because they are too stupid to become infidels. For faith is not superstition; and in presence of a Divine revelation unbelief betokens mental obliquity, if not moral degradation. Thoughtless people are betrayed into supposing that there is something very clever in "not believing." But in this life the formula "I don’t believe" more often betokens dull- wittedness than shrewdness. It is the refrain of the stupidest man upon the jury. A mere negation of belief, moreover, is seldom possible; it generally implies belief in the alternative to what we reject. The sceptic may hesitate, in order to examine the credentia of a revelation. But no one who has a settled creed ever hesitates at all. And the Atheist has such a creed; he believes that there is no God. If we do not believe a man to be honest, we usually believe him to be a fraud. If we refuse the testimony of witnesses about matters that are too plain and simple to allow of mere misapprehension or honest mistake, we must hold them to be impostors and rogues. And nothing less than this is implied in the position held by men like Herbert Spencer and Leslie Stephen. But the infidel will deny that he impugns the integrity of the Apostles and Evangelists; he only questions their intelligence. He asks us to believe that they were so weak and credulous that their testimony to the miracles, for example, must be rejected. But the miracles were not rare incidences of dark-room seances; they were public events which occurred day by day, and usually in the presence of hostile critics. No person of ordinary intelligence, therefore, could have been mistaken as to the facts. What then do we know of the men on whose evidence we accept them? Their writings have been translated into every known language. They hold a unique place in the classic literature of the world, and the sublime morality and piety which pervade them command universal admiration. Certain it is therefore that if the New Testament is to be accounted for on natural principles, its authors must have been marvellously gifted, both intellectually and morally. And yet these are the men whose testimony is to be flung aside with contempt when they give a detailed description of events which happened in open day before their eyes. To talk of offering them a fool’s pardon is absurd. If their narratives be false, we must give up all confidence in human nature, and write them down as an abnormally clever gang of abnormally profane impostors and hypocrites. But this alternative is more untenable than the other. It is absolutely certain that the men of the New Testament were neither scoundrels nor fools. And no more than this is needed to undermine the infidel position. It is not necessary to prove that the Gospels are a Divine revelation; it will suffice to show that they are credible records; and this much is guaranteed to us by the character of the men who wrote them. As a test case let us take the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand, recorded in all the four Gospels. I begin with the First. And I will not speak of the writer as "Saint" Matthew, the Apostle of Christ, but of Matthew the ex-tax-collector. Such a man, we may be sure, was at least as shrewd and as suspicious as any of the infidels who with amazing conceit dispose of his testimony. He records that on a certain day, in a "desert place," be assisted in distributing bread and fish to a vast multitude that gathered to hear the Lord’s teaching-there were five thousand men"besides women and children"; that the supply was five loaves and two fishes; that "they did all eat and were filled, and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full." And this is confirmed by the writer of the Fourth Gospel, who also took part in the distribution of the food, and who gives details which prove the accuracy with which he remembered what occurred. If we assume that the other Evangelists were not present, their narratives become incidentally important as showing that the miracle was matter of common knowledge and discussion among the disciples. Miracles of another kind the infidel gets rid of to his own satisfaction by taking each in detail and appealing to what we know of the infirmity of human testimony, or the effects of hysteria and the power of mind or will over the body. But this miracle is one of many that cannot possibly be accounted for on natural principles. And mistake or illusion was no less impossible. That the "narrative arose out of a parable" is the nonsense of sham skeptics and real fools.’ For the witnesses were admittedly neither idiots nor rogues, but men of the highest intelligence and probity. And this being so the facts are established, and the only question open is, What explanation can be given of them? What explanation is possible save that Divine power was in operation? The infidel therefore, so far from being the philosopher he pretends to be, is the blind dupe of prejudice. And this is in effect the defence pleaded for Voltaire by his latest English apologist. To him we are told, l’infâme, "if it meant Christianity at all, meant that which was taught in Rome in the eighteenth century, and not by the Sea of Galilee in the first"; "it meant the religion which lit the fires of Smithfield and prompted the tortures of the Inquisition." In a word, Voltaire was ignorant of the distincthm between Christianity and what is called "the Christian religion." Not strange, perhaps, in the case of an eighteenth century Frenchman, but inexcusable in the case of cultured Englishmen of our own times. For the distinction is clear upon the open page of Scripture and of history. How indeed can it be missed by any one who has read the story of the martyrs? For the martyrs were the representatives and champions of Christianity: "the Christian religion" it was that tortured and murdered them. But this is a digression. While the aggressive infidel has no special claim to consideration, the honest-minded sceptic is entitled to respect and sympathy. And never was the path of the truth-seeker more beset with difficulties For the development of the rival apostasies of the last days, so plainly revealed in Scnpture, goes on apace On the one side there is a national lapse toward the errors and superstitions from which we supposed the Reformation had for ever delivered us, and on the other there is an abandonment of the great truths to which the Reformation owed its power. These apostasies moreover are well organised under zealous and able leaders. And while their discordant cries are ever in our ears, "truth is fallen in the street." In the National Church the great Evangelical party has effaced itself, and fallen into line behind the champions of the pagan superstitions of "the Christian religion." And though in the "Free" churches, as in the Establishment, there are great numbers of true and earnest men who refuse to bow the knee to any Baal, the only corporate testimony ever heard is "the gospel of humanity," which, as Scripture warns us, will lead at last to the worship of the Antichrist. We are pestered by the nostrums of "feather-headed enthusiasts who take the first will-o’-the-wisp for a safe guide, and patch up a new religion out of scraps and tatters of half-understood science," or of quasi- Christian ministers who are busy" framing systems of morality apart from the ancient creeds" and "trying to evolve a satisfactory creed out of theosophical moonshine." In the past, superstition and rationalism were the open enemies of the faith, but now they are entrenched within the citadel, and half the churches and chapels in the land are places to be shunned. Organised Christianity is becoming an organised apostasy, and the time seems drawing near when practical expression must be given to the cry, "To your tents, O Israel!" "The very Church of God which ought to be the appeaser of God is the provoker of God." These words seem as apt to-day as when they were written fifteen centuries ago. I will here avail myself of the language of a great commentator and divine, Dean Alford of Canterbury. After speaking of the apostasy of "the Jewish Church" beginning with the worship of "the golden calf," he proceeds as follows: "Strikingly parallel with this runs the history of the Christian Church. Not long after the Apostolic times, the golden calves of idolatry were set up by the Church of Rome. What the effect of the captivity was to the Jews, that of the Reformation has been to Christendom. The first evil spirit has been cast out. But by the growth of hypocrisy, secularity, and rationalism the house has become empty, swept and garnished: swept and garnished by the decencies of civilisation and the discoveries of secular knowledge, but empty of living and earnest faith. And he must read prophecy but ill who does not see under all these seeming improvements the preparation for the final development of the man of sin,the great repossession, when idolatry and the seven [other more wicked spirits] shall bring the outward frame of so-called Christendom to a fearful end." (Footnote - 1 Greek Test. Coin., Matthew 12:43-45. Alford is not speaking here of the Spiritual Church, the Body of Christ, of which Christ Himself is at once the Builder and the Head (Matthew 16:1-28; Ephesians 1:22-23), but of the Professing Church on earth, the administration of which was entrusted to men. The one ends in glory, the other in apostasy and judgment. The religion of Christendom confounds the one with the other; and it also confounds the Church with "the kingdom of heaven," the "keys" of which were committed to the Apostle of the Cir-cumcision. The following weighty words relating to the Church on earth are quoted from Canon T. D. Bernard’s Progress of Doctrine (The Bampton Lecture, 1864):-"How fair was the morning of the Church! how swift its progress! what expectations it would have been natural to form of the future history which had begun so well! Doubtless they were formed in many a sanguine heart: but they were clouded soon. . "While the Apostles wrote, the actual state and the visible tendencies of things showed too plainly what Church history would be; and at the same time, prophetic intimations made the prospect still more dark. . . "I know not how any man, in closing the Epistles, could expect to find the subsequent history of the Church essentially different from what it is. In those writings we seem, as it were, not to witness some passing storms which clear the air, but to feel the whole atmosphere charged with the elements of future tempest and death. . "The fact which I observe is not merely that these indications of the future are in the Epistles, but that they increase as we approach the close, and after the doctrines of the Gospel have been fully wrought out, and the fulness of personal salvation and the ideal character of the Church have been placed in the clearest light, the shadows gather and deepen on the external history. The last words of St. Paul in the Second Epistle to Timothy, and those of St. Peter in his Second Epistle, with the Epistles of St. John and St. Jude, breathe the language of a time in which the tendencies of that history had distinctly shown them.. selves; and in this respect these writings form a prelude and a passage to the Apocalypse." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 14: 1.01.10. CHAPTER 10: A SCEPTIC'S PLEA FOR FAITH ======================================================================== CHAPTER 10: A SCEPTIC’S PLEA FOR FAITH ONE who is himself a sceptic both by temperament and by training can appreciate the difficulties of the honest truth-seeker. And to such I would offer the assurance of respectful sympathy, and such counsel as my own experience may enable me to give. And first, I would say with emphasis, Ignore the atheistical section of the scientists. To quote the words of "that prince of scientists" Lord Kelvin, "If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God." And I would add, quoting Lord Kelvin again, "Do not be afraid of being free thinkers." For the free thinker will refuse to be either prejudiced or discouraged by the confusion and error which abound on every side, and which have always marked the history of the professing Church. Fifteen centuries ago the great Chrysostom ’ deplored that even in those early days, every Christian ordinance was parodied, and every Christian truth corrupted. And if it be demanded, Where can we look for guidance amid the din of the discordant cries which beat upon our ears today? his words may best supply the answer: "There can be no proof of true Christianity," he says, " nor any other refuge for Christians wishing to know the true faith, but the Divine Scriptures. . . . Therefore the Lord, knowing that such a confusion of things would take place in the last days, commands on that account that Christians should betake themselves to nothing else but the Scriptures" (Matthew, Hom. XLIII.). The Scriptures! "some one may exclaim, "but what about Moses and Jonah and Daniel ? " Some people will believe nothing, unless they can believe everything. But men who make fortunes in commerce are content with small beginnings, enough for the necessaries of life. The " Catholic Church," it is true, would hand us over to "the secular arm" for failing, not only to accept the whole Bible, but to swallow all its own superstitions. And to fit us for this achievement, Pascal’s advice would be to take to religion. For, he said, "that will make you stupid, and enable you to believe." But a very different spirit marks the Divine dealings with sinful men. " He that cometh unto God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." "That He is" for not a few of the difficulties which men find in the Bible are practically atheistical. And if even in the natural sphere it is the " diligent seeker" who succeeds, no one need wonder if in the spiritual sphere it is the "diligent seeker " who secures the treasure. Here then is my advice to any who are troubled with sceptical doubts Be in earnest; and begin at the beginning. God does not require of us that before we come to Him we shall believe in Daniel and Jonah and Moses. But, to render the words with slavish literalness, It is necessary for the comer unto God to believe that He exists, and that He is a rewarder of them that seek Him out. "Men do not find pearls upon the open beach, or nuggets of gold upon the public road. Even in this world the principle of "the narrow way" prevails. And it is only the few who find it. Even in the mundane sphere, success is not for the trifler or the faddist. But while in this world the diligent seeker is often thwarted, and sometimes crushed, it is never so with God: He never says, "Seek ye Me in vain." I repeat then," Do not be afraid of being free thinkers." In peace-time a war-ship may carry top-hamper without endangering her safety; but in presence of an enemy the first order is to clear the decks. And in these days, when it is necessary to "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered," we cannot be too fearless or too ruthless in jettisoning all error and superstition. The schoolboy’s definition of "faith" is not the right one: he described it as " believing what we know to be untrue." The God of revelation is the God of nature; and in the spiritual, as in the natural sphere, there are difficulties which perplex and distress us. But though the Word of God, like the works of God, may be full of mystery, it is wholly free from falsehood and folly. Some one may object that the truth here urged is quite too elementary to be vital. But elementary truths are often the deepest, and always the most important. And it is a significant fact that, in view of the completed revelation of Christianity, the last of the doctrinal books of the New Testament closes by re- iterating this most elementary of all truths "We know that the Son of God is come and has given us an understanding that we may know Him that is true. . . . This is the true God." Faith begins by giving up belief in the Deity as a mere abstraction, like "the Monarchy" or "the State," and learning to believe in"the living God" who is "the Rewarder of them that seek Him." This is the alpha of the alphabet of faith. We reach the omega when, giving up "the historic Jesus," we come to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ,"the Son of God." Just as "all the law and the prophets" are included in love to God and our neighbour, so, in the same sense, the whole revelation of Christianity is an unfolding of this truth. Not, as the rationalist has it, "that a man of the name of Jesus Christ once stood in our midst," but that "the Son of God is come," He who was in the beginning with God, and who was God, and by whom all things were made "-that He once stood in our midst. "God hath spoken to us in His Son." "But," it may be said, "there is a fallacy here. Belief in God belongs to the sphere of natural religion, but belief in Christ depends upon revelation; and this raises the question of the inspiration of Scripture." I challenge that statement. The question of inspiration is of vital importance in its own place, but this is not its place. Here and now we are concerned with facts-the public facts of the ministry of Christ, including His miracles and His resurrection from the dead. For the genuineness of the records is admitted, and, as we have seen their authenticity is guaranteed by the character of the men who wrote them. And I neednot repeat the argument that the denial of their inspiration compels us to form a still higher estimate of their personal competence.’ In order to evade the force of their testimony the infidel points to the lapse of time since these events occurred, and he tries to raise a cloud of prejudice by ringing the changes on the apostasy of the Christian Church. But this is only nisi prius claptrap. The significance of facts such as those we have here in view cannot be impaired either by the lapse of centuries or by any amount of human failure and folly. I put this question therefore to all fair and earnest thinkers. Suppose the ministry of Christ belonged to the nineteenth century, instead of the first, what effect would it have upon you? How would you account for it? Is not the only reasonable explanation of it this, "that the Son of God is come"? The New Testament records but one apostolic sermon addressed to a heathen audience. Jews could be referred to the Hebrew Scriptures in proof "that Jesus was the Christ." But when preaching to the Areopagites of Athens the Apostle appealed to their own religion, the writings of their poets, and the phenomena of nature, to prove the existence of an intelligent, personal, and beneficent God; and he pointed to the resurrection of Christ in proof that God had declared Himself to men. The times of ignorance which God could overlook were past. "He now commandeth all men everywhere to repent"; for agnosticism has become a sin that shuts men up to judgment, "whereof He hath given assurance unto all men in that He hath raised Him from the dead."’ There is not a word here about the inspiration either of writings or of men. That is a question for "the household of faith," the home circle of the family of God. But here we have to do with what concerns "all men everywhere." Acts 17:22-31. And, I repeat, the fact that "the Son of God is come," and the solemn warning that judgment is assuredly to follow, are wholly unaffected by accidents of time or place. I am not fencing with professional skeptics, but appealing to real truth-seekers, and upon such I again press the question, What bearing has this upon you? No one who will read these pages is more sceptical than the writer of them, none who feels a stronger antipathy to superstition and error and nonsense. But the falsehoods and follies of "the Christian religion "in its many phases, whether venerable or newfangled, must not be allowed to obscure the issue here involved. "The Son of God is come." And in view of that supreme fact God commands repentance, "for He has appointed a day in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He has ordained." And in that day no one will be condemned because he did not belong to this Church or that, or because he failed to accept the inspiration of one book or another. The judgment will turn on this, "that God sent His Son into the world." Here are His own words - the words of Him who is Himself to be the Judge: "This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil." A blind and unreasoning infidelity denies the resurrection. But to aver that God could not raise Christ from the dead is practical atheism: to aver that He would not raise Him from the dead is mere nonsense; and to assert that He did not raise Him from the dead is to deny a public fact, "the certainty of which can be invalidated only by destroying the foundations of all human testimony." And by the resurrection He was "declared to be the Son of God."’ How else can the resurrection be explained? What other significance can possibly be assigned to it? That Christ Himself claimed to be the Son of God is not a matter of inspiration but of evidence. His crucifixion by the Jews establishes it. The Jews were not savages who murdered their Rabbis. They honoured them. But, we read, when he said, "Before Abraham was, I am, then took they up stones to cast at Him." And when He said, "I and My Father are one, then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him." And in answer to His remonstrancethey exclaimed, "Thou being a man makest thyself God." If He was not Divine He was a blasphemer, and by their law deserved to die. But the resurrection proved Him to be Divine. And can the appalling fact that the Son of God has thus died at the hands of men be dismissed as a mere incident in history, or as a commonplace of religious controversy! "As He laid aside His glory, He now restrained His power, and yielded Himself to their guilty will. In return for pity He earned but scorn. Sowing kindnesses and benefits with a lavish hand, He reaped but cruelty and outrage. Manifesting grace, He was given up to impious law without show of mercy or pretence of justice. Unfolding theboundless love of the heart of God, He gained no response but bitterest hate from the hearts of men." The fate of the heathen who have never heard of Him rests with God; but to us the Cross must of necessity bring either blessing or judgment. In presence of it we must take sides. And he who takes sides with God is safe.And now, having reached this stage, can we not advance another step? "Scientific thought compels belief in God." And here "Agnosticism assumes a double incompetence, the incompetence not only of man to know God, but of God to make Himself known. But the denial of competence is the negation of Deity. For the God who could not speak would not be rational, and the God who would not speak would not be moral. The idea of a written revelation, therefore, may be said to be logically involved in the notion of a living God." And with overwhelming force this applies to the matter here at issue. If "the Son of God is come," is it credible, is it possible, that God has not provided for us an authentic record of His mission and ministry? Even the credulity of unbelief might well give way under the strain of such a supposition. Whether you describe it as "inspiration" or "providence "-call it by what term you please - must not the existence of such a record be assumed? If men are doubters here, it must be because they doubt either that" God is," or that" the Son of God is come." But "we know that the Son of God is come." With certainty, therefore, we accept the record. And here are His words: "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." And if this be Divine truth, who will dare to cavil at the words which follow: "He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."’ It is not death that decides our destiny, but our acceptance or rejection of the Gospel of Christ. For the consequences of receiving or rejecting Him are immediate and eternal. 1 John 3:14-18. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 15: 1.01.11. CHAPTER 11: HOW TO READ THE BIBLE ======================================================================== CHAPTER 11: HOW TO READ THE BIBLE THE preceding chapter opened by quoting words spoken by the most eminent of living scientists: this chapter shall be prefaced by quoting a man of the highest eminence in another sphere - the greatest philologist of our time. The following is an extract from a letter written in one of the later years of his life by Prof. Max Muller of Oxford: "How shall I describe to you what I found in the New Testament! I had not read it for many years and was prejudiced against it. The light which struck Paul with blindness on his way to Damascus was not more strange than that which fell on me when I suddenly discovered the fulfilment of all hopes. . . . If this is not Divine I understand nothing at all. In all my studies of the ancient times I have always felt the want of something, and it was not until I knew our Lord that all was clear to me." Testimonies of this kind--and they might be multiplied indefinitely - have no effect upon the aggressive infidel. But they cannot fail to influence honest and earnest men who are willing to deal fairly with the Scriptures.And here another testimony of a wholly different kind will be opportune. Among the many learned and brilliant assailants of the Bible whom Germany has produced, no name ranks higher than that of Ferdinand Christian Baur, the leader of the "Tubingen School" of critics, by whom the New Testament was rejected "as a tissue of deceptions and forgeries." Among living exponents of the so-called " Higher Criticism" Germany possesses no greater authority than the Principal of Berlin University. But the result of Baur’s labours Dr. Harnack dismisses as "an episode" which had better be forgotten; and as the outcome of his own investigations, he declares, "The oldest literature of the Church, in all main points and in most details, from the point of view of literary criticism, is genuine and trust-worthy." The importance of this testimony can scarcely be exaggerated. For Dr. Harnack is as uncompromising a rationalist as was Baur himself. And when this great scholar and critic, reviewing Baur’s conclusions, vouches for the genuineness and trustworthiness of the New Testament writings, the most sceptical of men may rest assured that we possess reliable records of the ministry of Christ and His Apostles. And now may we not appeal to any who are really honest doubters to face this matter with an open mind? To such we would say, begin your Bible study, not with Genesis or Jonah, but with the historical books of the New Testament. Max Muller’s study of them, in spite of his avowed prejudice, convinced him that Christianity was Divine, and you may expect to reach the same conclusion. And when you come upon difficulties and seeming contradictions, pass them by. They will possibly appear to you in a different light when you come back to them afterwards with a more educated mind. It is always so in the study of Nature, and it is not strange that it should be so in the sphere of revelation. And as you read the Gospel narratives keep in view the purpose with which "these things were written," namely "that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, ye might have life through His name." They deal, therefore, with issues the most important and solemn that can possibly occupy the thoughts of men. For they reveal the secret of peace, and even of joy, in a world that is full of doubt and sadness and sorrow and pain and sin and death. That evil is a mere fantasy, and sin but a defect of character or purpose - this is the dream of fools. These things are terribly real. And if it be not true that"the Son of God is come "-if Christianity be a delusion or a fraud - we must resign ourselves to the "deepening gloom" of life in this world unrelieved by any hope beyond it. And what is the alternative? What if Christianity be true? The answer shall be given by one whose testimony will command universal respect and confidence, the late Earl Cairns, three times Lord High Chancellor of England, and the greatest Chancellor perhaps of modern times. The following words were spoken by him to a company of working men, that included agnostics and infidels who deprecated any reference to "religion" on the occasion: "As I am a stranger among you I do not know that I have any right to intrude my opinions. All I can do is to tell you how this question affects me personally. If I could take you to my home you would think it a luxurious one, and the food on my table is abundant. You would say with all this I ought to be a happy man. I am indeed a happy man, but I do not think my furniture and food have much to do with it. Every day I rise with a sweet consciousness that God loves me and cares for me. He has pardoned all my sins for Christ’s sake, and I look forward to the future with no dread. And His Spirit reveals to me that all this peace is only the beginning of joy which is to last throughout eternity. Suppose it were possible for someone to convince me that this happiness was altogether a delusion on my part, my home would give me little repose, and food would often remain upon the table untasted. I should wake in the morning with the feeling that it was scarcely worth while to get up, so little would there be to live for; all would be so dark to me." "What is it about?" is a legitimate question to ask when a book is placed in our hands. And an intelligent answer to that question, as we open the Bible, will save us from many a prejudice and many an error. It is strange that any one can be deceived by the figment that the Old Testament is the history of the human race. Except for a brief preface of eleven chapters, its burden is unmistakably the history of that people" of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came." It has, indeed, an esoteric meaning, for its hidden purpose is to foretell, and lead up to, that supreme event. But this shall be dealt with in the sequel. This clew to the true character and vital unity of the Bible will guard us against another popular error. "To us there is but one God," the Apostle writes; but most people have two - the God of Nature and providence, and the God of revelation. And a great many Christians have three; for with them the God of the Old Testament is not the God of the New. This error is largely due to a false conception of the place held by the Jew in the previous dispensation; and as the result of it the semi-infidel "Christian literature" of the day uses language about Israel’s Jehovah which I will not pollute the page by reproducing here. It represents Him as callously devoting the mass of men to destruction, and having no care or thought save for one specially favoured race. This betrays extraordinary ignorance of Scripture. The Bible begins by recording the Creation and the Fall, the apostasy of the sinful race, and world judgment of the Flood, and the post-diluvial apostasy of Babylon. And then follows the call of Abraham. The religion of Babylon was a systematised perversion of Divine truth. Its "Bible" travestied both the primeval revelation of which the opening chapters of Genesis contain the authentic record and the sacrificial cult by which God sought to teach mankind that death was the penalty of sin. The earlier apostasy had been wiped out by the Flood, but God had in mercy promised that that judgment would never be repeated.’ And the truth and value of that promise were displayed in the call of Abraham and the segregation of the covenant people. The Divine purpose was thus to guard the truth from corruption, and to establish a centre from which it might enlighten the world. Among the many advantages enjoyed by the favoured people, the greatest was "that unto them were committed the oracles of God." When the owner of some famous vineyard establishes an agency in London or New York, his object in doing so is not to hinder the public from procuring his wines, but to ensure that what is sold as his shall be genuine and pure. And agency, as distinguished from monopoly, illustrates the position which in the old dispensation was Divinely accorded to the Jew. In days before books were within reach of all, the knowledge of literature and the arts was kept alive in certain great seats of learning, and in like manner it was intended that the light of Divine truth should be kept burning in Jerusalem, and that the Temple of Zion should be "a house of prayer for all nations." But just as the Christian Church of this dispensation has failed, so the "Jewish Church" was false to its trust. And as the result the God of the New Testament is blasphemed by infidels, and the Jehovah of the Old Testament is blasphemed by Christian Professors of theology. Errors of another kind prevail, which we need to guard against. Here is a typical one. Israel was a theocracy, and therefore the Divine code included, not merely "the moral law," but enactments of various kinds relating to social and commercial life, sanitation, and crime. If all Scripture be "God-breathed," we may be assured that all is "profitable"; but yet we must use it with intelligent discrimination. (Footnote - In writing on crime I have given grounds for believing that if the two main features of the Mosaic code were accepted in our criminal law the reform would lead to a ~substantial and immediate decrease of crime.) "Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected." But we do not on that account feed our babies on beef and potatoes. Some people do so, indeed; and they are not more unintelligent than the Christians who ply their children with these ordinances of the Mosaic code, when they ought to be giving them "the sincere milk of the Word." A somewhat similar abuse of Scripture is denounced in the Sermon on the Mount. People imagine that love is the abrogation of law, but Scripture teaches that it is the "fulfilling" of it. Therefore it was that to "the Beatitudes" the Lord immediately added words to guard against the error, which half of Christendom has adopted, of supposing that His purpose was to set aside, or in some way to disparage, the law. But the law had two aspects. Christianity itself knows no higher standard of duty than love to God and one’s neighbour; and, this was expressly, declared to be the esoteric teaching of the Mosaic law. In this aspect of it the law proclaimed what a man ought to be: in its lower aspect it prohibited what men ought not to do. But in this its lower form "the law was not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient." And yet "the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees" consisted in non-violation of the "Thou shalt not’s" of the penal code of the theocracy. But that was not the righteousness of those who desired to be sons of the Father in heaven, nor would it give entrance into the Kingdom. Theirs was a far different standard of life than mere discharge of their responsibilities as citizens of the Commonwealth.’ Error is altogether human and may be detected by the use of our natural faculties. Hence our Lord’s indignant rebuke addressed to the Pharisees, "How is it that even of yourselves ye do not judge what is right?" Lord Kelvin’s dictum therefore is apt and useful: "Do not be afraid of being free thinkers." But a caution is needed here. While common sense may save us from much of the error and nonsense by which the language of the Bible is perverted or obscured, our natural faculties will not not avail to reveal to us its deeper teaching. For Divine truth is spiritually discerned, and there-fore spiritual intelligence is needed for the apprehension of it. And there are difficulties in the Bible which even spiritual intelligence will fail to solve, difficulties which seem nearly as insoluble and distressing as are God’s providential dealings with His people in their life on earth. But such difficulties cannot shake the faith of those who have learned to trace the golden threads of type and promise and prophecy, which are spread through all the sacred writings, giving proof of their unity and testifying to their Divine authorship. "These are they which testify of Me" was the Lord’s description of the Hebrew Scriptures. And in His post-resurrection ministry, we are told, "beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." On this Dean Alford writes: "I take the words to mean something very different from mere prophetical passages. The whole scriptures are a testimony to Him: the whole history of the chosen people, with its types, and its law, and its prophecies, is a showing forth of Him : and it was here the whole that He laid before them.” And these golden threads unite the later with the earlier Scriptures. Indeed, the Gospels belong as much to the Old Testament as to the New. For the Christ of the Gospels is “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” And the ministry there recorded is that of the Jews’ Messiah. It is not till we come to the Epistles that we are confronted by the new and startling fact that Divine Scriptures are addressed to Gentiles. And the Acts of the Apostles explains the change. Because they rejected the Messiah, the covenant people are themselves rejected. Their position as the Divine agents upon earth is determined, and the Gospel now goes out unfettered to the world. The unbelief of infidels is seldom as unintelligent as that of professing Christians."Back to Christ" is the shibboleth of a school that seeks to set one part of Scripture against another, and to disparage the ministry of Paul. But unless Christ was to come back in person, the new and special revelation consequent upon the great dispensational change involved in setting aside the earthly people must needs have been made the ministry of human lips and pen; and Divine sovereignty made choice of the Apostleof the Gentiles. And to disparage the Apostle Paul, or the revelation entrusted to him, is not to get back to Christ, but to put ourselves back into the position which the Gentiles occupied in the days of His earthly ministry The intelligent student of Scripture will find ever-increasing proofs of what Pusey aptly calls its “hidden harmony.” “Not harsh and crabbed, as dull fools suppose” is the poet’s, vindication of “divine philosophy”; and with still fuller meaning and deeper truth may these words be used of the Divine Book. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 16: 1.01.12. CHAPTER 12: THE HIGHER CRITICISM ======================================================================== CHAPTER 12: THE “HIGHER CRITICISM” BIBLE students nowadays seem to be haunted by the grim spectre of the “Higher Criticism.” But if instead of running away from ghosts we face them boldly, our fears generally give place to feelings of contempt or indignation. And this is the experience of many who have fearlessly examined what are called "the assured results of modern criticism." The fact that, these attacks upon the Bible originated with German rationalism formerly barred their acceptance by Christians of the English-speaking world. But in our day they have been accredited by distinguished scholars on both sides of the Atlantic, whose reputation for piety and reverence for things Divine is deemed a guarantee that they are legitimate and harmless. I am not referring to that admirable and useful system of Bible study to which the title of Higher Criticism properly belongs, (It has for its aim to settle the human authorship of the sacred books, and the circumstances in which they were written) but to "the Higher Criticism" in inverted commas - a German rationalistic crusade against the Scriptures. The New Testament was at one time its chief objective; and we have seen with what results. The much vaunted conclusions of the Tubingen School of critics are now relegated to the same limbo as the Bathybius of the scientists. And it may be predicted with confidence that a generation hence the present-day attacks upon the Old Testament will be equally discredited. Meanwhile, however, they must be reckoned with. But while these attacks cannot be ignored, no one surely will suppose that they can be fully discussed in a brief concluding chapter. My aim here is limited to destructive criticism of the critics. I do not pretend, for example, to establish the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch - that would need a treatise of some magnitude - but the reader will here find proof that "the critical hypothesis of its origin is untenable." It is commonly assumed that these "assured results of modern criticism" are the outcome of an honest and impartial examination of the text by Hebrew scholars, whereas in fact the critics began with the "results," and all their labours have been directed to the task of finding facts and arguments to justify them. Rationalism gained such as ascendency in the latter part of the eighteenth century that it well-nigh swamped the Christianity of Germany. And Eichhorn, "the founder of Old Testament criticism," took up the task of "winning back the educated classes to religion." To accomplish this it was necessary to bring the Bible down to the level of a purely human book, and therefore every feature savouring of what is called "the supernatural" had to be eliminated. All miracles had, of course, to be got rid of. But the only element of real Higher Criticism in the business was Astruc’s discovery, made in the year of Eichhorn’s birth, that the early chapters of Genesis are possibly "mosaic" in the secondary sense of that term, and that they incorporated documents of an earlier era. Astruc’s theory, however, has no bearing upon the issue here involved. For it seems incredible that there was no written revelation before the epoch of the Exodus; and if such a revelation existed, we should naturally expect to find traces of it in Genesis. How then was the Pentateuch to be discredited? One scheme after another was broached, as succeeding generations of critics faced the problem; and that which at last gained acceptance was that the books were literary forgeries of the Exilic Era. But let it be kept clearly in view that these various theories were not the outcome of honest inquiry. One and all, they were devised to sustain the foregone conclusion which rendered them necessary. And that conclusion rests on no better foundation than a few isolated and perverted texts. Chief among these is the statement that in Josiah’s reign "the book of the law" was found in the Temple - not a very strange discovery, seeing that the law itself ordered it to be kept there! (It was not "a book of the law," as in A.V., but the book: the known record of "the law of the Lord given by Moses," but neglected and forgotten during the apostasy of Manasseh’s long and evil reign.) But, it will be said, this implies that our Christian scholars have lent themselves to what is on the face of it a fraud? By no means. The whole business is German from first to last. Our own scholars have not contributed one iota to the "Higher Criticism." The only "independent work" done by them has been to check and verify the labours of the Germans, and this they have done, of course, with skill and care. And as the result they assure us that in their judgment the case has been established against the Mosaic Books. "But," someone will exclaim, "is not this an end of controversy in the matter? "One might have supposed that the egregious fallacy here involved would be apparent to all thoughtful people. For it assumes that anything supported by a clear and complete case must be true. But no one who is brought before a court of justice, either in a civil action or on a criminal charge, is ever required to open his lips in his defence unless a clear and complete case is established against him - such a case as must, if unanswered, lead to a hostile verdict. And the object of a trial is to sift that case and to hear what is to be said upon the other side. Critics, like the Dreyfus tribunal, took the place of prosecutors; and beginning with a hostile verdict, they then set to work to justify it. This is not rhetoric but fact. It was essential to their purpose to prove that the Bible is purely human. And therefore, as no one would believe in miracles if unsupported by contemporary evidence, the Pentateuch was assigned to the era of the Captivity. The main ground on which this scheme found acceptance with Christian scholars is now discarded as a blunder. It was deemed to be impossible that such a literature could have originated in an age which was supposed to be barbarous. And until recent years the question was solemnly discussed whether the art of writing prevailed in the Mosaic age. But to-day it is matter of common knowledge that long before the time of Moses literature flourished; and archeological discovery tells us that "in the century before the Exodus Palestine was a land of books and schools." But further. The idea was scouted that such a code of laws could have been framed at such an early period. Recently, however, the spade of the explorer unearthed the now famous code of Hammurabi, who ruled in Babylon four centuries before the Exodus. And this discovery undermined the very foundations of "the critical hypothesis." But instead of repenting of their error and folly, the critics turned round, and with amazing effrontery declared that the Mosaic code was borrowed from Babylon. This is a most reasonable conclusion on the part of those who regard the Mosaic law as a purely human code. But here the critic is "hoist with his own petard." For if the Mosaic law were based on the Hammurabi code, it could not have been framed in the days of Josiah long ages after Hammurabi had been forgotten. This Hammurabi discovery is one of many that led Professor Sayce to declare that "the answer of archaeology to the theories of modern ’criticism’ is complete: the Law preceded the Prophets, and did not follow them." But even this is not all. It is a canon of criticism with these men that no Biblical statement is ever to be accepted unless confirmed by some pagan authority; Genesis 14:1-24 : was therefore dismissed as fable on account of its naming Amraphel as a King of Babylon. But Amraphel is only another form of the name of Hammurabi, who now stands out one of the great historical characters of the past.’ "His nonsense suited their nonsense," the explanation Charles II. offered of popularity of a certain preacher with his flock. And the claptrap by which the minor prophets of this cult commend it to ignorant multitude may be dismissed similar fashion. To trade on prejudice, however, is not my method. The case against the Pentateuch shall be stated in the word of a scholar and teacher whose name and fame stand high in the Universities of Christendom - I refer to Professor Driver of Oxford. Here is his summary of the critics’ case against the Mosaic books, as formulated in his great work "The Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament": "We can only argue upon grounds of probability derived from our view of the progress of the art of writing, or of literary composition, or of the rise and growth of the prophetic tone and feeling in ancient Israel, or of the period at which the traditions contained in the narratives might have taken shape, or of the probability that they would have been written down before the impetus given to culture by the monarchy had taken effect, and similar considerations, for estimating most of which, though plausible arguments on one side or the other may be advanced, a standard on which we can confidently rely scarcely admits of being fixed" (sixth ed., p. 123). "Plausible arguments" and "grounds of probability": such are the foundations on which rest "the assured results of modern criticism"! But even if the critics’ position were as strong as it is feeble, we could call a witness whose unaided testimony would suffice to destroy it. I refer to the Samaritan Bible. And here again their case shall be stated by one of themselves, a writer whom they hold in the highest honour, the late Professor Robertson Smith. In the judgment of the Samaritans he tells us, "Not only the temple of Zion, but the earlier temple of Shiloh and the priesthood of Eli, were schismatical." And yet, he adds, "their religion was built on the Pentateuch alone." Where then, and when, did they get the Pentateuch? Here is the critics’ account of it: "They [the Samaritans] regard themselves as Israelites, descendants of the ten tribes, and claim to possess the orthodox religion of Moses. . . . The priestly law, which is throughout based on the practice of the priests in Jerusalem before the Captivity, was reduced to form after the Exile, and was published by Ezra as the law of the rebuilt temple of Zion. The Samaritans must therefore have derived their Pentateuch from the Jews after Ezra’s reforms." Now mark what this implies. We know the bitterness of racial and religious quarrels. And both these elements combined to alienate the Samaritans from the Jews. But this was not all. At the very time when they are said to have "derived their Pentateuch from the Jews" these antipathies had deepened into hatred - "abhorrence" is Robertson Smith’s word - on account of the contempt and sternness with which the Jews spurned their proffered help in the work of reconstruction at Jerusalem. And yet we are asked to believe that in such circumstances, and at that time, when their feelings toward the Jews were such as nowadays Orangemen bear to "Papists," they accepted these Jewish books as their " Bible," to the exclusion of the writings, not only of their own Israelite seers, but also of those sacred and venerated historical books known as "the former prophets." In the whole range of controversy, religious or secular, was there ever propounded a theory more utterly incredible and preposterous! What have the critics to say for it? Here is the defence they offer in the new volume of the accredited handbook of their heresies - Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible: "There is at least one valid ground for the conclusion that the Pentateuch was first accepted by the Samaritans after the Exile. Why was their request to be allowed to take part in the building of the second temple refused by the heads of the Jerusalem community? Very probably because the Jews were aware that the Samaritans did not as yet possess the Law-book. It is hard to suppose that otherwise they would have met with this refusal. Further, any one who, like the present writer, regards the modern criticism of the Pentateuch as essentially correct, has a second decisive reason for adopting the above view." (Prof. Konig’s article, "Samaritan Pentateuch," p. 68.) The question is, When and how did the Samaritans get the Pentateuch? A "valid ground" for the critical theory, we are told, is that "very probably" the reason why the Jews under Ezra refused their help was because they had not then got the forged books, and it "hard to suppose" anything else! But the "decisive reason" for accepting the critics’ hypothesis is that critical hypothesis is" essentially correct"! Men of common sense will "very probably" conclude that if the "Modern Criticism of the Pentateuch" can be supported only by drivel such as this, it may be dismissed as unworthy of discussion. The fetich of "modern criticism" seems to have a sinister influence even on scholars of eminence. The Samaritan Bible is conclusive proof that the "critical hypothesis" of the origin of the Pentateuch is absolutely untenable. And its acceptance by the Higher Critics is proof of their utter incapacity in dealing with evidence. And this leads me to say with emphasis that the grounds on which these men claim the the "Higher Criticism" as their own peculiar province are as futile as are their arguments in its support. The language of the incriminated books has very little bearing on the issues involved; and in the case of the Pentateuch its testimony is against the critics. The problems of the controversy fall within the sphere, not of philology, but of evidence. And this being so, a Professor of Theology or of Hebrew, as such, has no special fitness for dealing with them. "As such" I say, for of course a knowledge of languages and of Biblical literature is not a disqualification. But experience abundantly proves that the pursuit of studies of that character creates no fitness for handling problems of evidence; and these should be left to men who by training and practical experience are qualified for the task. Proofs of this, both numerous and striking, might be culled from the controversy respecting the genuineness of the Book of Daniel. But I have published so much on that subject elsewhere, that I will not introduce it here. And other books, moreover, will furnish further illustrations of my statement. Take the "two Isaiahs" figment, for example. There is no element of profanity in this hypothesis, and we can afford to examine it on its merits. What does it involve? Having regard to the scathing denunciations of the national religion which abound in the earlier portions of the Book of Isaiah, it would not be strange if their author’s name had been deliberately effaced from the national annals. But the later chapters, attributed by the critics to Isaiah II., are not only marked by extraordinary brilliancy, but tlu abound in words of cheer and hope and joy, unparalleled in all the Hebrew Scriptures. A prophet raised up in the dark days of the exilic period to deliver such messages of comfort and gladness would have become immortal. His name would have been enshrined with those of Moses and Samuel and David and Ezra and his fame would have been blazoned many a page of apocryphal literature. But the critics ask us to stultify ourselves by believing that he appeared and vanished like a summer mist, without leaving even the vaguest tradition of his personality or career. There is a limit to the credulity of sham skepticism. The aim of the "Higher Criticism" is, as have seen, to banish God from the Bible The Rationalists, therefore, invented a sham Isaiah in order to oust the element of Divine prophecy from the writings of the real Isaiah. .. But the invention of a sham Jonah would not have got rid of the whale, so the Book of Jonah had to be torn out of the Bible altogether. A serious matter this; for "Christ was raised from the dead the third day, according to the Scriptures," and the Book of Jonah was the only Scripture to which the Lord Himself appealed in this connection. He placed it in the foreground of His testimony, using it again and again with the greatest emphasis and solemnity. In the day of judgment, He declared, the men of Nineveh would rise up to condemn the Jews for their rejection of Him, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah when the prophet came to them accredited by the "sign" of his deliverance from death. Some of the critics dismiss this reference to Jonah by attributing it to the Lord’s deplorable ignorance of the Scriptures which it was His Divine mission to fulfil; others, by representing it as merely a rhetorical illustration. This latter view is not so profane as the other; but it is wholly inadequate, and moreover it is inconsistent with the plain statements of the Gospel narrative. The rationalist denies the Jonah miracle, because he holds miracles to be impossible. But why should a Christian reject it? Why should we refuse to believe that God delivered His prophet from death? To say He could not deliver him is atheism: to sayHe would not is nonsense; and to say He did not is to pour contempt on the words of our Divine Lord, and to repudiate His authority as a teacher. And this, and nothing less than this, the critics demand of us. Men who plan elaborate crimes are apt to give themselves away by some glaring oversight or blunder; and so is it with these critics who would commit the supreme crime of filching the Bible from us. They admit, for it cannot be disputed, that the Lord accredited the Hebrew Scriptures in the most unequivocal and solemn terms. But they dare to aver that in the ministry of His humiliation He was so entirely subject to the limitations of human knowledge, that words which He declared to be not His own, but the Father’s who sent Him, expressed in fact "the current Jewish notions" of the time. But such is the blindness or obliquity with which they read the Scriptures, that they have entirely over- looked His post-resurrection ministry. Kenosis theories are but dust thrown up to obscure the issue. They have no relevancy here. "I have a baptism to be baptized with," the Lord exclaimed, "and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! "But now, that baptism is past. All limitations are for ever at an end. And speaking as the Son of God, to whom all power in heaven and earth has been given, He adopts and confirms all His previous teaching about the Hebrew Scriptures. Referring to that very teaching, He addresses words like these to His disciples: "These are the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me." And the record adds, "Then opened He their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures." Professor Driver tells us that "He accepted as the basis of His teaching the opinions respecting the Old Testament current around Him." Or, as his Bible Dictionary coarsely phrases it, "He held the current Jewish notions" of His time. Could any words be more utterly opposed to fact? "Current Jewish notions"! All His teaching was in direct opposition to the deep, strong current of prevailing ignorance and error respecting the character and scope of these very Scriptures. Therefore it was that the Jews rejected Him. Therefore it was that even His own disciples failed to understand Him. But now "He opened their understanding." And it was this post-resurrection teaching which guided and inspired all their after- ministry. The New Testament writings are the unfolding of it. And yet, according to the "Higher Critics," this was all a blunder, if not a fraud. The Christian is consistent in his faith and the rationalist in his unbelief. Both are entitled to respect, for either position is intellectually unassailable. But what shall be said of men who cling to an edifice the foundations of which they have themselves destroyed? What of the superstition which holds that though Christ and His Apostles were deceived and in error, the Church which they founded is infallible, and that its teaching affords a sure resting-place for faith? What of the folly which deludes itself by claptrap about the inspiration of writings which are declared to be a mosaic of myth and legend and forgery and falsehood? (These words are not aimed at the rationalists, represented by Professor Harnack of Berlin, or Professor Cheyne of Oxford and his colleagues of the Encyclopaedia Biblica. Nor do they apply to the Church of Rome, whose claim to be the infallible exponent of an infallible Bible is at least intelligent and consistent. But they accurately describe the position of Professor Driver and his following, whose "confession of unfaith"is the Bible Dictionary. Still more definitely do they apply to the Bishop of Birmingham and his Lux Mundi school.) The devout may well be shocked by the profanity of such a scheme. But all sensible men will appreciate the folly of attempting to reconcile it with belief in Christianity. To the rationalist it is a matter of indifference whether the books of the Bible were written at one time or at another; but it is essential to his position to destroy their claim to be Divine. And even this is but an outwork: his main objective is the citadel of the Christian faith - the Deity of Christ. For if the Scriptures be discredited, the foundations of the Lord’s ministry are swept away, so that Christ came to fulfil nothing, and becomes only a teacher or a martyr. And how can we trust Him even as a teacher if His teaching be unreliable in the only sphere in which we are competent to test it? For no amount of sophistry can get rid of the fact that He accredited the Hebrew Scriptures, and unreservedly identified Himself with them. It is not a question, therefore, of superstitious reverence for a book that we may leave to Professor Driver and his school but of intelligent faith in our Divine Lord and Saviour. "Criticism in the hands of Christian scholars," Professor Driver tells us,"presupposes the inspiration of the Old Testament." But criticism in the hands of honest men presupposes nothing. It enters on its task without prejudice, and accepts its results without fear, whatever they be. And the legitimate results of this sort of criticism of Scripture are to be found in the writings of great thinkers like Dr Harnack, and not in the books of men whose minds are warped or blinded by the superstitions of religionIn the "New Theology" of the day, which is but a crude and popular phase of Dr. Harnack’s Neo- Christianity, the "Higher Criticism" has produced the results intended by its authors. Christianity has been dragged down to the rationalistic level. And at what a cost! Instead of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, whose words were God-given and eternal, we have a "Jesus" whose teaching was marred by ignorance and error, albeit he demanded acceptance of it as Divine. Infidelity has thus achieved its triumph. In disparaging the Bible, they deny the Christ of whom the Bible speaks. "The Christ of ages past Is now the Christ no more Altar and fire are gone, The Victim but a dream" "If these conclusions be demanded by irrefutable fact, let them be made and accepted - but not light- heartedly, and as if we were the freer for them, and could talk glibly about them in the best modern style. Let us make them with a groan, and take care to carve no more the unauthentic promise on the tombs of our beloved." (Bishop of Durham) Or, to express these thoughts in still plainer terms, if the rationalists have proved their case, let us be done with all cant and superstition, and frankly and honestly give up belief in the Deity of Christ. Here we stand at the parting of the ways. Honest and clear-headed men of the world, to whom these pages are addressed, will refuse all by-paths of superstition, and fearlessly make choice between a firmer faith and a bolder unbelief. And my main purpose will be satisfied if they here find proof that those who attack the Bible, whether from the standpoint of a false science or of a false criticism, can be met and refuted on their own ground. But while destructive criticism has thus been my aim and method, I would fain hope that some at least who may read this "Plea for the Faith" will be led to study the Scriptures for themselves with minds unbiassed by infidel prejudice or religious superstition, and that the study may lead them to believe in the Son of God, and in believing to receive life through His name. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 17: 1.01.13. APPENDIX ======================================================================== APPENDIX NOTE I (Chap. VII. P. 88 ante) THE CREATION. As already noticed, if Genesis 1:1-31 speaks of "the Creation of the Universe" at all it is in Genesis 1:1. The very word "create" is not used again save in Genesis 1:21 and Genesis 1:27, which relate to the work of the fifth and sixth "days." And if the truth of evolution could be scientifically established, the evolutionist might appeal to the language of Genesis 1:11, Genesis 1:20, and Genesis 1:24 as affording proof that it has biblical sanction. And the word rendered "create" has as wide a range of meaning as its English equivalent. Neither in Hebrew nor in English does the word necessarily connote a making out of nothing. Just as counters may represent different values at different times, so is it with words; for words are only counters. And we need to keep this in view as we read Genesis 1:2 : For instance, we are told that God created man, and yet that He made him out of the dust of the earth. Genesis 1:1 is almost always read as though" created" were the emphatic word in the verse. But in the Hebrew the structure of the sentence throws the emphasis on GOD; and the Massorah intensifies this by inserting the Athnah, or pause mark, after the Divine name. The burden of the first verse is that GOD was the Creator. The second verse tells that at the time of which the narrative speaks the earth existed in a condition of desolation and emptiness. But Isaiah 45:18 declares that this was not its condition according to the design of its maker. Of its earlier history we know nothing, save what geology may teach us : but the sequel describes the refitting and refurnishing of the planet as a home for the Adam race. Our English version suggests that the heavenly bodies came into existence on the fourth day; and this, combined with the figment that they are mere satellites, has been seized on by infidels to discredit Scripture. But we must insist that the same canon by which all other writings are construed shall prevail in scriptural exegesis, viz., that when words bear different meanings, that meaning is to be accepted which is consistent with the context and with known facts And, as we have seen, Genesis 1:14-18 may be the description of phenomena. My purpose here, however, is not to expound the Scripture, but merely to enter a protest against confounding what Genesis says with what men say about it. NOTE II (Chap. XII. p. 149 ante) THE BOOK OF DANIEL. Professor Driver’s Book of Daniel ("Cambridge Bible "series), which is an expansion of the "Daniel" section of his Introduction, reproduces the farrago of "errors" and arguments which were formulated by Bertholdt just a century ago, and have been the stock-in-trade of the rationalists ever since. Archeological discoveries have disposed of most of them, but still they serve their purpose. I have dealt with them elsewhere fully and in detail.’ And even if they were all as weighty as most of them are frivolous, the Christian would brush them aside in view of the fulfilled prophecy of "the Seventy Weeks," and the fact that the book has been accredited by Christ. The presence of Greek words in Daniel, we are told, "demands" a date for the book after Alexander’s conquests. In Bertholdt’s day the presence of Greek words in Daniel did seem to "demand" a late date for the book; for it was then supposed that there were ten such words, and that there was no intercourse between ancient Babylon and Greece. But in view of the discoveries of the last century, and the now admitted fact that the Greek words in Daniel are not ten, but only two, and these the names of musical instruments, the rejection of the book on philological grounds is in part an anachronism and in part a puerility. A like remark applies to his list of "historical errors." When I last reissued my Daniel in the Critics’ Den, Darius the Mede was the only "historical difficulty" which seemed to remain unsolved. But there appears to be no longer any doubt that this Darius was Gobryas, Governor of Kurdistan, the General who commanded the army of Cyrus that captured Babylon. Gobryas was the son of Cyaxeres (Ahasuerus in the Hebrew) and the brother and heir-apparent of Astyages, the last King of the Medes. (Xenophon calls him his son, in error, for Herodotus states that Astyages had no son.) In his youth he would have known Cyrus, who attended the Median Court; and this, combined with the fact of his kingly rank, may well have led Cyrus to trust and honour him. "Darius" was doubtless a "throne name" (like "Artaxerxes." Josephus mentions that he had another name among the Greeks). A most striking confirmation of this is supplied by a statement in Ezra 6:1-2. The decree issued by Cyrus for the building of the temple, which could not be found either in the Chaldean or the Persian capital, was at last discovered in the capital of Kurdistan. How, then, could it have got to Ecbatana? The obvious solution of this enigma is that, for some reason or other, Gobryas was sent back to his own province, and that he carried with him the archives of his rule in Babylon. The language of Daniel 9:1 clearly indicates that he was a vassal king(he "was made king over the realm"). The most important item in "the errors of Daniel" is the opening statement of the book, that in the third year of Jehoiakim Nebuchadnezzar besieged and took Jerusalem. But the ground on which this is rejected as a blunder is itself a blunder so grotesque that it deserves more than a passing notice. Josephus gives an extract from the lost history of Berosus, which states that while on this expedition Nebuchadnezzar received tidings of his father’s death, and that "he hastened home across the desert." And blindly following his German guides, Professor Driver’s gloss on this is that the news reached him at Carchemish, after the battle in which he defeated the Egyptians, and that he returned from there to Babylon and never invaded Judea at all. But Carchemish is on the Euphrates; and "to hasten home" from Carchemish to Babylon across the desert would be as extraordinary a feat as if Professor Driver hastened home from London to Oxford across the county of Kent or Hampshire! The fact that the desert lay between Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon is conclusive proof that in his homeward journey he set out from Palestine. But this is only a part of the blunder. The extract from Berosus, which Professor Driver quotes, mentions expressly his Jewish prisoners. How could he have had Jewish prisoners if he had not invaded Judea? The Jews were not a party to the Battle of Carchemish. That battle, moreover, was in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, and after Nebuchadnezzar’s accession (Jeremiah 46:1-28 ~ cf. Jeremiah 25:1); whereas the expedition mentioned by Berosus and Daniel was in his third year, before his father’s death. This, I may add, reconciles every chronological statement in the various books. NOTE III (Chap. XII. p. i6i ante) THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE CRITICS. As I wish to be fair to my opponents, I give here in extenso the concluding passage of the Preface to Professor Driver’s Introduction. He writes "It is objected, however, that some of the conclusions of critics respecting the Old Testament are incompatible with the authority of our blessed Lord, and that in loyalty to Him we are precluded from accepting them. That our Lord appealed to the Old Testament as the record of a revelation in the past, and as pointing forward to Himself, is undoubted; but these aspects of the Old Testament are perfectly consistent with a critical view of its structure and growth. That our Lord in so appealing to it designed to pronounce a verdict on the authorship and age of its different parts, and to foreclose all future inquiry into these subjects, is an assumption for which no sufficient ground can be alleged. Had such been His aim, it would have been out of harmony with the entire method and tenor of His teaching. In no single instance (so far as we are aware) did He anticipate the results of scientific inquiry or historical research. The aim of His teaching was a religious one; it was to set before men the pattern of a perfect life, to move them to imitate it, to bring them to Himself. He accepted as the basis of His teaching the opinions respecting the Old Testament current around Him: He assumed, in His allusions to it, the premises which His opponents recognised, and which could not have been questioned (even had it been necessary to question them) without raising issues for which the time was not yet ripe, and which, had they been raised, would have interfered scriously with the paramount purpose of His life. There is no record of the question whether a particular portion of the Old Testament was written by Moses, or David, or Isaiah, having been ever submitted to Him; and had it been so submitted, we have no means of knowing what His answer would have been. The purposes for which our Lord appealed to the Old Testament; its prophetic significance, and the spiritual lessons deducible from it, are not, as has been already remarked above, affected by critical inquiries. Criticism in the hands of Christian scholars does not banish or destroy the inspiration of the Old Testament-it presupposes it; it seeks only to determine the conditions under which it operates, and the literary forms through which it manifests itself; and it thus helps us to frame truer conceptions of the methods which it pleased God to employ in revealing Himself to His ancient people of Israel, and in preparing the way for the fuller manifestation of Himself in Christ Jesus". I appeal to all spiritual Christians whether it is not a thorough misrepresentation of the Lord’s ministry to assert that "the aim of His teaching . . . was to set before men the pattern of a perfect life." He could not but be the Great Exemplar, but this was purely incidental. His supreme aim was to fulfil "all things which were written in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalms concerning Himself." And I appeal to all honest men whether the words quoted are not a flagrant misrepresentation of the question here at issue; which is not as to the authorship and date of writings accepted as inspired Scriptures, but as to whether the Mosaic books be priestly forgeries of the later period of the Monarchy. The Book of Jeremiah enlightens us as to the character of the priests of that era. Against them it was that his prophecies were mainly directed (see, e.g., Jeremiah 1:18, Jeremiah 5:31); and the "laity" had to intervene to prevent their murdering him (Jeremiah 26:8, Jeremiah 26:16). Yet the "critical hypothesis" is that the books were concocted by these miscreants! The great covenant name of God is deemed so sacred and held in such awe by the Jews that they never utter it even in public worship; and yet in Leviticus-the briefest book of the Pentateuch-it is used more than 300 times, and nearly 40 times we find the solemn formula, "Jehovah spake unto Moses." If this be not the authentic record of a Divine revelation, the wanton profanity of it is unspeakably infamous. It need not be said that Dr. Driver is incapable of either wilful misrepresentation or profanity; but it is evident that his mind is swayed by the superstitious belief that because" the Church" accredits the whole Bible as Divine it is immaterial whether its contents are the work of inspired prophets or of apostate priests. Certain it is that he and his co-editors and writers of the Bible Dictionary are the dupes of "current German notions respecting the Divine authority and revelation of the Old Testament." By thus acting as jackals to the German rationalists these men have lowered the standard of biblical scholarship on both sides of the Atlantic. But infinitely more deplorable is it that they have dethroned the Bible from the place it used to hold in every Christian home; and as the result "family worship" -to use the good old term - is fast dying out. For the practical common sense of the Britisher and the American cannot be deluded by pious claptrap about the inspiration of writings which, if the "Higher Criticism" has proved its case, ought to be relegated to the Apocrypha. We are charged, forsooth, with superstitiously clinging to discredited traditional beliefs! My answer is, first, that such a taunt comes ill from such a quarter. Both Christian and Rationalist stand clear of superstition; but superstition alone supports the attempted compromise between infidelity and faith, which even their ally, Professor Cheyne, deplores in this Bible Dictionary school of critics. And further, "the assured results of modern criticism" will not bear examination by any one who is competent to test them (see Chap. XII. ante). The sham " Higher Criticism" will live only so long as it remains the preserve of the preacher and the pundit. I will quote in conclusion the following bold and honest words of Dean Alford: "It is important to observe in these days how the Lord here includes the Old Testament and all its unfolding of the Divine purposes regarding Himself in His teaching of the citizens of the kingdom of heaven. I say this, because it is always in contempt and setting aside of the Old Testament that Rationalism has begun. First its historical truth, then its theocratic dispensation and the types and prophecies connected with it, are swept away; so that Christ came to fulfil nothing, and becomes only a teacher or a martyr; and thus the way is paved for a similar rejection of the New Testament-beginning with the narratives of the birth and infancy as theocratic myths-advancing to the denial of his miracles- then attacking the truthfulness of His own sayings, which are grounded on the Old Testament as a revelation from God-and so finally leaving us nothing in the Scriptures but, as a German writer of this school has expressed it, "a mythology not so attractive as that of Greece." That this is the course which unbelief has run in Germany should be a pregnant warning to the decriers of the Old Testament among ourselves. It should be a maxim for every expositor and every student that Scripture is a whole, and stands or falls together. (Greek Testament, Matthew 5:18.) THE END ======================================================================== CHAPTER 18: 1.02.0. CHRIST AND CRITICISM ======================================================================== PART 2: CHRIST AND CRITICISM ======================================================================== CHAPTER 19: 1.02.1. CHRIST AND CRITICISM. ======================================================================== CHRIST AND CRITICISM. BY SIR ROBERT ANDERSON, K. C. B., LL. D. AUTHOR OF "THE BIBLE AND MODERN CRITICISM," ETC., ETC., LONDON, ENGLAND. In his "Founders of Old Testament Criticism" Professor Cheyne of Oxford gives the foremost place to Eichhorn. He hails him, in fact, as the founder of the cult. And according to this same authority, what led Eichhorn to enter on his task was "his hope to contribute to the winning back of the educated classes to religion." The ationalism of Germany at the close of the eighteenth century would accept the Bible only on the terms of bringing it down to the level of a human book, and the problem which had to be solved was to get rid of the element of miracle which pervades it. Working on the labours of his predecessors, Eichhorn achieved this to his own satisfaction by appealing to the oriental habit of thought, which seizes upon ultimate causes and ignores intermediate processes. This commended itself on two grounds. It had an undoubted element of truth, and it was consistent with reverence for Holy Scripture. For of the founder of the "Higher Criticism" it was said, what cannot be said of any of his successors, that "faith in that which is holy, even in the miracles of the Bible, was never shattered by Eichhorn in any youthful mind." In the view of his successors, however, Eichhorn’s hypothesis was open to the fatal objection that it was altogether inadequate. So the next generation of critics adopted the more drastic theory that the Mosaic books were "mosaic" in the sense that they were literary forgeries of a latedate, composed of materials supplied by ancient documents and the myths and legends of the Hebrew race. And though this theory has been modified fromtime to time during the last century, it remains substantially the "critical" view of the Pentateuch. But it is open to two main objections, either of which would be fatal. It is inconsistent with the evidence. And it directly challenges the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ as a teacher;for one of the few undisputed facts in this controversy is that our Lord accredited the books of Moses as having divine authority. THE TRUE AND THE COUNTERFEIT. It may be well to deal first with the least important of these bjections. And here we must distinguish between the true Higher Criticism and its counterfeit. The rationalistic ’Higher Criticism," when putting the Pentateuch upon its trial, began with the verdict and then cast about to find the evidence; whereas, true criticism enters upon its inquiries with an open mind and pursues them without prejudice. The difference may be aptly illustrated by the position assumed by a typical French judge and by an ideal English judge in a criminal trial. The one aims at convicting the accused, the other at elucidating the truth. "The proper function of the Higher Criticism is to determine the origin, date, and literary structure of an ancient writing." This is Professor Driver’s description of true criticism. But the aim of the counterfeit is to disprove the genuineness of the ancient writings. The justice of this statement is established by the fact that Hebraists and theologians of the highest eminence, whose investigation of the Pentateuch problem has convinced them of the genuineness of the books, are not recognized at all. In Britain, at least - and I am not competent to speak of Germany or America - no theologian of the first rank has adopted their "assured results." But the judgment of such men as Pusey, Lightfoot and Salmon, not to speak of men who are still with us, they contemptuously ignore; for the rationalistic Higher Critic is not one who investigates the evidence, but one who accepts the verdict. THE PHILOLOGICAL INQUIRY. If, as its apostles sometimes urge, the Higher Criticism is a purely philological inquiry, two obvious conclusions follow. The first is that its verdict must be in favour of the Mosaic books; for each of the books contains peculiar words suited to the time and circumstances to which it is traditionally assigned. This is admitted, and the critics attribute the presence of such words to the Jesuitical skill of the priestly forgers. But this only lends weight to the further conclusion that Higher Criticism is wholly incompetent to deal with the main issue on which it claims to adjudicate. For the genuineness of the Pentateuch must be decided on the same principles on which the genuineness of ancient documents is dealt with in our courts of justice. And the language of the documents is only one part of the needed evidence, and not the most important part. And fitness for dealing with evidence depends upon qualities to which Hebraists, as such, have no special claim. Indeed, their writings afford signal proofs of their unfitness for inquiries which they insist on regarding as their special preserve. Take, for example, Professor Driver’s grave assertion that the presence of two Greek words in Daniel (they are the names of musical instruments) demand a date for the book subsequent to the Greek conquest. It has been established by Professor Sayce and others that the intercourse between Babylon and Greece in, and before, the days of Nebuchadnezzar would amply account for the presence in the Chaldean capital of musical instruments with Greek names. And Colonel Conder, moreover,- a very high authority -considers the words to be Akkadian, and not Greek at all! But apart from all this, we can imagine the reception that would be given to such a statement by any competent tribunal. The story bears repeating -it is a record of facts -that at a church bazaar in Lincoln some years ago, the alarm was raised that pickpockets were at work, and two ladies had lost their purses. The empty purses were afterwards found in the pocket of the Bishop of the Diocese! On the evidence of the two purses the Bishop should be convicted as a thief, and on the evidence of the two words the book of Daniel should be convicted as a forgery! HISTORICAL BLUNDER. Here is another typical item in the Critics’ indictment of Daniel. The book opens by recording Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, a statement the correctness of which is confirmed by history, sacred and secular. Berosus, the Chaldean historian, tells us that during this expedition Nebuchadnezzar received tidings of his father’s death, and that, committing to others the care of his army and of his Jewish and other prisoners, "he himself hastened home across the desert." But the German skeptics, having decided that Daniel was a forgery, had to find evidence to support their verdict. And so they made the brilliant discovery that Berosus was here referring to the expedition of the following year, when Nebuchadnezzar won the battle of Carchemish against the army of the king of Egypt, and that he had not at that time invaded Judea at all. But Carchemish is on the Euphrates, and the idea of "hastening home" from there to Babylon across the desert is worthy of a schoolboy’s essay! That he crossed the desert is proof that he set out from Judea; and his Jewish captives were, of course, Daniel and his companion princes. His invasion of Judea took place before his accession, in Jehoiakam’s third year, whereas the battle of Carchemish was fought after his accession, in the king of Judah’s fourth year, as the biblical books record. But this grotesque blunder of Bertholdt’s "Book of Daniel" in the beginning of the nineteenth century is gravely reproduced in Professor Driver’s "Book of Daniel" at the beginning of the twentieth century. CRITICAL PROFANITY. But to return to Moses. According to "the critical hypothesis," the books of the Pentateuch are literary forgeries of the Exilic Era, the work of the Jerusalem priests of those evil days. From the Book of Jeremiah we know that those men were profane apostates; and if "the critical hypothesis" be true, they were infinitely worse than even the prophet’s inspired denunciations of them indicate. For no eighteenth century atheist ever sank to a lower depth of profanity than is displayed by their use of the Sacred Name. In the preface to his "Darkness and Dawn," Dean Farrar claims that he "never touches the early preachers of Christianity with the finger of fiction." When his story makes Apostles speak, he has "confined their words to the words of a revelation." But the authors of the Pentateuch "touched with the finger of fiction" not only the holy men of the ancient days, but their Jehovah God. "Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying." This and kindred formulas are repeated times without number in the Mosaic books. If this be romance, a lower type of profanity is inconceivable, unless it be that of the man who fails to be shocked and revolted by it. But no; facts prove that this judgment is unjust. For men of unfeigned piety and deep reverence for divine things can be so blinded by the superstitions of "religion" that the imprimatur of the church enables them to regard these discredited books as Holy Scripture. As critics they brand the Pentateuch as a tissue of myth and legend and fraud, but as religionists they assure us that this "implies no denial of its inspiration or disparagement of its contents." ERRORS REFUTED BY FACTS. In controversy it is of the greatest importance to allow op-ponents to state their position in their own words; and here is Professor Driver’s statement of the case against the Books of Moses: "We can only argue on grounds of probability derived from our view of the progress of the art of writing, or of literary composition, or of the rise and growth of the prophetic tone and feeling in ancient Israel, or of the period at which the traditions contained in the narratives might have taken shape, or of the probability that they would have been written down before the impetus given to culture by the monarchy had taken effect, and similar considerations, for estimating most of which, though plausible arguments on one side or the other may be advanced, a standard on which we can confidently rely scarcely admits of being fixed." ("Introduction," 6th ed., page 123.) This modest reference to "literary composition" and "the art of writing" is characteristic. It is intended to gloss over the abandonment of one of the chief points in the original attack. Had "Driver’s Introduction" appeared twenty years earlier, the assumption that such a literature as the Pentateuch could belong to the age of Moses would doubtless have been branded as an anachronism. For one of the main grounds on which the books were assigned to the latter days of the monarchy was that the Hebrews of. six centuries earlier were an illiterate people. And after that error had been refuted by archaelogical discoveries, it was still maintained that a code of laws so advanced, and so elaborate, as that of Moses could not have originated in such an age. This figment, however, was in its turn exploded, when the spade of the explorer brought to light the now famous Code of Khammurabi, the Amraphel of Genesis, who was king of Babylon in the time of Abraham. Instead, however, of donning the white sheet when confronted by this new witness, the critics, with great effrontery, pointed to the newly-found Code as the original of the laws of Sinai. Such a conclusion is natural on the part of men who treat the Pentateuch as merely human. But the critics cannot have it both ways. The Moses who copied Khammurabi must have been the real Moses of the Exodus, and not the mythical Moses of the Exile, who wrote long centuries after Khammurabi had been forgotten! AN INCREDIBLE THEORY. The evidence of the Khammurabi Code refutes an important count in the critics’ indictment of the Pentateuch; but we can call another witness whose testimony demolishes their whole case. The Pentateuch, as we all know, and the Pentateuch alone, constitutes the Bible of the Samaritans. Who, then, were the Samaritans? And how and when did they obtain the Pentateuch? Here again the critics shall speak for themselves. Among the distinguished men who have championed their crusade in Britain there has been none more esteemed, none more scholarly, than the late Professor Robertson Smith; and here is an extract from his "Samaritans" article in the "Encyclopedia Britannica": "They (the Samaritans) regard themselves as Israelites, descendants of the ten tribes, and claim to possess the orthodox religion of Moses * * * The priestly law, which is throughout based on the practice of the priests in Jerusalem before the Captivity, was reduced to form after the Exile, and was published by Ezra as the law of the rebuilt temple of Zion. The Samaritans must, therefore, have derived their Pentateuch from the Jews after Ezra’s reforms." And in the same paragraph he says that, according to the contention of the Samaritans, "not only the temple of Zion, but the earlier temple of Shiloh and the priesthood of Eli, were schismatical." And yet, as he goes on to say, "the Samaritan religion was built on the Pentateuch alone." Now mark what this implies. We know something of racial bitterness. We know more, unfortunately, of the fierce bitterness of religious strife. And both these elements combined to alienate the Samaritans from the Jews. But more than this, in the post-exilic period distrust and dislike were turned to intense hatred-"abhorrence" is Robertson Smith’s word- by the sternness and contempt with which the Jews spurned their proffered help in the work of reconstruction at Jerusalem, and refused to acknowledge them in any way. And yet we are asked to believe that, at this very time and in these very circumstances, the Samaritans, while hating the Jews much as Orangemen hate the Jesuits, and denouncing the whole Jewish cult as schismatical, not only accepted these Jewish books relating to that cult as the "service books" of their own ritual, but adopted them as their "Bible," to the exclusion even of the writings of their own Israelite prophets, and the venerated and sacred books which record the history of their kings. In the whole range of controversy, religious or secular, was there ever propounded a theory more utterly incredible and preposterous! ANOTHER PREPOSTEROUS POSITION. No less preposterous are the grounds on which this conclusion is commended to us. Here is a statement of them, quoted from the standard textbook of the cult, Hasting’s "Bible Dictionary": "There is at least one valid ground for the conclusion that the Pentateuch was first accepted by the Samaritans after the Exile. Why was their request to be allowed to take part in the building of the second temple refused by the heads of the Jerusalem community? Very probably because the Jews were aware that the Samaritans did not as yet possess the Law-Book. It is hard to suppose that otherwise they would have met with this refusal. Further, anyone who, like the present writer, regards the modern criticism of the Pentateuch as essentially correct, has a second decisive reason for adopting the above view." (Professor Konig’s article, "Samaritan Pentateuch," page 68.) Here are two "decisive reasons" for holding that "the Pentateuch was first accepted by the Samaritans after the Exile." First, because "very probably" it was because they had not those forged books that the Jews spurned their help; and so they went home and adopted the forged books as their Bible. And, secondly, because criticism has proved that the books were not in existence till then. To characterize the writings of these scholars as they deserve is not a grateful task but the time has come to throw off reserve, when such drivel as this is gravely put forward to induce us to tear from our Bible the Holy Scriptures on which our Divine Lord based His claims to Messiahship. THE IDEA OF SACRIFICE A REVELATION. The refutation of the Higher Criticism does not prove that the Pentateuch is inspired of God. The writer who would set himself to establish such a thesis as that within the limits of a Review Article might well be admired for his enthusiasm and daring, but certainly not for his modesty or discretion. Neither does it decide questions which lie within the legitimate province of the true Higher Criticism, as the authorship of Genesis. It is incredible that for the thousands of years that elapsed efore the days of Moses, God left His people on earth without a revelation. It is plain, moreover, that many of the ordinances divinely entrusted to Moses were but a renewal of an earlier revelation. The religion of Babylon is clear evidence of such a primeval revelation. How else can the universality of sacrifice be accounted for? Could such a ractice have originated in a human brain? If some demented creature onceived the idea that killing a beast before his enemy’s door would propitiate him, his neighbours would no doubt have suppressed him. And if he evolved the belief that his god would be appeased by such an offensive practice, he must have supposed his god to be as mad as himself. The fact that sacrifice prevailed among all races can be explained only by a primeval revelation. And the Bible student will recognize that God thus sought to impress on men that death was the penalty of sin, and to lead them to look forward to a great blood shedding that would bring life and blessing to mankind. But Babylon was to the ancient world what Rome has been to Christendom. It corrupted every divine ordinance and truth, and perpetuated them as thus corrupted. And in the Pentateuch we have the divine re-issue of the true cult. The figment that the debased and corrupt version was the original may satisfy some professors of Hebrew, but no one who has any practical knowledge of human nature would entertain it. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. At this stage, however, what concerns us is not the divine authority of the books, but the human error and folly of the critical attack upon them. The only historical basis of that attack is the fact that in the revival under Josiah, "the book of the law" was found in the temple by Hilkiah, the high priest, to whom the young king entrusted the duty of cleansing and enovating the long neglected shrine. A most natural discovery it was, seeing that Moses had in express terms commanded that it should be kept there (2 Kings 22:8; Deuteronomy 31:26). But according to the critics, the whole business was a detestable trick of the priests. For they it was who forged the books and invented the command, and then hid the product of their infamous work where they knew it would be found. And apart from this, the only foundation for "the assured results of modern criticism," as they themselves acknowledge, consists of "grounds of probability" and "plausible arguments"! In no civilized country would an habitual criminal be convicted of petty larceny on such evidence as this; and yet it is on these grounds that we are called upon to give up the sacred books which our Divine Lord accredited as "the Word of God" and made the basis of His doctrinal teaching. CHRIST OR CRITICISM? And this brings us to the second, and incomparably the graver, objection to "the assured results of modern criticism." That the Lord Jesus Christ identified Himself with the Hebrew Scriptures, and in a very special way with the Book of Moses, no one disputes. And this being so, we must make choice between Christ and Criticism. For if "the critical hypothesis" of the Pentateuch be sustained, the conclusion is seemingly inevitable, either that He was not divine, or that the records of His teaching are untrustworthy. Which alternative shall we adopt? If the second, then every claim to inspiration must be abandoned, and agnosticism must supplant faith in the case of every fearless thinker. Inspiration is far too great a question for incidental treatment here; but two remarks with respect to it may not be inopportune. Behind the frauds of Spiritualism there lies the fact, attested by men of high character, some of whom are eminent as scientists and scholars, that definite communications are received in precise words from the world of spirits. And this being so, to deny that the Spirit of God could thus communicate truth to men, or, in other words, to reject verbal inspiration on a priori grounds, betrays the stupidity of systematized unbelief. And, secondly, it is amazing that any one who regards the coming of Christ as God’s supreme revelation of Himself can imagine that (to put it on no higher ground than "Providence") the Divine Spirit could fail to ensure that mankind should have a trustworthy and true record of His mission and His teaching. A MORE HOPELESS DILEMMA. But if the Gospel narrative be authentic, we are driven back upon the alternative that He of whom they speak could not be divine. "Not so," the critics protest, "for did He not Himself confess His ignorance? And is not this explained by the Apostle’s statement that in His humiliation He emptied Himself of His Deity?" And the inference drawn from this (to quote the standard text-book of the cult) is that the Lord of Glory "held the current Jewish notions respecting the divine authority and revelation of the Old Testament." But even if this conclusion - as portentous as it is profane - could be established, instead of affording an escape from the dilemma in which the Higher Criticism involves its votaries, it would only serve to make that dilemma more hopeless and more terrible. For what chiefly concerns us is not that, the Lord’s doctrinal teaching was false, but that in unequivocal terms, and with extreme solemnity, He declared again and again that His teaching was not His own but His Father’s, and that the very words in which He conveyed it were God-given. A few years ago the devout were distressed by the proceedings of a certainChicago "prophet," who claimed divine authority for his lucubrations. Kindly disposed people, rejecting a severer estimate of the man and his platform utterances, regarded him merely as a profane fool. Shall the critics betray us into forming a similarly indulgent estimate of -- My pen refuses to complete the sentence! And will it be believed that the only scriptural basis offered us for this stounding position is a verse in one of the Gospels and a word in one of the Epistles! Passing strange it is that men who handle Holy Scripture with such freedom when it conflicts with their "assured results" should attach such enormous importance to an isolated verse or a single word, when it can be misused to support them. The verse is Mark 13:32, where the Lord says, with reference to His coming again: "Of that day and hour knoweth no one; no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." But this follows immediately upon the words: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away." THE WORDS OF GOD. The Lord’s words were not "inspired"; they were the words of God in a still higher sense. "The people were astonished at His teaching," we are told, "for he taught them as one having exousia." The word occurs again in Acts 1:7, where He says that times and seasons "the Father hath put in His own exousia." And this is explained by Php 2:6-7 : "He counted it not a prize (or a thing to be grasped) to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself"- the word on which the kenosis theory of the critics depends. And He not only stripped Himself of His glory as God; He gave up His liberty as a man. For He never spoke His own words, but only the words which the Father gave Him to speak. And this was the limitation of His "authority"; so that, beyond what the Father gave Him to speak, He knew nothing and was silent. But when He spoke, "He taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes." From their scribes they were used to receivedefinite teaching, but it was teaching based on "the law and the prophets." But here was One who stood apart and taught them from a wholly different plane. "For," He declared, "I spake not from Myself; but the Father which sent Me, He hath given Me a commandment what I should say and what 1 should speak. * * * The things, therefore, which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto Me, so I speak" (John 12:49-50, R. V.). And let us not forget that it was not merely the substance of His teaching that was divine, but the very language in which it was conveyed. So that in His prayer on the night of the betrayal He could say, not only "I have given them Thy word," but "I have given them the words which Thou gavest Me."* His words, therefore, about Moses and the Hebrew Scriptures were not, as the critics, with such daring and seeming profanity, maintain, the lucubrations of a superstitious and ignorant Jew; they were the words of God, and conveyed truth that was divine and eternal. When in the dark days of the Exile, God needed a prophet who would speak only as He gave him words, He struck Ezekiel dumb. Two judgments already rested on that people - the seventy years’ Servitude to Babylon, and then the Captivity - and they were warned that continued impenitence would bring on them the still more terrible judgment of the seventy years’ desolations. And till that last judgment fell, Ezekiel remained dumb (Ezekiel 3:26; Ezekiel 24:27; Ezekiel 33:22). But the Lord Jesus Christ needed no such discipline. He came to do the Father’s will, and no words ever passed His lips save the words given Him to speak. In this connection, moreover, two facts which are strangely overlooked laim prominent notice. The first is that in Mark 13:1-37 the antithesis is not at all between man and God, but between the Son of God and the Father. And the second is that He had been re-invested with all that, according to Php 2:1-30, He laid aside in coming into the world. "All things have been delivered unto Me of My Father," He declared; and this at a time when the proofs that "He was despised and rejected of men" were pressing on Him. His reassuming the glory awaited His return to heaven, but here on earth the all things were already His (Matthew 11:27). AFTER THE KENOSIS. The foregoing is surely an adequate reply to the kenosis figment of the critics; but if any should still doubt or cavil, there is another answer which is complete and crushing. Whatever may have been the limitations under which He rested during His ministry on earth, He was released from them when He rose from the dead. And it was in His post-resurrection teaching that He gave the fullest and clearest testimony to the Hebrew Scriptures. Then it was that, "beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." And again, confirming all His previous teaching about those Scriptures, "He said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me." And the record adds: "Then opened He their mind that they might understand the Scriptures." And the rest of the New Testament is the fruit of that ministry, enlarged and unfolded by the Holy Spirit given to lead them into all truth. And in every part of the New Testament the Divine authority of the Hebrew Scriptures, and especially of the Books of Moses, is either taught or assumed. THE VITAL ISSUE. Certain it is, then, that the vital issue in this controversy is not the value of the Pentateuch, but the Deity of Christ. And yet the present article does not pretend to deal with the truth of the Deity. Its humble aim is not even to establish the authority of the Scriptures, but merely to discredit the critical attack upon them by exposing its real character and its utter feebleness. The writer’s method, therefore, has been mainly destructive criticism, the critics’ favorite weapon being thus turned against themselves. A DEMAND FOR CORRECT STATEMENT. One cannot but feel distress at having to accord such treatment to certain distinguished men whose reverence for divine things is beyond reproach. A like distress is felt at times by those who have experience in dealing with sedition, or in suppressing riots. But when men who are entitled to consideration and respect thrust themselves into "the line of fire," they must take the consequences. These distinguished men will not fail to receive to the full the deference to which they are entitled, if only they will dissociate themselves from the dishonest claptrap of this crusade ("the assured results of modern criticism"; "all scholars are with us"; and so on- bluster and falsehood by which the weak and ignorant are browbeaten or deceived) and acknowledge that their "assured results" are mere hypotheses, repudiated by Hebraists and theologians as competent and eminent as themselves. THINGS TO FEAR. The effects of this "Higher Criticism" are extremely grave. For it has dethroned the Bible in the home, and the good, old practice of "family worship" is rapidly dying out. And great national interests also are involved. For who can doubt that the prosperity and power of the Protestant nations of the world are due to the influence of the Bible upon character and conduct? Races of men who for generations have been taught to think for themselves in matters of the highest moment will naturally excel in every sphere of effort or of enterprise. And more than this, no one who is trained in the fear of God will fail in his duty to his neighbour, but will prove himself a good citizen. But the dethronement of the Bible leads practically to the dethronement of God; and in Germany and America, and now in England, the effects of this are declaring themselves in ways, and to an extent, well fitted to cause anxiety for the future. CHRIST SUPREME. If a personal word may be pardoned in conclusion, the writer would appeal to every book he has written in proof that he is no champion of a rigid, traditional "orthodoxy." With a single limitation, he would advocate full and free criticism of HolyScripture. And that one limitation is that the words of the Lord Jesus Christ shall be deemed a bar to criticism and "an end of controversy" on every subject expressly dealt with in His teaching. "The Son of God is come"; and by Him came both grace and TRUTH. And from His hand it is that we have received the Scriptures of the Old Testament. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 20: 1.03.00.1. THE COMING PRINCE ======================================================================== PART 3: THE COMING PRINCE ======================================================================== CHAPTER 21: 1.03.00.2. PREFACE TO THE TENTH EDITION ======================================================================== PREFACE TO THE TENTH EDITION THE COMING PRINCE has been out of print for more than a year; for it seemed inadvisable to reissue it during the War. But the War has apparently created an increased interest in the prophecies of Daniel; and as this book is therefore in demand, it has been decided to publish a new edition without further delay. Not that these pages contain any sensational "Armageddon" theories. For "a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon" is situated neither in France nor in Flanders, but in Palestine; and the future of the land and people of the covenant will be a main issue in the great battle which is yet to be fought on that historic plain. Prophetic students are apt to become adherents of one or other of two rival schools of interpretation. The teaching of the "futurists" suggests that this Christian dispensation is altogether a blank in the Divine scheme of prophecy. And the "historicists" discredit Scripture by frittering away the meaning of plain words in order to find the fulfillment of them in history. Avoiding the errors of both these schools, this volume is written in the spirit of Lord Bacon’s dictum, that "Divine prophecies have springing and germinant accomplishment throughout many ages, though the height or fullness of them may belong to some one age." And this world war is no doubt within the scope of prophecy, though it be not the fulfillment of any special Scripture. Very many years ago my attention was directed to a volume of sermons by a devout Jewish Rabbi of the London Synagogue, in which he sought to discredit the Christian interpretation of certain Messianic prophecies. And in dealing with Daniel 9:1-27., he accused Christian expositors of tampering, not only with chronology, but with Scripture, in their efforts to apply the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks to the Nazarene. My indignation at such a charge gave place to distress when the course of study to which it led me brought proof that it was by no means a baseless libel. My faith in the Book of Daniel, already disturbed by the German infidel crusade of "the Higher Criticism," was thus further undermined. And I decided to take up the study of the subject with a fixed determination to accept without reserve not only the language of Scripture, but the standard dates of history as settled by our best modern chronologists. [1] The following is a brief summary of the results of my inquiry as regards the great prophecy of the "Seventy Weeks." I began with the assumption, based on the perusal of many standard works, that the era in question had reference to the seventy years of the Captivity of Judah, and that it was to end with the Coming of Messiah. But I soon made the startling discovery that this was quite erroneous. For the Captivity lasted only sixty-two years; and the seventy weeks related to the wholly different judgment of the Desolations of Jerusalem. And further, the period "unto Messiah the Prince," as Daniel 9:25 so plainly states, was not seventy weeks, but 7+62 weeks. The failure to distinguish between the several judgments of the Servitude, the Captivity and the Desolations, is a fruitful source of error in the study of Daniel and the historical books of Scripture. And it is strange that the distinction should be ignored not only by the Critics, but by Christians. Because of national sin, Judah was brought under servitude to Babylon for seventy years, this was in the third year of King Jehoiakim (B.C. 606). But the people continued obdurate; and in B.C. 598 the far severer judgment of the Captivity fell on them. On the former capture of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar left the city and people undisturbed, his only prisoners being Daniel and other cadets of the royal house. But on this second occasion he deported the mass of the inhabitants to Chaldea. The Jews still remained impenitent, however, in spite of Divine warnings by the mouth of Jeremiah in Jerusalem and Ezekiel among the exiles; and after the lapse of another nine years, God brought upon them the terrible judgment of "The Desolations," which was decreed to last for seventy years. Accordingly in B.C. 589, the Babylonian armies again invaded Judea, and the city was devastated and burned. Now both the "Servitude" and the "Captivity," ended with the decree of Cyrus in B.C. 536, permitting the return of the exiles. But as the language of Daniel 9:2 so plainly states, it was the seventy years of "The Desolations" that were the basis of the prophecy of the seventy weeks. And the epoch of that seventy years was the day on which Jerusalem was invested – the tenth Tebeth in the ninth year of Zedekiah – a day that has ever since been observed as a fast by the Jews in every land. (2 Kings 25:1.) Daniel and Revelation definitely indicate that the prophetic year is one of 360 days. Such moreover was the sacred year of the Jewish calendar; and, as is well known, such was the ancient year of Eastern nations. Now seventy years of 360 days contains exactly 25, 200 days; and as the Jewish New Year’s day depended on the equinoctial moon, we can assign the 13th December as "the Julian date" of tenth Tebeth 589. And 25, 200 days measured from that date ended on the 17th December 520, which was the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month in the second year of Darius of Persia – -the very day on which the foundation of the second Temple was laid. (Haggai 2:18-19.) Here is something to set both critics and Christians thinking. A decree of a Persian king was deemed to be divine, and any attempt to thwart it was usually met by prompt and drastic punishment; and yet the decree directing the rebuilding of the Temple, issued by King Cyrus in the zenith of his power, was thwarted for seventeen years by petty local governors. How was this? The explanation is that until the very last day of the seventy years of "the Desolations" had expired, God would not permit one stone to be laid upon another on Mount Moriah. Dismissing from our minds, therefore, all mere theories on this subject, we arrive at the following definitely ascertained facts: 1. The epoch of the Seventy Weeks was the issuing of a decree to restore and build Jerusalem. (Daniel 9:25.) 2. There never was but one decree for the rebuilding of Jerusalem. 3. That decree was issued by Artaxerxes, King of Persia, in the month Nisan in the 20th year of his reign, i.e. B.C. 445. 4. The city was actually built in pursuance of that decree. 5. The Julian date of 1st Nisan 445 was the 14th March. 6. Sixty-nine weeks of years – i.e. 173, 880 days – reckoned from the 14th March B.C. 445, ended on the 6th April A.D. 32. 7. That day, on which the sixty-nine weeks ended, was the fateful day on which the Lord Jesus rode into Jerusalem in fulfillment of the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9; when, for the first and only occasion in all His earthly sojourn, He was acclaimed as "Messiah the Prince the King, the Son of David." And here again we must keep to Scripture. Though God has nowhere recorded the Bethlehem birth-date of Christ, no date in history, sacred or profane, is fixed with greater definiteness than that of the year in which the Lord began His public ministry. I refer of course to Luke 3:1-2. I say this emphatically, because Christian expositors have persistently sought to set up a fictitious date for the reign of Tiberias. The first Passover of the Lord’s ministry, therefore, was in Nisan A.D. 29; and we can fix the date of the Passion with absolute certainty as Nisan A.D. 32. If Jewish or infidel writers set themselves to confuse and corrupt the chronology of these periods, we would not be surprised. But it is to Christian expositors that we owe this evil work. Happily, however, we can appeal to the labors of secular historians and chronologists for proofs of the divine accuracy of Holy Scripture. The general attack upon the Book of Daniel, briefly discussed in the "Preface to the Fifth Edition," is dealt with more fully in the 1902 reissue of Daniel in the Critics’ Den. The reader will there find an answer to the attack of the Higher Criticism on Daniel based on philology and history; and he will find also that the Critics are refuted by their own admissions respecting the Canon of the Old Testament. Most of the "historical errors" in Daniel, which Professor Driver copied from Bertholdt’s work of a century ago, have been disposed of by the erudition and research of our own day. But, when writing on the subject, I recognized that the identity of Darius the Mede was still a difficulty. Since then, however, I have found a solution of that difficulty in a verse in Ezra, hitherto used only by Voltaire and others to discredit Scripture. Ezra 5:1-17 tells us that in the reign of Darius Hystaspis the Jews petitioned the throne, appealing to the decree by which Cyrus had authorized the rebuilding of the Temple. The wording of the petition clearly indicates that, to the knowledge of the Jewish leaders, that decree had been filed in the house of the archives in Babylon. But the search there made for it proved fruitless, and it was ultimately found at Ecbatana (or Achmetha: Ezra 6:2). How then could such a State paper have been transferred to the Median capital? The only reasonable explanation of this extraordinary fact completes the circle of proof that the vassal king whom Daniel calls Darius the Mede was Gobryas (or Gubaru), who led the army of Cyrus to Babylon. As various writers have noticed, the testimony of the inscriptions points to that conclusion. For example, the Annalistic tablet of Cyrus records that, after the taking of the city, it was Gobryas who appointed the governors or prefects; which appointments Daniel states were made by Darius. The fact that he was a prince of the royal house of Media, and presumably well known to Cyrus, who had resided at the Median Court, would account for his being held in such high honor. He it was who governed Media as Viceroy when that country was reduced to the status of a province; and to any one accustomed to deal with evidence, the inference will seem natural that, for some reason or other, he was sent back to his provincial throne, and that, in returning to Ecbatana he carried with him the archives of his brief reign in Babylon. In the interval between the accession of Cyrus and that of Darius Hystaspis, the Temple decree may well have been forgotten by all but the Jews themselves. And although it was a serious matter to thwart the execution of an order issued by the king of Persia (Ezra 6:11), yet in this instance, as already noticed, a Divine decree overruled the decree of Cyrus, and vetoed their taking action upon it. The elucidation of the vision of the Seventy Weeks, as unfolded in the following pages, is my personal contribution to the Daniel controversy. And as the searching criticism to which it has been subjected has failed to detect in it an error or a flaw, [2] it may now be accepted without hesitation or reserve. The only disparaging comment which Professor Driver could offer upon it in his Book of Daniel was that it is a revival in a slightly modified form" of the scheme of Julius Africanus, and that it leaves the seventieth week "unexplained." But surely the fact that my scheme is on the same lines as that of "the father of Christian Chronologists" creates a very strong presumption in its favor. And so far from leaving the seventieth week unexplained, I have dealt with it in accordance with the beliefs of the early Fathers. For they regarded that week as future, seeing that they looked for the Antichrist of Scripture– "an individual person, the incarnation and concentration of sin." [3] – R. A. FOOTNOTE [1] As regards the regnal years of Jewish Kings, however, Fynes Clinton’s month dates are here modified in accordance with the Hebrew Mishna, which was a sealed book to English readers when the Fasti Hellenici was written. With reference to one date of cardinal importance I am specially indebted to the late Canon Rawlinson and the late Sir George Airey. [2] One point may be worth notice in a footnote. The R. V. reading of Acts 13:20 seems to dispose of my solution of the perplexing problem of the 480 years of1 Kings 6:1. But here, in accordance with their usual practice, and in neglect of the principles by which experts are guided in dealing with conflicting evidence, the Revisers slavishly followed certain of the oldest MSS. And the effect on this passage is disastrous. For it is certain that neither the Apostle said, nor the Evangelist wrote, that Israel’s enjoyment of the land was limited to 450 years, or that 450 years elapsed before the era of the Judges. The text adopted by the Revisers is, therefore, clearly wrong. Dean Alford regards it "as an attempt at correcting the difficult chronology of the verse"; and, he adds, "taking the words as they stand, no other sense can be given to them than that the time of the Judges lasted 450 years." That is, as he goes on to explain, the era within which occurred the rule of the Judges. It is not that the Judges ruled for 450 years — in which case the accusative would be used, as in verse 18 — but, as the use of the dative implies, that the period until Saul, characterized by the rule of the Judges, lasted 450 years. I need scarcely notice the objection that I fail to take account of the servitude mentioned in Judges 10:7-8. That servitude affected only the tribes beyond Jordan. [3] Alford’s Greek Test., Prol. to 2 Thessalonians Chapter 5. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 22: 1.03.00.3. PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION A DEFENSE OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL..... ======================================================================== PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION A DEFENSE OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL AGAINST THE "HIGHER CRITICISM." This volume has been disparaged in some quarters because, it is alleged, it ignores the destructive criticism which is supposed to have led "all people of discernment" to abandon belief in the visions of Daniel. The charge is not altogether just. Not only are some of the chief objections of the critics answered in these pages, but in proving the genuineness of the great central prophecy of the book, the authenticity of the whole is established, And the absence of a special chapter upon the subject may be explained. The practice, too common in religious controversy, of giving an ex parte representation of the views of opponents, instead of accepting their own statement of them, is never satisfactory, and seldom fair. And no treatise was available on the critics’ side, concise enough to afford the basis of a brief excursus, and yet sufficiently full and authoritative to warrant its being accepted as adequate. This want, however, has since been supplied by Professor Driver’s Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, [1] a work which embodies the results of the so-called "Higher Criticism," as accepted by the sober judgment of the author. While avoiding the malignant extravagance of the German rationalists and their English imitators, he omits nothing which erudition can with fairness urge against the authenticity of the Book of Daniel. And if the hostile arguments he adduces can be shown to be faulty and inconclusive, the reader may fearlessly accept the result as an "end of controversy" upon the subject. [2] Here is the thesis which the author sets himself to establish: "In face of the facts presented by the Book of Daniel, the opinion that it is the work of Daniel himself cannot be sustained. Internal evidence shows, with a cogency that cannot be resisted, that it must have been written not earlier than c. 300 B.C., and in Palestine; and it is at least probable that it was composed under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, B.C. 168 or 167." Professor Driver marshals his proofs under three heads: (1) facts of a historical nature; (2) the evidence of the language of Daniel; and (3) the theology of the Book. Under (1) he enumerates the following points: (a) "The position of the Book in the Jewish Canon, not among the prophets, but in the miscellaneous collection of writings called the Hagiographa, and among the latest of these, in proximity to Esther. Though little definite is known respecting the formation of the Canon, the division known as the ’ Prophets’ was doubtless formed prior to the Hagiographa; and had the Book of Daniel existed at the time, it is reasonable to suppose that it would have ranked as the work of a prophet, and have been included among the former." (b) "Jesus, the son of Sirach (writing c. 200 B.C.), in his enumeration of Israelitish worthies, c. 44-50, though he mentions Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and (collectively) the Twelve Minor Prophets, is silent as to Daniel." (c) "That Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem and carried away some of the sacred vessels in ’the third year of Jehoiakim’ (Daniel 1:1 f.), though it cannot, strictly speaking, be disproved, is highly improbable: not only is the Book of Kings silent, but Jeremiah, in the following year (Jeremiah 25:1-38, etc.), speaks of the Chaldaeans in a manner which appears distinctly to imply that their arms had not yet been seen in Judah." (d) "The ’Chaldaeans’ are synonymous in Daniel with the caste of wise men. This sense ’ is unknown to the Assyro-Babylonian language, has, wherever it occurs, formed itself after the end of the Babylonian empire, and is thus an indication of the post-exilic composition of the Book’ (Schrader)."… (e) "Belshazzar is represented as King of Babylon; and Nebuchadnezzar is spoken of throughout Daniel 5:1-31 : (Daniel 5:2, Daniel 5:11, Daniel 5:13, Daniel 5:18, Daniel 5:22) as his father."… (f) "Darius, son of Ahasuerus, a Mede, after the death of Belshazzar, is ’made king over the realm of the Chaldaeans.’ There seems to be no room for such a ruler. According to all other authorities, Cyrus is the immediate successor of Nabu-nahid, and the ruler of the entire Persian empire. "… (g) "In Daniel 9:2 it is stated that Daniel ’understood by the books’ the number of years for which, according to Jeremiah, Jerusalem should lie waste. The expression used implies that the prophecies of Jeremiah formed part of a collection of sacred books, which nevertheless it may be safely affirmed, was not formed in 536 B.C." (h) "Other indications adduced to show that the Book is not the work of a contemporary, are such as the following": The points are the improbability, first, that a strict Jew would have entered the class of the "wise men," or that he would have been admitted by the wise men themselves; second, Nebuchadnezzar’s insanity and edict; third, the absolute terms in which he and Darius recognize God, while retaining their idolatry. I dismiss (f) and (h) at once, for the author himself, with his usual fairness, declines to press them. "They should," he admits, "be used with reserve." The mention of "Darius the Mede" is perhaps the greatest difficulty which confronts the student of Daniel, and the problem it involves still awaits solution. The unqualified rejection of the narrative by many eminent writers only proves the incapacity even of scholars of repute to suspend their judgment upon questions of the kind. The history of that age is too uncertain and confused to justify dogmatism, and, as Professor Driver justly remarks, "a cautious criticism will not build too much on the silence of the inscriptions, where many certainly remain to be brought to light". In Mr. Sayce’s recent work [3] this caution is neglected. He accepts, moreover, with a faith which is unduly simple, all that Cyrus says about himself. It was obviously his interest to represent the acquisition of Babylonia as a peaceful revolution, and not a military conquest. But the Book of Daniel does not conflict with either hypothesis. Mr. Sayce here "reads into it," as is so constantly done, what it in no way states or even implies. There is not a word about a siege or a capture. Belshazzar was "slain," and Darius "received" the kingdom; but how these events came about we must learn from other sources. Professor Driver here admits in express terms "that ’Darius the Mede’ may prove, after all, to have been a historical character"; [4] and this is enough for our present purpose. The remaining points I proceed to discuss seriatim. (a) This is rightly placed first, as being the most important. But its apparent importance grows less and less the more closely it is examined. Our English Bible, following the Vulgate, divides the Old Testament into thirty-nine books. The Jewish Canon reckoned only twenty-four. These were classified under three heads – the Torah, the Neveeim, and the Kethuvim (the Law, the Prophets, and the Other Writings). The first contained the Pentateuch. The second contained eight books, which were again classified in two groups. The first four – viz., Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings – were called the "Former Prophets"; and the second four – viz., Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and "the Twelve" (i.e. the minor prophets reckoned as one book) – were called the "Latter Prophets." The third division contained eleven books – viz., Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah (reckoned as one), and Chronicles. Now, an examination of this list makes either of two conclusions irresistible. Either the Canon was arranged under Divine guidance, or else the classification of the books between the second and third divisions was an arbitrary one. If any one adopts the former alternative, the inclusion of Daniel in the Canon is decisive of the whole question. If, on the other hand, it be assumed that the arrangement was human and arbitrary, the fact that Daniel is in the third group proves – not that the book was regarded as of doubtful repute, for in that case it would have been excluded from the Canon, but that the great exile of the Captivity was not regarded as a "prophet." To the superficial this may seem to be giving up the whole case. But using the word "prophet" in its ordinary acceptation, Daniel has no claim whatever to the title, and but for Matthew 24:15 it would probably never have been applied to him. His visions have their New Testament counterpart, but yet no one speaks of "the prophet John." According to 2 Peter 1:21 the prophets "spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." This characterized the utterances of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and "the Twelve." They were the words of Jehovah by the mouth of the men who uttered them. The prophets stood apart from the people as witnesses for God; but Daniel’s position and ministry were wholly different. "Neither have we hearkened unto Thy servants the prophets which spake in Thy name": such was his humble attitude. Higher criticism may slight the distinction here insisted on; but the question is how it was regarded by the men who settled the Canon; and in their judgment its importance was immense. Daniel contains the record, not of God-breathed words uttered by the seer, but of the words spoken to him, and of dreams and visions accorded him. And the visions of the latter half of his book were granted him after more than sixty years spent in statecraft – years the record of which would fix his fame in the popular mind as statesman and ruler. The reader will thus recognize that the position of Daniel in the Canon is precisely where we should expect to find it. The critic speaks of it as being "in the miscellaneous collection of writings called the Hagiographa, and among the latest of these, in proximity to Esther." But, in adopting this from earlier writers, the author is guilty of what may be described as unintentional dishonesty. Daniel comes before Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles in a group of books which includes the Psalms – those Psalms than which no part of their Canon was prized more highly by the Jews – those Psalms, many of which they rightly regarded as prophetic in the highest and strictest sense. [5] But Daniel, we are told, was placed "in proximity to Esther." What does the critic mean by this? He cannot wish to suggest that Esther is held in low repute by the Jews, for he himself declares that it came to be "ranked by them as superior both to the writings of the prophets and to all other parts of the Hagiographa." As to Esther coming before Daniel, he cannot have overlooked that it is bracketed in the Canon with the four books which precede it – the Megilloth. He cannot mean to imply that the books of the Kethuvim are arranged chronologically; and he certainly cannot wish to create an ignorant prejudice. The statement therefore is an enigma, and the discussion under this head may be dosed by the general remark that (a) implies that the Jews esteemed the books in the third division of their Canon as less sacred than "the prophets." But this is wholly baseless. In common with the rest, they were, as Josephus tells us, "justly believed to be Divine, so that, rather than speak against them, they were ready to suffer torture, or even death." [6] (b) But little need be said in answer to this. Canon Driver admits that the argument is one "which, standing alone, it would be hazardous to press," and this is precisely its position if (a) be refuted. If it were a question of the omission of Daniel’s name from a formal list of the prophets everything above urged would apply here with equal force; but the reader must not suppose that the son of Sirach gives any list of the kind. The facts are these. The Apocryphal Book of Ecclesiasticus, which is here referred to, ends with a rhapsody in praise of "famous men." This panegyric, it is true, omits the name of Daniel. But in what connection would his name be included? Daniel was exiled to Babylon in early youth, and never spent a single day of his long life among his people, never was openly associated with them in their struggles or their sorrows. The critic, moreover, fails to notice that the Son of Sirach ignores also not only such worthies as Abel, and Melchisedec, and Job, and Gideon, and Samson, but also Ezra, who, unlike Daniel, played a most prominent part in the national life, and who also gave his name to one of the books of the Canon. Let the reader decide this matter for himself after reading the passage in which the names of Daniel and Ezra ought to appear. [7] If any one is so mentally constituted that the omission leads him to decide against the authenticity of these two books, no words of mine would influence him. (c) The historical statement with which the Book of Daniel opens is declared to be improbable on two grounds: first, because "the Book of Kings is silent" on the subject; and, secondly, because Jeremiah 25:1-38 appears inconsistent with it. The first point is made apparently in error, for 2 Kings 24:1 states explicitly that in Jehoiakim’s days Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jerusalem, and that the Jewish king became his vassal. [8] And the second point is overstated. Jeremiah 25:1-38 is silent on the subject, and that is all that can be said. Now the weight to be given to the silence of a particular witness or document on any matter is a familiar problem in dealing with evidence. It entirely depends on circumstances whether it counts for much, or little, or nothing. Kings being a historical record, its silence here would count for something. But why should a warning and a prophecy like Jeremiah 25:1-38 contain the recital of an event of a few months before, an event which no one in Jerusalem could ever possibly forget? [9] But further discussion on these lines is needless, for the accuracy of Daniel’s statement can be established on grounds which the critic ignores altogether. I refer to the chronology of the eras of the "servitude" and the "desolations." Both are commonly confounded with the "captivity," which was only in part concurrent with them. These several eras represented three successive judgments upon Judah. The chronology of these is fully explained in the sequel, and a reference to the excursus (within this work), or indeed a glance at the tables which follow, will supply proof absolute and complete that the servitude began in the third year of Jehoiakim, precisely as the Book of Daniel avers. (d) I will refer under the second head of the inquiry to the philological question here involved. It is not in any sense a historical difficulty. (e) The reader will find this point dealt with. Canon Driver remarks: "It may be admitted as probable that Belsharuzur held command for his father in Babylon; …but it is difficult to think that this could entitle him to be spoken of by a contemporary as king." If Belshazzar was regent, as the narrative indicates, it is difficult to think that a courtier would speak of him otherwise than as king. To have done so might have cost him his head! Daniel 5:7; Daniel 5:16; Daniel 5:29 affords corroboration here in a manner all the more striking because it is wholly undesigned. Nebuchadnezzar had made Daniel second ruler in the kingdom: why does Belshazzar make him third ruler? Presumably because he himself held but the second place. To avoid this the critics, trading upon a possible alternative rendering of the Aramaic {as given in the margin of the Revised Version}, conjecture a "Board of three." But assuming that the words used may mean a triumvirate in the sense of Daniel 6:2, the question whether this is their actual meaning must be settled by an appeal to history. And history affords not the slightest hint that such a system of government prevailed in the Babylonian Empire. A true exegesis, therefore, must decide in favor of the alternative and more natural view, that Daniel was to rule as third, the absent king being first, and the king-regent second. But Belshazzar is called the son of Nebuchadnezzar. The reader will find this objection fully answered by Dr. Pusey (Daniel, pp. 406-408). He justly remarks that "intermarriage with the family of a conquered monarch, or with a displaced line, is so obviously a way of strengthening the newly acquired throne, that it is a priori probable that Nabunahit would so fortify his claim," and Professor Driver himself allows (p. 468) that possibly the King may have married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, "in which case the latter might be spoken of as Belshazzar’s father (= grandfather, by Hebrew usage)." I will only add two remarks: first, the critics forget that even on their own view of Daniel the existence of a tradition is prima facie proof of its truth; and, secondly, if the usurper chose to be called the son of Nebuchadnezzar, though with no sort of claim to the title, no one in Babylon would dare to thwart him. (g) Here are the words of Daniel 9:2 (R.V.): "I Daniel understood by the books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, for the accomplishing of the desolations of Jerusalem, even seventy years." The prophecy here referred to is admittedly Jeremiah 25:11-12. Now the word sepher, rendered "book" in Daniel 9:2, means simply a scroll. It may denote a book, as it often does in Scripture, or merely a letter. See ex. gr. Jeremiah 29:1 (the letter which Jeremiah wrote to the exiles in Babylon), or Isaiah 37:14 (Sennacherib’s letter to King Hezekiah). Then, again, Jeremiah 36:1-2 records that in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the very year in which the prophecy of Jeremiah 25:1-38 : was given, all the prophecies delivered up to that time were recorded in "a book." And in Jeremiah 51:60-61 we find that some ten years later a further "book" was written and sent to Babylon. Where, then, is the difficulty? Professor Driver, moreover, himself supplies a complete answer in his own criticism by adopting "the supposition that in some cases Jeremiah’s writings were in circulation for a while as single prophecies, or small groups of prophecies" These may have been the scrolls or "books" of Daniel 9:1-27. But suppose, for the sake of argument, we admit that "the books" must mean the sacred writings up to that period, what warrant is there for affirming that no such "collection" existed in 536 B.C.? A more arbitrary assertion was never made, even in the range of controversy. Is it not absolutely incredible that the scrolls of the Law were not kept together? And considering Daniel’s intense piety, and the extraordinary resources and means he must have had at his disposal under Nebuchadnezzar, may it not "safely be affirmed" that there was not another man upon earth so likely as himself to have had copies of all the holy writings? [10] I now turn to the critic’s second argument, which is based on the language of the Book of Daniel. He appeals, first, to the number of Persian words it contains; secondly, to the presence of Greek words; thirdly, to the character of the Aramaic in which part of the book is written; and, lastly, to the character of the Hebrew. Underlying the argument founded on the presence of foreign words is the unexpressed assumption that the Jews were an uncultured tribe who had lived till then in boorish isolation. And yet four centuries before Daniel’s time the wisdom and wealth of Solomon were spoken of throughout the then known world. He was a naturalist, a botanist, a philosopher, and a poet. And why not a linguist also? Were all his communications with his many foreign wives carried on through interpreters? He traded with near and distant nations, and every one knows how language is influenced by commerce. And can we doubt that the fame of Nebuchadnezzar attracted foreigners to Babylon? What his relations were with foreign courts we know not. Why may not Daniel have been a Persian scholar? The position assigned to him under the Persian rule renders this extremely probable. The number of Persian words in the book, according to Professor Driver, is "probably at least fifteen"; and here is his comment upon them: "That such words should be found in books written after the Persian Empire was organized, and when Persian influences prevailed, is not more than would be expected" But it was precisely in these circumstances that the Book of Daniel was written. The vision of Daniel 10:1-21 was given five years after the Persian rule had been established, and these visions were the basis of the book. Notes and records the writer doubtless had of the earlier and historical portions of it; but it is a reasonable assumption that the whole was written after the visions were accorded him. As regards the Aramaic and the Hebrew of Daniel, I can of course express no opinion of my own. But my position will be in no way prejudiced by my incompetency in this respect. In the first place, there is nothing new here. The critic merely gives in a condensed form what the Germans have urged; and the whole ground has been covered by Dr. Pusey and others, who, having examined it with equal erudition and care, have arrived at wholly different conclusions. But, in the second place, it is unnecessary; for the signal fairness with which Professor Driver states the results of his argument enables me to concede all he says in this regard and to dismiss the discussion of it to the sequel. Here axe his words: "The verdict of the language of Daniel is thus clear. The Persian words presuppose a period after the Persian Empire had been well established; the Greek words demand, the Hebrew supports, and the Aramaic permits, a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great (B.C. 332). With our present knowledge this is as much as the language authorizes us definitely to affirm" (p. 476). May I restate this in other words? The Persian terms raise a presumption that Daniel was written after a certain date. The Hebrew strengthens this presumption, the Aramaic is consistent with it, and the Greek words used establish the truth of it. Problems precisely similar to this claim decision every day in our courts of justice. The whole strength of the case depends on the last point stated. Any number of argumentative presumptions may be rebutted; but here, it is alleged, we have proof which. admits of no answer: the Greek words demand a date which destroys the authenticity of Daniel. Will the reader believe it that the only foundation on which this superstructure rests is the allegation that two Greek words are found in the list of musical, instruments given in the third chapter? At a, bazaar held some time ago in one of our cathedral, towns, under the patronage of the bishop of the: diocese, the alarm was given that a thief was at work: among the company, and two ladies present had lost their purses. In the excitement which followed, the stolen purses, emptied of course of their contents, were found in the bishop’s pocket! The "Higher Criticism" would have handed him over to the police! Perhaps an apology is due for this digression; but, in sober earnestness, surely the inquiry is opportune whether these critics understand the very rudiments of the science of weighing evidence. The presence of the two stolen purses did not "demand" the conviction of the bishop. Neither should the presence of two Greek words decide the fate of Daniel. [11] The question would still remain, How did they come to be there? According to Professor Sayce, himself a hostile authority, the evidence of the monuments has entirely refuted this argument of the critics [12] It now appears that there were Greek colonies in Palestine as early as the days of Hezekiah, and that there was intercourse between Greece and Canaan at a still earlier period. But let us admit, for the sake of argument, that the words are really Greek, and that no such words were known in Babylon in the days of the exile. Is the inference based on their presence in the book a legitimate one? While some apologists of Daniel have pressed unduly the hypothesis of a revision, such a hypothesis affords a most reasonable explanation of difficulties of this particular kind. Why should we doubt the truth of the Jewish tradition that "the men of the great synagogue wrote" (that is, edited) the Book of Daniel? And if true, these Greek words may be easily accounted for. If in the list of musical instruments, and in the title of the "wise men," the editors found terms which were foreign and strange to them, how natural for them to substitute words which would be familiar to the Jews of Palestine. [13] How natural, too, to spell such names as Nebuchadnezzar and Abednego in the manner then become usual. These are precisely the sort of changes which they would adopt; changes of no vital moment, but fitted to make the book more suitable for those on whose behalf they were revising it. The critic’s last ground of attack is the theology of the Book of Daniel. This, he declares, "points to a later age than that of the exile." No charge of error is suggested, for Professor Driver is careful at the outset to repudiate what he calls the" exaggerations" of the German rationalists and their English imitators. But his alliance with such men warps his judgment, and betrays him into adopting statements begotten of their mingled ignorance and malice. Let one instance suffice. "It is remarkable also," he says, "that Daniel – so unlike the prophets generally – should display no interest in the welfare or prospects of his contemporaries." Not even in theological controversy could another statement be found more flagrantly baseless and false. In the entire history of the prophets, in the whole range of Scripture, Daniel 9:1-27 has no parallel for touching, earnest, passionate "interest in the welfare and prospects" of contemporaries. Now the question here is, not whether the doctrine of the Book be true, for that is not disputed, but whether truth of such an advanced and definite character could have been revealed at so early a period in the scheme of revelation. It is not easy to fix the principles on which such a question should be discussed. And the discussion may be avoided by raising another question, the answer to which will decide the whole matter in dispute. We know the "orthodox view" of the Book of Daniel. What alternative does the critic propose for our acceptance? Here he shall speak for himself, and the two quotations following will suffice: "Daniel, it cannot be doubted, was a historical person, one of the Jewish exiles in Babylon, who, with his three companions, was noted for his staunch adherence to the principles of his religion, who attained a position of influence at the Court of Babylon, who interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams, and foretold as a seer something of the future fate of the Chaldaean and Persian empires" (p. 479). "On the other hand, if the author be a prophet living in the time of the trouble itself, all the features of the Book may be consistently explained. He lives in the age in which he manifests an interest, and which needs the consolations which he has to address to it. He does not write after the persecutions are ended (in which case his prophecies would be pointless), but at their beginning, when his message of encouragement would have a value for the godly Jews in the season of their trial. He thus utters genuine predictions; and the advent of the Messianic age follows closely on the end of Antiochus, just as in Isaiah or Micah it follows closely on the fall of the Assyrian: in both cases the future is foreshortened" (p. 478). The first of these quotations refers to Daniel himself, the second to the supposed author of the Book which bears his name. In the first we pass for a moment out of the mist and cloud of mere theory and argument into the plain, clear light of fact. "It cannot be doubted," or, in other words it is absolutely certain, that Daniel was not only "a historical person," but "a seer"– that is to say, a prophet. But plunging back again at once into the gloom, we go on to conjecture the existence of another prophet in the days of Antiochus – a real prophet, for "he utters genuine predictions" for the encouragement of "the godly Jews in the season of their trial." Now the position of the skeptic is in a sense unassailable. He is like the obstinate juror who puts his back against the wall and refuses to believe the evidence. But mark what this suggested compromise involves. As already noticed, Daniel had no pretensions to the prophet’s mantle in the sense in which Jeremiah and Ezekiel wore it. He himself laid no claim to it (see Daniel 9:10). He, moreover, passed his life in the splendid isolation of the Court of Babylon, while they were central figures among their people – one in the midst of the troubles in Jerusalem, the other among the exiles. It would not be strange therefore if Daniel’s name and fame had no such place as theirs in the popular memory. But here we are asked to believe that another prophet, raised up within historic times, whose "message of encouragement" must have been on every man’s lips throughout the noble Maccabean struggle, passed clean out of the memory of the nation. The historian of this struggle cannot have been removed from him by more than a single generation, yet he ignores his existence, though he refers in the plainest terms to the Daniel of the Captivity. [14] The prophet’s voice had been silent for centuries; with what wild and passionate enthusiasm the nation would have hailed the rise of a new seer at such a time! And when the issue of that fierce struggle set the seal of truth upon his words, his fame would have eclipsed that of the old prophets of earlier days. But in fact not a vestige of his fame or name survived. No writer, sacred or secular, seems to have heard of him. No tradition of him remained. Was there ever a figment more untenable than this? No such compromise between faith and unbelief is; possible. From either of two alternatives there is no escape. Either the Book of Daniel is what it claims. to be, or else it is wholly worthless. "All must be true or all imposture." It is idle to talk of it as; being the work of some prophet of a later epoch. It dates from Babylon in the days of the Exile, or else it is a literary fraud, concocted after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. But how then could it come to be quoted in the Maccabees – quoted, not incidentally, but in one of the most solemn and striking passages in the entire book, the dying words of old Mattathias? And how could it come to be included in the Canon? The critics make much of its position in the Canon: how do they account for its having a place in it at all? It is reasonably certain that the first two divisions of the Canon were settled by the Great Synagogue long before the days of the Maccabees, and that its completion was the work of the Great Sanhedrin, not later than the second century B.C. And we are asked to suppose that this great College, composed of the most learned men of the nation, would have accepted a literary fraud of modern date, or could have been duped by it. This is one of the wildest and most reckless hypotheses imaginable. Nor would this argument be sensibly weakened if the critics should insist that the Canon may still have been open for a hundred years after the death of Antiochus. [15] If it was thus kept open, the fact would be a further pledge and proof that the most jealous and vigilant care must have been unceasingly exercised. The presence of the Book of Daniel in the Jewish Canon is a fact more weighty than all the criticisms of the critics. Thousands there are who cling to the Book of Daniel, and yet dread to face this destructive criticism lest faith should give way under the influence. And yet this is all it has to urge, as formulated by one of its best exponents. Of all these hostile arguments there is not so much as one which may not be refuted at any moment by the discovery of further inscriptions. In presence of some newly found cylinder from the as yet unexplored ruins of Babylon, [16] all this theorizing about improbabilities and peddling over words might be silenced in a day. And this being so, it is obvious to any one in whom the judicial faculty is not wanting that the critics exaggerate the importance of their criticisms. Even if all they urge were true and weighty, it should lead us only to suspend our judgment. But the critics are specialists, and it is proverbial that specialists are bad judges. And here it is possible for one who cannot pose as a theologian or a scholar to meet them on more than equal terms. With them it is enough that evidence of a certain kind points in one direction. But they in whom the judicial faculty is developed will pause and ask, "What is to be said upon the other side?" and "Will the proposed decision harmonize with all the facts?" Questions of this kind, however, have no existence for the critics. If they ever presented themselves to Professor Driver’s mind, it is to be regretted that he failed to take account of them when stating the general results of his inquiry. And if ignored by an author so willing to reach the truth, they need not be looked for in the writings of the skeptics and apostates. I have hitherto been dealing with presumptions and inferences and arguments. To deny that these have weight would be both dishonest and futile. It may be conceded that if the Book of Daniel had been brought to light within the Christian era, they would suffice to bar its admission to the Canon. But to the Christian the Book is accredited by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and in presence of this one fact the force of these criticisms is dispelled like mist before the sun. The very prediction which the rationalists most cavil at, He has adopted in that discourse which is the key to all unfulfilled prophecy (Matthew 24:1-51); and if Daniel be proved a fraud, He whom we own as Lord is discredited thereby. Such an argument as this the rationalists of the German school despise. And with them the mention of Daniel in the Book of Ezekiel counts for nothing, though according to their own canons it ought to outweigh much of the negative evidence they adduce. Daniel is not mentioned by other prophets; therefore, they argue, Daniel is a myth. Three times the prophecies of Ezekiel speak of him; therefore, they infer, some other Daniel is intended. Their argument is based on the silence of the sacred and other books of the Jews. A man so eminent as the Daniel of the exile would not, they urge, have been thus ignored. And yet they conjecture the career of another Daniel of equal, or even greater eminence, whose very existence has been forgotten! It is not easy to deal with such casuists. But there is one argument, at least, which they cannot rob us of. They have got rid of Daniel 2:1-49 and Daniel 7:1-28, and the closing vision of the Book, but the great central prophecy of the Seventy Weeks remains; and this affords proof of the Divine authority of Daniel, which cannot be destroyed. Let them fix the date of the Book where they will, they fail to account for this. From one definitely recorded historical event – the edict to rebuild Jerusalem, to another definitely recorded historical event – the public manifestation of the Messiah, the length of the intervening period was predicted; and with accuracy absolute and to the very day the prediction has been fulfilled. To elucidate that prophecy this volume has been written, and as the result constitutes my personal contribution to the controversy, I may be pardoned for explaining the steps by which it has been reached. The vision refers to 70 sevens of years, but I deal here only with the 69 "weeks" of the twenty-fifth verse. Here are the words: "Know therefore and discern that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah, the Prince, shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks: it shall be built again with street and moat, even in troublous times." [17] Now it is an undisputed fact that Jerusalem was rebuilt by Nehemiah, under an edict issued by Arta-xerxes (Longimanus), in the twentieth year of his reign. Therefore, notwithstanding the doubts which controversy throws upon everything, the conclusion is obvious and irresistible that this was the epoch of the prophetic period. But the month date was Nisan, and the sacred year of the Jews began with the phases of the Paschal moon. I appealed, therefore, to the Astronomer Royal, the late Sir George Airy, to calculate for me the moon’s place for March in the year in question, and I thus ascertained the date required– March 14th, B.C. 445. This being settled, one question only remained, Of what kind of year does the era consist? And the answer to this is definite and clear. That it is the ancient year of 360 days is plainly proved in two ways. First, because, according to Daniel and the Apocalypse, 31/2 prophetic years are equal to 1, 260 days; and, secondly, because it can be proved that the 70 years of the "Desolations" were of this character; and the connection between the period of the "Desolations" and the era of the "weeks" is one of the few universally admitted facts in this controversy. The "Desolations" began on the 10th Tebeth, B.C. 589 (a day which for four-and-twenty centuries has been commemorated by the Jews as a fast), and ended on the 24th Chisleu, B.C. 520. Having thus settled the terminus a quo of the "weeks," and the form of year of which they are composed, nothing remains but to calculate the duration of the era. Its terminus ad quem can thus with certainty be ascertained. Now 483 years (69 x 7) of 360 days contain 173, 880 days. And a period of 173, 880 days, beginning March 14th, B.C. 445, ended upon that Sunday in the week of the crucifixion, when, for the first and only time in His ministry, the Lord Jesus Christ, in fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy, made a public entry into Jerusalem, and caused His Messiahship to be openly proclaimed by "the whole multitude of the disciples." (Luke 19:1-48) I need not discuss the matter further here. In the following chapters every incidental question involved is fully dealt with, and every objection answered. [18] Suffice it to repeat that in presence of the facts and figures thus detailed no mere negation of belief is possible. These must be accounted for in some way. "There is a point beyond which unbelief is impossible, and the mind, in refusing truth, must take refuge in a misbelief which is sheer credulity." It was not till after the preceding pages were in print that Archdeacon Farrar’s Daniel reached my hands. Some apology is due, perhaps, to Professor Driver for bracketing such a work with his, but The Expositor’s Bible will be read by many to whom The Introduction is an unknown book. Both writers agree in impugning the authenticity of the Book of Daniel; but their relative positions are widely different, and no less so are their arguments and methods. The Christian scholar writes for scholars, desirous only to elucidate the truth. The popular theologian retails the extravagances of German skepticism for the enlightenment of an easily deluded public. As we turn from the one book to the other, we are reminded of the difference between a criminal trial when in charge of a responsible law officer of the Crown, and when promoted by a vindictive private prosecutor. In the one case the lawyer’s aim is solely to assist the Court in arriving at a just verdict, In the other, we may be prepared for statements which are reckless, if not unscrupulous. And here we must distinguish between the Higher Criticism as legitimately used by Christian scholars in the interests of truth, and the rationalistic movement which bears that name. If that movement leads to unbelief, it is in obedience to the law that like begets like. It is itself the offspring of skepticism. Its reputed founder set out with the deliberate design of eliminating God from the Bible. From the skeptic’s point of view Eichhorn’s theories were inadequate, and De Wette and others have improved upon them. But their aim and object are the same. The Bible must be accounted for, and Christianity explained, on natural principles. The miracles therefore had to be got rid of, and prophecy is the greatest miracle of all. In the case of most of the Messianic Scriptures the skepticism which had settled like a night mist upon Germany made the task an easy one; but Daniel was a difficulty. Such passages as the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah could be jauntily disposed of, but the infidel could make nothing of these visions of Daniel. The Book stands out as a witness for God, and by fair means or foul it must be silenced. And one method only of accomplishing this is possible. The conspirators set themselves to prove that it was written after the events it purports to predict. The evidence they have scraped together is of a kind which would not avail to convict a known thief of petty larceny – much of it indeed has already been discarded; but any sort of evidence will suffice with a prejudiced tribunal, and from the very first the Book of Daniel was doomed. Dr. Farrar’s book reproduces every shred of this evidence in its baldest and crudest form. His original contributions to the controversy are limited to the rhetoric which conceals the weakness of fallacious arguments, and the dogmatism with which he sometimes disposes of results accredited by the judgment of authorities of the highest eminence. Two typical instances will suffice. The first relates to a question of pure scholarship. Referring to the fifth chapter of Daniel he writes: "Snatching at the merest straws, those who try to vindicate the accuracy of the writer…think that they improve the case by urging that Daniel was made ’the third ruler in the kingdom’ – Nabunaid being the first, and Belshazzar being the second! Unhappily for their very precarious hypothesis, the translation ’third ruler’ appears to be entirely untenable. It means ’one of a board of three.’" "Entirely untenable!" In view of the decision of the Old Testament Company of the Revisers on this point, the statement denotes extraordinary carelessness or intolerable arrogance. And I have authority for stating that the Revisers gave the question full consideration, and that it was only at the last revision that the alternative rendering, "rule as one of three," was admitted into the margin. On no occasion was it contemplated to accept it in the text. [19] The right rendering of Daniel 5:29 is admittedly "the third ruler" in the kingdom; but the authorities differ as to Daniel 5:7 and Daniel 5:16. Professor Driver tells me that, in his opinion, the absolutely literal rendering there is "rule as a third part in the kingdom," or, slightly paraphrasing the words, "rule as one of three" (as in R.V. margin). Professor Kirkpatrick, of Cambridge, has been good enough to refer me to Kautzsch’s Die Heilige schrift des alten Testaments, as representing the latest and best German scholarship, and his rendering of Daniel 5:7 is "third ruler in the kingdom," with the note, "i.e., either as one of three over the whole kingdom (compare Daniel 6:3), or as third by the side of the king and the king’s mother." And the Chief Rabbi (whose courtesy to me here I wish to acknowledge) writes: "I cannot absolutely find fault with– for translating the words ’the third part of the kingdom, ’as he follows herein two of our Hebrew Commentators of great repute, Rashi and Ibn Ezra. On the other hand, others of our Commentators, such as Saadia, Jachja, etc., translate the passage as ’he shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.’ This rendering seems to be more strictly in accord with the literal meaning of the words, as shown by Dr. Winer in his Grammatik des Chaldaismus. It also receives confirmation from Sir Henry Rawlinson’s remarkable discovery, according to which Belshazzar was the eldest son of King Nabonidus, and associated with him in the Government, so that the person next in honor would be the third." It is perfectly clear, therefore, that Dr. Farrar’s statement is utterly unjustifiable. Is it to be attributed to want of scholarship, or to want of candor? Again, referring to the prophet’s third vision, Archdeacon Farrar writes: "The attempt to refer the prophecy of the seventy weeks primarily or directly to the coming and death of Christ…can only be supported by immense manipulations, and by hypotheses so crudely impossible, that they would have made the prophecy practically meaningless both to Daniel and to any subsequent reader" (p. 287). It is not easy to deal with such a statement with even conventional respect. No honest man will deny that, whether Daniel 9:1-27 be a prophecy or a fraud, the blessings specified in Daniel 9:24 are Messianic. Here all Christian expositors are agreed. And though the views of some of them are marked by startling eccentricities even the wildest of them will contrast favorably with Kuenen’s exegesis, which, in all its crude absurdity, Archdeacon Farrar adopts. [20] Professor Driver’s opinions are entitled to the greatest weight within the sphere in which he is so high an authority. [21] But I have ventured to suggest that his eminence as a scholar lends undue weight to his dicta on the general topics involved, and that he shares in the proverbial disability of experts in dealing with a mass of apparently conflicting evidence. The tone and manner in which his inquiry is conducted shows a readiness to reconsider his position in the light of any new discoveries hereafter. In contrast with this there are no reserves in Dr. Farrar’s denunciations. For him retreat is impossible, no matter what the future may disclose. But to review his book is not my purpose. The only serious counts in the indictment of Daniel have been already noticed. His treatise, however, raises a general question of transcendent importance, and to this I desire in conclusion to refer. With him the Book of Daniel is the merest fiction, differing from other fiction of the same kind by reason of the multiplicity of its inaccuracies and errors. Its history is but idle legend. Its miracles are but baseless fables. It is, in every part of it, a work of the imagination. "Avowed fiction" (p. 43), he calls it, for it is so obviously a romance that the charge of fraud is due solely to the stupidity of the Christian Church in mistaking the aim and purpose of "the holy and gifted Jew" (p. 119) who wrote it. Such are the results of his criticisms. What action shall we take upon them? Shall we not sadly, but with deliberate purpose, tear the Book of Daniel from its place in the Sacred Canon? By no means. "These results," Dr. Farrar exclaims, "are in no way derogatory to the preciousness of this Old Testament Apocalypse. No words of mine can exaggerate the value which I attach to this part of our Canonical Scriptures.. .. Its right to a place in the Canon is undisputed and indisputable, and there is scarcely a single book of the Old Testament which can be made more richly profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, completely furnished unto every good work" (p. 4). This is not an isolated statement such as charity might attribute to thoughtlessness. Like words are used again and again in praise of the book [22] Daniel is nothing more than a religious novel, and yet "there is scarcely a single book of the Old Testament" of greater worth! The question here is not the authenticity of Daniel but the character and value of the Holy Scriptures. Christian scholars whose researches lead them to reject any portion of the Canon are wont to urge that, in doing so, they increase the authority, and enhance the value, of the rest. But the Archdeacon of Westminster, in impugning the Book of Daniel, takes occasion to degrade and throw contempt upon the Bible as a whole. Bishop Westcott declares that no writing in the Old Testament had so great a share in the development of Christianity as the Book of Daniel. [23] Or, to quote a hostile witness, Professor Bevan writes: "In the New Testament Daniel is mentioned only once, but the influence of the book is apparent almost everywhere." [24] "There are few books," says Hengstenberg, "whose Divine authority is so fully established by the testimony of the New Testament, and in particular by our Lord Himself, as the Book of Daniel." Just as mist and storm may hide the solid rock from sight, so this truth may be obscured by casuistry and rhetoric; but when these have spent themselves it stands out plain and clear. In all this controversy one result of the rejection of the Book of Daniel is entirely overlooked or studiously concealed. If "the Apocalypse of the Old Testament" be banished from the Canon, the Apocalypse of the New Testament must share in its exclusion. The visions of St. John are so inseparably interwoven with the visions of the great prophet of the exile, that they stand or fall together. This result the critic is entitled to disregard. But the homilist may by no means ignore it. And it brings into prominence the fact so habitually forgotten, that the Higher Criticism claims a position which can by no means be accorded to it. Its true place is not on the judgment seat, but in the witness chair. The Christian theologian must take account of much which criticism cannot notice without entirely abandoning its legitimate sphere and function. No one falls back upon this position more freely when it suits his purpose, than Archdeacon Farrar. He evades the testimony of Matthew 24:1-51 by refusing to believe that our Lord ever spoke the words attributed to Him. But this undermines Christianity; for, I repeat, Christianity rests upon the Incarnation, and if the Gospels be not inspired, the Incarnation is a myth. What is his answer to this? I quote his words: "But our belief in the Incarnation, and in the miracles of Christ, rests on evidence which, after repeated examination, is to us overwhelming. Apart from all questions of personal verification, or the Inward Witness of the Spirit, we can show that this evidence is supported, not only by the existing records, but by myriads of external and independent testimonies." This deserves the closest attention, not merely because of its bearing on the question at issue, but as a fair specimen of the writer’s reasoning in this extraordinary contribution to our theological literature. Here is the Christian argument: "The Nazarene was admittedly the son of Mary. The Jews declared that He was the son of Joseph; the Christian worships Him as the Son of God. The founder of Rome was said to be the divinely begotten child of a vestal virgin. And in the old Babylonian mysteries a similar parentage was ascribed to the martyred son of Semiramis, gazetted Queen of Heaven. What grounds have we then for distinguishing the miraculous birth at Bethlehem from these and other kindred legends of the ancient world? To point to the resurrection is a transparent begging of the question. To appeal to human testimony is utter folly. At this point we are face to face with that to which no consensus of mere human testimony could lend even an a priori probability." [25] On what then do we base our belief of the great central fact of the Christian system? Here the dilemma is inexorable: to disparage the Gospels, as this writer does, is to admit that the foundation of our faith is but a Galilaean legend. By no means, Dr. Farrar tells us; we have not only "personal verification, and the Inward Witness of the Spirit, but we have also myriads of external and independent witnesses." No Christian will ignore the Witness of the Spirit. But the question here, remember, is one of fact. The whole Christian system depends upon the truth of Matthew 1:25 – I will not quote it. How then can the Holy Spirit impart to me the knowledge of the fact there stated, save by the written Word? I believe the fact because I accept the record as God-breathed Scripture, an authoritative revelation from heaven. But to talk of personal verification, or to appeal to some transcendental instinct, or to tens of thousands of external witnesses, is to divorce words from thoughts, and to pass out of the sphere of intelligent statement and common sense. [26] -- R. A. FOOTNOTE [1] An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, by S. R. Driver, D. D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. Third edition. (T. & T. Clark, 1892.) I wish here to acknowledge Professor Driver’s courtesy in replying to various inquiries I have ventured to address to him. [2] In accordance with the plan of the work, Daniel 11:1-45 opens with a precis of the contents of Daniel, together with exegetical notes. With these notes I am not concerned, though they seem designed to prepare the reader for the sequel. I will dismiss them with two remarks. First, in his criticisms upon Daniel 9:24-27 he ignores the scheme of interpretation which I have followed, albeit it is adopted by some writers of more eminence than several of those he quotes; and the four points he enumerates against the "commonly understood" Messianic interpretation are amply dealt with in these pages. And secondly, his comment on Daniel 11:1-45, that "it can hardly be legitimate, in a continuous description, with no apparent change of subject, to refer part to the type and part to the antitype," disposes with extraordinary naivete of a canon of prophetic interpretation accepted almost universally from the days of the post-Apostolic Fathers down to the present hour! [3] The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments, by the Rev. A. H. Sayce. [4] Page 479, note. But the author’s appeal under (f) to "all other authorities" is scarcely fair, as Daniel is the only contemporary historian, and the exploration of the ruins of Babylon has yet to be accomplished. And as regards (h) but little need be said. Professor Driver candidly owns that "there are good reasons for supposing that Nebuchadnezzar’s lycanthropy rests upon a basis of fact." No student of human nature will find anything strange in the recorded action of these heathen kings when confronted with proofs of the presence and power of God We see its counterpart every day in the conduct of ungodly men when events which they regard as Divine judgments befall them. And no one accustomed to deal with evidence will entertain the suggestion that the story of Daniel’s becoming a "Chaldean" would be invented by a Jew trained under the strict ritual of post-exilic days. The suggestion that Daniel would have been refused admission to the college in the face of the great king’s order to admit him really deserves no answer. [5] As the Psalms came first in the Kelhuvim they gave their name to the whole; as ex. gr. when our Lord spoke of "the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44) He meant the entire Scriptures. [6] Against Apion, 1. 8. [7] This section of Ecclesiasticus begins with Sir 44:1-22, but the passage here in question is Sir 49:6-16. [8] Possibly the critic means to question whether Jerusalem was actually captured, i. e. carried by storm, at this time. I have, I admit, assumed this in these pages. But Scripture nowhere says so. Taking all accounts together, we can only aver that Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jerusalem, and laid siege to it, that, in some way, Jehoiakim fell into his hands and was put in chains to carry him to Babylon, and that Nebuchadnezzar changed his purpose and left him as a vassal king in Judaea. He may have gone out to the Chaldean king, as his son and successor afterwards did (2 Kings 24:12); and it is very probable that Jehoiachin’s action in this respect was suggested by the leniency shown to his father. [9] The words "as it is this day," in Jeremiah 25:18, appear to be an allusion to the accomplished subjugation of Judaea. According to Jeremiah 25:199, Egypt was next to fall before Nebuchadnezzar; and Jeremiah 46:2 records Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over the Egyptian army in this same year. [10] Professor Bevan’s suggestion on this point is, in my opinion, untenable. But I refer to it to show how an advanced exponent of the Higher Criticism can dispose of (g). Commentary on Daniel, p. 146. I have no doubt whatever that if Leviticus was before Daniel, as well it might be, it was the law of the Sabbatical years he had in view and not Leviticus 26:18, etc. [11] I speak of two Greek words only, for kitharos is practically given up. Dr. Pusey denies that these words are of Greek origin. (Daniel, pp. 27- 30.) Dr. Driver urges that in the fifth century B. C. "the arts and inventions of civilized life streamed then into Greece from the East, and not from Greece Eastwards." But surely the figure he uses here distorts his judgment. The influences of civilization do not "stream" in the sense in which water streams. There is and always must be an interchange; and arts and inventions carried from one country to another carry their names with them. I am compelled to pass by these philological questions thus rapidly, but the reader will find them fully discussed by Pusey and others. Dr. Pusey remarks, "Aramaic as well as Aryan words suit his real age," and "his Hebrew is just what one would expect at the age in which he lived" (p. 578). [12] Higher Criticism and the Monuments, pp. 424 and 494. [13] On this subject see the Bishop of Durham’s article in Smith’s Bible Dictionary. [14] 1Ma 2:60; see also 1Ma 1:54. The First Book of Maccabees is a history of the highest repute, and the accuracy of it is universally acknowledged. [15] The Sanhedrin, though scattered during the Maccabean revolt, was reconstituted at its close. See Dr. Ginsburg’s articles "Sanhedrin" and "Synagogue" in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia. [16] The ruins of Borsippa are practically unexplored; and considering the character of the inscriptions found on other Chaldean sites, we may expect to obtain hereafter very full State records of the capital. [17] I follow the marginal reading of the R. V., which was the reading adopted by the American Company. [18] See chaps. 5-10. [19] As I have taken up this as a test question I have investigated it closely. [20] His chapter on The Seventy Weeks provokes the exclamation, Is this what English theology has come to! I do not allude to such vulgar blunders as calling Gabriel "the Archangel" (p. 275), or confounding the era of the Servitude with that of the Desolations (p. 289), but to the style and spirit of the excursus as a whole. For "immense manipulations" and "crudely impossible hypotheses" no recent English treatise can compare with it. [21] I allude to his attempt to fix the date of the Book by the character of its Hebrew and Aramaic. This, moreover, is a point on which scholars differ. I have already quoted Dr. Pusey’s dictum. Professor Cheyne says: "From the Hebrew of the Book of Daniel no important inference as to its date can be safely drawn" (Encyc. Brit., "Daniel," p. 804); and one of the greatest authorities in England, who has been quoted in favor of fixing a late date for Daniel, writes, in answer to an inquiry I have addressed to him: "I am now of opinion that it is a very difficult task to settle the age of any portion of that Book from its language. I do not think, therefore, that my name should be quoted any more in the contest." [22] See ex. gr. Pp. 36, 37, 90, 118, 125. [23] Smith’s Bible Dict., "Daniel." [24] Com. Daniel, p. 15. [25] A Doubter’s Doubts, p. 76 [26] Professor Driver has since called my attention to a note in the "Addends" to the third edition of his Introduction, qualifying his admissions respecting Belshazzar. He has also informed me that Professor Sayce is the "high Assyrio-logical authority" there referred to. This enables us to discount his retractation. When writing on (e) in the above Preface, I had before me pp. 524-9 of the Higher Criticism and the Monuments, and I was impressed by the force of the objections there urged against the Daniel story of Belshazzar. Great was my revulsion of feeling when I discovered that Professor Sayce’s argument depends upon his misreading of the Annalistic tablet of Cyrus. That tablet admittedly refers throughout to Belshazzar as "the son of the King"; but when it records his death at the taking of Babylon, Professor Sayce reads "wife of the King" instead of" son of the King," and goes on to argue that, as Belshazzar is not mentioned in the passage, he cannot have been in Babylon at the time! That "contract tablets" would be dated with reference to the reign of the King, and not of the Regent, is precisely what we should expect. I have dealt fully with the Belshazzar question in my Daniel in the Critics’ Den, to which I would refer also for a fuller reply to Dean Farrar’s book. Having regard to the testimony of the Annalistic tablet, that question may be looked upon as settled. And if, when writing that work, I had had before me what the Rev. J. Urquhart brings to light about Darius the Mede, in his Inspiration and Accuracy of Holy Scripture, I should have considered that this, the only remaining difficulty in the Daniel controversy, was no longer a serious one. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 23: 1.03.01. CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY ======================================================================== CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY TO living men no time can be so solemn as "the living present," whatever its characteristics; and that solemnity is immensely deepened in an age of progress unparalleled in the history of the world. But the question arises whether these days of ours are momentous beyond comparison, by reason of their being in the strictest sense the last? Is the world’s history about to close? The sands of its destiny, are they almost run out, and is the crash of all things near at hand? Earnest thinkers will not allow the wild utterances of alarmists, or the vagaries of prophecy-mongers, to divert them from an inquiry at once so solemn and so reasonable. It is only the infidel who doubts that there is a destined limit to the course of "this present evil world." That God will one day put forth His power to ensure the triumph of the good, is in some sense a matter of course. The mystery of revelation is not that He will do this, but that He delays to do it. Judged by the public facts around us, He is an indifferent spectator of the unequal struggle between good and evil upon earth. "I considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun; and, behold, the tears of the oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power, but they had no comforter." (Ecclesiastes 4:1) And how can such things be, if indeed the God who rules above is almighty and all-good? Vice and godlessness and violence and wrong are rampant upon every side, and yet the heavens above keep silence. The infidel appeals to the fact in proof that the Christian’s God is but a myth. [1] The Christian finds in it a further proof that the God he worships is patient and longsuffering— "patient because He is eternal," longsuffering because He is almighty, for wrath is a last resource with power. But the day is coming when "our God shall come and shall not keep silence." (Psalms 1:3) This is not a matter of opinion, but of faith. He who questions it has no claim whatever to the name of Christian, for it is as essentially a truth of Christianity as is the record of the life and death of the Son of God. The old Scriptures teem with it, and of all the writers of the New Testament there is not so much as one who does not expressly speak of it. It was the burden of the first prophetic utterance which Holy Writ records; (Jude 1:14) and the closing book of the sacred Canon, from the first chapter to the last, confirms and amplifies the testimony. The only inquiry, therefore, which concerns us relates to the nature of the crisis and the time of its fulfillment. And the key to this inquiry is the Prophet Daniel’s vision of the seventy weeks. Not that a right understanding of the prophecy will enable us to prophesy. That is not the purpose for which it was given. [2] But it will prove a sufficient safeguard against error in the study. Notably it will save us from the follies into which false systems of prophetic chronology inevitably lead those who follow them. It is not in our time only that the end of the world has been predicted. It was looked for far more confidently at the beginning of the sixth century. All Europe rang with it in the days of Pope Gregory the Great. And at the end of the tenth century the apprehension of it amounted to a general panic. "It was then frequently preached on, and by breathless crowds listened to; the subject of every one’s thoughts, every one’s conversation." "Under this impression, multitudes innumerable," says Mosheim, "having given their property to monasteries or churches, traveled to Palestine, where they expected Christ to descend to judgment. Others bound themselves by solemn oaths to be serfs to churches or to priests, in hopes of a milder sentence on them as being servants of Christ’s servants. In many places buildings were let go to decay, as that of which there would be no need in future. And on occasions of eclipses of sun or moon, the people fled in multitudes for refuge to the caverns and the rocks." [3] And so in recent years, one date after another has been confidently named for the supreme crisis; but still the world goes on. A.D. 581 was one of the first years fixed for the event, [4] 1881 is among the last. These pages are not designed to perpetuate the folly of such predictions, but to endeavor in a humble way to elucidate the meaning of a prophecy which ought to deliver us from all such errors and to rescue the study from the discredit they bring upon it. No words ought to be necessary to enforce the importance of the subject, and yet the neglect of the prophetic Scriptures, by those even who profess to believe all Scripture to be inspired, is proverbial. Putting the matter on the lowest ground, it might be urged that if a knowledge of the past be important, a knowledge of the future must be of far higher value still, in enlarging the mind and raising it above the littlenesses produced by a narrow and unenlightened contemplation of the present. If God has vouchsafed a revelation to men, the study of it is surely fitted to excite enthusiastic interest, and to command the exercise of every talent which can be brought to bear upon it. And this suggests another ground on which, in our own day especially, prophetic study claims peculiar prominence; namely, the testimony it affords to the Divine character and origin of the Scriptures. Though infidelity was as open-mouthed in former times, it had its own banner and its own camp, and it shocked the mass of mankind, who, though ignorant of the spiritual power of religion, clung nevertheless with dull tenacity to its dogmas. But the special feature of the present age — well fitted to cause anxiety and alarm to all thoughtful men — is the growth of what may be termed religious skepticism, a Christianity which denies revelation — a form of godliness which denies that which is the power of godliness. (2 Timothy 3:5) Faith is not the normal attitude of the human mind towards things Divine, the earnest doubter, therefore, is entitled to respect and sympathy. But what judgment shall be meted out to those who delight to proclaim themselves doubters, while claiming to be ministers of a religion of which FAITH is the essential characteristic? There are not a few in our day whose belief in the Bible is all the more deep and unfaltering just because they have shared in the general revolt against priestcraft and superstition; and such men are scarcely prepared to take sides in the struggle between free thought and the thraldom of creeds and clerics. But in the conflict between faith and skepticism within the pale, their sympathies are less divided. On the one side there may be narrowness, but at least there is honesty; and in such a case surely the moral element is to be considered before a claim to mental vigor and independence can be listened to. Moreover any claim of the kind needs looking into. The man who asserts his freedom to receive and teach what he deems truth, howsoever reached, and wheresoever found, is not to be lightly accused of vanity or self-will. His motives may be true, and right, and praiseworthy. But if he has subscribed to a creed, he ought to be careful in taking any such ground. It is not on the side of vagueness that the creeds of our British Churches are in fault, and men who boast of being freethinkers would deserve more respect if they showed their independence by refusing to subscribe, than by undermining the doctrines they are both pledged and subsidized to defend and teach. But what concerns us here is the indisputable fact that rationalism in this its most subtle phase is leavening society. The universities are its chief seminaries. The pulpit is its platform. Some of the most popular religious leaders are amongst its apostles. No class is safe from its influence. And if even the present could be stereotyped, it were well; but we are entered on a downward path, and they must indeed be blind who cannot see where it is leading. If the authority of the Scriptures be unshaken, vital truths may be lost by one generation, and recovered by the next; but if that be touched, the foundation of all truth is undermined, and all power of recovery is gone. The Christianized skeptic of today will soon give place to the Christianized infidel, whose disciples and successors in their turn will be infidels without any gloss of Christianity about them. Some, doubtless, will escape; but as for the many, Rome will be the only refuge for those who dread the goal to which society is hastening. Thus the forces are marshaling for the great predicted struggle of the future between the apostasy of a false religion and the apostasy of open infidelity. [5] Is the Bible a revelation from God? This is now become the greatest and most pressing of all questions. We may at once dismiss the quibble that the Scriptures admittedly contain a revelation. Is the sacred volume no better than a lottery bag from which blanks and prizes are to be drawn at random, with no power of distinguishing between them till the day when the discovery must come too late! And in the present phase of the question it is no less a quibble to urge that passages, and even books, may have been added in error to the Canon. We refuse to surrender Holy Writ to the tender mercies of those who approach it with the ignorance of pagans and the animus of apostates. But for the purpose of the present controversy we might consent to strike out everything on which enlightened criticism has cast the shadow of a doubt. This, however, would only clear the way for the real question at issue, which is not as to the authenticity of one portion or another, but as to the character and value of what is admittedly authentic. We are now far beyond discussing rival theories of inspiration; what concerns us is to consider whether the holy writings are what they claim to be, "the oracles of God." [6] In the midst of error and confusion and uncertainty, increasing on every side, can earnest and devout souls turn to an open Bible, and find there "words of eternal life"? "The rational attitude of a thinking mind towards the supernatural is that of skepticism." [7] Reason may bow before the shibboleths and tricks of priest craft— "the voice of the Church," as it is called; but this is sheer credulity. But if GOD speaks, then skepticism gives place to faith. Nor is this a mere begging of the question. The proof that the voice is really Divine must be absolute and conclusive. In such circumstances, skepticism betokens mental or moral degradation, and faith is not the abnegation of reason, but the highest act of reason. To maintain that such proof is impossible, is equivalent to asserting that the God who made us cannot so speak to us that the voice shall carry with it the conviction that it is from Him; and this is not skepticism at all, but disbelief and atheism. "It pleased God to reveal His Son in me," was St. Paul’s account of his conversion. The grounds of his faith were subjective, and could not be produced. In proof to others of their reality he could only appeal to the facts of his life; though these were entirely the result, and in no sense or degree the basis, of his conviction. Nor was his case exceptional. St. Peter was one of the favored three who witnessed every miracle, including the transfiguration, and yet his faith was not the result of these, but sprang from a revelation to himself. In response to his confession, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," the Lord declared, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 16:17) Nor, again, was this a special grace accorded only to apostles. "To them that have obtained like precious faith with us," (2 Peter 1:1) was St. Peter’s address to the faithful generally. He describes them as "born again by the Word of God." So also St. John speaks of such as "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:13) "Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth" is the kindred statement of St. James. (James 1:18). Whatever be the meaning of such words, they must mean something more than arriving at a sound conclusion from sufficient premises, or accepting facts upon sufficient evidence. Nor will it avail to urge that this birth was merely the mental or moral change naturally caused by the truth thus attained by natural means. The language of the Scripture is unequivocal that the power of the testimony to produce this change depended on the presence and. operation of God. Pages might be filled with quotations to prove this, but two may surface. St. Peter declares they preached the Gospel "with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven;" (1 Peter 1:12) and St. Paul’s words are still more definite. "Our Gospel came not: unto you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Ghost." [8] And if the new birth and the faith of Christianity were thus produced in the case of persons who received the Gospel immediately from the Apostles, nothing less will avail with us who are separated by eighteen centuries from the witnesses and their testimony. God is with His people still. And He speaks to men’s hearts, now, as really as He did in early times; not indeed through inspired Apostles, and still less by dreams or visions, but through the Holy Writings which He Himself inspired; [9] and as the result believers are "born of God," and obtain the knowledge of forgiveness of sins and of eternal life. The phenomenon is not a natural one, resulting from the study of the evidences; it is supernatural altogether. "Thinking minds," regarding it objectively, may, if they please, maintain towards it what they deem "a rational attitude;" but at least let them own the fact that there are thousands of credible people who can testify to the reality of the experience here spoken of, and further let them recognize that it is entirely in accordance with the teaching of the New Testament. And such persons have transcendental proof of the truth of Christianity. Their faith rests, not on the phenomena of their own experience, but on the great objective truths of revelation. Yet their primary conviction that these are Divine truths does not depend on the "evidences" which skepticism delights to criticize, but on something which skepticism takes no account of. [10] "No book can be written in behalf of the Bible like the Bible itself. Man’s defenses are man’s word; they may help to beat off attacks, they may draw out some portion of its meaning. The Bible is God’s word, and through it God the Holy Ghost, who spake it, speaks to the soul which closes not itself against it." [11] But more than this, the well-instructed believer will find within it inexhaustible stores of proof that it is from God. The Bible is far more than a textbook of theology and morals, or even than a guide to heaven. It is the record of the progressive revelation God has vouchsafed to man, and the Divine history of our race in connection with that revelation. Ignorance may fail to see in it anything more than the religious literature of the Hebrew race, and of the Church in Apostolic times; but the intelligent student who can read between the lines will find there mapped out, sometimes in clear bold outline, sometimes dimly, but yet always discernible by the patient and devout inquirer, the great scheme of God’s counsels and workings in and for this world of ours from eternity to eternity. And the study of prophecy, rightly understood, has a range no narrower than this. Its chief value is not to bring us a knowledge of "things to come," regarded as isolated events, important though this may be; but to enable us to link the future with the past as part of God’s great purpose and plan revealed in Holy Writ. The facts of the life and death of Christ were an overwhelming proof of the inspiration of the Old Testament. When, after His resurrection, He sought to confirm the disciples’ faith, "beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." (Luke 24:27) But many a promise had been given, and many a prophecy recorded, which seemed to be lost in the darkness of Israel’s national extinction and Judah’s apostasy. The fulfillment of them all depended on Messiah; but now Messiah was rejected, and His people were about to be cast away, that Gentiles might be taken up for blessing. Are we to conclude then that the past is wiped out for ever, and that God’s great purposes for earth have collapsed through human sin? As men now judge of revelation, Christianity dwindles down to be nothing but a "plan of salvation" for individuals, and if St. John’s Gospel and a few of the Epistles be left them they are content. How different was the attitude of mind and heart displayed by St. Paul! In the Apostle’s view the crisis which seemed the catastrophe of everything the old prophets had foretold of God’s purposes for earth, opened up a wider and more glorious purpose still, which should include the fulfillment of them all; and rapt in the contemplation, he exclaimed, "Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" (Romans 11:33) True prophetic study is an inquiry into these unsearchable counsels, these deep riches of Divine wisdom and knowledge. Beneath the light it gives, the Scriptures are no longer a heterogeneous compilation of religious books, but one harmonious whole, from which no part could be omitted without destroying the completeness of the revelation. And yet the study is disparaged in the Churches as being of no practical importance. If the Churches are leavened with skepticism at this moment, their neglect of prophetic study in this its true and broader aspect has done more than all the rationalism of Germany to promote the evil. Skeptics may boast of learned Professors and Doctors of Divinity among their ranks, but we may challenge them to name a single one of the number who has given proof that he knows anything whatever of these deeper mysteries of revelation. The attempt to put back the rising tide of skepticism is hopeless. Indeed the movement is but one of many phases of the intense mental activity which marks the age. The reign of creeds is past. The days are gone for ever when men will believe what their fathers believed, without a question. Rome, in some phase of its development, has a strange charm for minds of a certain caste, and rationalism is fascinating to not a few; but orthodoxy in the old sense is dead, and if any are to be delivered it must be by a deeper and more thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. These pages are but a humble effort to this end; but if they avail in any measure to promote the study of Holy Writ their chief purpose will be fulfilled. The reader therefore may expect to find the accuracy of the Bible vindicated on points which may seem of trifling value. When David reached the throne of Israel and came to choose his generals, he named for the chief commands the men who had made themselves conspicuous by feats of prowess or of valor. Among the foremost three was one of whom the record states that he defended a tract of lentiles, and drove away a troop of the Philistines. (2 Samuel 23:11-12)? To others it may have seemed little better than a patch of weeds, and not worth fighting for, but it was precious to the Israelite as a portion of the divinely-given inheritance, and moreover the enemy might have used it as a rallying ground from which to capture strongholds. So is it with the Bible. It is all of intrinsic value if indeed it be from God; and moreover, the statement which is assailed, and which may seem of no importance, may prove to be a link in the chain of truth on which we are depending for eternal life. FOOTNOTES [1] According to Mill, the course of the world gives proof that both the power and the goodness of God are limited. His Essays on Religion clearly show that skepticism is an attitude of mind which it is practically impossible to maintain. Even with a reasoner so clear and able as Mill, it inevitably degenerates to a degrading form of faith." The rational attitude of a thinking mind towards the supernatural" (he declares) "is that of skepticism, as distinguished from belief on the one hand, and from atheism on the other;" and yet he immediately proceeds to formulate a creed. It is not that there is a God, for that is only probable, but that if there be a God He is not almighty, and His goodness toward man is limited. (Essays, etc., pp. 242, 243.) He does not prove his creed, of course. Its truth is obvious to a "thinking mind." It is equally obvious that the sun moves round the earth. A man only needs to be as ignorant of astronomy as the infidel is of Christianity, and he will find the most indisputable proof of the fact every time he surveys the heavens! [2] Prophecy is not given to enable us to prophesy, but as a witness to God when the time comes." — PUSEY, Daniel, p. 80. [3] Elliott, Horae Apoc. (3rd Ed.), 1., 446: and see also ch. 3, pp. 362-376 [4] Elliott, 1., 373. Hippolytus predicted A. D. 500. [5] I cannot refrain from giving the following extract from an article by Professor Goldwin Smith, in Macmillian’s Magazine for February 1878: "The denial of the existence of God and of the future state, in a word, is the dethronement of conscience; and society will pass, to say the least, through a dangerous interval before social science can fill the vacant throne…But in the meantime mankind, or some portions of it, may be in danger of an anarchy of self-interest, compressed, for the purpose of political order, by a despotism of force. "That science and criticism, acting — thanks to the liberty of opinion won by political effort — with a freedom never known before, have delivered us from a mass of dark and degrading superstitions, we own with heartfelt thankfulness to the deliverers, and in the firm conviction that the removal of false beliefs, and of the authorities or institutions founded on them, cannot prove in the end anything but a blessing to mankind. But at the same time the foundations of general morality have inevitably been shaken, and a crisis has been brought on, the gravity of which nobody can fail to see, and nobody but a fanatic of materialism can see without the most serious misgiving. "There has been nothing in the history of man like the present situation. The decadence of the ancient mythologies is very far from affording a parallel…The Reformation was a tremendous earthquake: it shook down the fabric of mediaeval religion, and as a consequence of the disturbance in the religious sphere, filled the world with revolutions and wars. But it left the authority of the Bible unshaken, and men might feel that the destructive process had its limit, and that adamant was still beneath their feet. But a world which is intellectual and keenly alive to the significance of these questions, reading all that is written about them with almost passionate avidity, finds itself brought to a crisis the character of which any one may realize by distinctly presenting to himself the idea of existence without a God." [6] ta logia tou theou (Romans 3:2). The old Hebrew Scriptures were thus regarded by those who were the divinely-appointed custodians of them (ib.) Not only by the devout among the Jews, but, as Josephus testifies, by all, they "were justly believed to be Divine," so that men were willing to endure tortures of all kinds rather than speak against them, and even "willingly to die for them" (Josephus, Apion, 1., 8). This fact is of immense importance in relation to the Lord’s own teaching on the subject. Dealing with a people who believed in the sanctity and value of every word of Scripture, He never missed an opportunity to confirm them in that belief. The New Testament affords abundant proof how unreservedly He enforced it upon His disciples. (As regards the limits and date of closing of the Canon of Scripture, see Pusey, Daniel, p. 294, etc.) [7] Mill, Essays on Religion. [8] alla kai en dunamei kai en pneumati agio (1 Thessalonians 1:5.) "But also in power, even in the Holy Ghost." There is no contrast intended between God on the one hand, and power on the other, nor yet between different sorts of power. To object that this referred to miracles which accompanied the preaching is to betray ignorance of Scripture. Acts 17:1-34 represents the preaching to which the Apostle was alluding. That miraculous power existed in Gentile Churches is clear from 1 Corinthians 12:1-31 but the question is, did the gospel which produced those Churches appeal to miracles to confirm it? Can any one read the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians and retain a doubt as to the answer? [9] God is omnipresent; but there is a real sense in which the Father and the Son are not on earth but in heaven, and in that same sense the Holy Spirit is not in heaven but on earth. [10] Such faith is inseparably connected with salvation, and salvation is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8). Hence the solemn words of Christ, "I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes" (Matthew 11:25). [11] Pusey, Daniel, Pref. p. 25. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 24: 1.03.02. CHAPTER 2. DANIEL AND HIS TIMES ======================================================================== CHAPTER 2. DANIEL AND HIS TIMES "DANIEL the prophet." None can have a higher title to the name, for it was thus Messiah spoke of him. And yet the great Prince of the Captivity would himself doubtless have disclaimed it. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the rest, "spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost;" (2 Peter 1:21) but Daniel uttered no such "God-breathed" words. [1] Like the "beloved disciple" in Messianic times, he beheld visions, and recorded what he saw. The great prediction of the seventy weeks was a message delivered to him by an angel, who spoke to him as man speaks with man. A stranger to prophet’s fare [2] and prophet’s garb, he lived in the midst of all the luxury and pomp of an Eastern court. Next to the king, he was the foremost man in the greatest empire of antiquity; and it was not till the close of a long life spent in statecraft that he received the visions recorded in the latter chapters of his book. To understand these prophecies aright, it is essential that the leading events of the political history of the times should be kept in view. The summer of Israel’s national glory had proved as brief as it was brilliant. The people never acquiesced in heart in the Divine decree which, in distributing the tribal dignities, entrusted the scepter to the house of Judah, while it adjudged the birthright to the favored family of Joseph; [3] and their mutual jealousies and feuds, though kept in check by the personal influence of David, and the surpassing splendor of the reign of Solomon, produced a national disruption upon the accession of Rehoboam. In revolting from Judah, the Israelites also apostatized from God; and forsaking the worship of Jehovah, they lapsed into open and flagrant idolatry. After two centuries and a half unillumined by a single bright passage in their history, they passed into captivity to Assyria; [4] and on the birth of Daniel a century had elapsed since the date of their national extinction. Judah still retained a nominal independence, though, in fact, the nation had already fallen into a state of utter vassalage. The geographical position of its territory marked it out for such a fate. Lying half-way between the Nile and the Euphrates, suzerainty in Judea became inevitably a test by which their old enemy beyond their southern frontier, and the empire which the genius of Nabopolassar was then rearing in the north, would test their rival claims to supremacy. The prophet’s birth fell about the very year which was reckoned the epoch of the second Babylonian Empire. [5] He was still a boy at the date of Pharaoh Necho’s unsuccessful invasion of Chaldea. In that struggle his kinsman and sovereign, the good king Josiah, took sides with Babylon, and not only lost his life, but compromised still further the fortunes of his house and the freedom of his country. (2 Kings 23:29; 2 Chronicles 35:20) The public mourning for Josiah had scarcely ended when Pharaoh, on his homeward march, appeared before Jerusalem to assert his suzerainty by claiming a heavy tribute from the land and settling the succession to the throne. Jehoahaz, a younger son of Josiah, had obtained the crown on his father’s death, but was deposed by Pharaoh in favor of Eliakim, who doubtless recommended himself to the king of Egypt by the very qualities which perhaps had induced his father to disinherit him. Pharaoh changed his name to Jehoiakim, and established him in the kingdom as a vassal of Egypt (2 Kings 23:33-35; 2 Chronicles 36:3-4). In the third year after these events, Nebuchadnezzar, Prince Royal of Babylon, [6] set out upon an expedition of conquest, in command of his father’s armies; and entering Judea he demanded the submission of the king of Judah. After a siege of which history gives no particulars, he captured the city and seized the king as a prisoner of war. But Jehoiakim regained his liberty and his throne by pledging his allegiance to Babylon; and Nebuchadnezzar withdrew with no spoil except a part of the holy vessels of the temple, which he carried to the house of his god, and no captives save a few youths of the seed royal of Judah, Daniel being of the number, whom he selected to adorn his court as vassal princes. (2 Kings 24:1; 2 Chronicles 36:6-7; Daniel 1:1-2) Three years later Jehoiakim revolted; but, although during the rest of his reign his territory was frequently overrun by "bands of the Chaldees," five years elapsed before the armies of Babylon returned to enforce the conquest of Judea. [7] Jehoiachin, a youth of eighteen years, who had just succeeded to the throne, at once surrendered with his family and retinue, (2 Kings 24:12) and once more Jerusalem lay at the mercy of Nebuchadnezzar. On his first invasion he had proved magnanimous and lenient, but he had now not merely to assert supremacy but to punish rebellion. Accordingly he ransacked the city for everything of value, and "carried away all Jerusalem," leaving none behind "save the poorest sort of the people of the land." (2 Kings 24:14) Jehoiachin’s uncle Zedekiah was left as king or governor of the despoiled and depopulated city, having sworn by Jehovah to pay allegiance to his Suzerain. This was "King Jehoiachin’s captivity," according to the era of the prophet Ezekiel, who was himself among the captives. (Ezekiel 1:2) The servitude to Babylon had been predicted as early as the days of Hezekiah; (2 Kings 20:17) and after the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy respecting it, Jeremiah was charged with a Divine message of hope to the captivity, that after seventy years were accomplished they would be restored to their land. (Jeremiah 29:10) But while the exiles were thus cheered with promises of good, King Zedekiah and "the residue of Jerusalem that remained in the land" were warned that resistance to the Divine decree which subjected them to the yoke of Babylon would bring on them judgments far more terrible than any they had known. Nebuchadnezzar would return to "destroy them utterly," and make their whole land "a desolation and an astonishment." (Jeremiah 24:8-10; Jeremiah 25:9; Jeremiah 27:3-8) False prophets rose up, however, to feed the national vanity by predicting the speedy restoration of their independence, (Jeremiah 28:1-4) and in spite of the solemn and repeated warnings and entreaties of Jeremiah, the weak and wicked king was deceived by their testimony, and having obtained a promise of armed support from Egypt, (Ezekiel 17:15) he openly revolted. Thereupon the Chaldean armies once more surrounded Jerusalem. Events seemed at first to justify Zedekiah’s conduct, for the Egyptian forces hastened to his assistance, and the Babylonians were compelled to raise the siege and withdraw from Judea. (Jeremiah 37:1; Jeremiah 37:5; Jeremiah 37:11) But this temporary success of the Jews served only to exasperate the King of Babylon, and to make their fate more terrible when at last it overtook them. Nebuchadnezzar determined to inflict a signal chastisement on the rebellious city and people; and placing himself at the head of all the forces of his empire, (2 Kings 25:1; Jeremiah 34:1) he once more invaded Judea and laid siege to the Holy City. The Jews resisted with the blind fanaticism which a false hope inspires; and it is a signal proof of the natural strength of ancient Jerusalem, that for eighteen months (2 Kings 25:1-3) they kept their enemy at bay, and yielded at last to famine and not to force. The place was then given up to fire and sword. Nebuchadnezzar "slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped for age; he gave them all into his hand. And all the vessels of the house of God, great and small, and the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king and of his princes, all these he brought to Babylon. And they burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the goodly vessels thereof. And them that had escaped from the sword carried he away to Babylon, where they were servants to him and his sons, until the reign of the kingdom of Persia: to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah." (2 Chronicles 36:17-21) As He had borne with their fathers for forty years in the wilderness, so for forty years this last judgment lingered, "because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place." (2 Chronicles 36:15) For forty years the prophet’s voice had not been silent in Jerusalem; "but they mocked the messengers of God, and despised His words, and misused His prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against His people, till there was no remedy." [8] Such is the sacred chronicler’s description of the first destruction of Jerusalem, rivaled in later times by the horrors of that event under the effects of which it still lies prostrate, and destined to be surpassed in days still to come, when the predictions of Judah’s supreme catastrophe shall be fulfilled. [9] FOOTNOTES [1] My belief in the Divine character of the Book of Daniel will, I trust, appear plainly in these pages. The distinction I desire to mark here is between prophecies which men were inspired to utter, and prophecies like those of Daniel and St. John, who were merely the recipients of the revelation. With these, inspiration began in the recording what they had received. [2] To quote Daniel 1:12 in opposition to this involves an obvious anachronism. The word "pulse," moreover, in the Hebrew points generally to vegetable food, and would include a dish as savory as that for which Esau sold his birthright (comp, Genesis 25:34). To eat animal food from the table of Gentiles would have involved a violation of the law; therefore Daniel and his companions became "vegetarians." [3] "Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph’s" (1 Chronicles 5:2). [4] The disruption was in B. C. 975, the captivity to Assyria about B. C. 721. [5] B. C. 625. [6] Berosus avers that this expedition was in Nabopolassar’s lifetime (Jos., Apion, 1. 19), and the chronology proves it. See App. I. as to the dates of these events and the chronology of the period. [7] 2 Kings 24:1-2. According to Josephus (Ant., 10. 6, Ch. 3) Nebuchadnezzar on his second invasion found Jehoiakim still on the throne, and he it was who put him to death and made Jehoiachin king. He goes on to say that the king of Babylon soon afterwards became suspicious of Jehoiachin’s fidelity, and again returned to dethrone him, and placed Zedekiah on the throne. These statements, though not absolutely inconsistent with 2 Kings 24:1-20, are rendered somewhat improbable by comparison with it. They are adopted by Canon Rawlinson in the Five Great Monarchies (vol. 3, p. 491), but Dr. Pusey adheres to the Scripture narrative (Daniel, p. 403). [8] 2 Chronicles 5:16. This period is no doubt the forty years of Judah’s sin, specified in Ezekiel 4:6. Jeremiah prophesied from the thirteenth year of Josiah (B. C. 627) until the fall of Jerusalem in the eleventh year of Zedekiah (B. C. 587). See Jeremiah 1:3; Jeremiah 25:3. The 390 years of Israel’s sin, according to Ezekiel 4:5, appear to have been reckoned from the date of the covenant of blessing to the ten tribes, made by the prophet Ahijah with Jeroboam, presumably in the second year before the disruption, i. e., B. C. 977 (1 Kings 11:29-39). [9] The horrors of the siege and capture of Jerusalem by Titus surpass everything which history records of similar events. Josephus, who was himself a witness of them, narrates them in all their awful details. His estimate of the number of Jews who perished in Jerusalem is 1, 100, 000. "The blood runs cold, and the heart sickens, at these unexampled horrors; and we take refuge in a kind of desperate hope that they have been exaggerated by the historian." "Jerusalem might almost seem to be a place under a peculiar curse; it has probably witnessed a far greater portion of human misery than any other spot upon the earth." --MILMAN, Hist. Jews. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 25: 1.03.03. CHAPTER 3. THE KING'S DREAM AND THE PROPHET'S VISIONS ======================================================================== CHAPTER 3. THE KING’S DREAM AND THE PROPHET’S VISIONS THE distinction between the Hebrew and the Chaldee portions of the writings of Daniel [1] affords a natural division, the importance of which will appear on a careful consideration of the whole. But for the purpose of the present inquiry, the book will more conveniently divide itself between the first six chapters and the last, the former portion being primarily historical and didactic, and the latter containing the record of the four great visions granted to the prophet in his closing years. It is with the visions that here we are specially concerned. The narrative of the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth chapters is beyond the scope of these pages, as having no immediate bearing upon the prophecy. The second chapter, however, is of great importance, as giving the foundation of the later visions. [2] In a dream, King Nebuchadnezzar saw a great image, of which the head was gold, the breasts and arms silver, the body brass, the legs iron, and the feet partly iron and partly potter’s ware. Then a stone, hewn without hands, struck the feet of the image and it fell and crumbled to dust, and the stone became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. [3] The interpretation is in these words: "Thou, O king, art a king of kings; for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath He given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron; forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes part of potter’s clay and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure." (Daniel 2:37-45) The predicted sovereignty of Judah passed far beyond the limits of mere supremacy among the tribes of Israel. It was an imperial scepter which was entrusted to the Son of David. "I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth." (Psalms 89:27) "All things shall fall down before him, all nations shall serve him." (Psalms 72:11) Such were the promises which Solomon inherited; and the brief glory of his reign gave proof how fully they might have been realized, (2 Chronicles 9:22-28) had he not turned aside to folly, and bartered for present sensual pleasures the most splendid prospects which ever opened before mortal man. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the great image, and Daniel’s vision in interpretation of that dream, were a Divine revelation that the forfeited scepter of the house of David had passed to Gentile hands, to remain with them until the day when "the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed." (Daniel 2:44) It is unnecessary here to discuss in detail the earlier portions of this prophecy. There is, in fact, no controversy as to its general character and scope; and bearing in mind the distinction between what is doubted and what is doubtful, there need be no controversy as to the identity of the empires therein described with Babylonia, Persia, Greece, and Rome. That the first was Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom is definitely stated, (Daniel 2:37-38) and a later vision as expressly names the Medo-Persian empire and the empire of Alexander as being distinct "kingdoms" within the range of the prophecy. (Daniel 8:20-21) The fourth empire, therefore, must of necessity be Rome. But it is sufficient here to emphasize the fact, revealed in the plainest terms to Daniel in his exile, and to Jeremiah in the midst of the troubles at Jerusalem, that thus the sovereignty of the earth, which had been forfeited by Judah, was solemnly committed to the Gentiles. [4] The only questions which arise relate, first to the character of the final catastrophe symbolized by the fall and destruction of the image, and secondly to the time of its fulfillment; and any difficulties which have been raised depend in no way upon the language of the prophecy, but solely upon the preconceived views of interpreters. No Christian doubts that the "stone cut out without hands" was typical either of Christ Himself or of His kingdom. It is equally clear that the catastrophe was to occur when the fourth empire should have become divided, and be "partly strong and partly brittle." Therefore its fulfillment could not belong to the time of the first advent. No less clear is it that its fulfillment was to be a sudden crisis, to be followed by the establishment of "a kingdom which shall never be destroyed." Therefore it relates to events still to come. We are dealing here, not with prophetic theories, but with the meaning of plain words; and what the prophecy foretells is not the rise and spread of a "spiritual kingdom" in the midst of earthly kingdoms, but the establishment of a kingdom which "shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms." [5] The interpretation of the royal dream raised the captive exile at a single bound to the Grand-Vizier-ship of Babylon, (Daniel 2:48) a position of trust and honor which probably he held until he was either dismissed or withdrew from office under one or other of the two last kings who succeeded to Nebuchadnezzar’s throne. The scene on the fatal night of Belshazzar’s feast suggests that he had been then so long in retirement, that the young king-regent knew nothing of his fame. [6] But yet his fame was still so great with older men, that notwithstanding his failing years, he was once more called to the highest office by Darius, when the Median king became master of the broad-walled city. [7] But whether in prosperity or in retirement, he was true to the God of his fathers. The years in which his childhood in Jerusalem was spent, though politically dark and troubled, were a period of the brightest spiritual revival by which his nation had ever been blessed, and he had carried with him to the court of Nebuchadnezzar a faith and piety that withstood all the adverse influences which abounded in such a scene. [8] The Daniel of Daniel 2:1-49 was a young man just entering on a career of extraordinary dignity and power, such as few have ever known, The Daniel of Daniel 7:1-28 was an aged saint, who, having passed through the ordeal scathless, still possessed a heart as true to God and to His people as when, some threescore years before, he had entered the gates of the broad-walled city a captive and friendless stranger. The date of the earlier vision was about the time of Jehoiakim’s revolt, when their ungovernable pride of race and creed still led the Jews to dream of independence. At the time of the later vision more than forty years had passed since Jerusalem had been laid in ruins, and the last king of the house of David had entered the brazen gates of Babylon in chains. Here again the main outlines of the prophecy seem clear. As the four empires which were destined successively to wield sovereign power during "the times of the Gentiles" are represented in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream by the four divisions of the great image, they are here typified by four wild beasts. [9] The ten toes of the image in the second chapter have their correlatives in the ten horns of the fourth beast in the seventh chapter. The character and course of the fourth empire are the prominent subject of the later vision, but both prophecies are equally explicit that that empire in its ultimate phase will be brought to a signal and sudden end by a manifestation of Divine power on earth. The details of the vision, though interesting and important, may here be passed unnoticed, for the interpretation given of them is so simple and so definite that the words can leave no room for doubt in any unprejudiced mind. "These great beasts, which are four, are four kings" (i.e., kingdoms; compare Daniel 7:23), "which shall arise out of the earth; but the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever." (Daniel 7:17-18) The prophet then proceeds to recapitulate the vision, and his language affords an explicit answer to the only question which can reasonably be raised upon the words just quoted, namely, whether the "kingdom of the saints" shall follow immediately upon the close of the fourth Gentile empire. [10] "Then," he adds, "I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet; and of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell, even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows. I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom." Such was the prophet’s inquiry. Here is the interpretation accorded to him in reply. "The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall arise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws; and they shall be given into his hand, until a time and times and the dividing of time. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him." (Daniel 7:19-27) [11] Whether history records any event which may be within the range of this prophecy is a matter of opinion. That it has not been fulfilled is a plain matter of fact. [12] The Roman earth shall one day be parceled out in ten separate kingdoms, and out of one of these shall arise that terrible enemy of God and His people, whose destruction is to be one of the events of the second advent of Christ. FOOTNOTES [1] "The Chaldee portion of Daniel commences at the fourth verse of the second chapter, and continues to the end of the seventh chapter." –TREGELLES, Daniel, p. 8. [2] The following analysis of the Book of Daniel may help the study of it: Daniel 1:1-21. The capture of Jerusalem. The captivity of Daniel and his three companions, and their fortunes in Babylon (B. C. 606). Daniel 2:1-49. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of THE GREAT IMAGE (B. C. 6o3-2). Daniel 3:1-30. Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image set up for all his subjects to worship. Daniel’s three companions cast into the fiery furnace. Daniel 4:1-37. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream about his own insanity, and Daniel’s interpretation of it. Its fulfillment. Daniel 5:1-31 Belshazzar’s feast. Babylon taken by Darius the Mede (B. C. 538). Daniel 6:1-28. Daniel is promoted by Darius; refuses to worship him, and is cast into a den of’ lions. His deliverance and subsequent prosperity (? B. C.. 537). Daniel 7:1-28. Daniel’s vision of THE FOUR BEASTS (? B. C. 54I). Daniel 8:1-27. Daniel’s vision of THE RAM AND THE GOAT (? B. C. 539). Daniel 9:1-27. Daniel’s prayer: the prophecy of THE SEVENTY WEEKS (B. C. 538). Daniel 10:1-21, Daniel 11:1-45, Daniel 12:1-13. Daniel’s LAST VISION (B. C. 534). [3] The difficulty connected with the date of this vision (the second year of Nebuchadnezzar) is considered in App. 1. post. [4] Cf. Daniel 2:38, and Jeremiah 27:6-7. – The statement of Genesis 49:10 may seem at first sight to clash With this: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a law-giver from between his feet, until Shiloh come." But, as events prove, this cannot mean that royal power was to be exercised by the house of Judah until the advent of Christ. Hengstenberg has rightly interpreted it (Christology, Arnold’s trans., Ch. 78): "Judah shall not cease to exist as a tribe, nor lose its superiority, until it shall be exalted to higher honor and glory through the great Redeemer, who shall spring from it, and whom not only the Jews, but all the nations of the earth shall obey." As he points out, "until not unfrequently means up to and afterwards." (See ex. gr. Genesis 28:15.) The meaning of the prophecy, therefore, was not that Judah was to exercise royal power until Christ, and then lose it, which is the lame and unsatisfactory gloss usually adopted; but that the pre-eminence of Judah is to be irrevocably established in Christ – not spiritually, but in fact, in the kingdom of which Daniel prophesies. [5] To believe that such a prophecy can ever be realized may seem to betoken fanaticism and folly, but at least let us accept the language of Scripture, and not lapse into the blind absurdity of expecting the fulfillment of theories based on what men conjecture the prophets ought to have foretold. [6] This appears from the language of the queen-mother, Daniel 5:10-12. But chap. 8:27 shows that Daniel, even then, held some appointment at the court. [7] Daniel 6:1-2. Daniel cannot have been less than eighty years of age at this time. See chron. table, App. 1. post, [8] It is improbable that Daniel was less than twenty-one years of age when placed at the head of the empire in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar. The age to which he lived makes it equally improbable that he was more. His birth would thus fall, as before suggested, about B. C. 625, the epoch of Nabopolassar’s era, and some three years later was Josiah’s passover, the like of which had never been held in Israel from the days of Samuel (2 Chronicles 35:18-19). [9] The following is the vision as recorded in Daniel 7:2-14 : "Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it. And, behold, another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. After this I beheld, and, lo, another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it. After this I saw in the night visions, and, behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things. I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. the judgment was set, and the books were opened. I beheld then, because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time. I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." [10] Certain writers advocate an interpretation of these visions which allots the "four kingdoms" to Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece. This view, with which Professor Westcott’s name is identified, claims notice merely in order to distinguish it from another with which it has been confounded, even in a work of such pretensions as The Speaker’s Commentary (Vol. 6., p. 333, Excursus on the Four Kingdoms). The learned author of the Ordo Saeclorum (Ch. 616, etc.), quoting Maitland, who in turn follows Lacunza (Ben Ezra), argues that the accession of Darius the Mede to the throne of Babylon did not involve a change of empire. These writers further urge that the description of the third kingdom resembles Rome rather than Greece. According to this view, therefore, the kingdoms are 1st Babylon, including Persia, 2nd Greece, 3rd Rome, 4th a future kingdom to arise in the last days. But as already noticed (p. 32, ante), the book of Daniel expressly distinguishes Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece as "kingdoms’ within the scope of the prophecy. [11] Daniel 7:19-27. On this vision see Pusey, Daniel, pp. 78, 79 [12] The state of Europe at or after the dismemberment of the Roman Empire has been appealed to as a fulfillment of it, ignoring the fact that the territory which Augustus ruled included a considerable district both of Asia and Africa. Nor is this all. There is no presumption against finding in past times a partial accomplishment of such a prophecy, but the fact that twenty-eight different lists, including sixty-five "kingdoms," have been put forward in the controversy, is a proof how worthless is the evidence of any such fulfillment. In truth the historical school of interpreters have here, as on many other points, brought discredit upon their entire system, containing, as it does, so much that claims attention (see App. 2.) Note C). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 26: 1.03.04. CHAPTER 4. THE VISION BY THE RIVER OF ULAI ======================================================================== CHAPTER 4. THE VISION BY THE RIVER OF ULAI "THE times of the Gentiles;" thus it was that Christ Himself described the era of Gentile supremacy. Men have come to regard the earth as their own domain, and to resent the thought of Divine interference in their affairs. But though monarchs seem to owe their thrones to dynastic claims, the sword or the ballot-box, — and in their individual capacity their title may rest solely upon these, — the power they wield is divinely delegated, for "the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will." (Daniel 4:25) In the exercise of this high prerogative He took back the scepter He had entrusted to the house of David, and transferred it to Gentile hands; and the history of that scepter during the entire period, from the epoch to the close of the times of the Gentiles, is the subject of the prophet’s earlier visions. The vision of Daniel 8:1-27 has a narrower range. It deals only with the two kingdoms which were represented by the middle portion, or arms and body, of the image of Daniel 2:1-49. The Medo-Persian Empire, and the relative superiority of the younger nation, are represented by a ram with two horns, one of which was higher than the other, though the last to grow. And the rise of the Grecian Empire under Alexander, followed by its division among his four successors, is typified by a goat with a single horn between its eyes, which horn was broken and gave place to four horns that came up instead of it. Out of one of these horns came forth a little horn, representing a king who should become infamous as a blasphemer of God and a persecutor of His people. That the career of Antiochus Epiphanes was in a special way within the scope and meaning of this prophecy is unquestioned. That its ultimate fulfillment belongs to a future time, though not so generally admitted, is nevertheless sufficiently clear. The proof of it is twofold. First, it cannot but be recognized that its most striking details remain wholly unfulfilled. [1] And secondly, the events described are expressly stated to be "in the last end of the indignation," (Daniel 8:19) which is "the great tribulation" of the last days, (Matthew 24:21) "the time of trouble" which is immediately to precede the complete deliverance of Judah. [2] It is unnecessary, however, further to embarrass the special subject of these pages by any such discussion. So far as the present inquiry is immediately concerned, this vision of the ram and the he-goat is important mainly as explanatory of the visions which precede it. [3] One point of contrast with the prophecy of the fourth Gentile kingdom demands a very emphatic notice. The vision of Alexander’s reign, followed by the fourfold division of his empire, suggests a rapid sequence of events, and the history of the three-and-thirty years that intervened between the battles of Issus and of Ipsus [4] comprises the full realization of the prophecy. But the rise of the ten horns upon the fourth beast in the vision of the seventh chapter, appears to lie within as brief a period as was the rise of the four horns upon the goat in the eighth chapter; whereas it is plain upon the pages of history that this tenfold division of the Roman empire has never yet taken place. A definite date may be assigned to the advent of the first three kingdoms of prophecy; and if the date of the battle of Actium be taken as the epoch of the hybrid monster which filled the closing scenes of the prophet’s vision — and no later date will be assigned to it — it follows that in interpreting the prophecy, we may eliminate the history of the world from the time of Augustus to the present hour, without losing the sequence of the vision. [5] Or in other words, the prophet’s glance into the future entirely overlooked these nineteen centuries of our era. As when mountain peaks stand out together on the horizon, seeming almost to touch, albeit a wide expanse of river and field and hill may lie between, so there loomed upon the prophet’s vision these events of times now long gone by, and times still future. And with the New Testament in our hands, it would betray strange and willful ignorance if we doubted the deliberate design which has left this long interval of our Christian era a blank in Daniel’s prophecies. The more explicit revelation of the ninth chapter, measures out the years before the first advent of Messiah. But if these nineteen centuries had been added to the chronology of the period to intervene before the promised kingdom could be ushered in, how could the Lord have taken up the testimony to the near fulfillment of these very prophecies, and have proclaimed that the kingdom was at hand? [6] He who knows all hearts, knew well the issue; but the thought is impious that the proclamation was not genuine and true in the strictest sense; and it would have been deceptive and untrue had prophecy foretold a long interval of Israel’s rejection before the promise could be realized. Therefore it is that the two advents of Christ are brought seemingly together in Old Testament Scriptures. The surface currents of human responsibility and human guilt are unaffected by the changeless and deep-lying tide of the fore-knowledge and sovereignty of God. Their responsibility was real, and their guilt was without excuse, who rejected their long-promised King and Savior. They were not the victims of an inexorable fate which dragged them to their doom, but free agents who used their freedom to crucify the Lord of Glory. "His blood be on us and on our children," was their terrible, impious cry before the judgment-seat of Pilate, and for eighteen centuries their judgment has been meted out to them, to reach its appalling climax on the advent of the "time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation." [7] These visions were full of mystery to Daniel, and filled the old prophet’s mind with troubled thoughts. (Daniel 7:28; Daniel 8:27) A long vista of events seemed thus to intervene before the realization of the promised blessings to his nation, and yet these very revelations made those blessings still more sure. Ere long he witnessed the crash of the Babylonian power, and saw a stranger enthroned within the broad-walled city. But the change brought no hope to Judah. Daniel was restored, indeed, to the place of power and dignity which he had held so long under Nebuchadnezzar, (Daniel 2:48; Daniel 6:2) but he was none the less an exile; his people were in captivity, their city lay in ruins, and their land was a wilderness. And the mystery was only deepened when he turned to Jeremiah’s prophecy, which fixed at seventy years the destined era of "the desolations of Jerusalem" (Daniel 9:2) So "by prayer and supplications, with fastings, and sackcloth and ashes," he cast himself on God; as a prince among his people, confessing their national apostasy, and pleading for their restoration and forgiveness. And who can read that prayer unmoved? "O Lord, according to all Thy righteousness, I beseech Thee, let Thine anger and Thy fury be turned away from Thy city Jerusalem, Thy holy mountain; because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and Thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us. Now, therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of Thy servant, and his supplications, and cause Thy face to shine upon Thy Sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord’s sake. O my God, incline Thine ear, and hear; open Thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by Thy name: for we do not present our supplications before Thee for our righteousnesses, but for Thy great mercies. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for Thine own sake, O my God; for Thy city and Thy people are called by Thy name" (Daniel 9:26-27.) While Daniel was thus "speaking in prayer’ Gabriel once more appeared to him, (Daniel 9:21, See Daniel 8:16) that same angel messenger who heralded in after times the Savior’s birth in Bethlehem, — and in answer to his supplication, delivered to the prophet the great prediction of the seventy weeks. FOOTNOTES [1] I allude to the 2, 300 days of Daniel 8:14, and to the statement of Daniel 8:25, "He shall also stand up against the Prince of Princes, but he shall be broken without hand." [2] "And there shall be a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time; and at that time thy people shall be delivered," — i. e., the Jews (Daniel 12:1). [3] The following is the vision of Daniel 8:1-27 : "And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan, in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai. Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns. And the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great. And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west, on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power. And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns; and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. Therefore the he goat waxed very great; and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones, toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered. Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake. How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. So he came near where I stood: and’ when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face’ but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man; for at the time of the end shall be the vision. Now, as he was speaking with me I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground: but he touched me, and set me upright. And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be. The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia. And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many; he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true; wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days." [4] It was the battle of Issus in B. C. 333, not the victory of Granicus in the preceding year, which made Alexander master of Palestine. The decisive battle which brought the Persian empire to an end, was at Arbela in B. C. 331. Alexander died B. C. 323, and the definite distribution of his territories among his four chief generals, followed the battle of Ipsus B. C. 301. In this partition Seleucus’s share included Syria ("the king of the north"), and Ptolemy held the Holy Land with Egypt ("the king of the south"); but Palestine afterwards was conquered and held by the Seleucidae. Cassander had Macedon and Greece; and Lysimachus had Thrace, part of Bithynia, and the territories intervening between these and the Meander. [5] The same remark applies to the vision of the second chapter, the rise of the Roman empire, its future division, and its final doom, being presented at a single view. [6] i. e., the kingdom as Daniel had prophesied of it. On this see Pusey, Daniel, p. 84. [7] Daniel 12:1; Matthew 24:21. To discuss what would have been the course of events had the Jews accepted Christ is mere levity. But it is legitimate to inquire how the believing Jew, intelligent in the prophecies, could have expected the kingdom, seeing that the tenfold division of the Roman empire and the rise of the "little horn" had to take place first. The difficulty will disappear if we notice how suddenly the Grecian empire was dismembered on Alexander’s death. In like manner, the death of Tiberius might have led to the immediate disruption of the territories of Rome, and the rise of the predicted persecutor. In a word, all that remained unfulfilled of Daniel’s prophecy might have been fulfilled in the years which had still to run of the seventy weeks. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 27: 1.03.05. CHAPTER 5. THE ANGEL'S MESSAGE ======================================================================== CHAPTER 5. THE ANGEL’ S MESSAGE "Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy. [1] Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment [2] to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times. And after the threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, and shall have nothing: and the people of the Prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and his end thereof shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined. And he shall make a firm covenant [3] with many for one week: and for the half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolator." Daniel 9:24-27. R.V. (See marginal readings.) SUCH was the message entrusted to the angel in response to the prophet’s prayer for mercies upon Judah and Jerusalem. To whom shall appeal be made for an interpretation of the utterance? Not to the Jew, surely, for though himself the subject of the prophecy, and of all men the most deeply interested in its meaning, he is bound, in rejecting Christianity, to falsify not only history, but his own Scriptures. Nor yet to the theologian who has prophetic theories to vindicate, and who on discovering, perhaps, some era of seven times seventy in Israel’s history, concludes that he has solved the problem, ignoring the fact that the strange history of that wonderful people is marked through all its course by chronological cycles of seventy and multiples of seventy. But any man of unprejudiced mind who will read the words with no commentary save that afforded by Scripture itself and the history of the time, will readily admit that on certain leading points their meaning is unequivocal and clear. 1. It was thus revealed that the full meed of blessing promised to the Jews should be deferred till the close of a period of time, described as "seventy sevens," after which Daniel’s city and people [4] are to be established in blessing of the fullest kind. 2. Another period composed of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks is specified with equal certainty. 3. This second era dates from the issuing of an edict to rebuild Jerusalem, — not the temple, but the city; for, to remove all doubt, "the street and wall" [5] are emphatically mentioned; and a definite event, described as the cutting off of Messiah, marks the close of it. 4. The beginning of the week required (in addition to the sixty-nine) to complete the seventy, is to be signalized by the making of a covenant or treaty by a personage described as "the Prince that shall come," or "the coming Prince," which covenant he will violate in the middle of the week by the suppression of the Jews’ religion. [6] 5. And therefore the complete era of seventy weeks, and the lesser period of sixty-nine weeks, date from the same epoch. [7] The first question, therefore, which arises is whether history records any event which unmistakably marks the beginning of the era. Certain writers, both Christian and Jewish, have assumed that the seventy weeks began in the first year of Darius, the date of the prophecy itself; and thus falling into hopeless error at the very threshold of the inquiry, all their conclusions are necessarily erroneous. The words of the angel are unequivocal: "From the issuing of the decree to restore and build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks." That Jerusalem was in fact rebuilt as a fortified city, is absolutely certain and undoubted; and the only question in the matter is whether history records the edict for its restoration. When we turn to the book of Ezra, three several decrees of Persian kings claim notice. The opening verses speak of that strange edict by which Cyrus authorized the building of the temple. But here "the house of the Lord God of Israel" is specified with such an exclusive definiteness that it can in no way satisfy the words of Daniel. Indeed the date of that decree affords conclusive proof that it was not the beginning of the seventy weeks. Seventy years was the appointed duration of the servitude to Babylon. (Jeremiah 27:6-17; Jeremiah 28:10; Jeremiah 29:10) But another judgment of seventy years’ "desolations" was decreed in Zedekiah’s reign, [8] because of continued disobedience and rebellion. As an interval of seventeen years elapsed between the date of the servitude and the epoch of the "desolations," so by seventeen years the second period overlapped the first. The servitude ended with the decree of Cyrus. The desolations continued till the second year of Darius Hystaspes. [9] And it was the era of the desolations, and not of the servitude which Daniel had in view. [10] The decree of Cyrus was the Divine fulfillment of the promise made to the captivity in the twenty-ninth chapter of Jeremiah, and in accordance with that promise the fullest liberty was granted to the exiles to return to Palestine. But till the era of the desolations had run its course, not one stone was to be set upon another on Mount Moriah. And this explains the seemingly inexplicable fact that the firman to build the temple, granted to eager agents by Cyrus in the zenith of his power, remained in abeyance till his death; for a few refractory Samaritans were allowed to thwart the execution of this the most solemn edict ever issued by an Eastern despot, an edict in respect of which a Divine sanction seemed to confirm the unalterable will of a Medo-Persian king. [11] When the years of the desolations were expired, a Divine command was promulgated for the building of the sanctuary, and in obedience to that command, without waiting for permission from the capital, the Jews returned to the work in which they had so long been hindered. (Ezra 5:1-2; Ezra 5:5) The wave of political excitement which had carried Darius to the throne of Persia, was swelled by religious fervor against the Magian idolatry. [12] The moment therefore was auspicious for the Israelites, whose worship of Jehovah commanded the sympathy of the Zoroastrian faith; and when the tidings reached the palace of their seemingly seditious action at Jerusalem, Darius made search among the Babylonian archives of Cyrus, and finding the decree of his predecessor, he issued on his own behalf a firman to give effect to it. (Ezra 6:1-22) And this is the second event which affords a possible beginning for the seventy weeks. [13] But though plausible arguments may be urged to prove that, either regarded as an independent edict, or as giving practical effect to the decree of Cyrus, the act of Darius was the epoch of the prophetic period, the answer is clear and full, that it fails to satisfy the angel’s words. However it be accounted for, the fact remains, that though the "desolations" were accomplished, yet neither the scope of the royal edict, nor the action of the Jews in pursuance of that edict, went beyond the building of the Holy Temple, whereas the prophecy foretold a decree for the building of the city; not the street alone, but the fortifications of Jerusalem. Five years sufficed for the erection of the building which served as a shrine for Judah during the five centuries which followed. [14] But, in striking contrast with the temple they had reared in days when the magnificence of Solomon made gold as cheap as brass in Jerusalem, no costly furniture adorned the second house, until the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, when the Jews obtained a firman "to beautify the house of the Lord." (Ezra 7:19; Ezra 7:27.) This letter further authorized Ezra to return to Jerusalem with such of the Jews as desired to accompany him, and there to restore fully the worship of the temple and the ordinances of their religion. But this third decree makes no reference whatever to building, and it might be passed unnoticed were it not that many writers have fixed on it as the epoch of the prophecy. The temple had been already built long years before, and the city was still in ruins thirteen years afterwards. The book of Ezra therefore will be searched in vain for any mention of a "commandment to restore and build Jerusalem." But we only need to turn to the book which follows it in the canon of Scripture to find the record which we seek. The book of Nehemiah opens by relating that while at Susa, [15] where he was cup-bearer to the great king, "an honor of no small account in Persia," [16] certain of his brethren arrived from Judea, and he "asked them concerning the Jews that had escaped, which were left of the captivity, and concerning Jerusalem." The emigrants declared that all were "in great affliction and reproach," "the wall of Jerusalem also was broken down, and the gates thereof were burned with fire." (Nehemiah 1:2) Nehemiah 1:1-11 closes with the record of Nehemiah’s supplication to "the God of heaven." Nehemiah 2:1-20 narrates how "in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes," he was discharging the duties of his office, and as he stood before the king his countenance betrayed his grief, and Artaxerxes called on him to tell his trouble. "Let the king live for ever," Nehemiah answered, "why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers’ sepulchers, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are burned with fire!" "For what dost thou make request?" the king demanded in reply. Thereupon Nehemiah answered thus: "If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favor in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto THE CITY of my fathers’ sepulchers, THAT I MAY BUILD IT." (Nehemiah 2:5) Artaxerxes fiated the petition, and forthwith issued the necessary orders to give effect to it. Four months later, eager hands were busy upon the ruined walls of Jerusalem, and before the Feast of Tabernacles the city was once more enclosed by gates and a rampart. (Nehemiah 6:15) But, it has been urged, "The decree of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes is but an enlargement and renewal of his first decree, as the decree of Darius confirmed that of Cyrus." [17] If this assertion had not the sanction of a great name, it would not deserve even a passing notice. If it were maintained that the decree of the seventh year of Artaxerxes was but "an enlargement and renewal" of his predecessors’ edicts, the statement would be strictly accurate. That decree was mainly an authority to the Jews "to beautify the House of the Lord. which is in Jerusalem," (Ezra 7:27) in extension of the decrees by which Cyrus and Darius permitted them to build it. The result was to produce a gorgeous shrine in the midst of a ruined city. The movement of the seventh of Artaxerxes was chiefly a religious revival, (Ezra 7:10) sanctioned and subsidized by royal favor; but the event of his twentieth year was nothing less than the restoration of the autonomy of Judah. The execution of the work which Cyrus authorized was stopped on the false charge which the enemies of the Jews carried to the palace, that their object was to build not merely the Temple, but the city. "A rebellious city" it had ever proved to each successive suzerain, "for which cause" — they declared with truth, — its destruction was decreed. "We certify the king" (they added) "that if this city be builded again, and the walls thereof set up, thou shalt have no portion on this side the river." [18] To allow the building of the temple was merely to accord to a conquered race the right to worship according to the law of their God, for the religion of the Jew knows no worship apart from the hill of Zion. It was a vastly different event when that people were permitted to set up again the far-famed fortifications of their city, and entrenched behind those walls, to restore under Nehemiah the old polity of the Judges. [19] This was a revival of the national existence of Judah, and therefore it is fitly chosen as the epoch of the prophetic period of the seventy weeks. The doubt which has been raised upon the point may serve as an illustration of the extraordinary bias which seems to govern the interpretation of Scripture, in consequence of which the plain meaning of words is made to give place to the remote and the less probable. And to the same cause must be attributed the doubt which some have suggested as to the identity of the king here spoken of with Artaxerxes Longimanus. [20] The question remains, whether the date of this edict can be accurately ascertained. And here a most striking fact claims notice. In the sacred narrative the date of the event which marked the beginning of the seventy weeks is fixed only by reference to the regnal era of a Persian king. Therefore we must needs turn to secular history to ascertain the epoch, and history dates from this very period. Herodotus, "the father of history," was the contemporary of Artaxerxes, and visited the Persian court. [21] Thucydides, "the prince of historians," also was his contemporary. In the great battles of Marathon and Salamis, the history of Persia had become interwoven with events in Greece, by which its chronology can be ascertained and tested; and the chief chronological eras of antiquity were current at the time. [22] No element is wanting, therefore, to enable us with accuracy and certainty to fix the date of Nehemiah’s edict. True it is that in ordinary history the mention of "the twentieth year of Artaxerxes" would leave in doubt whether the era of his reign were reckoned from his actual accession, or from his father’s death; [23] but the narrative of Nehemiah removes all ambiguity upon this score. The murder of Xerxes and the beginning of the usurper Artabanus’s seven months’ reign was in July B.C. 465; the accession of Artaxerxes was in February B.C. 464; [24] One or other of these dates, therefore, must be the epoch of Artaxerxes’ reign. But as Nehemiah mentions the Chisleu (November) of one year, and the following Nisan (March) as being both in the same year of his master’s reign, it is obvious that, as might be expected from an official of the court, he reckons from the time of the king’s accession de jure, that is from July B.C. 465. The twentieth year of Artaxerxes therefore began in July B.C. 446, and the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem was given in the Nisan following. The epoch of the prophetic cycle is thus definitely fixed as in the Jewish month Nisan of the year B.C. 445. [25] FOOTNOTES [1] "The expression does not in a single case apply to any person." — TREGELLES, Daniel, p. 98. "These words are applied to the Nazarene, although this expression is never applied to a person throughout the Bible, but invariably denotes part of the temple, the holy of holies" — DR. HERMAN ADLER, Sermons (Trubner, 1869). [2] "From the issuing of the decree." — TREGELLES, Daniel, p. 96. [3] Not the covenant (as in A. V.: see margin). This word is rendered covenant when Divine things are in question, and league when, as here, an ordinary treaty is intended (C. f. ex. gr., Joshua 9:6-7; Joshua 9:11; Joshua 9:15-16). [4] If the words of Daniel 7:24-25 do not themselves carry conviction that Judah and Jerusalem are the subjects of the prophecy, the reader has but to compare them with the preceding verses, especially Daniel 7:2, Daniel 7:7, Daniel 7:12, Daniel 7:16, Daniel 7:18-19. [5] Literally the "trench" or "scarped rampart." — TRECELLES, DanieI, p. 90. [6] The personage referred to in Daniel 9:27 is not the Messiah, but the second prince named in Daniel 9:26. The theory which has gained currency, that the Lord made a seven years’ compact with the Jews at the beginning of His ministry, would deserve a prominent place in a cyclopaedia of the vagaries of religious thought. We know of the old covenant, which has been abrogated, and of the new covenant, which is everlasting; but the extraordinary idea of a seven years’ covenant between God and men has not a shadow of foundation in the letter of Scripture, and is utterly opposed to its spirit. [7] "The whole period of seventy weeks is divided into three successive periods, — seven, sixty-two, one, and the last week is subdivided into two halves. It is self-evident that since these parts, seven, sixty-two, one, are equal to the whole, viz., seventy, it was intended that they should be." — PUSEY, Daniel, p. 170. [8] It was foretold in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, i. e., the year after the servitude began (Jeremiah 25:1; Jeremiah 25:11). [9] Scripture thus distinguishes three different eras, all in part concurrent, which have come to be spoken of as "the captivity." First, the servitude; second, Jehoiachin’s captivity; and third, the desolations. "The servitude" began in the third year of Jehoiakim, i. e., B. C. 606, or before 1st Nisan (April) B. C. 605, and was brought to a close by the decree of Cyrus seventy years later. "The captivity" began in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, according to the Scriptural era of his reign, i. e., in B. C. 598; and the desolations began in his seventeenth year, B. C. 589, and ended in the second year of Darius Hystaspes — again a period of seventy years. See App. 1. upon the chronological questions here involved. [10] Daniel 9:2 is explicit on this point: "I, Daniel, understood by books the number of the years whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem." [11] "The law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not" (Daniel 6:12). Canon Rawlinson assumes that the temple was fifteen or sixteen years in building, before the work was stopped by the decree of the Artaxerxes mentioned in Ezra 4:1-24. (Five Great Mon., vol. 4, p. 398.) But this is entirely opposed to Scripture. The foundation of the temple was laid in the second year of Cyrus (Ezra 3:8-11), but no progress was made till the second year of Darius, when the foundation was again laid, for not a stone of the house had yet been placed (Haggai 1:2, Haggai 1:10, Haggai 2:15, Haggai 2:18). The building, once begun, was completed within five years (Ezra 6:15). It must be borne in mind that the altar was set up, and sacrifice was renewed immediately after the return of the exiles (Ezra 3:3; Ezra 3:6). [12] Five Great Mon., vol. 4., p. 405. But Canon Rawlinson is wholly wrong in inferring that the known religious zeal of Darius was the motive which led to the action of the Jews. See Ezra 5:1-17. [13] This is the epoch fixed upon by Mr. Bosanquet in Messiah the Prince. [14] The temple was begun in the second, and completed in the sixth year of Darius (Ezra 4:24; Ezra 6:15.) [15] For a description of the ruins of the great palace at Susa, see Mr. Wm. Kennett Loftus’s Travels and Researches in Chaldea and Susiana, chap. 28. [16] Herodotus, 3, 34. [17] Pusey, Daniel. p. 171. Dr. Pusey adds, "The little colony which Ezra took with him of 1, 683 males (with women and children some 8, 400 souls) was itself a considerable addition to those who had before returned, and involved a rebuilding of Jerusalem. This rebuilding of the city and reorganization of the polity, begun by Ezra, and carried on and perfected by Nehemiah, corresponds with the words of Daniel, ’From the going forth of a commandment to restore and build Jerusalem’" (p. 172.) This argument is the feeblest imaginable, and indeed this reference to the decree of the seventh year of Artaxerxes is a great blot on Dr. Pusey’s book. If an immigration of 8, 400 souls involved a rebuilding of the city, and therefore marked the beginning of the seventy weeks, what shall be said of the immigration of 49, 697 souls seventy-eight years before? (Ezra 2:64-65.) Did this not involve a rebuilding? But, Dr. Pusey goes on to say, "The term also corresponds," i. e., the 483 years, to the time of Christ. Here is obviously the real ground for his fixing the date B. C. 457, or more properly B. C. 458, as given by Prideaux, whom unfortunately Dr. Pusey has followed at this point. With more naivete the author of the Connection pleads that the years will not tally if any other date be assigned, and therefore the decree of the seventh of Artaxerxes must be right! (Prid., Con., 1., 5, B. C. 458.) Such a system of interpretation has done much to discredit the study of prophecy altogether. [18] i. e., Euphrates. Ezra 4:16. [19] "This last is the only decree which we find recorded in Scripture which relates to the restoring and building of the city. It must be borne in mind that the very existence of a place as a city depended upon such a decree; for before that any who returned from the land of captivity went only in the condition of sojourners; it was the decree that gave them a recognized and distinct political existence." — TREGELLES, Daniel, p. 98. "On a sudden, however, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah, a man of Jewish descent, cup-bearer to the king, received a commission to rebuild the city with all possible expedition. The cause of this change in the Persian politics is to be sought, not so much in the personal influence of the Jewish cup-bearer, as in the foreign history of the times. The power of Persia had received a fatal blow in the victory obtained at Cnidos by Conon, the Athenian admiral. The great king was obliged to submit to a humiliating peace, among the articles of which were the abandonment of the maritime towns, and a stipulation that the Persian army should not approach within three days’ journey of the sea. Jerusalem, being about this distance from the coast, and standing so near the line of communication with Egypt, became a post of the utmost importance." — MILMAN, Hist. Jews (3rd Ed.), 1., 435. [20] Artaxerxes I. reigned forty years, from 465 to 425. He is mentioned by Herodotus once (6. 98), by Thucydides frequently. Both writers were his contemporaries. There is every reason to believe that he was the king who sent Ezra and Nehemiah to Jerusalem, and sanctioned the restoration of the fortifications." — RAWLINSON, Herodotus, vol. 4., p. 217. [21] The year in which he is said to have recited his writings at the Olympic games, was the very year of Nehemiah’s mission. [22] The era of the Olympiads began B. C. 776; the era of Rome (A. U. C.) B. C. 753; and the era of Nabonassar, B. C. 747. [23] The seven months of Artabanus were by some added to the last year of Xerxes, and by others were included in the reign of Artaxerxes." — CLINTON, Fasti Hellenici, vol. 2., p. 42. [24] It has been shown already that the accession of Xerxes is determined to the beginning of 485 B. C. His twentieth year was completed in the beginning of 465 B. C., and his death would happen in the beginning of the Archonship of Lysitheus. The seven months of Artabanus, completing the twenty-one years, would bring down the accession of Artaxerxes (after the removal of Artabanus) to the beginning of 464, in the year of Nabonassar 284, where it is placed by the canon. Note b: "We may place the death of Xerxes in the first month of that Archon (i. e., of Lysitheus), July B. C. 465, and the succession of Artaxerxes in the eighth month, February B. C. 464." — CLINTON, Fasti Hellenici, vol. 2., p. 380. [25] See Appendix 2., Note A, on the chronology of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 28: 1.03.06. CHAPTER 6. THE PROPHETIC YEAR ======================================================================== CHAPTER 6. THE PROPHETIC YEAR IN English ears it must sound pedantic to speak of "weeks" in any other than the familiar acceptation of the term. But with the Jew it was far otherwise. The effect of his laws was fitted "to render the word week capable of meaning a seven of years almost as naturally as a seven of days. Indeed the generality of the word would have this effect at any rate. Hence its use to denote the latter in prophecy is not mere arbitrary symbolism, but the employment of a not unfamiliar and easily understood language." [1] Daniel’s prayer referred to seventy years fulfilled: the prophecy which came in answer to that prayer foretold a period of seven times seventy still to come. But here a question arises which never has received sufficient notice in the consideration of this subject. None will doubt that the era is a period of years; but of what kind of year is it composed? That the Jewish year was lunisolar appears to be reasonably certain. If tradition may be trusted, Abraham preserved in his family the year of 360 days, which he had known in his Chaldean home. [2] The month dates of the flood (150 days being specified as the interval between the seventeenth day of the second month, and the same day of the seventh month) appear to show that this form of year was the earliest known to our race. Sir Isaac Newton states, that "all nations, before the just length of the solar year was known, reckoned months by the course of the moon, and years by the return of winter and summer, spring and autumn; and in making calendars for their festivals, they reckoned thirty days to a lunar month, and twelve lunar months to a year, taking the nearest round numbers, whence came the division of the ecliptic into 360 degrees." And in adopting this statement, Sir G. C. Lewis avers that "all credible testimony and all antecedent probability lead to the result that a solar year containing twelve lunar months, determined within certain limits of error, has been generally recognized by the nations adjoining the Mediterranean, from a remote antiquity." [3] But considerations of this kind go no further than to prove how legitimate and important is the question here proposed. The inquiry remains whether any grounds exist for reversing the presumption which obtains in favor of the common civil year. Now the prophetic era is clearly seven times the seventy years of the "desolations" which were before the mind of Daniel when the prophecy was given. Is it possible then to ascertain the character of the years of this lesser era? One of the characteristic ordinances of the Jewish law was, that every seventh year the land was to lie fallow, and it was in relation to the neglect of this ordinance that the era of the desolations was decreed. It was to last "until the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths; for so long as she lay desolate, she kept Sabbath, to fulfill threescore and ten years." (2 Chronicles 36:21; cf. Leviticus 26:34-35) The essential element in the judgment was, not a ruined city, but a land laid desolate by the terrible scourge of a hostile invasion, (Compare Jeremiah 27:13; Haggai 2:17) the effects of which were perpetuated by famine and pestilence, the continuing proofs of the Divine displeasure. It is obvious therefore, that the true epoch of the judgment is not, as has been generally assumed, the capture of Jerusalem, but the invasion of Judea. From the time the Babylonian armies entered the land, all agricultural pursuits were suspended, and therefore the desolations may be reckoned from the day the capital was invested, namely, the tenth day of the tenth month in the ninth year of Zedekiah. This was the epoch as revealed to Ezekiel the prophet in his exile on the banks of the Euphrates, (Ezekiel 24:1-2) and for twenty-four centuries the day has been observed as a fast by the Jews in every land. The close of the era is indicated in Scripture with equal definiteness, as "the four-and-twentieth day of the ninth month in the second year of Darius. [4] "Consider now" (the prophetic word declared) "from this day and upward — from the four-and- twentieth day of the ninth month, even from the day that the foundation of the Lord’s temple was laid — consider it: from this day I will bless you." Now from the tenth day of Tebeth B.C. 589, [5] to the twenty-fourth day of Chisleu B.C. 520, [6] was a period of 25, 202 days; and seventy years of 360 days contain exactly 25, 200 days. We may conclude, therefore, that the era of the "desolations" was a period of seventy years of 360 days, beginning the day after the Babylonian army invested Jerusalem, and ending the day before the foundation of the second temple was laid. [7] But this inquiry may be pressed still further. As the era of the "desolations" was fixed at seventy years, because of the neglect of the Sabbatic years, (2 Chronicles 36:21; Leviticus 26:34-35) we might expect to find that a period of seven times seventy years measured back from the close of the seventy years of "indignation against Judah," would bring us to the time when Israel entered into their full national privileges, and thus incurred their full responsibilities. And such in fact will be found upon inquiry to be the case. From the year succeeding the dedication of Solomon’s temple, to the year before the foundation of the second temple was laid, was a period of 490 years of 360 days. [8] It must be admitted, however, that no argument based on calculations of this kind is final. [9] The only data which would warrant our deciding unreservedly that the prophetic year consists of 360 days, would be to find some portion of the era subdivided into the days of which it is composed. No other proof can be wholly satisfactory, but if this be forthcoming, it must be absolute and conclusive. And this is precisely what the book of the Revelation gives us. As already noticed, the prophetic era is divided into two periods, the one of 7+ 62 heptades, the other of a single heptade. [10] Connected with these eras, two "princes" are prominently mentioned; first, the Messiah, and secondly, a prince of that people by whom Jerusalem was to be destroyed, — a personage of such pre-eminence, that on his advent his identity is to be as certain as that of Christ Himself. The first era closes with the "cutting off" of Messiah; the beginning of the second era dates from the signature of a "covenant," or treaty, by this second "prince," with or perhaps in favor of "the many," [11] that is the Jewish nation, as distinguished probably from a section of pious persons among them who will stand aloof. In the middle of the heptade the treaty is to be violated by the suppression of the Jews’ religion, and a time of persecution is to follow. Daniel’s vision of the four beasts affords a striking commentary upon this. The identity of the fourth beast with the Roman empire is not doubtful, and we read that a "king" is to arise, territorially connected with that empire, but historically belonging to a later time; he will be a persecutor of "the saints of the Most High," and his fall is to be immediately followed by the fulfillment of Divine blessings upon the favored people — the precise event which marks the close of the "seventy weeks." The duration of that persecution, moreover, is stated to be "a time and times, and the dividing of time," — a mystical expression, of which the meaning might be doubtful, were it not that it is used again in Scripture as synonymous with three and a half years, or half a prophetic week. (Revelation 12:6; Revelation 12:14) Now there can be no reasonable doubt of the identity of the king of Daniel 7:25 with the first "beast" of the thirteenth chapter of Revelation. In the Revelation he is likened to a leopard, a bear, and a lion,— the figures used for Daniel’s three first beasts. In Daniel there are ten kingdoms, represented by ten horns. So also in Revelation. According to Daniel, "he shall speak great words against the Most High, and wear out the saints of the Most High:" according to Revelation, "he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God," "and it was given unto him to make war with the saints and to overcome them." According to. Daniel, "they shall be given into his hand until a. time and times and the dividing of time," or three and a half years: according to Revelation, "power was given unto him to continue forty and two months." It is not impossible, of course, that prophecy may foretell the career of two different men, answering the same description, who will pursue a precisely similar course in similar circumstances for a similar period of three and a half years; but the more natural and obvious supposition is that the two are identical. Owing to the very nature of the subject, their identity cannot be logically demonstrated, but it rests upon precisely the same kind of proof upon which juries convict men of crimes, and convicted prisoners are punished. Now this seventieth week is admittedly a period of seven years, and half of this period is three times described as "a time, times, and half a time," or "the dividing of a time;" (Daniel 7:25; Daniel 12:7; Revelation 12:14) twice as forty-two months; (Revelation 11:2; Revelation 13:5) and twice as 1, 260 days. (Revelation 11:3; Revelation 12:6) But 1, 260 days are exactly equal to forty-two months of thirty days, or three and a half years of 360 days, whereas three and a half Julian years contain 1, 278 days. It follows therefore that the prophetic year is not the Julian year, but the ancient year of 360 days. [12] FOOTNOTES [1] Smith’s Bib. Dict., III., 1726, "Week." Greek and Latin philosophers too have known of ’weeks of years. ’" — PUSEY, Daniel, p. 167. [2] Encyc. Brit. (6th ed.), title "Chronology." See also Smith’s Bib. Dict., title "Chronology," p. 314. [3] Astronomy of the Ancients, chap. 1 & 7. Are not the hundred and eighty days of the great feast of Xerxes intended to be equivalent to six months? (Esther 1:4.) [4] Haggai 2:10; Haggai 2:15-19. The books of Haggai and Zechariah give in full the prophetic utterances which the narrative of Ezra (Ezra 4:24, Ezra 5:1-5) mentions as the sanction and incentive under which the Jews returned to the work of setting up their temple. [5] The ninth year of Zedekiah. See App. 1. post. [6] The second year of Darius Hystaspes. [7] The date of the Paschal new moon, by which the Jewish year is regulated, was the evening of the 14th March in B. C. 589, and about noon on 1st April B. C. 520. According to the phases the 1st Nisan in the former year was probably the 15th or 16th March, and in the latter the 1st or 2nd April. [8] The temple was dedicated in the eleventh year of Solomon, and the second temple was founded in B. C. 520. The intervening period reckoned exclusively was 483 years = 490 lunisolar years of 360 days. It is noteworthy that the interval between the dedication of Solomon’s temple and the dedication of the second temple (B. C. 515) was 490 years. A like period had elapsed between the entrance into Canaan and the foundation of the kingdom under Saul. These cycles of 70, and multiples of 70, in Hebrew history are striking and interesting. See App. 1. [9] Though it is signally confirmed by the undoubted fact that the Jewish Sabbatical year was conterminous, not with the solar, but with the ecclesiastical year. [10] The division of the 69 weeks into 7 +62 is accounted for by the fact that the first 49 years, during which the restoration of Jerusalem was completed, ended with a great crisis in Jewish history, the close of the prophetic testimony. Forty-nine years from B. C. 445 brings us to the date of Malachi’s prophecy. [11] "The multitude." — TREGELLES, Daniel, p. 97. [12] It is noteworthy that the prophecy was given at Babylon, and the Babylonian year consisted of twelve months of thirty days. That the prophetic year is not the ordinary year is no new discovery. It was noticed sixteen centuries ago by Julius Africanus in his Chronography, wherein he explains the seventy weeks to be weeks of Jewish (lunar) years, beginning with the twentieth of Artaxerxes, the fourth year of the 83rd Olympiad, and ending in the second year of the 202nd Olympiad; 475 Julian years being equal to 490 lunar years. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 29: 1.03.07. CHAPTER 7. THE MYSTIC ERA OF THE WEEKS ======================================================================== CHAPTER 7. THE MYSTIC ERA OF THE WEEKS THE conclusions arrived at in the preceding chapter suggest a striking parallel between Daniel’s earlier visions and the prophecy of the seventy weeks. History contains no record of events to satisfy the predicted course of the seventieth week. The Apocalypse was not even written when that period ought chronologically to have closed, and though eighteen centuries have since elapsed, the restoration of the Jews seems still but a chimera of sanguine fanatics. And be it remembered that the purpose of the prophecy was not to amuse or interest the curious. Of necessity some mysticism must characterize prophetic utterances, otherwise they might be "fulfilled to order" by designing men; but once the prophecy comes side by side with the events of which it speaks, it fails of one of its chief purposes if its relation to them be doubtful. If any one will learn the connection between prophecy and its fulfillment, let him read the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, and compare it with the story of the Passion: so vague and figurative that no one could have acted out the drama it foretold; but yet so definite and clear that, once fulfilled, the simplest child can recognize its scope and meaning. If then the event which constitutes the epoch of the seventieth week must be as pronounced and certain as Nehemiah’s commission and Messiah’s death, it is of necessity still future. And this is precisely what the study of Daniel 7:1-28 will have led us to expect. All Christian interpreters are agreed that between the rise of the fourth beast and the growth of the ten horns there is a gap or parenthesis in the vision; and, as already shown, that gap includes the entire period between the time of Christ and the division of the Roman earth into the ten kingdoms out of which the great persecutor of the future is to arise. This period, moreover, is admittedly unnoticed also in the other visions of the book. There is therefore a strong a priori probability that it would be overlooked in the vision of the ninth chapter. More than this, there is not only the same reason for this mystic foreshortening in the vision of the seventy weeks, as in the other visions, [1] but that reason applies here with special force. The seventy weeks were meted out as the period during which Judah’s blessings were deferred. In common with all prophecy, the meaning of this prophecy will be unmistakable when its ultimate fulfillment takes place, but it was necessarily conveyed in a mystical form in order to shut up the Jews to the responsibility of accepting their Messiah. St. Peter’s inspired proclamation to the nation at Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 3:1-26, was in accordance with this. The Jews looked merely for a return of their national supremacy, but God’s first purpose was redemption through the death of the great Sin-bearer. Now, the sacrifice had been accomplished, and St. Peter pointed to Calvary as the fulfillment of that "which God before had showed by the mouth of all His prophets;" and he added this testimony, "Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send the Christ, who hath been appointed for you, even Jesus." (Acts 3:19-20, R.V.) The realization of these blessings would have been the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy, and the seventieth week might have run its course without a break. But Judah proved impenitent and obdurate, and the promised blessings were once again postponed till the close of this strange era of the Gentile dispensation. But it may be asked, Was not the Cross of Christ the fulfillment of these blessings? A careful study of the Angel’s words (Daniel 9:24) will show that not so much as one of them has been thus accomplished. The sixty-ninth week was to end with Messiah’s death; the close of the seventieth week was to bring to Judah the full enjoyment of the blessings resulting from that death. Judah’s transgression has yet to be restrained, and his sins to be sealed up. The day is yet future when a fountain shall be opened for the iniquity of Daniel’s people, (Zechariah 13:1) and righteousness shall be ushered in for them. In what sense were vision and prophet sealed up at the death of Christ, considering that the greatest of all visions was yet to be given, (The Revelation.) and the days were still to come when the words of the prophets were to be fulfilled? (Luke 21:22) And whatever meaning is to be put upon "anointing the most holy," it is clear that Calvary was not the accomplishment of it. [2] But is it consistent with fair argument or common-sense to urge that an era thus chronologically defined should be indefinitely interrupted in its course? The ready answer might be given, that if common-sense and fairness – if human judgment, is to decide the question, the only doubt must be whether the final period of the cycle, and the blessings promised at its close, be not for ever abrogated and lost by reason of the appalling guilt of that people who "killed the Prince of life." (Acts 3:15) There exists surely no presumption against supposing that the stream of prophetic time is tided back during all this interval of the apostasy of Judah. The question remains, whether any precedent for this can be discovered in the mystical chronology of Israel’s history. According to the book of Kings, Solomon began to build the temple in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt. (1 Kings 6:1) This statement, than which none could, seemingly, be more exact, has sorely puzzled chronologers. By some it has been condemned as a forgery, by others it has been dismissed as a blunder; but all have agreed in rejecting it. Moreover, Scripture itself appears to clash with it. In his sermon at Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:18-21) St. Paul epitomizes thus the chronology of this period of the history of his nation: forty years in the wilderness; 450 years under the judges, and forty years of the reign of Saul; making a total of 530 years. To which must be added the forty years of David’s reign and the first three years of Solomon’s; making 573 years for the very period which is described in Kings as 480 years. Can these conclusions, apparently so inconsistent, be reconciled? [3] If we follow the history of Israel as detailed in the book of Judges, we shall find that for five several periods their national existence as Jehovah’s people was in abeyance. In punishment for their idolatry, God gave them up again and again, and "sold them into the hands of their enemies." They became slaves to the king of Mesopotamia for eight years, to the king of Moab for eighteen years, to the king of Canaan for twenty years, to the Midianites for seven years, and finally to the Philistines for forty years. [4] But the sum of 8 +18+ 20+ 7+ 40 years is 93 years, and if 93 years be deducted from 573 years, the result is 480 years. It is obvious, therefore, that the 480 years of the book of Kings from the Exodus to the temple is a mystic era formed by eliminating every period during which the people were cast off by God. [5] If, then, this principle were intelligible to the Jew in regard to history, it was both natural and legitimate to introduce it in respect of an essentially mystic era like that of the seventy weeks. But this conclusion does not depend upon argument however sound, or inference however just. It is indisputably proved by the testimony of Christ Himself. "What shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?" the disciples inquired as they gathered round the Lord on one of the last days of His ministry on earth. (Matthew 24:3) In reply he spoke of the tribulation foretold by Daniel, [6] and warned them that the signal of that fearful persecution was to be the precise event which marks the middle of the seventieth week, namely, the defilement of the holy place by the "abomination of desolation," – some image of himself probably, which the false prince will set up in the temple in violation of his treaty obligations to respect and defend the religion of the Jews [7] That this prophecy was not fulfilled by Titus is as certain as history can make it; [8] but Scripture itself leaves no doubt whatever on the point. It appears from the passages already quoted, that the predicted tribulation is to last three and a half years, and to date from the violation of the treaty in the middle of the seventieth week. What is to follow is thus described by the Lord Himself in words of peculiar solemnity: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heaven shall be shaken: and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Matthew 24:29) That it is to the closing scenes of the dispensation this prophecy relates is here assumed. [9] And as these scenes are to follow immediately after a persecution, of which the era is within the seventieth week, the inference is incontestable that the events of that week belong to a time still future. [10] We may conclude, then, that when wicked hands set up the cross on Calvary, and God pronounced the dread "Lo-ammi" (Romans 9:25-26; cf. Hosea 1:9-10) upon His people, the course of the prophetic era ceased to run. Nor will it flow on again till the autonomy of Judah is restored; and, with obvious propriety, that is held to date from the moment their readmission into the family of nations is recognized by treaty. [11] It will, therefore, be here assumed that the former portion of the prophetic era has run its course, but that the events of the last seven years have still to be accomplished. The last point, therefore, necessary to complete the chain of proof is to ascertain the date of "Messiah the Prince." FOOTNOTES [1] See pp. 44-47, ante. [2] All these words point to practical benefits to be conferred in a practical way upon the people, at the second advent of Christ. Isaiah 1:26 is a commentary on "bringing in righteousness." To take it as synonymous with declaring God’s righteousness (Romans 3:25) is doctrinally a blunder and an anachronism. To any whose views of "reconciliation" are not based on the use of the word in Scripture, "making reconciliation for iniquity" will seem an exception. The Hebrew verb caphar (to make atonement or reconciliation) means literally "to cover over" sin (see its use in Genesis 6:14), to do away with a charge against a person by means of bloodshedding, or otherwise (ex. gr. by intercession, Exodus 32:30), so as to secure his reception into Divine favor. The following is a list of the passages where the word is used in the first three books of the Bible: Genesis 6:14 (pitch); Genesis 32:20 (appease); Exodus 29:33; Exodus 29:36-37; Exodus 30:10; Exodus 30:15-16; Exodus 32:30; Leviticus 1:4; Leviticus 4:20; Leviticus 4:26; Leviticus 4:31; Leviticus 4:35; Leviticus 5:6; Leviticus 5:10; Leviticus 5:13; Leviticus 5:16; Leviticus 5:18; Leviticus 6:7; Leviticus 6:30; Leviticus 7:7; Leviticus 8:15; Leviticus 8:34; Leviticus 9:7; Leviticus 10:17; Leviticus 12:7-8; Leviticus 14:18-21; Leviticus 14:29; Leviticus 14:31; Leviticus 14:53; Leviticus 15:15; Leviticus 15:30; Leviticus 16:6; Leviticus 16:10-11; Leviticus 16:16-18; Leviticus 16:20; Leviticus 16:24; Leviticus 16:27; Leviticus 16:32-34; Leviticus 17:11; Leviticus 19:22; Leviticus 23:28. It will be seen that caphar is never used of the expiation or bloodshedding considered objectively, but of the results accruing from it to the sinner, sometimes immediately on the victim’s death, sometimes conditional upon the action of the priest who was charged with the function of applying the blood. The sacrifice was not the atonement, but the means by which atonement was made. Therefore "the preposition which marks substitution is never used in connection with the word caphar" (Girdlestone’s Synonyms O. T., p. 214.) Making reconciliation, or atonement, therefore, according to the Scriptural use of the word, implies the removal of the practical estrangement between the sinner and God, the obtaining forgiveness for the sin; and the words in Daniel 9:24 point to the time when this benefit will be secured to Judah. "In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and uncleanness" ( Zechariah 13:1); that is, the blessings of Calvary will be theirs; reconciliation will be accomplished for the people. In keeping with this, transgression will be restrained (see use of the word in Genesis 8:2; Exodus 36:6); i. e., they will cease to transgress; sins will be sealed up, – the ordinary word for securing a letter (1 Kings 21:8), or a purse or bag of treasure ( Job 14:17); i. e., sins will be done with and put away in a practical sense; and vision and prophet will likewise be sealed up, i. e., their functions will be at an end, for all will have been fulfilled. [3] According to Browne (Ordo Saec., §§. 254 and 268) the Exodus was on Friday the 10th April, B. C. 1586; the passage of Jordan was the 14th April, B. C. 1546; the accession of Solomon was B. C. 1016, and the foundation of the Temple was the 20th April, B. C. 1013. He therefore accepts St. Paul’s statements unreservedly. Clinton conjectures that there was an interval of about twenty-seven years before the time of the Judges, and another of twelve years before the election of Saul, thus fixing on B. C. 1625 as the date of the Exode, extending the whole period to 612 years. Josephus reckons it 621 years, and this is adopted by Hales, who calls the statement in Kings "a forgery." Other chronologers assign periods varying from the 741 years of Julius Africanus to the 480 years of Usher, whose date for the Exode – B. C. 1491 – has been adopted in our Bible, though clearly wrong by ninety-three years at least. The subject is fully discussed by Clinton in Fasli Hell., vol. 1., pp. 312-313, and by Browne, reviewing Clinton’s arguments, in Ordo Scec., §. 6, etc. Browne’s conclusions have much to commend them. But if others are right in inserting conjectural periods, my argument remains the same, for any such periods, if they existed, were obviously excluded from the 480 years on the same principle as were the eras of the servitudes. (This subject is discussed further in App. 1.) [4] Judges 3:8; Judges 3:14; Judges 4:2-3; Judges 6:1; Judges 13:1. The servitude of Judges 10:7; Judges 10:9 affected only the tribes beyond Jordan, and did not suspend Israel’s national position. [5] The Israelites were nationally God’s people as no other nation ever can be; therefore they were dealt with in some respects on principles similar to those which obtain in the case of individuals. A life without God is death. Righteousness must keep a strict account and sternly judge; or grace may pardon. And if God forgives, He likewise forgets the sin (Hebrews 10:17); which doubtless means that the record is wiped out, and the period it covers is treated as though it were a blank. The days of our servitude to evil are ignored in the Divine chronology. [6] thlipsis, Matthew 24:21; Daniel 12:1 (LXX) [7] kai epi to hieronn bdelugma ton eramoseon, Daniel 9:27; to bdelugma eramoseos, Daniel 12:11 (LXX.); hotan oun idate to bdelugma tas eramoseos to rhathen dia Danial tou prophatou, estos en topo hagio, Matthew 24:15. Comp. 1Ma 1:54, okodomasan bdelugma eramoseos epi to phusiastapion. This passage in Matthew affords an unanswerable proof that all systems of interpretation which make the seventy weeks end with the coming or death of Christ, and therefore before the destruction of Jerusalem by Tiffits, are wholly wrong. And that that event was not in fact the terminus of the era is plain from Matthew 24:21-29, and Daniel 9:24. [8] Making all allowance for the contemptible time-serving of Josephus and his admiration for Titus, his testimony on this point is too full and explicit. to admit of doubt (Wars, 6., 2, §. 4). [9] I am aware of systems of interpretation which flitter away the meaning of all such scriptures, but it is idle to attempt to refute them in detail. (See chap 11 post, and App. Note C.) [10] Such was the belief of the early Church; but the question has been argued at length out of deference to modern writers who have advocated a different interpretation of Daniel 9:27. Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, who wrote at the beginning of the third century, is most definite on the point. Quoting the verse, he says: "By one week he meant the last week, which is to be at the end of the whole world; of which week the two prophets Enoch and Elias will take up the half; for they will preach 1, 260 days, clothed in sackcloth" (Hip. on Christ and Antichrist). According to Browne (Ordo Saec. p. 386, note), this was also the view of the father of Christian chronologers, Julius Africanus. That half of the last week has been fulfilled, but the remaining three and a half years are still future, is maintained by Canon Browne himself (§ 339), who notices, what so many modern writers have missed, that the events belonging to this period are connected with the times of Antichrist. [11] i. e., the covenant mentioned in Daniel 9:27. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 30: 1.03.08. CHAPTER 8. "MESSIAH THE PRINCE" ======================================================================== CHAPTER 8. "MESSIAH THE PRINCE" JUST as we find that in certain circles people who are reputed pious are apt to be regarded with suspicion, so it would seem that any writings which claim Divine authority or sanction inevitably awaken distrust. But if the evangelists could gain the same fair hearing which profane historians command; if their statements were tested upon the same principles on which records of the past are judged by scholars, and evidence is weighed in our courts of justice, it would be accepted as a well-established fact of history that our Savior was born in Bethlehem, at a time when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria, and Herod was king in Jerusalem. The narrative of Luke 1:1-80, Luke 2:1-52 is not like an ordinary page of history which carries with it no pledge of accuracy save that which the general credit of the writer may afford. The evangelist is treating of facts of which he had "perfect understanding from the very first;" (Luke 1:3) in which, moreover, his personal interest was intense, and in respect of which a single glaring error would have prejudiced not only the value of his book, but the success of that cause to which his life was devoted, and with which his hopes of eternal happiness were identified. The matter has been treated as though this reference to Cyrenius were but an incidental allusion, in respect of which an error would be of no importance; whereas, in fact, it would be absolutely vital. That the true Messiah must be born in Bethlehem was asserted by the Jew and conceded by the Christian: that the Nazarene was born in Bethlehem the Jew persistently denied. If even today he could disprove that fact, he would justify his unbelief; for if the Christ we worship was not by right of birth the heir to David’s throne, He is not the Christ of prophecy. Christians soon forgot this when they had no longer to maintain their faith against the unbroken front of Judaism, but only to commend it to a heathen world. But it was not forgotten by the immediate successors of the apostles. Therefore it was that in writing to the Jews, Justin Martyr asserted with such emphasis that Christ was born during the taxing of Cyrenius, appealing to the lists of that census as to documents then extant and available for reference, to prove that though Joseph and Mary lived at Nazareth, they went up to Bethlehem to be enrolled, and that thus it came to pass the Child was born in the royal city, and not in the despised Galilean village. [1] And these facts of the pedigree and birth of the Nazarene afforded almost the only ground upon which issue could be joined, where one side maintained, and the other side denied, that His Divine character and mission were established by transcendental proofs. None could question that His acts were more than human, but blindness and hate could ascribe them to Satanic power; and the sublime utterances which in every succeeding age have commanded the admiration of millions, even of those who have refused to them the deeper homage of their faith, had no charm for men thus prejudiced. But these statements about the taxing which brought the Virgin Mother up to Bethlehem, dealt with plain facts which required no moral fitness to appreciate them. That in such a matter a writer like St. Luke could be in error is utterly improbable, but that the error would remain unchallenged is absolutely incredible; and we find Justin Martyr, writing nearly a hundred years after the evangelist, appealing to the fact as one which was unquestionable. It may, therefore, be accepted as one of the most certain of the really certain things of history, that the first taxing of Cyrenius was made before the death of Herod, and that while it was proceeding Christ was born in Bethlehem. Not many years ago this statement would have been received either with ridicule or indignation. The evangelist’s mention of Cyrenius appeared to be a hopeless anachronism; as, according to undoubted history, the period of his governorship and the date of his "taxing" were nine or ten years later than the nativity. Gloated over by Strauss and others of his tribe, and dismissed by writers unnumbered either as an enigma or an error, the passage has in recent years been vindicated and explained by the labors of Dr. Zumpt of Berlin. By a strange chance there is a break in the history of this period, for the seven or eight years beginning B.C. 4. [2] The list of the governors of Syria, therefore, fails us, and for the same interval P. Sulpicius Quirinus, the Cyrenius of the Greeks, disappears from history. But by a series of separate investigations and arguments, all of them independent of Scripture, Dr. Zumpt has established that Quirinus was twice governor of the province, and that his first term of office dated from the latter part of B.C. 4, when he succeeded Quinctilius Varus. The unanimity with which this conclusion has been accepted renders it unnecessary to discuss the matter here. But one remark respecting it may not be out of place. The grounds of Dr. Zumpt’s conclusions may be aptly described as a chain of circumstantial evidence, and his critics are agreed that the result is reasonably certain. [3] To make that certainty absolute, nothing is wanting but the positive testimony of some historian of repute. If, for example, one of the lost fragments of the history of Dion Cassius were brought to light, containing the mention of Quirinus as governing the province during the last months of Herod’s reign, the fact would be deemed as certain as that Augustus was emperor of Rome. A Christian writer may be pardoned if he attaches equal weight to the testimony of St. Luke. It will, therefore, be here assumed as absolutely certain that the birth of Christ took place at some date not earlier than the autumn of B.C. 4. [4] The dictum of our English chronologer, than whom none more eminent or trustworthy can be appealed to, is a sufficient guarantee that this conclusion is consistent with everything that erudition can bring to bear upon the point. Fynes Clinton sums up his discussion of the matter thus. "The nativity was not more than about eighteen months before the death of Herod, nor less than five or six. The death of Herod was either in the spring of B.C. 4, or the spring of B.C. 3. The earliest possible date then for the nativity is the autumn of B.C. 6 (U. C. 748), eighteen months before the death of Herod in B.C. 4. The latest will be the of B.C. 4 (U. C. 750), about six months before his death, assumed to be in spring B.C. 3." [5] This opinion has weight, not only because of the writer’s eminence as a chronologist, but also because his own view as to the actual date of the birth of Christ would have led him to narrow still more the limits within which it must have occurred, if his sense of fairness had permitted him to do so. Moreover, Clinton wrote in ignorance of what Zumpt has since brought to light respecting the census of Quirinus. The introduction of this new element into the consideration of the question, enables us with absolute confidence, adopting Clinton’s dictum, to assign the death of Herod to the month Adar of B.C. 3, and the nativity to the autumn of B.C. 4. That the least uncertainty should prevail respecting the time of an event of such transcendent interest to mankind is a fact of strange significance. But whatever doubt there may be as to the birth-date of the Son of God, it is due to no omission in the sacred page if equal doubt be felt as to the epoch of His ministry on earth. There is not in the whole of Scripture a more definite chronological statement than that contained in the opening verses of the third chapter of St. Luke. "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness." Now the date of Tiberius Caesar’s reign is known with absolute accuracy; and his fifteenth year, reckoned from his accession, began on the 19th August, A.D. 28. And further, it is also known that during that year, so reckoned, each of the personages named in the passage, actually held the position there assigned to him. Here then, it might be supposed, no difficulty or question could arise. But the evangelist goes on to speak of the beginning of the ministry of the Lord Himself, and he mentions that "He was about thirty years of age when He began." [6] This statement, taken in connection with the date commonly assigned to the nativity, has been supposed to require that "the fifteenth year of Tiberius" shall be understood as referring, not to the epoch of his reign, but to an earlier date, when history testifies that certain powers were conferred on him during the two last years of Augustus. All such hypotheses, however, "are open to one overwhelming objection, viz., that the reign of Tiberius, as beginning from 19th August, A.D. 14, was as well known a date in the time of Luke, as the reign of Queen Victoria is in our own day; and no single case has ever been, or can be, produced, in which the years of Tiberius were reckoned in any other manner." [7] Nor is there any inconsistency whatever between these statements of St. Luke and the date of the nativity (as fixed by the evangelist himself, under Cyrenius, in the autumn of B.C. 4; for the Lord’s ministry, dating from the autumn of A.D. 28, may in fact have begun before His thirty-first year expired, and cannot have been later than a few months beyond it. The expression "about thirty years implies some such margin. [8] As therefore it is wholly unnecessary, it becomes wholly unjustifiable, to put a forced and special meaning on the evangelist’s words; and by the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar he must have intended what all the world would assume he meant, namely, the year beginning 19th August, A.D. 28. And thus, passing out of the region of argument and controversy, we reach at last a well-ascertained date of vital importance in this inquiry. The first Passover of the Lord’s public ministry on earth is thus definitely fixed by the Gospel narrative itself, as in Nisan A.D. 29. And we are thus enabled to fix 32 A.D. as the year of the crucifixion. [9] This is opposed, no doubt, to the traditions embodied in the spurious Acta Pilati so often quoted in this controversy, and in the writings of certain of the fathers, by whom the fifteenth year of Tiberius was held to be itself the date of the death of Christ; "by some, because they confounded the date of the baptism with the date of the Passion; by others, because they supposed both to have happened in one year; by others, because they transcribed from their predecessors without examination." [10] An imposing array of names can be cited in support of any year from A.D. 29 to A.D. 33; but such testimony is of force only so long as no better can be found. Just as a seemingly perfect chain of circumstantial evidence crumbles before the testimony of a single witness of undoubted veracity and worth, and the united voice of half a county will not support a prescriptive right, if it be opposed to a single sheet of parchment, so the cumulative traditions of the Church, even if they were as definite and clear as in fact they are contradictory and vague, would not outweigh the proofs to which appeal has here been made. One point more, however, claims attention. Numerous writers, some of them eminent, have discussed this question as though nothing more were needed in fixing the date of the Passion than to find a year, within certain limits, in which the paschal moon was full upon a Friday. But this betrays strange forgetfulness of the intricacies of the problem. True it is that if the system by which today the Jewish year is settled had been in force eighteen centuries ago, the whole controversy might turn upon the week date of the Passover in a given year; but on account of our ignorance of the embolismal system then in use, no weight whatever can be attached to it. [11] While the Jewish year was the old lunisolar year of 360 days, it is not improbable they adjusted it, as for centuries they had probably been accustomed to do in Egypt, by adding annually the "complimentary days" of which Herodotus speaks. [12] But it is not to be supposed that when they adopted the present form of year, they continued to correct the calendar in so primitive a manner. Their use of the metonic cycle for this purpose is comparatively modern. [13] And it is probable that with the lunar year they obtained also under the Seleucidae the old eight years’ cycle for its adjustment. The fact that this cycle was in use among the early Christians for their paschal calculations, [14] raises a presumption that it was borrowed from the Jews; but we have no certain knowledge upon the subject. Indeed, the only thing reasonably certain upon the matter is that the Passover did not fall upon the days assigned to it by writers whose calculations respecting it are made with strict astronomical accuracy, [15] for the Mishna affords the clearest proof that the beginning of the month was not determined by the true new moon, but by the first appearance of her disc; and though in a climate like that of Palestine this would seldom be delayed by causes which would operate in murkier latitudes, it doubtless sometimes happened "that neither sun nor stars for many days appeared." [16] These considerations justify the statement that in any year whatever the 15th Nisan may have fallen on a Friday. [17] For example, in A.D. 32, the date of the true new moon, by which the Passover was regulated, was the night (10h 57m) of the 29th March. The ostensible date of the 1st Nisan, therefore, according to the phases, was the 31st March. It may have been delayed, however, till the 1st April; and in that case the 15th Nisan should apparently have fallen on Tuesday the 15th April. But the calendar may have been further disturbed by intercalation. According to the scheme of the eight years’ cycle, the embolismal month was inserted in the third, sixth, and eighth years, and an examination of the calendars from A.D. 22 to A D. 45 will show that A.D. 32 was the third year of such a cycle. As, therefore, the difference between the solar year and the lunar is 11 days, it would amount in three years to 33 3/4 days, and the intercalation of a thirteenth month (Ve-adar) of thirty days would leave an epact still remaining of 3 3/4 days; and the "ecclesiastical moon" being that much before the real moon, the feast day would have fallen on the Friday (11th April), exactly as the narrative of the Gospels requires. [18] This, moreover, would explain what, notwithstanding all the poetry indulged in about the groves and grottoes of Gethsemane, remains still a difficulty. Judas needed neither torch nor lantern to enable him to track his Master through the darkest shades and recesses of the garden, nor was it, seemingly, until he had fulfilled his base and guilty mission that the: crowd pressed in to seize their victim. And no traitor need have been suborned by the Sanhedrin to betray to them at midnight the object of their hate, were it not that they dared not take Him save by stealth. [19] Every torch and lamp increased the risk of rousing the sleeping millions around them, for that night all Judah was gathered to the capital to keep the Paschal feast. [20] If, then, the full moon were high above Jerusalem, no other light were needed to speed them on their guilty errand; but if, on the other hand, the Paschal moon were only ten or eleven days old upon that Thursday night, she would certainly have been low on the horizon, if she had not actually set, before they ventured forth. These suggestions are not made to confirm the proof already offered of the year date of the death of Christ, but merely to show how easy it is to answer objections which at first sight might seem fatal. FOOTNOTES [1] Bethlehem, "in which Jesus Christ was born, as you may also learn from the lists of the taxing which was made in the time of Cyrenius, the first Governor of yours in Judea." – Apol., 1., § 34. "We assert Christ to have been born a hundred and fifty years ago, under Cyrenius." – Ibid., § 46. "But when there was an enrollment in Judea, which was then made first under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth, where he lived, to Bethlehem, of which place he was, to be enrolled," etc. – Dial. Trypho, § 78. [2] Josephus here leaves a gap in his narrative; and through the loss of MSS., the history of Dion Cassius, the other authority for this period, is not available to supply the omission. [3] Dr. Zumpt’s labors in this matter were first made public in a Latin treatise which appeared in 1854. More recently he has published them in his Das Geburtsjahr Christi (Leipzig, 1869). The English reader will find a summary of his arguments in Dean Alford’s Greek Test. (Note on Luke 2:1), and in his article, on Cyrenius in Smith’s Bible Dict.; he describes them as "very striking and satisfactory." Dr. Farrar remarks, "Zumpt has, with incredible industry and research, all but established in this matter the accuracy of St. Luke, by proving the extreme probability that Quirinus was twice governor of Syria" (Life of Christ, vol. 1. p. 7, note). See also an article in the Quarterly Review for April 1871, which describes Zumpt’s conclusions as "very nearly certain," "all but certain." The question is discussed also in Wieseler’s Chron. Syn. (Venables’s trans.) In his Roman history, Mr. Merivale adopts these results unreservedly. He says (vol. 4., p. 457), "A remarkable light has been thrown upon the point by the demonstration, as it seems to be, of Augustus Zumpt in his second volume of Commentationes Epigraphicae, that Quirinus (the Cyrenius of St. Luke 2:1-52.) was first governor of Syria from the close of A. U. 750 (B. C. 4), to A. U. 753 (B. C. l)." [4] The birth of our Lord is placed in B. C. 1, by Pearson and Hug; B. C. 2, by Scaliger; B. C. 3, by Baronius, Calvisius, Suskind, and Paulus; B. C. 4, by Lamy, Bengel, Anger, Wieseler, and Greswell; B. C. 5, by Usher and Petavius; B. C. 7, by Ideler and Sanclementi (Smith’s Bible Dict., "Jesus Christ," p. 1075). It should be added that Zumpt’s date for the nativity is fixed on independent grounds in B. C. 7. Following Ideler, he concludes that the conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn, which occurred in that year, was the "Star" which led the Magi to Palestine. [5] Fasti Romani, A. D. 29. [6] Luke 3:23. Such is the right rendering of the verse. The Revised Version renders it: " And Jesus Himself, when He began to teach, was about thirty years of age." [7] Lewin, Fasti Sacri, p. 53. Diss., chap. 6: The joint-principate theory of the reign of Tiberius, elaborately argued for by Greswell, is essential with writers like him, who assign the crucifixion to A. D 29 or 30. Sanclementi, indeed, finding "that nowhere in histories, or on monuments, or coins, is a vestige to be found of any such mode of reckoning the years of this emperor," disposes of the difficulty by taking the date in Luke 3:1 to refer, not to John the Baptist’s ministry, but to Christ’s death. Browne adopts this in a modified form, recognizing that the hypothesis above referred to "falls under fatal objections." He remarks that "it is improbable to the last degree" that Luke, who wrote specially for a Roman officer, and generally for Gentiles, would have so expressed himself as to be certainly misunderstood by them. Therefore, though the statement of the evangelist clashes with his conclusion as to the date of the Passion, he owns his obligation to accept it. See Ordo Saec., §§ 71 and 95. [8] As Dean Alford puts it (Gr. Test., in loco): "This hosei tpiakonta admits of considerable latitude, but only in one direction, viz., over thirty years." [9] "It seems to me absolutely certain that our Lord’s ministry lasted for some period above three years" (Pusey, Daniel, p. 176, and see p. 177, note 7). This opinion is now held so universally, that it is no longer necessary to set forth in detail the grounds on which it rests; indeed, recent writers generally assume without proof that the ministry included four Passovers. The most satisfactory discussion of the question which I know of is in Hengstenberg’s Christology (Arnold’s trans., §§ 755-765). St. John mentions expressly three Passovers at which the Lord was present; and if the feast of John 5:1 be a Passover, the question is at an end. It is now generally admitted that that feast was either Purim or Passover, and Hengstenberg’s proofs in favor of the latter are overwhelming. The feast of Purim had no Divine sanction. It was instituted by the decree of Esther, Queen of Persia, in the 13th year of Xerxes (B. C. 473), and it was rather a social and political than a religious feast, the service in the synagogue being quite secondary to the excessive eating and drinking which marked the day. It is doubtful whether our Lord would have observed such a feast at all; but that, contrary to the usual practice, He would have specially gone up to Jerusalem to celebrate it, is altogether incredible. [10] Clinton’s Fasti Rom., A. D. 29. [11] "The month began at the phases of the moon…and this happens, according to Newton, when the moon is eighteen hours old. Therefore the fourteenth Nisan might commence when the moon was 13d. 18h. old, and wanted 1d. oh. 22m. to the full. [The age of the moon at the full will be 14d. 18h. 22M.] But sometimes the phases was delayed till the moon was 1d. 17h. old; and then if the first Nisan were deferred till the phases, the fourteenth would begin only 1h. 22m. before the full. This precision, however, in adjusting the month to the moon did not exist in practice. The Jews, like other nations who adopted a lunar year, and supplied the defect by an intercalary month, failed in obtaining complete accuracy. We know not what their method of calculation was at the time of the Christian era" (Fasti Rom., vol. 2., p. 240); A. D. 30 is the only year between 28 and 33 in which the phases of the full moon was on a Friday. In A. D. 29 the full moon was on Saturday, and the phases on Monday. (See Wurm’s Table, in Wiesler’s Chron. Syn., Venables’s trans., p. 407). [12] Herod. 2:4. [13] It was about A. D. 360 that the Jews adopted the metonic cycle of nineteen years for the adjustment of their calendar. Before that time they used a cycle of eighty-four years, which was evidently the calippic period of seventy-six years with a Greek octaeteris added. This is said by certain writers to have been in use at the time of our Lord, but the statement is very doubtful. It appears to rest on the testimony of the later Rabbins. Julius Africanus, on the other hand, states in his Chronography that "the Jews insert three intercalary months every eight years." For a description of the modern Jewish calendar see Encyc. Brit. (9th ed., vol. 5., p. 714). [14] Browne, Ordo saec., § 424 [15] See ex. gr. Browne Ordo saec., § 64. He avers that "if in a given year the paschal moon was at the full at any instant between sunset of a Thursday and sunset of a Friday, the day included between the two sunsets was the 15th Nisan; "and on this ground he maintains that A. D. 29 is the only possible date of the crucifixion. As his own table shows, however, no possible year (i. e., no year between 28 and 33) satisfies this requirement; for the paschal full moon in A. D. 29 was on Saturday the 16th April, not on Friday the 18th March. This view is maintained also by Ferguson and others. It may be accounted for, perhaps, by the fact that till recent years the Mishna was not translated into English. [16] Acts 27:20. Treatise Rosh Hashanah of the Mishna deals with the mode in which, in the days of the "second temple," the feast of the new moon was regulated. The evidence of two competent witnesses was required by the Sanhedrin to the fact that they had seen the moon, and the numerous rules laid down for the journey and examination of these witnesses prove that not unfrequently they came from a distance. Indeed, the case of their being "a day and a night on the road" is provided for (ch. i., § 9). The proclamation by the Sanhedrin, therefore, may have been sometimes delayed till a day or even two after the phases, and sometimes the phases was delayed till the moon was 1d. 17h. old [Clinton, Fasti Rom., vol. 2., p. 240]; so that the 1st Nisan may have fallen several days later than the true new moon. Possibly, moreover, it may have been still further delayed by the operation of rules such as those of the modern Jewish calendar for preventing certain festivals from falling on incompatible days. It appears from the Mishna ("Pesachim") that the present rules for this purpose were not in force; but yet there may have been similar rules in operation. [17] See Fasli Rom., vol. 2., p. 240, as to the impossibility of determining in what years the Passover fell on Friday. [18] The following is the scheme of the octaeteris: "The solar year has a length of 365 & 1/4 days; 12 lunar months make 354 days. The difference, which is called the epact or epagomene, is 11 & 1/4 days. This is the epact of the first year. Hence the epact of the second year = 22 & 1/2 days; of the third, 33 & 3/4. These 33 & 3/4 days make one lunar month of 30 days, which is added to the third lunar year as an intercalary or thirteenth month (embolismos), and a remainder or epact of 3 3/4 days. Hence the epact of the fourth year =11 & 1/4 + 3 & 3/4=15 days; that of the fifth year =26 & 1/4; of the sixth, 37 & 1/2, which gives a second embolism of 30 days with an epact of 7 & 1/2. The epact, therefore, of the seventh year is 18 & 3/4, and of the eighth =18 & 3/4 + 11 & 1/4= just 30, which is the third embolism with no epact remaining." – BROWNE, Ordo Saec., § 424. The days of the Paschal full moon in the years A. D. 22-37 were as follows; the embolismal years, according to the octaeteris, being marked "E": A. D 22 ... 5th April 23 ... 25th March 24 ... 12th April 25 ... 1st April 26 ... 21st March 27E ... 9th April 28 ... 29th March 29E ... 17th April 30 ... 6th April 31 ... 27th March 32E ... 14th April 33 ... 3rd April 34 ... 23rd March 35E ... 11th April 36 ... 30th March 37E ... 18th April [19] Luke 22:2-6 [20] Josephus testifies that an "innumerable multitude" came together for the feast (Ant., 17., 9, § 3); and he computes that at a Passover before the siege of Jerusalem upwards of 2, 700, 200 persons actually partook of the Paschal Supper, besides the foreigners present in the city (Wars, 6., 9, § 3). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 31: 1.03.09. CHAPTER 9. THE PASCHAL SUPPER ======================================================================== CHAPTER 9. THE PASCHAL SUPPER THE trustworthiness of witnesses is tested, not by the amount of truth their evidence contains, but by the absence of mistakes. A single glaring error may serve to discredit testimony which seemed of the highest worth. This principle applies with peculiar force in estimating the credibility of the Gospel narratives, and it lends an importance that can scarcely be exaggerated to the question which arises in this controversy, Was the betrayal in fact upon the night of the Paschal Supper? If, as is so commonly maintained, one or all of the Evangelists were in error in a matter of fact so definite and plain, it is idle to pretend that their writings are in any sense whatever God-breathed. [1] The testimony of the first three Gospels is united, that the Last Supper was eaten at the Jewish Passover. The attempt to prove that it was an anticipatory celebration, without the paschal sacrifice, though made with the best of motives, is utterly futile. "Now on the first day of unleavened bread" (St. Matthew declares), [2] "the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where wilt thou that we make ready for Thee to eat the Passover?" It was the proposal not of the Lord, but of the disciples, who, with the knowledge of the day and of the rites pertaining to it, turned to the Master for instructions. With yet greater definiteness St. Mark narrates that this took place on the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover. (Mark 14:12) And the language of St. Luke is, if possible, more unequivocal still: "Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed." (Luke 22:7) But it is confidently asserted that the testimony of St. John is just as clear and unambiguous that the: crucifixion took place upon the very day and, it is; sometimes urged, at the very hour of the paschal sacrifice. Many an eminent writer may be cited to support this view, and the controversy waged in its defense is endless. But no plea for deference to great: names can be tolerated for a moment when the point: at issue is the integrity of Holy Writ; and despite the erudition that has been exhausted to prove that the Gospels are here at hopeless variance, none who have: learned to prize them as a Divine revelation will be surprised to find that the main difficulty depends; entirely on prevailing ignorance respecting Jewish ordinances and the law of Moses. These writers one and all. confound the Paschal Supper with the festival which followed it, and to which it lent its name. The supper was a memorial. of the redemption of the firstborn of Israel on the. night before the Exodus; the feast was the anniversary of their actual deliverance from the house of bondage. The supper was not a part of the: feast; it was morally the basis on which the feast was founded, just as the Feast of Tabernacles was based on the great sin-offering of the day of expiation which preceded it. But in the same way that the Feast of Weeks came to be commonly designated Pentecost, the feast of Unleavened Bread was popularly called the Passover. [3] That title was common to the supper and the feast, and included both; but the intelligent Jew would never confound the two; and if he spoke emphatically of the feast of the Passover, he would thereby mark the festival to the exclusion of the supper. [4] No words can possibly express more clearly this distinction than those afforded by the Pentateuch in the final promulgation of the Law: " In the fourteenth day of the first month is the Passover of the Lord; and in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast." [5] Opening John 13:1-38 in the light of this simple explanation, every difficulty vanishes. The scene is laid at the Paschal Supper, on the eve of the festival, "before the feast of the Passover;" [6] and after the narration or the washing of the disciples’ feet, the evangelist goes on to tell of the hurried departure of Judas, explaining that, to some, the Lord’s injunction to the traitor was understood to mean, "Buy what we have need of against the feast." (John 13:29) The feast day was a Sabbath, when trading was unlawful, and it would seem that the needed supply for the festival was still procurable far on in the preceding night; for another of the errors with which this controversy abounds is the assumption that the Jewish day was invariably reckoned a nukthameron, beginning in the evening. [7] Such, doubtless, was the common rule, and notably in respect of the law of ceremonial cleansing. This very fact, indeed, enables us without a doubt to conclude that the Passover on account of which the Jews refused to defile themselves by entering the judgment hall, was not the Paschal Supper, for that supper was not eaten till after the hour at which such defilement would have lapsed. In the language of the law, "When the sun is down he shall be clean, and shall afterwards eat of the holy things." (Leviticus 12:7) Not so was it with the holy offerings of the feast day, which they must needs eat before the hour at which their uncleanness would have ceased. [8] The only question, therefore, is whether partaking of the peace offerings of the festival could properly be designated as "eating the Passover." The law of Moses itself supplies the answer: "Thou shalt sacrifice the Passover unto the Lord thy God of the flock and the herd…seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith." (Deuteronomy 16:2-3, and compare 2 Chronicles 35:7-8.) If then the words of St. John are intelligible only when thus interpreted, and if when thus interpreted they are consistent with the testimony of the three first Evangelists, no element is lacking to give certainty that the events of the eighteenth chapter occurred upon the feast-day, Or if confirmation still be needed, the closing verses of this very chapter give it, for according to the custom cited, it was at the feast that the governor released a prisoner to the people (John 18:39; Compare Matthew 27:15; Mark 15:6; and Luke 23:17). Fearing because of the populace to seize the Lord upon the feast-day, (Matthew 26:5; Mark 14:1-2) the Pharisees were eager to procure His betrayal on the night of the Paschal Supper. And so it came to pass that the arraignment before Pilate took place upon the festival, as all the Evangelists declare. But does not St. John expressly state that it was "the preparation of the Passover," and must not this necessarily mean the fourteenth of Nisan? The plain answer is, that not a single passage has been cited from writings either sacred or profane in which that day is so described; whereas among the Jews "the preparation" was the common name for the day before the Sabbath, and it is so used by all the Evangelists. And bearing this in mind, let the reader compare the fourteenth verse of the nineteenth chapter of St. John with the thirty-first and forty-second verses of the same chapter, and he will have no difficulty in rendering the words in question, "it was Passover Friday." [9] But yet another statement of St. John is quoted in this controversy. "That Sabbath day was an high day," he declares, and therefore, it is urged, it must have been the 15th of Nisan. The force of this "therefore" partly depends upon overlooking the fact that all the great sacrifices to which the 15th of Nisan largely owed its distinctive solemnity, were repeated daily throughout the festival. (Numbers 28:19-24) [10] On this account alone that Sabbath was "an high day." But besides, it was specially distinguished as the day on which the firstfruits of the harvest were offered in the temple; for in respect of this ordinance, as in most other points of difference between the Karaite Jews, who held to the Scriptures as their only guide, and the Rabbinical Jews, who followed the traditions of the elders, the latter were entirely in the wrong. The law enjoined that the sheaf of the firstfruits should be waved before the Lord "on the morrow after the (paschal) Sabbath," (Leviticus 23:10-11) and from that day the seven weeks were reckoned which ended with the feast of Pentecost. But as the book of Deuteronomy expressly ordains that the weeks should be counted from the first day of the harvest, (Deuteronomy 16:9; and compare Leviticus 23:15-16) it is evident that the morrow after the Sabbath should not be itself a Sabbath, but a working day. The true day for the ordinance, therefore, was the day of the resurrection, "the first day of the week" following the Passover, [11] when, according to the intention of the law, the barley harvest should begin, and the first sheaf gathered should be carried to the Holy Place and solemnly waved before Jehovah. But with the Jews all this was lost in the empty rite of offering in the temple a measure of meal prepared from corn which, in violation of the law, had been garnered days before. This rite was invariably celebrated on the 16th of Nisan; and thus synchronizing with the solemnities both of the Paschal festival and of the Sabbath, that day could not fail to be indeed "an high day." [12] The argument in proof that the death of Christ was on the very day the paschal lamb was killed, has gained a fictitious interest and value from the seeming fitness of the synchronism this involves. But a closer investigation of the subject, combined with a broader view of the Mosaic types, will dissipate the force of this conclusion. The distinctive teaching of Calvinism is based on giving an exclusive place to the great sin-offering of Leviticus, in which substitution, in its most definite and narrowest sense, is essential. The Passover, on the other hand, has ever been the most popular of types. But though the other typical sacrifices are almost entirely ignored in the systems of our leading schools of theology, they have no little prominence in Scripture. The offerings which are placed first in the book of Leviticus have a large share in the theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, – the new Testament "Leviticus," whereas the Passover is not even once referred to. [13] Now these Leviticus offerings [14] marked the feast-day, (Numbers 28:17-24) on which, according to the Gospels, "the Messiah was cut off." And other synchronisms are not wanting, still more striking and significant. During all His ministry on earth, albeit it was spent in humiliation and reproach, no hand was ever laid upon the Blessed One, save in importunate supplication or in devout and loving service. But when at times His enemies would fain have seized Him, a mysterious hour to come was spoken of, in which their hate should be unhindered. "This is your hour, and the power of darkness," He exclaimed, as Judas and the impious companions in his guilt drew round Him in the garden. (Luke 22:53) His hour, He called it, when He thought of His mission upon earth: their hour, when in the fulfillment of that mission He found Himself within their grasp. The agonies inflicted on Him by men have taken hold on the mind of Christendom; but beyond and above all these the mystery of the Passion is that He was forsaken and accursed of God. [15] In some sense, indeed, His sufferings from men were but a consequence of this; therefore His reply to Pilate, "Thou couldst have no power at all against Me, except it were given thee from above." If men seized and slew Him, it was because God had delivered Him up. When that destined hour had struck, the mighty Hand drew back which till then had shielded Him from outrage. His death was not the beginning, but the close of His sufferings; in truth, it was the hour of His triumph. The midnight agony in Gethsemane was thus; the great antitype of that midnight scene in Egypt: when the destroying angel flashed through the land. And as His death was the fulfillment of His people’s; deliverance, so it took place upon the anniversary of "that selfsame day that the Lord did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egpyt by their armies." [16] FOOTNOTES [1] theopneustos, 2 Timothy 3:16. See Browne’s Ordo Saec., §§ 65- 70, for an exhaustive discussion of this question, in proof that "the three first Gospels are at variance on this point with the fourth." The matter is treated of in books without number. I here deal only with the salient points in the controversy. Arguments based upon the Sabbatical observance of the 15th Nisan being inconsistent with the events of the morning of the crucifixion are worthless. "To strain at a gnat and swallow a camel" was characteristic of the men who were the actors in these scenes. If any one have doubts of it, let him read the Mishna. And points such as that the Jews were forbidden to leave their houses on the night of the Supper, depend upon confounding the commands given for the night of the Exodus with the law relative to its annual celebration. As well might it be urged that the Lord sanctioned and took part in a violation of the law because He reclined at supper, instead of standing girded and shod as enjoined in Exodus 12:1-51. [2] Matthew 26:17 (Revised Version). In the Authorized Version out translators have perverted the verse. It was not the first day of the feast, but ta prota ton adzumon, or, as St. Luke calls it, ha hamera ton adzumon, viz., the day on which leaven was banished from their houses, the 14th Nisan, on the evening of which the Passover was eaten. [3] See Luke 22:1., and compare Josephus, Ant., 14:2, I, and 17:9, 3:" The feast of unleavened bread, which we call the Passover." [4] Or if the emphasis rested on the last word, the distinction would be between Passover and Pentecost or Tabernacles. [5] Numbers 28:16-17. Compare Exodus 12:14-17, and Leviticus 23:5-6, and mark that in the enumeration of the feasts in the twenty-third chapter of Exodus, the Passover (i. e., the Paschal Supper) is omitted altogether. [6] John 13:1. The reader must carefully distinguish between verses such as this and those verses where in our English version the word "feast" is in italics, denoting that it is not in the original. [7] Such, for instance, was the day of atonement (Leviticus 23:32) and also the weekly Sabbath. But though the Passover was eaten between six o’clock and midnight, this period was designated in the law, not the beginning of the 15th Nisan, but the evening or night of the 14th (compare Exodus 12:6-8, and Leviticus 23:5). The 15th, or feast day, was reckoned, doubtless, from six o’clock the following morning, for, according to the Mishna (Treatise Berachoth), the day began at six o’clock a. m. These writers would have us believe that the disciples supposed that they were there and then eating the Passover, and yet that they imagined Judas was dispatched to buy what was needed for the Passover! [8] Because the day ended at six o’clock. Moreover, we know from Jewish writers that these offerings (called in the Talmud the Chagigah) were eaten between three and six o’clock, and ceremonial uncleanness continued until six o’clock. [9] in de paraskeua tou pascha, compare vers. 31 and 42, and also Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54. Josephus (Ant., 16., 6, 2) cites an imperial edict relieving the Jews from appearing before the tribunals either on the Sabbath or after the ninth hour of the preparation day. It is unjustifiable to assert that the absence of the article in John 19:14 precludes our giving this meaning to the word paraskeua in that passage. In three of the other five verses cited the word is anarthrous, for in fact it had come to be the common name for the day, and the expression "Passover Friday" was as natural to a Jew as is "Easter Monday" to ourselves. (See Alford’s note on Mark 15:42. Still more valuable is his explanation of Matthew 27:62.) [10] Numbers 28:19-24. Compare Josephus, Ant., 3:10, 5. [11] The present Jewish calendar is so adjusted that the 14th of Nisan shall never fall upon their Sabbath (see Encyc. Brit., 9th ed., title, Hebrew Calendar); and this, doubtless, was so intended, for the duties of the day were inconsistent with the due observance of the fourth commandment. Therefore, the morrow after the Sabbath" following would invariably be a working day, so that the law is perfectly consistent in providing that the sheaf should be waved on the first day of the harvest. It is only, therefore, in a cycle of years that the true day for offering the first-fruits falls on the third day from the Passover; but in the year of the crucifixion, the great antitype, the resurrection of Christ from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:20; 1 Corinthians 15:23), occurred upon the very day Divinely appointed for the rite. It follows that the true day of Pentecost must always be on the first day of the week (see Leviticus 23:15-16), and therefore in that same year the true Pentecost was, not the Sabbath day on which the Jews observed the feast, but the day which followed it, a fact which confirms the presumption that the designedly ambiguous word used in Acts 2:1, means "accomplished," in the sense of passed, and that it was when assembled on "the first day of the week" that the Church received the gift of the Holy Ghost. [12] In truth it could not but have been the greatest Sabbath of the year, and it is idle to pretend that this is not sufficient to account for the mention made of it. [13] The historical mention of the Passover in Hebrews 11:28 is of course no exception. It has no place in the doctrine of the Epistle. [14] The burnt-offering, with its meat-offering, the peace-offering (the chagigah of the Talmud), and the sin-offering (Leviticus 1:4). [15] No reverent mind will seek to analyze the meaning of such words, save in so far as they testify to the great fact that His sufferings and death were in expiation of our sins. But the believer will not tolerate a doubt as to the reality and depth of their meaning. [16] Exodus 12:51. The Passover of the yearly celebration was but a memorial of the Passover in Egypt, which was the true type. It was killed, moreover, not at the hour of the Lord’s death, but after that hour, between the ninth and the eleventh hour (Josephus, Wars, 6., 9, 3). "The elucidation of the doctrine of types, now entirely neglected, is an important problem for future theologians." This dictum of Hengstenberg’s [Christology (Arnold’s Ed.), § 765] may still be recorded as a deserved reproach upon theology, and much that has been written in this controversy might be quoted to prove its truth. The day of the resurrection was the anniversary of the crossing of the Red Sea, and again of the resting of the Ark on Ararat (Genesis 8:4). Nisan, which had been the seventh month, became the first month at the Exodus. (See Exodus 12:2; cf. Ordo. Saec., § 299.) On the 17th Nisan the renewed earth emerged from the waters of the flood; the redeemed people emerged from the waters of the sea; and the Lord Jesus rose from the dead. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 32: 1.03.10. CHAPTER 10. FULFILLMENT OF THE PROPHECY ======================================================================== CHAPTER 10. FULFILLMENT OF THE PROPHECY "THE secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children." (Deuteronomy 29:29) And among the "things which are revealed" fulfilled prophecy has a foremost place. In presence of the events in which it has been accomplished, its meaning lies upon the surface. Let the facts of the Passion be admitted, and their relation to the twenty-second Psalm is indisputable. There are profound depths of spiritual significance in the Psalmist’s words, because of the nature of the facts which have fulfilled them; but the testimony which the prophecy affords is addressed to all, and he who runs may read it. Is it possible then, it may be asked, that the true interpretation of this prophecy of the Seventy Weeks involves so much inquiry and discussion? Such an objection is perfectly legitimate; but the answer to it will be found in distinguishing between the difficulties which appear in the prophecy itself, and those which depend entirely on the controversy to which it has given rise. The writings of Daniel have been more the object of hostile criticism than any other portion of the Scripture, and the closing verses of the ninth chapter have always been a principal point of attack. And necessarily so, for if that single passage can be proved to be a prophecy, it establishes the character of the book as a Divine revelation. Daniel’s visions admittedly describe historical events between the days of Nebuchadnezzar and of Antiochus Epiphanes; therefore skepticism assumes that the writer lived in Maccabean times. But this assumption, put forward without even a decent pretense of proof, is utterly refuted by pointing to a portion of the prophecy fulfilled at a later date; and accordingly it is of vital moment to the skeptic to discredit the prediction of the Seventy Weeks. The prophecy has suffered nothing from the attacks of its assailants, but much at the hands of its friends. No elaborate argument would be necessary to elucidate its meaning, were it not for the difficulties raised by Christian expositors. If everything that Christian writers have written on the subject could be wiped out and forgotten, the fulfillment of the vision, so far as it has been in fact fulfilled, would be clear upon the open page of history. Out of deference to these writers, and also in the hope of removing prejudices which are fatal to the right understanding of the subject, these difficulties have here been discussed. It now remains only to recapitulate the conclusions which have been recorded in the preceding pages. The scepter of earthly power which was entrusted to the house of David, was transferred to the Gentiles in the person of Nebuchadnezzar, to remain in Gentile hands "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." The blessings promised to Judah and Jerusalem were postponed till after a period described as "seventy weeks"; and at the close of the sixty-ninth week of this era the Messiah should be "cut off." These seventy weeks represent seventy times seven prophetic years of 360 days, to be reckoned from the issuing of an edict for the rebuilding of the city – "the street and rampart," of Jerusalem. The edict in question was the decree issued by Artaxerxes Longitmanus in the twentieth year of his reign, authorizing Nehemiah to rebuild the fortifications of Jerusalem. The date of Artaxerxes’s reign can be definitely ascertained – not from elaborate disquisitions by biblical commentators and prophetic writers, but by the united voice of secular historians and chronologers. The statement of St. Luke is explicit and unequivocal, that our Lord’s public ministry began in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar. It is equally clear that it began shortly before the Passover, The date of it can thus be fixed as between August A.D. 28 and April A.D. 29. The Passover of the crucifixion therefore was in A.D. 32, when Christ was betrayed on the night of the Paschal Supper, and put to death on the day of the Paschal Feast. If then the foregoing conclusions be well founded. we should expect to find that the period intervening between the edict of Artaxerxes and the Passion was 483 prophetic years. And accuracy as absolute as the nature of the case permits is no more than men are here entitled to demand. There can be no loose reckoning in a Divine chronology; and if God has; deigned to mark on human calendars the fulfillment of His purposes as foretold in prophecy, the strictest: scrutiny shall fail to detect miscalculation or mistake. The Persian edict which restored the autonomy of Judah was issued in the Jewish month of Nisan. It may in fact have been dated the 1st of Nisan, but: no other day being named, the prophetic period must be reckoned, according to a practice common with the Jews, from the Jewish New Year’s Day. [1] The seventy weeks are therefore to be computed from the 1st of Nisan B.C. 445. [2] Now the great characteristic of the Jewish sacred year has remained unchanged ever since the memorable night when the equinoctial moon beamed down upon the huts of Israel in Egypt, bloodstained by the Paschal sacrifice; and there is neither doubt nor difficulty in fixing within narrow limits the Julian date of the 1st of Nisan in any year whatever. In B.C.. 445 the new moon by which the Passover was regulated was on the 13th of March at 7h. 9m. A. M. [3] And accordingly the 1st Nisan may be assigned to the 14th March. But the language of the prophecy is clear: "From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks." An era therefore of sixty-nine "weeks," or 483 prophetic years reckoned from the 14th March, B.C. 445, should close with some event to satisfy the words, "unto the Messiah the Prince." The date of the nativity could not possibly have been the termination of the period, for then the sixty-nine weeks must have ended thirty-three years before Messiah’s death. If the beginning of His public ministry be fixed upon, difficulties of another kind present themselves. When the Lord began to preach, the kingdom was not presented as a fact accomplished in His advent, but as a hope the realization of which, though at the very door, was still to be fulfilled. He took up the Baptist’s testimony, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." His ministry was a preparation for the kingdom, leading up to the time when in fulfillment of the prophetic Scriptures He should publicly declare Himself as the Son of David, the King of Israel, and claim the homage of the nation. It was the nation’s guilt that the cross and not the throne was the climax of His life on earth. No student of the Gospel narrative can fail to see that the Lord’s last visit to Jerusalem was not only in fact, but in the purpose of it, the crisis of His ministry, the goal towards which it had been directed. After the first tokens had been given that the nation would reject His Messianic claims, He had shunned all public recognition of them. But now the twofold testimony of His words and His works had been fully rendered, and His entry into the Holy City was to proclaim His Messiahship and to receive His doom. Again and again His apostles even had been charged that they should not make Him known. But now He accepted the acclamations of "the whole multitude of the disciples," and silenced the remonstrance of the Pharisees with the indignant rebuke, "I tell you if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out." (Luke 19:39-40) The full significance of the words which follow in the Gospel of St. Luke is concealed by a slight interpolation in the text. As the shouts broke forth from His disciples, "Hosanna to the Son of David! blessed is the king of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord!" He looked off toward the Holy City and exclaimed, "If thou also hadst known, even on this day, the things which belong to thy peace; but now they are hid from thine eyes!" [4] The time of Jerusalem’s visitation had come, and she knew it not. Long ere then the nation had rejected Him, but this was the predestined day when their choice must be irrevocable, – the day so distinctly signalized in Scripture as the fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy, "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! behold thy King cometh unto thee!" (Zechariah 9:9) Of all the days of the ministry of Christ on earth, no other will satisfy so well the angel’s words, unto Messiah the Prince." And the date of it can be ascertained. In accordance with the Jewish custom, the Lord went up to Jerusalem upon the 8th Nisan, "six days before the Passover." [5] But as the 14th, on which the Paschal Supper was eaten, fell that year upon a Thursday, the 8th was the preceding Friday. He must have spent the Sabbath, therefore, at Bethany; and on the evening of the 9th, after the Sabbath had ended, the Supper took place in Martha’s house. Upon the following day, the 10th Nisan, He entered Jerusalem as recorded in the Gospels. [6] The Julian date of that 10th Nisan was Sunday the 6th April, A.D. 32. What then was the length of the period intervening between the issuing of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the public advent of "Messiah the Prince," – between the 14th March, B.C. 445, and the 6th April, A.D. 32? THE INTERVAL CONTAINED EXACTLY AND TO THE VERY DAY 173, 880 DAYS, OR SEVEN TIMES SIXTY-NINE PROPHETIC YEARS OF 360 DAYS, the first sixty-nine weeks of Gabriel’s prophecy. [7] Much there is in Holy Writ which unbelief may value and revere, while utterly refusing to accept it as Divine; but prophecy admits of no half-faith. The prediction of the "seventy weeks" was either a gross and impious imposture, or else it was in the fullest and strictest sense God-breathed. [8] It may be that in days to come, when Judah’s great home-bringing shall restore to Jerusalem the rightful owners of its soil, the Jews themselves shall yet rake up from deep beneath its ruins the records of the great king’s decree and of the Nazarene’s rejection, and they for whom the prophecy was given will thus be confronted with proofs of its fulfillment. Meanwhile what judgment shall be passed on it by fair and thoughtful men? To believe that the facts and figures here detailed amount to nothing more than happy coincidences involves a greater exercise of faith than that of the Christian who accepts the book of Daniel as Divine. There is a point beyond which unbelief is impossible, and the mind in refusing truth must needs take refuge in a misbelief which is sheer credulity. FOOTNOTES [1] "On the 1st of Nisan is a new year for the computation of the reign of kings, and for festivals." – Mishna, treatise "Rosh Hash." [2] The wall was finished in the twenty and fifth day of the: month Elul, in fifty and two days" (Nehemiah 6:1-19). Now fifty-two days, measured back from the 25th Elul, brings us to the 3rd Ab. Therefore Nehemiah must have arrived not later than 1st Ab, and apparently some days earlier (Nehemiah 2:11). Compare this with Ezra’s journey thirteen years before. "For upon the first day of the first month began he to go up from Babylon, and on the first day of the fifth month (Ab) came he to Jerusalem, according to the good hand of his God upon him" (Ezra 7:9). I infer therefore that Nehemiah also set out early in the first month. The chronological parallelisms between the respective journeys of Ezra and Nehemiah have suggested the ingenious theory that both went up to Jerusalem together, Ezra 7:1-28 and Nehemiah 2:1-20 relating to the same event. This is based upon the supposition that the regnal years of Artaxerxes, according to Persian computation, were reckoned from his birth, a supposition, however, which is fanciful and arbitrary, though described by its author as "by no means unlikely" (Trans. Soc. Bib. Arch., 2., 110: Rev. D. H. Haigh, 4th Feb., 1873). [3] For this calculation I am indebted to the courtesy of the Astronomer Royal, whose reply to my inquiry on the subject is appended: "ROYAL OBSERVATORY, GREENWICH." June 26th, I877. "SIR, – I have had the moon’s place calculated from Largeteau’s Tables in Additions to the Connaisance des Tems 1846, by one of my assistants, and have no doubt of its correctness. The place being calculated for – 444, March 12d. 20h., French reckoning, or March 12d. 8h. P. M., it appears that the said time was short of New Moon by about 8h. 47m., and therefore the New Moon occurred at 4h. 47m. A. M., March 13th, Paris time." I am, etc., " (Signed,) G. B. AIRY." The new moon, therefore, occurred at Jerusalem on the 13th March, B. C. 445 (444 Astronomical) at 7h. 9m. A. M. [4] ei egnos kai su kai ge en ta hamera tauta ta pros eipanan sou k. t. l. (Luke 19:42). The received text inserts sou after hamera, but the best MSS. (Alex. Vat. Sin., etc.) agree in omitting it. kai sou, "thou also, as well as these my disciples." kai ge et quidem – "even" (Alford, Gr. Test. in loco). The Revised Version reads, "If thou hadst known in this day," etc. [5] "When the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus, ’ i. e., Nisan (Josephus, Wars, 6. 5, 3). "And the Jews’ Passover was nigh at hand, and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem, before the Passover, to purify themselves…Then Jesus, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany" (John 11:55; John 12:1). [6] Lewin, Fasti Sacri, p. 230. [7] The 1st Nisan in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (the edict to rebuild Jerusalem) was 14th March, B. C. 445. The 10th Nisan in Passion Week (Christ’s entry into Jerusalem) was 6th April, A. D. 32. The intervening period was 476 years and 24 days (the days being reckoned inclusively, as required by the language of the prophecy, and in accordance with the Jewish practice). But 476 x 365= 173, 740 days Add (14 March to 6th April, both inclusive) 24 days Add for leap years 116 days Equals a total of 173,880 days And 69 weeks of prophetic years of 360 days (or 69 x 7 x 360) 173, 880 days. It may be well to offer here two explanatory remarks. First; in reckoning years from B. C. to A. D., one year must always be omitted; for it is obvious, ex. gr., that from B. C. 1 to A. D. I was not two years, but one year. B. C. 1 ought to be described as B. C. 0, and it is so reckoned by astronomers, who would describe the historical date B. C. 445, as 444. And secondly, the Julian year is 11m. 10 46s., or about the 129th part of a day, longer than ’the mean solar year. The Julian calendar, therefore, contains three leap years too many in four centuries, an error which had amounted to eleven days in A. D. 17527 when our English calendar was corrected by declaring the 3rd September to be the 14th September, and by introducing the Gregorian reform which reckons three secular years out of four as common years; ex. gr., 1700, 1800 and 1900 are common years, and 2000 is a leap year. "Old Christmas day" is still marked in our calendars, and observed in some localities, on the 6th January; and to this day the calendar remains uncorrected in Russia. (See Appendix 4, p. 306 note 8.) [8] theopneustos (2 Timothy 3:16). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 33: 1.03.11. CHAPTER 11. PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION ======================================================================== CHAPTER 11. PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION "THIS is a work which I find deficient; but it is to be done with wisdom, sobriety, and reverence, or not at all." Thus wrote Lord Bacon in treating of what he describes as "history of prophecy." "The nature of such a work," he explains, "ought to be that every prophecy of the Scripture be sorted with the event fulfilling the same, throughout the ages of the world, both for the better confirmation of faith and for the better illumination of the Church touching those parts of prophecies which are yet unfulfilled: allowing, nevertheless, that latitude which is agreeable and familiar unto Divine prophecies; being of the nature of their Author with whom a thousand years are but as one day, and therefore are not fulfilled punctually at once, but have springing and germinant accomplishment throughout many ages, though the height or ruiness of them may refer to some one age." If the many writers who have since contributed to supply the want Lord Bacon noticed, had given due heed to these wise and weighty words, prophetic study might possibly have escaped the reproach which comes of its followers being divided into hostile camps. With the Christian the fulfillment of prophecy does not belong to the region of opinion, nor even of fact, merely; it is a matter of faith. We have a right, therefore, to expect that it shall be definite and clear. But though the principles and maxims of interpretation gained by the study of that part of prophecy which was accomplished within the era of Holy Writ are by no means to be thrown aside when we pass out into post-apostolic times, surely there is no presumption against our finding hidden in the history of these eighteen centuries a primary and partial fulfillment even of prophecies which will unquestionably receive a final and complete accomplishment in days to come. Only let us not forget the "wisdom, sobriety, and reverence" which such an inquiry demands. In our day prophetic students have turned prophets, and with mingled folly and daring have sought to fix the very year of Christ’s return to earth, – predictions which possibly our children’s children will recall when another century shall have been added to the history of Christendom. If such vagaries brought discredit only on their authors, it were well. But though broached in direct opposition to Scripture, they have brought reproach on Scripture itself, and have given a stimulus to the jaunty skepticism of the day. We might have hoped that whatever else might be forgotten, the last words which the Lord Jesus spoke on earth would not be thus thrust aside: "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father hath put in His own power." (Acts 1:7) But what was denied to inspired apostles in days of pristine faith and power, the prophecy-mongers of these last days have dared to claim; and the result has been that the solemn and blessed hope of the Lord’s return has been degraded to the level of the predictions of astrologers, to the confusion and grief of faithful hearts, and the amusement of the world. Any man who, avoiding extravagant or fanciful views, both of history and of Scripture, points to events in the present or the past as the correlatives of a prophecy, deserves a calm and unprejudiced hearing from thoughtful men. But let him not forget that though the Scriptures he appeals to may thus receive "germinant accomplishment," "the height or fullness of them may refer" to an age still future. What is true of all Scripture is specially true of prophecy. It is ours to assign to it a meaning; but he who really believes it to be Divine, will hesitate to limit its meaning to the measure of his own apprehension of it. The prophecies of Antichrist afford a signal and most apt illustration of this. Were it not for the prejudice created by extreme statements, prophetic students would probably agree that the great apostasy of Christendom displays in outline many of the main lineaments of the Man of Sin. There is, indeed, in our day a spurious liberality that would teach us to forego the indictment which history affords against the Church of Rome; but while no generous mind will refuse to own the moral worth of those who, in England at least, now guide the counsels of that Church, the real question at issue relates to the character, not of individuals, but of a system. It is the part, therefore, not of intolerant bigotry, but of true wisdom, to search the records of the past – terrible records, truly – for the means of judging of that system. The inquiry which concerns us is not whether good men are found within the pale of Rome – as though all the moral excellence of earth could avail to cover the annals of her hideous guilt! Our true inquiry is whether she has suffered any real change in these enlightened days. Is the Church of Rome reformed? With what vehemence the answer would be shrieked from every altar within her pale! And if not, let but dark days come again, and some of the foulest scenes and blackest crimes in the history of Christendom may be re-enacted in Europe. "The true test of a man is not what he does, but what, with the principles he holds, he would do;" and if this be true of individuals, it is still more intensely true of communities. They do good service, therefore, who keep before the public mind the real character of Rome as the present day development of the apostasy. But when these writers go on to assert that the predictions of the Antichrist have their full and final realization in the Papacy, their position becomes a positive danger to the truth. It is maintained at the cost of rejecting some of the most definite of the prophecies, and of putting a lax or fanciful interpretation upon those very Scriptures to which they appeal. Indeed, the chief practical evil of this system of interpretation is that it creates and fosters a habit of reading the Scriptures in a loose and superficial manner. General impressions, derived from a cursory perusal of the prophecies, are seized upon and systematized, and upon this foundation a pretentious superstructure is built up. As already noticed, the Church of Rome displays the chief moral lineaments of the Man of Sin. Therefore it is an axiom of interpretation with this school that the ten-horned beast is the Papacy. But of the beast it is written that "power was given to him over all kindreds and tongues and nations, and all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life." (Revelation 13:7-8) Are these commentators aware that one-half of Christendom is outside the pale of Rome, and in antagonism to the claims of the Papacy? Or do they suppose that all who belong to the Greek and Protestant Churches are enrolled in the book of life? By no means. But they would tell us the verse does not mean exactly what it says. [1] Again, the ten-horned beast is the Papacy; the second beast, the false prophet, is the Papal clergy; Babylon is Papal Rome. And yet when we turn to the vision of the judgment of Babylon, we find that it is by the agency of the beast that her doom is accomplished! "And the ten horns which thou sawest, and the beast, these shall hate the whore (Babylon), and shall make her desolate, and naked, and shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire; for God hath put in their hearts to fulfill His will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." "These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast." [2] The governments of Christendom, therefore, are to lend their power to the Roman Pontiff and priesthood in order to the destruction of Papal Rome! [3] Can absurdity be more transparent and complete? The question here at issue must not be prejudiced by misrepresentations, or shirked by turning away to collateral points of secondary moment. It is not whether great crises in the history of Christendom, such as the fall of Paganism, the rise of the Papacy and of the Moslem power, and the Protestant reformation of the sixteenth century, be within the, scope of the visions of St. John. This may readily be conceded. Neither is it whether the fact that the chronology of some of these events is marked by cycles of years composed of the precise multiples; of seventy specified in the book of Daniel and the Apocalypse, be not a further proof that all forms; part of one great plan. Every fresh discovery of the kind ought to be welcomed by all lovers of the truth. Instead of weakening confidence in the accuracy and definiteness of the prophecies, it ought to strengthen the faith which looks for their absolute and literal fulfillment. The question is not whether the history of Christendom was within the view of the Divine Author of the prophecies, but whether those prophecies have been fulfilled; not whether those Scriptures have the scope and meaning which historical interpreters assign to them, but whether their scope and meaning be exhausted and satisfied by the events to which they appeal as the fulfillment of them. It is unnecessary, therefore, to enter here upon an elaborate review of the historical system of interpretation, for if it fails when tested at some one vital point, it breaks down altogether. Does the Apocalypse, then, belong to the sphere of prophecy accomplished? Or, to reduce the controversy to a still narrower issue, have the visions of the seals and trumpets and vials been fulfilled? No one will dispute the fairness of this mode of stating the question, and the fairest possible method of dealing with it will be to set forth some one of the leading visions, and then quote fully and verbatim what the historical interpreters put forward as the meaning of it. The opening of the sixth seal is thus recorded by St. John:" And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig-tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; and said to the mountains and the rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of His wrath is come, and who shall be able to stand?" (Revelation 6:12-17) The following is Mr. Elliott’s commentary upon the vision: "When we consider," he declares, "the terrors of these Christ-blaspheming kings of the Roman earth, thus routed with their partisans before the Christian host, and miserably flying and perishing, there was surely that in the event which, according to the usual construction of such Scripture figures, might well be deemed to answer to the symbols of the profigurative vision before us: in which vision kings and generals, freemen and slaves, appeared flying to and seeking the caves of the rocks to hide them: to hide them from the face of Him that sat on the throne of power, even from the wrath of the Lamb. "Thus under the first shocks of this great earthquake had the Roman earth been agitated, and the enemies of the Christians destroyed or driven into flight and consternation. Thus, in the political heavens, had the sun of pagan supremacy been darkened, the moon become eclipsed and blood-red, and of the stars not a few been shaken violently to the ground. But the prophecy had not as yet received its entire fulfillment. The stars of the pagan heaven had not all fallen, nor had the heaven itself been altogether rolled up like a scroll and vanished away. On Constantine’s first triumph, and after the first terrors of the opposing emperors and their hosts, though their imperial edict gave to Christianity its full rights and freedom, yet it allowed to the heathen worship a free toleration also. But very soon there followed measures of marked preference in the imperial appointments to the Christians and their faith. And at length, as Constantine advanced in life, in spite of the indignation and resentment of the pagans, he issued edicts for the suppression of their sacrifices, the destruction of their temples, and the toleration of no other form of public worship but the Christian. His successors on the throne followed up the same object by attaching penalties of the severest character to the public profession of paganism. And the result was that, before the century, had ended, its stars had all fallen to the ground, its very heaven, or political and religious system, vanished, and on the earth the old pagan institutions, laws, rites, and worship been all but annihilated." [4] "A more notable instance of inadequate interpretation cannot be imagined." [5] What wonder if men scoff at the awful warnings of coming wrath, when they are told that THE GREAT DAY OF HIS WRATH [6] is past, and that it amounted to nothing more than the rout of the pagan armies before the hosts of Constantine, – an event which has been paralleled a thousand times in the history of the world? [7] For, let the point at issue be clearly kept in view. If the reign of Constantine or some other era in the history of Christendom were appealed to as affording an intermediate fulfillment of the vision, it might pass as a feeble but harmless exposition; but these expositors daringly assert that the prophecy has no other scope or meaning. [8] They are bound to prove that the vision of the sixth seal has been fulfilled; else it is obvious that all which follows it claims fulfillment likewise. If, therefore, their system failed at this point alone, its failure would be absolute and complete; but in fact the instance quoted is no more than a fair example of the manner in which they fritter away the meaning of the words they profess to explain. We are now, they tell us, in the era of the Vials. At this very hour the wrath of God is being poured out upon the earth. [9] Surely men may well exclaim, – comparing the present with the past, and judging this age to be more favored, more desirable to live in than any age which has preceded it, – Is this all the wrath of God amounts to! The vials are the seven last plagues, "for in them is filled up the wrath of God," and we are told that the sixth is even at this moment being fulfilled in the disruption of the Turkish Empire! Can any man be so lost in the dreamland of his own lucubrations as to imagine that the collapse of the Turkish power is a Divine judgment on an unrepentant world! [10] Such it may appear to be to the clique of Pachas, who, ghoul-like, fatten on the misery around them; but untold millions would hail it as a blessing to suffering humanity, and ask with wonder, If this be a crowning token of the wrath of God, how are simple souls to distinguish between the proofs of His favor and of His direst anger! If the event were cited as a primary fulfillment, within this day of grace, of a prophecy which strictly belongs to the coming day of wrath, it would merit respectful attention; but to appeal to the dismemberment of Turkey as the full realization of the vision, is the merest trifling with the solemn language of Scripture, and an outrage on common sense. But there are principles involved in this system of interpretation far deeper and more momentous than any which appear upon the surface. It is in direct antagonism with the great foundation truth of Christianity. St. Luke narrates (Luke 4:19-20) how, after the temptation, the Lord "returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee," and entering the synagogue of Nazareth on the Sabbath day, as His custom was, He stood up to read. There was handed Him the book of Isaiah’s prophecy, and all eyes being fastened on Him, He opened it and read these words, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; He hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and the recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord." "And the day of vengeance of our God" are the words which followed, without a break, upon the open page before Him; but, the record adds, "He closed the book, and He gave it again to the minister, and sat down." In an age to come, when the prophecy shall have its ultimate fulfillment, the day of vengeance shall mingle with blessing to His people. [11] But the burden of His ministry on earth was only peace. [12] And it is the burden of the gospel still. God’s attitude toward men is grace. "GRACE REIGNS." It is not that there is grace for the penitent or the elect, but that grace is the principle on which Christ now sits upon the throne of God. "Upon His head are many crowns, but His pierced hand now holds the only scepter," for the Father has given Him the kingdom; all power is His in heaven and on earth. "The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son;" (John 5:22; Compare John 3:17, John 12:47) but His mission to earth was not to judge, but only to save. And He who is thus the only Judge is now exalted to be a Savior, and the throne on which He sits is a throne of grace. Grace is reigning, through righteousness, unto eternal life. (Romans 5:21) "The light of this glorious gospel now shines unhindered upon earth. Blind eyes may shut it out, but they cannot quench or lessen it. Impenitent hearts may heap up wrath against the day of wrath, but they cannot darken this day of mercy or mar the glory of the reign of grace." [13] It will be in "the day of wrath" that the "seven last plagues," wherein is "filled up the wrath of God," shall run their course; and it is merely trifling with solemn and awful truths to talk of their being now fulfilled. Whatever intermediate fulfillment the vision may be now receiving, the full and final realization of it belongs to a future time. And these pages are not designed to deal with the primary and historical fulfillment of the prophecies, or, as Lord Bacon terms it, their "springing and germinant accomplishment throughout many ages." My subject is exclusively the absolute and final fulfillment of the visions in that "one age" to which, in their "height and fullness," they belong. The Scripture itself affords many striking instances of such intermediate or primary fulfillment; and in these the main outlines of the prophecy are realized, but not the details. The prediction of Elijah’s advent is an instance. [14] In the plainest terms the Lord declared the Baptist’s ministry to be within the scope of that prophecy. In terms as clear He announced that it would be fulfilled in days to come, by the reappearance upon earth of the greatest of the prophets. (Matthew 11:14; Matthew 17:11-12) St. Peter’s words at Pentecost afford another illustration. Joel’s prophecy shall yet be realized to the letter, but yet the baptism of the Holy Ghost was referred to it by the inspired Apostle. (Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:16-21.) To speak of the fulfillment of these prophecies as already past, is to use language at once unscriptural and false. Far more unwarrantable still is the assertion of finality, so confidently made, of the prophecies relating to the apostasy. There is not a single prophecy, of which the fulfillment is recorded in Scripture, that was not realized with absolute accuracy, and in every detail; and it is wholly unjustifiable to assume that a new system of fulfillment was inaugurated after the sacred canon closed. Two thousand years ago who would have ventured to believe that the prophecies of Messiah would receive a literal accomplishment! "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son." (Isaiah 7:14) "Behold, thy King cometh unto thee: He is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass." (Zechariah 9:9) "They weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver;" "And I took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord." (Zechariah 11:12-13; Compare Matthew 27:5; Matthew 27:7) "They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture." (Psalms 22:18 Compare John 19:23-24.) "They pierced my hands and my feet." (Psalms 22:16) "They gave me vinegar to drink." (Psalms 69:21) "He was cut off out of the land of the living; for the transgression of my people was He stricken." (Isaiah 53:8) To the prophets themselves, even, the meaning of such words was a mystery. (1 Peter 1:10-12) For the most part, doubtless, men regarded them as no more than poetry or legend. And yet these prophecies of the advent and death of Christ received their fulfillment in every jot and tittle of them. Literalness of fulfillment may therefore be accepted as an axiom to guide us in the study of prophecy. FOOTNOTES [1] According to these interpreters, such a statement must be taken cum grano salis, as we term it; and the like remark applies to their rendering of every verse of the thirteenth chapter of Revelation. [2] Revelation 17:16-17; Revelation 17:13. In Revelation 17:16 the best reading, as given in the Revised Version, is "and the beast," instead of "upon the beast." [3] Mr. Elliott’s romance on this subject is disposed of by the events of recent years, which have made Rome the peaceful capital of Italy. Of the beast and false prophet it is written, "These both were cast alive into a lake of fire" (Revelation 19:20). It may be pleasing to Protestant zeal to suppose the Roman hierarchy and priesthood are "reserved" for such a fate. [4] Horae Apoc., vol. 1., pp. 219, 220. [5] "Another such landmark is found, I believe, in the interpretation of the sixth seal: if it be not indeed already laid down in what has just been said. We all know what that imagery means in the rest of Scripture. Any system which requires it to belong to another period than the close approach of the great day of the Lord, stands thereby self-condemned. I may illustrate this by reference to Mr. Elliott’s continuous historical system, which requires that it should mean the downfall of paganism under Constantine. A more notable instance of inadequate interpretation cannot be imagined. "Closely connected with this last is another fixed point in interpretation. As the seven seals, so the seven trumpets and the seven vials run on to the time close upon the end. At the termination of each series, the note is unmistakably given that such is the case. Of the seals we have already spoken. As to the trumpets, it may suffice to refer to Revelation 10:7, Revelation 11:18; as to the vials, to their very designation tas eschatas, and to the gegonen of Revelation 16:17. Any system which does not recognize this common ending of the three, seems to me to stand thereby convicted of error." – ALFORD, Gr. Test., 4., Part 2., ch. 8., §§ 5, 21, 22. [6] ha hamera ha megala tas orgas autou (Revelation 6:17). [7] If such statements were put forward in wantonness, and not in folly, they would suggest a reference to the solemn words, "If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy –" (Revelation 22:19). [8] When the historical interpreters approach the Second Advent, they lose the courage of their opinions, and earnestly contend for literalness, though if their scheme be genuine, the predicted return of Christ may surely have its fulfillment in the present revival of religion and the concurrent spread of Christianity. [9] And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous, seven angels having the seven last plagues, for in them is filled up the wrath of God…And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues…And one of the four beasts gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials, full of the wrath of God, who liveth for ever and ever…And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth" (Revelation 15:1; Revelation 15:6-7; Revelation 16:1). [10] The Austrian Pester Lloyd of 21st Nov., 1879, in commenting on the British line of policy with regard to Turkish affairs, charged Lord Beaconsfield’s government with "confounding Mohammedanism with the Turks, the latter having been always regarded as the scum of Mohammedanism by all Mohammedan nations who were conscious of their own strength." Prophetic students appear to be thoroughly possessed by this error. [11] Compare Isaiah 63:4 : "For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come." [12] "He came and preached peace" (Ephesians 2:17). [13] The Gospel and its Ministry, p. 136. True it is that the great principles of God’s moral government of the world remain unchanged, and sin is thus ever working out its own punishment. But this must not be confounded with immediate Divine action in judgment. "The Lord knoweth how to reserve the unjust to the day of judgment, to be punished" (2 Peter 2:9). Or, according to Romans 2:5, "After thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath." [14] "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord" (Malachi 4:5). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 34: 1.03.12. CHAPTER 12. FULLNESS OF THE GENTILES ======================================================================== CHAPTER 12. FULLNESS OF THE GENTILES THE main stream of prophecy runs in the channel of Hebrew history. This indeed is true of all revelation. Eleven chapters of the Bible suffice to cover the two thousand years before the call of Abraham, and the rest of the old Testament relates to the Abrahamic race. If for a while the light of revelation rested on Babylon or Susa, it was because Jerusalem was desolate, and Judah was in exile. For a time the Gentile has now gained the foremost place in blessing upon earth; but this is entirely anomalous, and the normal order of God’s dealings with men is again to be restored. "Blindness in part is happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved, as it is written." [1] The Scriptures teem with promises and prophecies in favor of that nation, not a tithe of which have yet been realized. And while the impassioned poetry in which so many of the old prophecies are couched is made a pretext for treating them as hyperbolical descriptions of the blessings of the Gospel, no such plea can be urged respecting the Epistle to the Romans. Writing to Gentiles, the Apostle of the Gentiles there reasons the matter out in presence of the facts of the Gentile dispensation. The natural branches of the race of Israel have been broken off from the olive tree of earthly privilege and blessing, and, "contrary to nature," the wild olive branches of Gentile blood have been substituted for them. But in spite of the warning of the Apostle, we Gentiles have become "wise in our own conceits," forgetting that the olive tree whose "root and fatness" we partake of, is essentially Hebrew, for "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." The minds of most men are in bondage to the commonplace facts of their experience. The prophecies of a restored Israel seem to many as incredible as predictions of the present triumphs of electricity and steam would have appeared to our ancestors a century ago. While affecting independence in judging thus, the mind is only giving proof of its own impotence or ignorance. Moreover, the position which the Jews have held for eighteen centuries is a phenomenon which itself disposes of every seeming presumption against the fulfillment of these prophecies. It is not a question of how a false religion like that of Mahomet can maintain an unbroken front in presence of a true faith; the problem is very different. Not only in a former age, but in the early days of the present dispensation, the Jews enjoyed a preference in blessing, which practically amounted almost to a monopoly of Divine favor. In its infancy the Christian Church was essentially Jewish. The Jews within its pale were reckoned by thousands, the Gentiles by tens. And yet that same people afterwards became, and for eighteen centuries have continued to be, more dead to the influence of the Gospel than any other class of people upon earth. How can "this mystery," as the Apostle terms it, be accounted for, save as Scripture explains it, namely, that the era of special grace to Israel closed with the period historically within the Acts of the Apostles, and that since that crisis of their history "blindness in part is happened" to them? But this very word, the truth of which is so clearly proved by public facts, goes on to declare that this judicial hardening is to continue only "until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in;" and the inspired Apostle adds, "And so all Israel shall be saved; as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob; for this is My covenant unto them." [2] But, it may with reason be demanded, does not this imply merely that Israel shall be brought within the blessings of the Gospel, not that the Jews shall be blessed on a principle which is entirely inconsistent with the Gospel? Christianity, as a system, assumes the fact that in a former age the Jews enjoyed a peculiar place in blessing: "Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers, and that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy." (Romans 15:8-9) But the Jews have lost their vantage-ground through sin, and they now stand upon the common level of ruined humanity. The Cross has broken down "the middle wall" which separated them from Gentiles. It has leveled all distinctions. As to guilt "there is no difference, for all have sinned;" as to mercy "there is no difference, for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call on Him." How then, if there be no difference, can God give blessing on a principle which implies that there is a difference? In a word, the fulfillment of the promises to Judah is absolutely inconsistent with the distinctive truths of the present dispensation. This question is one of immense importance, and claims the most earnest consideration. Nor is it enough to urge that the eleventh chapter of Romans itself supposes that in this age the Gentile has an advantage, though not a priority, and, therefore, Israel may enjoy the like privilege hereafter. It is part of the same revelation, that although grace stoops to the Gentile just where he is, it does not confirm him in his position as a Gentile, but lifts him out of it and denationalizes him; for in the Church of this dispensation "there is neither Jew nor Gentile." [3] Judah’s promises, on the contrary, imply that blessing will reach the Jew as a Jew, not only recognizing his national position, but confirming him therein. The conclusion, therefore, is inevitable, that before God can act thus, the special proclamation of grace in the present dispensation must have ceased, and a new principle of dealing with mankind must have been inaugurated. But here the difficulties only seem to multiply and grow. For, it may be asked, does not the dispensation run its course until the return of Christ to earth? How then can Jews be found at His coming in a place of blessing nationally, akin to that which they held in a bygone age? All will admit that Scripture seems to teach that such will be the case. [4] The question still remains whether this be really intended. Does Scripture speak of any crisis in relation to the earth, to intervene before "the day when the Son of man shall be revealed "? No one who diligently seeks the answer to this inquiry can fail to be impressed by the fact that at first sight some confusion seems to mark the statements of Scripture with respect to it. Certain passages testify that Christ will return to earth, and stand once more on that same Olivet on which His feet last rested ere He ascended to His Father; (Zechariah 14:4; Acts 1:11-12) and others tell us as plainly that He will come, not to earth, but to the air above us, and call His people up to meet Him and be with Him. (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17) These Scriptures again most clearly prove that it is His believing people who shall be "caught up," (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17; 1 Corinthians 15:51-52) leaving the world to run its course to its destined doom; while other Scriptures as unequivocally teach that it is not His people but the wicked who are to be weeded out, leaving the righteous "to shine forth in the kingdom of their Father." (Matthew 13:40-43) And the confusion apparently increases when we notice that Holy Writ seems sometimes to represent the righteous who are to be thus blessed as Jews, sometimes as Christians of a dispensation in which the Jew is cast off by God. These difficulties admit of only one solution, a solution as satisfactory as it is simple; namely, that what we term the second advent of Christ is not a single event, but includes several distinct manifestations. At the first of these He will call up to Himself the righteous dead, together with His own people then living upon earth. With this event this special "day of grace" will cease, and God will again revert to "the covenants" and "the promises," and that people to whom the covenants and promises belong (Romans 9:4) will once more become the center of Divine action toward mankind. Everything that God has promised is within the range of the believer’s hope; [5] but this is its near horizon. All things wait on its accomplishment. Before the return of Christ to earth, many a page of prophecy has yet to be fulfilled, but not a line of Scripture bars the realization of this the Church’s special hope of His coming to take His people to Himself. Here, then, is the great crisis which will put a term to the reign of grace, and usher in the destined woes of earth’s fiercest trial – "the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22) To object that a truth of this magnitude would have been stated with more dogmatic clearness is to forget the distinction between doctrinal teaching and prophetic utterance. The truth of the second advent belongs to prophecy, and the statements of Scripture respecting it are marked by precisely the same characteristics as marked the Old Testament prophecies of Messiah. [6] "The sufferings of Christ and the glories which should follow" were foretold in such a way that a superficial reader of the old Scriptures would have failed to discover that there were to be two advents of Messiah. And even the careful student, if unversed in the general scheme of prophecy, might have supposed that the two advents, though morally distinct, should be intimately connected in time. So is it with the future. Some regard the second advent as a single event; by others its true character is recognized, but they fail to mark the interval which must separate its first from its final stage. An intelligent apprehension of the truth respecting it is essential to the right understanding of unfulfilled prophecy. But having thus clearly fixed these principal landmarks to guide us in the study, we cannot too strongly deprecate the attempt to fill up the interval with greater precision than Scripture warrants. There are definite events to be fulfilled, but no one may dogmatize respecting the time or manner of their fulfillment. No Christian who estimates aright the appalling weight of suffering and sin which each day that passes adds to the awful sum of this world’s sorrow and guilt, can fail to long that the end may indeed be near; but let him not forget the great principle that "the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation," (2 Peter 3:15) nor yet the language of the Psalm, "A thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." (Psalms 90:4) There is much in Scripture which seems to justify the hope that the consummation will not be long delayed; but, on the other hand, there is not a little to suggest the thought that before these final scenes shall be enacted, civilization will have returned to its old home in the east, and, perchance, a restored Babylon shall have become the center of human progress and of apostate religion. [7] To maintain that long ages have yet to run their course would be as unwarrantable as are the predictions so confidently made that all things shall be fulfilled within the current century. It is only in so far as prophecy is within the seventy weeks; of Daniel that it comes within the range of chronology at all, and Daniel’s vision primarily relates to Judah and Jerusalem. [8] FOOTNOTES [1] Romans 11:25-26. The coming in of the fullness of the Gentiles must not be confounded with the fulfillment of the times of the Gentiles (Luke 21:24). The one refers to spiritual blessing, the other to earthly power. Jerusalem is not to be the capital of a free nation, independent of Gentile power, until the true Son of David comes to claim the scepter. [2] Romans 11:25-26. Not every Israelite, but Israel as a nation (Alford, Gr. Test., in loco). [3] Galatians 3:28. Contrast these with the Lord’s words in John 4:22, "Salvation is of the Jews." [4] In proof of this, appeal may be made to these very prophecies of Daniel; and later prophecies testify to it still more plainly, notably the book of Zechariah. [5] "We, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth" (2 Peter 3:13). Long ages of time and events innumerable must intervene before the realization of this hope, and yet the believer is looking for it. [6] For an admirable treatise on these characteristics of prophecy, see Hengstenberg’s Christology, Kregel Publications. [7] Isaiah 13:1-22 appears to connect the final fall of Babylon with the great day that is coming (comp. Isaiah 13:1, Isaiah 13:9-10, Isaiah 13:19); and in Jeremiah 1:1-19 the same event is connected with the future restoration and union of the two houses of Israel (Isaiah 13:20). I make the suggestion, however, merely as a caveat against the idea that we have certainly reached the last days of the dispensation. If the history of Christendom should run on for another thousand years, the delay would not discredit the truth of a single statement in Holy Writ. [8] No one of Daniel’s visions, indeed, has a wider scope. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel treat of Israel (or the ten tribes); but Daniel deals only with Judah. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 35: 1.03.13. CHAPTER 13. SECOND SERMON ON THE MOUNT ======================================================================== CHAPTER 13. SECOND SERMON ON THE MOUNT THE connecting link between the past and the future, between the fulfilled and the unfulfilled in prophecy, will be found in the Gospel of St. Matthew. The chief Messianic promises are grouped in two great classes, connected respectively with the names of David and of Abraham, and the New Testament opens with the record of the birth and ministry of Messiah as "the Son of David, the son of Abraham;" (Matthew 1:1) for in one aspect of His work He was "a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers." (Romans 15:8) The question of the Magi, "Where is He that is born king of the Jews?" aroused a hope which was part of the national politics of Judah; and even the base Idumean who then usurped the throne was sensible of its significance: "Herod was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. [1] And when the proclamation afterwards was made, first by John the Baptist, and finally by the Lord and His apostles, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand," the Jews knew well its import. It was not "the Gospel," as we understand it now, but the announcement of the near fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy. [2] And the testimony had a twofold accompaniment. "The Sermon on the Mount" is recorded as embodying the great truths and principles which were associated with the Kingdom Gospel; and the attendant miracles gave proof that all was Divine. And in the earlier stages of the ministry of Christ, His miracles were not reserved for those whose faith responded to His words; the only qualification for the benefit was that the recipient should belong to the favored race. "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." [3] Such was the commission under which the twelve went forth through that little land, to0 every corner of which their Master’s fame had gone before them. (Matthew 4:24-25) But the verdict of the nation, through its accredited and responsible leaders, was a rejection of His Messianic claims. [4] The acts and words of Christ recorded in the twelfth chapter of Matthew were an open and deliberate condemnation and defiance of the Pharisees, and their answer was to meet in solemn council and decree His death. (Matthew 12:1-14) From that hour His ministry entered upon a new phase. The miracles continued, for He could not meet with suffering and refuse to relieve it; but those whom thus He blessed were charged "that they should not make Him known." (Matthew 12:16) The Gospel of the Kingdom ceased; His teaching became veiled in parables, [5] and the disciples were forbidden any longer to testify to His Messiahship. (Matthew 16:20) The thirteenth chapter is prophetic of the state of things which was to intervene between the time of His rejection and His return in glory to claim the place which in His humiliation was denied Him. Instead of the proclamation of the Kingdom, He taught them "the mysteries of the Kingdom." (Matthew 13:11) His mission changed its character, and instead of a King come to reign, He described Himself as a Sower sowing seed. Of the parables which follow, the first three, spoken to the multitude, described the outward results of the testimony in the world; the last three, addressed to the disciples, [6] speak of the hidden realities revealed to spiritual minds. But these very parables, while they taught the disciples in the plainest terms that everything was postponed which the prophets had led them to look for in connection with the Kingdom, taught them no less clearly that the day would surely come when all should be fulfilled; when evil should be rooted out, and the Kingdom established in righteousness and peace. (Matthew 13:41-43) They thus learned that there was to be an "age" of which prophecy took no account, and another "Advent" at its close; and "the second Sermon on the Mount" was the Lord’s reply to the inquiry, "What shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the age?" [7] Matthew 24:1-51 has been well described as "the anchor of apocalyptic interpretation," and "the touchstone of apocalyptic systems." [8] Matthew 24:15 specifies an event and fixes an epoch, by which we are enabled to connect the words of the Lord with the visions of St. John, and both with the prophecies of Daniel. The entire passage is obviously prophetic, and its fulfillment clearly pertains to the time of the end. The fullest and most definite application of the words must therefore be to those who are to witness their accomplishment. To them it is that the warning is specially addressed, against being deceived through a false hope of the immediate return of Christ. [9] A series of terrible events are yet to come; but "these are the beginning of sorrows;" "the end is not yet." How long these "sorrows" shall continue is not revealed. The first sure sign that the end is near will be the advent of the fiercest trial that the redeemed on earth have ever known. The fulfillment of Daniel’s vision of the defilement of the Holy Place is to be the signal for immediate flight; "for then shall be the great tribulation," (Matthew 24:15-21. Compare Daniel 11:1.) unparalleled even in Judah’s history. But, as already noticed, this last great persecution belongs to the latter half of Daniel’s seventieth week, and therefore it affords a landmark by which we can determine the character and fix the order of the chief events which mark the closing scenes foretold in prophecy. With the clew thus obtained from the Gospel of St. Matthew, we can turn with confidence to study the Apocalyptic visions of St. John. But first it must be clearly recognized that in the twenty-fourth of Matthew, as in the book of Daniel, Jerusalem is the center of the scene to which the prophecy relates; and this of necessity implies that the Jews shall have been restored to Palestine before the time of its fulfillment. [10] Objections based on the supposed improbability of such an event are sufficiently answered by marking the connection between prophecy and miracle. The history of the Abrahamic race, to which prophecy is so closely related, is little else than a record of miraculous interpositions. "Their passage out of Egypt was miraculous. Their entrance into the promised land was miraculous. Their prosperous and their adverse fortunes in that land, their servitudes and their deliverances, their conquests and their captivities, were all miraculous. The entire history from the call of Abraham to the building of the sacred temple was a series of miracles. It is so much the object of the sacred historians to describe these that little else is recorded… There are no historians in the sacred volume of the period in which miraculous intervention was withdrawn. After the declaration by the mouth of Malachi that a messenger should be sent to prepare the way, the next event recorded by any inspired writer is the birth of that messenger. But of the interval of 400 years between the promise and the completion no account is given." [11] The seventy years from Messiah’s birth to the dispersion of the nation were fruitful in miracle and prophetic fulfillment. But the national existence of Israel is as it were the stage on which alone the drama of prophecy can, in its fullness, be displayed; and from the Apostolic age to the present hour, not a single public event can be appealed to as affording indisputable proof of immediate Divine intervention upon earth. [12] A silent heaven is a leading characteristic of the dispensation in which our lot is cast. But Israel’s history has yet to be completed; and when that nation comes again upon the scene, the element of miraculous interpositions will mark once more the course of events on earth. On the other hand, the analogy of the past would lead us to expect a merging of the one dispensation in the other, rather than an abrupt transition; and the question is one of peculiar interest on general grounds, whether passing events are not tending towards this very consummation, the restoration of the Jews to Palestine. The decline of the Moslem power is one of the most patent of public facts; and if the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire be still delayed, it is due entirely to the jealousies of European nations, whose rival interests seem to render an amicable distribution of its territories impossible. But the crisis cannot be deferred indefinitely; and when it arrives, the question of greatest moment, next to the fate of Constantinople, will be, What is to become of Palestine? Its annexation by any one European state is in the highest degree improbable. The interests of several of the first-rate Powers forbid it. The way will thus be kept open to the Jews, whenever their inclinations or their destinies lead them back to the land of their fathers. Not only would no hostile influence hinder their return, but the probabilities of the case (and it is with probabilities that we are here concerned) are in favor of the colonization of Palestine by that people to whom historically it belongs. There is some reason to believe that a movement of this kind has already begun; and if, whether by the Levant becoming a highway to India, or from some other cause, any measure of prosperity should return to those shores that were once the commercial center of the world, the Jews would migrate thither in thousands from every land. True it is that to colonize a country is one thing, while to create a nation is another. But the testimony of Scripture is explicit that Judah’s national independence is not to be regained by diplomacy or the sword. Jerusalem is to remain under Gentile supremacy until the day when Daniel’s visions shall be realized. In the language of Scripture, "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." [13] But long ere then the Cross must supplant the Crescent in Judea, else it is incredible that the Mosque of Omar should give place to the Jewish Temple on the Hill of Zion. If the operation of causes such as those above indicated, conjointly with the decay of the Moslem power, should lead to the formation of a protected Jewish state in Palestine, possibly with a military occupation of Jerusalem by or on behalf of some European Power or Powers, nothing more need be supposed than a religious revival among the Jews, to prepare the way for the fulfillment of the prophecies. [14] "God has not cast away His people;" and when the present dispensation closes, and the great purpose has been satisfied for which it was ordained, the dropped threads of prophecy and promise will again be taken up, and the dispensation historically broken off in the Acts of the Apostles, when Jerusalem was the appointed center for God’s people on earth, [15] will be resumed. Judah shall again become a nation, Jerusalem shall be restored, and that temple shall be built in which the "abomination of desolation" is to stand. [16] FOOTNOTES [1] Matthew 2:3. It must not be imagined that it was any religious emotion which disturbed the king. The announcement of the Magi was to him what the news of the birth of an heir is to an heir-presumptive. The Magi asked, "Where is He that is born King of the Jews?" Herod’s inquiry, therefore, to the Sanhedrin was, "Where should Messiah be born?" and on being referred to the prophecy which so plainly designated Bethlehem, he determined to destroy every infant child in that city and district. Herod and the Sanhedrin had not learned to spiritualize the prophecies. [2] Cf. Pusey, Daniel, p. 84 [3] Matthew 10:5-8. The chapter is prophetic, in keeping with the character of the book, and reaches on to the testimony of the latter days (see ex. gr., ver. 23). [4] In our own time the Jews have had the temerity to publish a translation of the Mishna, and the reader who will peruse its treatises can judge with what contempt and loathing the Lord must have regarded the religion of those miserable men. The treatise Sabbath will afford an invaluable commentary on the twelfth of Matthew. The Mishna is a compilation of the oral traditions of the Rabbins, made in the second century, A. D., to prevent their being lost by the dispersion – the very traditions, many of them, which prevailed when the Lord was on earth, and which He so unsparingly condemned as undermining the Scriptures, for then as now the Jews regarded them as possessing a Divine sanction. (Cf Lindo’s Jewish Cal., Introd.; Milman’s Hist. Jews, Book 18.) [5] Matthew 13:3; Matthew 13:13. "From the expression ardzato in Mark, compared with the question of the disciples in ver. 10, – and with ver. 34, – it appears that this was the first beginning of our Lord’s teaching by parables, expressly so delivered, and properly so called. And the natural sequence of things here agrees with and confirms Matthew’s arrangement against those who would place (as Ebrard) all this chapter before the Sermon on the Mount. He there spoke without parables, or mainly so; and continued to do so till the rejection and misunderstanding of His teaching led to His judicially adopting the course here indicated, choris par. ouden elalei autois." – ALFORD, Gr. Test, Matthew 13:3. [6] As were also the interpretations of the Parables of the Sower and of the Tares. [7] Matthew 24:3. "As He sat upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him." Compare Matthew 5:1" He went up into a mountain, and when He was set, His disciples came unto Him." The Sermon on the Mount unfolded the principles on which the Kingdom would be set up. The King having been rejected by the nation, the second Sermon on the Mount unfolded the events which must precede His return [8] Alford, Gr. Test., vol. 4., Pt. 2. Proleg. Rev. [9] Matthew 24:4; Matthew 24:6. That is, the final stage of the advent; not His coming as foretold in 1 Thessalonians 4:1-18 and elsewhere, which has no signs preceding. To refer verse 5 to the times of Barcochab involves a glaring anachronism. The primary reference in vers. 15-20, and, therefore, of the earlier portion of the prophecy, was to the period ending with the destruction of Jerusalem. [10] The question of their restoration to a place of blessing spiritually has already been discussed. [11] Clinton, Fasti H., vol. 1., p. 243. [12] There is, doubtless, what may be called the private miracle of individual conversion, and the believer has transcendental proof not only of the existence of God, but of His presence and power with men. [13] Luke 21:24. That is, till the end of the period during which earthly sovereignty, entrusted to Nebuchadnezzar twenty-five centuries ago, is to remain with the Gentiles. [14] The following extract from the Jewish Chronicle of 9th Nov., 1849, is quoted in Mr. Newton’s Ten Kingdoms (2nd Ed., p. 401): "The European Powers will not need to put themselves to the trouble of restoring the Jews individually or collectively. Let them but confer upon Palestine a constitution like that of the United States…and the Jews will restore themselves. They would then go cheerfully and willingly, and would there piously bide their time for a heaven-inspired Messiah, who is to restore Mosaism to its original splendor." [15] Gentiles were then admitted within the pale, not on an equality, but in some sense as proselytes had been received within the nation. The Church was essentially Jewish. The temple was their place of resort (Acts 2:46; Acts 3:1; Acts 5:42). Their testimony was in the line of the old prophecies to the nation (ibid. Acts 3:19-26), and even when scattered by persecution, the apostles remained in the metropolis, and those who were driven abroad evangelized only among the Jews (ibid. Acts 8:1, Acts 8:4, and Acts 11:19). Peter refused to go among Gentiles save after a special revelation to him (ibid. 10.), and he was put on his defense before the Church for going at all (ibid. Acts 11:2-18. Comp. cActs 15:1-41) [16] Scattered among the people will be a "remnant," who will "keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Revelation 12:17); Jews, and yet Christians; Jews, but believers in the Messiah, whom the nation will continue to reject until the time of His appearing. It must be obvious to the thoughtful mind that such prophecies as the twenty-fourth of Matthew imply that there will be a believing people to be comforted and guided by them at the time and in the scene of their fulfillment. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 36: 1.03.14. CHAPTER 14. THE PATMOS VISIONS ======================================================================== CHAPTER 14. THE PATMOS VISIONS NARROWNESS of interpretation is the bane of apocalyptic study. "The words of this prophecy," "Things which must shortly come to pass’" such is the Divine description of the Book of the Revelation and of its contents. No one, therefore, is justified in denying to any portion of it a future application. The Book in its entirety is prophetic. Even the seven epistles, though they were undoubtedly addressed to Churches then existing, and though their intermediate reference to the history of Christendom is also clear, may well have a special voice in days to come for those who are to enter the fierce trials that shall precede the end. [1] In the fourth chapter the throne is set in heaven. Judgment now waits on grace; but when the day of grace is past, judgment must intervene ere the promises and covenants, with all their rich store of blessings, can be fulfilled. But who can unfold that scroll that lies on the open hand of Him who sits upon the throne? (Revelation 5:2) No creature in the universe [2] may dare to look on it, and God Himself will not break a single seal of it, for the Father has ceded the prerogative of judgment. The ministry of grace may be shared by all whom grace has blessed, but the Son of man is the only Being in the universe who can take the initiative in judgment; (John 5:22-27) and amid the anthems of the heavenly beings round the throne, and the swelling chorus of myriads of myriads of angels, echoed back by the whole creation of God, the Crucified of Calvary, "a Lamb, as it had been slain," takes up the book and prepares to break the seals. (Revelation 5:5-14) It is at the fifth seal that the vision crosses the lines of the chronology of prophecy. [3] Of the earlier seals, therefore, it is unnecessary to speak in detail. They are evidently descriptive of the events to which the Lord referred in the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, as preceding the great final persecution; – wars and unceasing threats of war, kingdoms in arms rushing on one another to destruction; and then famine, to be followed again by pestilence, hunger and the sword still claiming their victims, and others being seized by strange and nameless deaths in the ever-gathering horrors of these cumulative woes. (Revelation 6:2-8) According to the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, the tribulation is to be followed immediately by the signs and portents which the old prophets have declared will herald "the great and terrible day of the Lord." So in the Apocalypse the martyrs of the tribulation are seen in the fifth seal, (Revelation 9:1-21) and in the sixth, the advent of the great day of wrath is proclaimed, the precise events being named which the Lord had spoken of on the Mount of Olives, and Joel and Isaiah had foretold long centuries before. [4] Like the dull, oppressive calm which precedes the fiercest storms, there is silence in heaven when the last seal is broken, (Revelation 8:1) for the day of vengeance has dawned. The events of the earlier seals were Divine judgments, doubtless, but of a providential character, and such as men can account for by secondary causes. But God has at length declared Himself, and as it has been in the past, so now, the occasion is an outrage committed on His people. The cry of martyrs is come up in remembrance before God, (Revelation 3:1-22) and it is the signal for the trumpet blasts which herald the outpouring of the long-pent-up wrath. (Revelation 6:1-17) To write a commentary on the Apocalypse within the limits of a chapter would be impossible, and the attempt would involve a departure from the special purpose and subject of these pages. But it is essential to notice and keep in view the character and method of the Apocalyptic visions. The seer, be it remembered, was not privileged to read a single line of what was written "within and on the back side" of the sealed scroll of the fifth chapter; but as each seal was broken, some prominent characteristic of a portion of its contents was communicated to him in a vision. The main series of the visions, therefore, represent events in their chronological sequence. But their course is occasionally interrupted by parenthetical or episodical visions; sometimes, as between the sixth and seventh seals, reaching on to the time of the end, and more frequently, as between the sixth and seventh trumpets, representing details chronologically within the earlier visions. The first and most important step, therefore, towards a right understanding of the Apocalypse is to distinguish between the serial and the episodical visions of the Book, and the following analysis is offered to promote and assist inquiry upon the subject. [5] – Chap. 6. – The visions of the first six seals; representing events in their chronological order. [Chap. 7. – Parenthetical; the first vision relating either to the faithful remnant of the fifth seal, or to an election in view of the judgments of the seventh seal; the second, reaching on to the final deliverance.] Chaps. 8, 9. – The opening of the seventh seal. The visions of the first six trumpets; consecutive judgments, in their chronological order. [Chaps. 10. -11. 13. – Parenthetical, containing the hidden mystery of the seven thunders (10:3, 4) and the testimony of the witnesses (the latter being probably within the era of the fifth seal.)] Chap. 11:15-19. – The seventh trumpet; the third and last woe (comp. 8:13; 9:12; 11:14), preceding the establishment of the kingdom (comp. 10:7; 11:15). [Chaps. 12. -18. – Parenthetical] Chap. 13. – The rise and career of the two great blasphemers and persecutors of the last days. Chap. 14. – The remnant of chap. 7. seen in blessedness. The everlasting Gospel (vers. 6, 7). The fall of Babylon (ver. 8). The doom of the worshippers of the Beast (vers. 9-11). The revelation of Christ, and final judgments, (vers. 14-20). Chap. 15. – A vision of events chronologically within chapter 8., the opening the seventh seal. (This appears from the fact that the faithful of the fifth seal are here represented as praising God in view of the judgments impending, – see vers. 2-4; which judgments are within the seventh seal.) Chap. 16. – The seven vials; a second series of visions of the events of the seven trumpets. This appears – First, because the seventh trumpet and the seventh vial both relate to the final catastrophe. Under the seventh trumpet, the mystery of God is finished (10:7), and the temple of God is opened, and there are lightnings, voices, thunders, and an earthquake (11:19). Under the seventh vial, "It is done!" is heard from the temple, and there are voices, thunders, lightnings, and an earthquake (16:17, 18). Second, because the sphere of the judgments is the same in the correlative visions of both series: 1, The earth. 2, The sea. 3, The rivers. 4, The sun. 5, The pit, the seat of the beast. 6, Euphrates. 7, Heaven, the air. [Chaps. 17., 18. – Detailed visions of the development and doom of Babylon, "the harlot," whose fall has been within the seventh trumpet and seventh vial; the last series of judgments of the seventh seal (11:18; 16:19).] Chap. 19: The doom of the harlot being accomplished (ver. 2), the glory of the bride follows (ver. 7); the glorious revelation of Christ, and the destruction consequent thereon of the beast and false prophet (ver. 20). Chap. 20. – Satan is bound. The millennial reign of the saints (vers. 1-4). After the millennial reign, Satan is loosed, and once more deceives the nations. Satan is cast into the lake of fire. The judgment of the Great White Throne. Chaps. 21., 22:1-5. – The new heaven and new earth Chap. 22:6-21. – Conclusion. [6] As the last trumpet and the last vial embrace the final judgments of the day of vengeance, which precede the advent of the glorious kingdom, they necessarily include the doom of the two great antichristian powers of the last days, – the imperial represented by the ten-horned beast, and the ecclesiastical typified by the scarlet woman. The visions of the thirteenth and seventeenth chapters, therefore, are interposed, descriptive of the rise and development of these powers. These accordingly give us details which relate to events within the earlier seals, for the martyrs of the fifth seal are the victims of the great persecutor of the thirteenth chapter. If the foregoing scheme be correct in the main, the eras included in the Revelation may be divided thus: 1. The seven Churches; the transitional period following the close of the Christian dispensation." [7] 2. The seven seals; the period during which all that prophecy has foretold shall precede the kingdom will be fulfilled. 3. The kingdom; to be followed, after a final interval of apostasy, by – 4. The eternal state; the new heaven and new earth. It is manifestly within the period of the seals that the prophecies of Daniel have their fulfillment, and the next inquiry should be directed to ascertain the points of contact between the visions of St. John and the earlier prophecies. As already noticed, it is only in so far as prophecy falls within the seventy weeks that it comes within the range of human chronology. And further, the seventieth week will be a definite period, of which the epoch of the middle and the end are definitely marked. The epoch of the first week, that is, of the prophetic period as a whole, was not the return of the Jews from Babylon, nor yet the rebuilding of their temple, but the signing of the Persian decree which restored their national position. So also the beginning of the last week will date, not from their restoration to Judea, nor yet from the future rebuilding of their shrine, but from the signing of the treaty by "the coming Prince," which probably will once more recognize them as a nation. [8] But it is obvious that this personage must have attained to power before the date of that event; and it is expressly stated (Daniel 7:24) that his rise is to be after that of the ten kingdoms which are hereafter to divide the Roman earth. It follows, therefore, that the development of these kingdoms, and the rise of the great Kaiser who is to wield the imperial scepter in the last days, must be prior to the beginning of the seventieth week. [9] And within certain limits, we can also fix the order of the subsequent events. The violation of the treaty by the defilement of the Holy Place is to occur "in the midst of the week." (Daniel 9:27) That event, again, is to be the epoch of the great persecution by Antichrist, (Matthew 24:15-21) which is to last precisely three and a half years; for his power to persecute the Jews is to be limited to that definite period. (Daniel 7:25; Revelation 13:5) "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light." (Matthew 24:29) Such is the statement of the twenty-fourth of Matthew; and the sixth of Revelation exactly coincides with it, for the vision of the fifth seal embraced the period of "the tribulation"; and when the sixth seal was opened, "the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood," and the cry went forth, "The great day of His wrath is come." (Revelation 6:12; Revelation 6:17) In keeping with this, again, is the prophecy of Joel. "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the Lord come." (Joel 2:31) The events of this day of vengeance are the burden of the vision of the seventh seal, including the judgment of Babylon, the scarlet woman – or the religious apostasy – by the agency of the imperial power (Revelation 17:16-17) the beast, whose fearful end is to bring the awful drama to a close. (Revelation 19:20) We have definite grounds, therefore, for assigning the following order to the events of the last days: 1. The development of the ten kingdoms. 2. The appearance within the territorial limits of these kingdoms of an eleventh "king," who will subdue three of the ten, and will ultimately be accepted as Suzerain by all. 3. The making of a treaty by this king with, or in favor of, the Jews. The epoch of the seventieth week. 4. The violation of the treaty by this king after three and a half years. 5. "The great tribulation" of Scripture, the awful persecution of the last days, which shall continue three and a half years. 6. The deliverance of the Jews from their great enemy, to be followed by their final establishment in blessing. The close of the seventieth week. 7. "The great and terrible day of the Lord," the period of the seventh seal, beginning with a revelation of Christ to His people in Jerusalem, accompanied by appalling manifestations of Divine power and ending with His last glorious advent. That the seventieth week will be the last seven years of the dispensation, and the term of the reign of Antichrist, is a belief as old as the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. But a careful examination of the statements of Scripture will lead to some modification of this view. The fulfillment to Judah of the blessings specified in Daniel 9:24 is all that Scripture expressly states will mark the close of the seventieth week. Antichrist will then be driven out of Judea; but there is no reason whatever to suppose he will otherwise lose his power. As already shown, the seventieth week ends with the period of the fifth seal, whereas the fall of Babylon is within the era of the seventh seal. No one may assert that that era will be of long duration, and it will probably be brief; but the only certain indication of its length is that it will be within a single lifetime, for at its close the Antichrist is to be seized alive, and hurled to his awful doom (Revelation 19:20). The analogy of the past might lead us to expect that the events foretold to occur at the end of the seventieth week would follow immediately at its close. But the Book of Daniel expressly teaches that there will be an interval. Whatever view be taken of the earlier portion of the eleventh of Daniel, it is clear that "the king" of the thirty-sixth and following verses is the great enemy of the last days. His wars and conquests are predicted, [10] and the twelfth chapter opens with the mention of the predicted time of trouble, "the great tribulation" of Matthew and Revelation. The seventh verse specifies the duration of the "time of trouble" as "a time, times, and a half," which, as already shown, is the half week, or 1, 260 days. But the eleventh verse expressly declares that from the date of the event which is to divide the week, and which, according to Matthew 24:1-51., is to be the signal of persecution, there shall be 1, 290 days; and the twelfth verse postpones the blessing to 1, 335 days, or seventy-five days beyond the close of the prophetic weeks. If therefore "the day of the Lord" follows immediately upon the close of the seventieth week, it seems that Judah’s complete deliverance is not to take place until after that final period has begun. And this is expressly confirmed by the fourteenth chapter of Zechariah. It is a prophecy than which none is more definite, and the difficulties which beset the interpretation of it are in no degree overcome by refusing to read it literally. It seems to teach that at that time Jerusalem is to be taken by the allied armies of the nations, and that at the moment when a host of prisoners are being led away, God will intervene in some miraculous way, as when He destroyed the army of Pharaoh at the Exodus [11] Comparison with the prophecy of the twenty-fourth chapter of St. Matthew is the surest and strictest test which can be applied to these conclusions. After fixing the epoch and describing the character of the great persecution of the last days, the Lord thus enumerates the events which are to follow at its close:– First the great natural phenomena predicted; then the appearance of the sign of the Son of man in heaven; then the mourning of the tribes of the land; [12] and finally the glorious advent. That there will be no interval between the persecution and the "great signs from heaven" (Luke 21:11) which are to follow it, is expressly stated; they are to occur "immediately after the tribulation." That an interval shall separate the other events of the series is equally clear. From the defilement of the Holy Place, to the day when the tribulation shall end, and the "fearful sights" and "great signs" from heaven shall strike terror into men’s hearts, shall be a definite period of 1,260 days; [13] and yet when He goes on to speak of the Advent, the Lord declares that that day is known to the Father only: it should be His people’s part to watch and wait. He had already warned them against being deceived by expecting His Advent before the fulfillment of all that must come to pass (Matthew 24:4-28). Now He warns them against apostasy after the accomplishment of all things, because of the delay which even then shall still mark His coming. [14] The words of Christ are unequivocally true, and He never enjoins upon His people to live in expectation of His coming, save at a time when nothing intervenes to bar the fulfillment of the hope. Fatalism is as popular among Christians as with the worshippers of Mahomet; and it is forgotten that though the dispensation has run its course these eighteen centuries, it might have been brought to a close at any moment. Hence the Christian is taught to live, "looking for that blessed hope." (Titus 2:12-13) It will be otherwise in days to come, when the present dispensation shall have closed with the first stage of the Advent. Then the word will be, not "Watch, for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come," (Matthew 24:42) – that belongs to the time when all shall have been fulfilled, – but "Take heed that no man deceive you, all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet." (Matthew 4:6) FOOTNOTES [1] The Bible is not intended for the present dispensation only, but for the people of God in every age; and it is incredible that they who are to be so severely tried shall fail to find in it words specially fitted and intended to counsel and comfort them in view of what they are to endure. "This prophecy" is the Divine description of the Apocalypse as a whole (Revelation 1:3). Compare the "must shortly come to pass" of Revelation 1:1 with the "must shortly be done" of 22:6. The salutation (1:4, 5) seems to fix the dispensational place of the Book as future. It is not the Father, but Jehovah; not the Lord Jesus Christ, but "Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the Prince of the kings of the earth;" and the Book speaks from a time when the Holy Spirit, as a person, will again be in heaven, to join in the salutation, which He never does in the Epistles of the New Testament. Revelation 1:19 is frequently quoted to prove that the Book is divided, and that the latter part only is prophetic. In refutation of this, I appeal to the most candid of apocalyptic commentators, Dean Alford, who thus translates the verse: "Write therefore the things which thou sawest, and what things they signify, and the things which are about to happen after these." He explains "the things which thou sawest" to be "the vision which was but now vouchsafed thee," and the closing words as "the things which shall succeed these, i. e., a future vision" (Greek Test., in loco). In ch. 4:1, Alford inclines to give to the second meta tauta the general meaning of "hereafter." But the presumption is; that the words are used at the end of the verse in the same sense as at the beginning, i. e., "after these things." The words imply that the fulfillment of the subsequent visions should be future, relatively to the fulfillment of the preceding vision, and not relatively merely to the time when the vision was given, which was a matter of course. [2] Revelation 3:1-22. It is not, as in English Version, "no man," but oudeis. The Revised Version properly reads "no one." [3] Because the fifth seal relates to the great persecution of the future, which, as already noticed, is within the seventieth week. The first four seals relate to the events preceding in time the fulfillment of the fifteenth verse of the twenty-fourth of Matthew. Compare the sixth and seventh verses of that chapter with Revelation 6:1-8. [4] "The day of the Lord cometh…The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the Lord come" (Joel 2:1-31). "The day of the Lord cometh…The sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine" (Isaiah 13:9-10). "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven" (Matthew 24:29). "There shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars" (Luke 21:25). "The sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood" (compare Joel 2:31), "and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth" (Revelation 6:12-13). I entirely agree with the following note of Dean Alford’s (Greek Test., Matthew 24:29): "Such prophecies are to be understood literally, and indeed, without such understanding would lose their truth and significance. The physical signs shall happen as accompaniments and intensification’s of the awful state of things which the description typifies." Not of course that the moon will really become blood, any more than that the stars will fall. The words describe phenomena which men will witness, and which will strike terror into their hearts. [5] The passages containing the parenthetical visions are marked in square brackets. [6] I purposely pass over chap. 12, because of the exceptional difficulties which attend the interpretation of it. "Anything within reasonable regard for the analogies and symbolism of the text seems better that the now too commonly received historical interpretation, with its wild fancies and arbitrary assignments of words and figures" (Alford, Greek Test., Revelation 12:15-16). The only reasonable interpretation I have seen is that which regards the "man-child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron," and who "was caught up to God and His throne," as being the Lord Jesus Christ, and the woman as representing that people of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came" (Romans 9:5). But the objections to this are considerable. First, past historical facts are thus introduced into a vision relating to the future. I am not aware of any other instance of this in Scripture. Secondly, the main features of the vision after ver. 5 are not accounted for by the facts. The following remarks are offered merely to assist inquiry and not at all as expressing a formed opinion on the matter. The 1, 260 days during which the woman is persecuted is precisely the period of "the great tribulation." Ver. 7 declares that during the woman’s flight, Michael the Archangel fought on her behalf. Daniel 12:1, referring to the time of Antichrist’s power, states that "at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of the people; and there shall be a time of trouble," etc., describing "the great tribulation" which is to continue 1, 260 days. Again, the Old Scriptures clearly point to the career of a future David, a deliverer of the Jews, who will become their earthly leader at that time, and reign over them in Jerusalem afterwards. See, e. g., Ezekiel 22:1-31; Ezekiel 23:1-49; Ezekiel 24:1-27; Ezekiel 25:1-17, about David the Prince, who is certainly not Christ, seeing he is to have a palace in Jerusalem and a definite inheritance in the land, and who, moreover, is to offer burnt-offerings, etc. (Ezekiel 45:17). I suppose this is the great military conqueror of Isaiah 43:1-3. May not the Revelation 12:1-17 refer to this personage, who is to be Christ’s vicegerent on earth, and who will, in fact, rule over all nations. [7] That is, assuming that this portion of the Book has a prophetical aspect. [8] I do not assert that he will have reached the zenith of his power before that date. On the contrary, it seems extremely probable that the treaty with the Jews will be one of the steps by which he will raise himself to the place he is destined to hold, and that as soon as he has attained his end, he will throw off the mask and declare himself a persecutor. So Irenaeus teaches, and he possibly gives what was the tradition of the apostolic age. [9] He is neither king of the north nor of the south, for both these kings shall invade his territory (ver. 40), i. e., the powers which shall then respectively possess Syria and Egypt. [10] The day of battle" (Zechariah 14:3). The prophet adds: "And His feet shall stand on that day upon the Mount of Olives." I cannot conceive how any one can suppose this to be the great: and final advent in glory as described in Matthew 24:30 and other Scriptures. "The prophecy (Zechariah 14:1-21) seems literal. If Antichrist be the leader of the nations, it seems inconsistent with the statement that he will at this time be sitting in the temple as God at Jerusalem; thus Antichrist outside would be made to besiege Antichrist within the city. But difficulties do not set aside revelations; the event will clear up seeming difficulties" (Fausset’s Commentary, in loco). It is idle to speculate on such a matter, but I presume the city will have revolted against the great enemy during his absence at the head of the armies of the empire, and that thereupon he will turn back to reconquer it. History repeats itself. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that he will reside in Jerusalem, though presumably he will have a palace there, and as part of a blasphemous pageant, will sit enthroned in the temple. That Jerusalem should be captured by a hostile army at such a time will seem less strange if it be remembered first that the true people of God therein shall have warning to leave the city at the beginning of these troubles (Matthew 24:15-16.), and secondly, that the deliverance of the capital is to be tile last act in the deliverance of Judah (See Zechariah 12:7). [11] Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall "the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory" (Matthew 24:29-30). [12] kopsontai pasai ai phulai tas gas. Comp. Zechariah 12:12 (LXX), kopsetai ha ga kata phulas phulas. [13] Therefore if the Advent synchronized with these events, any one then living would be able to fix the date of it, once the epoch of the tribulation were known; whereas the chapter clearly shows that an interval will follow after all has been fulfilled, long enough to weed out mere professors, who, tired of waiting, will apostatize (Matthew 24:48), and to lull, even true disciples to a sleep from which their Lord’s return will rouse them (Ibid. 25:5). [14] Matthew 24:42-51; Matthew 25:10-13 : "THEN shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins." tote, "at the period spoken of at the end of the last chapter, viz., the coming of the Lord to His personal reign" (Alford, Gr. Test., in loco.)] Though applicable to every age in which there is a waiting people on earth, the parable will have its full and special application in the last days to those who shall be looking back on the complete page of prophecy fulfilled. The entire passage from chap. 24:31, to chap. 25:30, is parenthetical, relating especially to that time. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 37: 1.03.15. CHAPTER XV. THE COMING PRINCE ======================================================================== CHAPTER XV. THE COMING PRINCE "WHAT is it that all Europe is looking for?" – the words are quoted from a leading article in the Times newspaper, on the recent finding of Agamemnon’s tomb. [1] "What is it that all Europe is looking for? It is the KING OF MEN, the great head of the Hellenic race, the man whom a thousand galleys and a hundred thousand men submitted to on a simple recognition of his personal qualities, and obeyed for ten long years…The man who can challenge for his own the shield of Agamemnon, now waiting for the challenge, is the true Emperor of the East, and the easiest escape from our present difficulties." The realization of this dream will be the fulfillment of prophecy. True it is that popular movements characterize the age, rather than the power of individual minds. It is an age of mobs. Democracy, not despotism, is the goal towards which civilization is tending. But democracy in its full development is one of the surest roads to despotism. First, the revolution; then, the plebiscites; then, the despot. The Caesar often owes his scepter to the mob. A man of transcendent greatness, moreover, never fails to leave his mark upon his times. And the true King of Men must have an extraordinary combination of great qualities. He must be "a scholar, a statesman, a man of unflinching courage and irrepressible enterprise, full of resources, and ready to look in the face a rival or a foe." [2] The opportunity too must synchronize with his advent. But the voice of prophecy is clear, that the HOUR is coming, and the MAN. In connection with this dream or legend of the reappearance of Agamemnon, it is remarkable that the language of Daniel’s second vision has led some to fix on Greece as the very place in which the Man of prophecy shall have his rise; [3] and it leaves no doubt whatever that he will appear within the territorial limits of the old Grecian empire. Having predicted the formation of the four kingdoms into which Alexander’s conquests became divided at his death, the angel Gabriel – the divinely-appointed interpreter of the vision – proceeded thus to speak of events which must take place in days to come. "In the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also, he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many. He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand." [4] In the vision of the seventh chapter, the last great monarch of the Gentiles was represented only as a blasphemer and a persecutor: "He shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High;" but here he is described as being also a general and a diplomatist. Having thus obtained a recognized place in prophecy, he is alluded to in the vision which follows as "the Prince who is coming," (Daniel 9:26) – a well-known personage, whose advent had already been foretold; and the mention of him in Daniel’s fourth and final vision is so explicit, that having regard to the vital importance of establishing the personality of this "King," the passage is here set forth at length. "And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished. for that that is determined shall be done. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. But in his estate he shall honor the God of forces; and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain. And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown; but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps. But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him. And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time. and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book." [5] The burden of Daniel’s prophecies is Judah and Jerusalem, but the Apocalyptic visions of the beloved disciple have a wider scope. The same scenes are sometimes presented, but they are displayed upon a grander scale. The same actors appear, but in relation to larger interests and events of greater magnitude. In Daniel, the Messiah is mentioned only in relation to the earthly people, and it is in the same connection also that the false Messiah comes upon the stage. In the Apocalypse the Lamb appears as the Savior of an innumerable multitude "out of all nations, and kindreds, and peoples, and tongues," (Revelation 7:9) and the Beast is seen as the persecutor of all who name the name of Christ on earth. The visions of St. John, moreover, include an opened heaven, while the glimpses Daniel was vouchsafed of "things to come" are limited to earth. The attempt to fix the meaning of every detail of these visions is to ignore the lessons to be derived from the Messianic prophecies fulfilled at the first advent. [6] The old Scriptures taught the pious Jew to look for a personal Christ – not a system or a dynasty, but a person. They enabled him, moreover, to anticipate the leading facts of His appearing. Herod’s question, for example, "Where should Christ be born?" admitted of a definite and unhesitating answer, "In Bethlehem of Judea." (Matthew 2:4; Cf. Micah 5:2) But to assign its place and meaning to every part of the mingled vision of suffering and glory was beyond the power even of the inspired prophets themselves." (1 Peter 1:10-12) So also is it with the prophecies of Antichrist. The case indeed is stronger still, for while they "who waited for redemption in Israel" had to glean the Messianic prophecies from Scriptures which seemed to the careless reader to refer to the sufferings of the old Hebrew prophets or the glories of their kings, the predictions of Antichrist are as distinct and definite as though the statements were historical and not prophetic. [7] And yet the task of the expositor is beset with real difficulties. If the book of Daniel might be read by itself no question whatever could arise. "The Coming Prince" is there presented as the head of the revived Roman empire of the future, and a persecutor of the saints. There is not a single statement respecting him that presents the smallest difficulty. But some of the statements of St. John seem inconsistent with the earlier prophecies. According to Daniel’s visions the sovereignty of Antichrist appears confined to the ten kingdoms, and his career seems limited to the duration of the seventieth week. How then can this be reconciled with the statement of St. John that "power was given him over all kindreds and tongues and nations, and all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him "? [8] Is it credible, moreover, that a man endowed with such vast supernatural powers, and filling so marvelous a place in prophecy, will be restrained within the narrow limits of the Roman earth? If these points be urged as objections to the truth of Scripture it is enough to mark that the prophecies of Christ were beset with kindred difficulties. Such prophecies are like the disjointed pieces of an elaborate and intricate mosaic. To fit each into its place would baffle our utmost ingenuity. To discover the main design is all we can expect; or if more be demanded of us, it is enough to show that no part is inconsistent with the rest. And these results will reward the student of the Apocalyptic visions of Daniel and St. John, if only he approach them untrammeled by the crude views which prevail respecting the career of Antichrist. These visions are not a history, but a drama. In the twelfth chapter of Revelation we see the woman in her travail. In the twenty-first chapter she is manifested in her final glory. The intervening chapters afford brief glimpses of events which fill up the interval. It is with the thirteenth and seventeenth chapters that we have specially to do in connection with the present subject, and it is clear that the later vision unfolds events which come first in the order of time. The false church and the true are typified under kindred emblems. Jerusalem, the Bride, has its counterpart in Babylon, the Harlot. In the same sense in which the New Jerusalem is the Jewish church, so likewise Babylon is the apostasy of Rome. The heavenly city is mother of the redeemed for ages past (Galatians 4:26) the earthly city is mother of the harlots and abominations of the earth. (Revelation 17:5) The victims who have perished in the persecutions of Antichristian Papal Rome are estimated at fifty millions of human beings; but even this appalling record will not be the measure of her doom. The blood of "holy apostles and prophets," – the martyred dead of ages before the Papacy arose, and even of pre-Messianic times, will be required of her when the day of vengeance comes. [9] As it is only in its Jewish aspect that the Church is expressly symbolized as the Bride, [10] so also it is at a time when this, their normal relationship, has been regained by the covenant people, that the apostate church of Christendom, in the full development of its iniquity, appears as the Harlot [11] The vision clearly indicates moreover a marked revival of her influence. She is seen enthroned upon the ten-horned Beast, herself arrayed in royal hues and decked with gold and costliest gems. The infamous greatness of Papal Rome in times gone by shall yet be surpassed by the splendor of her glories in dark days to come, when, having drawn within her pale it may be all that usurps the name of Christ on earth, [12] she will claim as her willing vassal the last great monarch of the Gentile world. As regards the duration of this period of Rome’s final triumphs, Scripture is silent; but the crisis which brings it to a close is definitely marked. "The ten horns and the Beast shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire." (Revelation 17:16) One point in the angel’s description of the Beast in relation to the harlot claims special notice. The seven heads have a twofold symbolism. When viewed in connection with the harlot, they are "seven mountains on which the woman sits;" but in their special relation to the Beast they have a different significance. The angel adds, "and they are seven kings;" that is "kingdoms," the word being used "according to its strict prophetic import, and to the analogy of that portion of the prophecy which is here especially in view." [13] In the seventh chapter of Daniel the Beast is identified with the Roman Empire. In the thirteenth of Revelation he is identified also with the lion, the bear, and the panther, the three first "kingdoms’" of Daniel’s vision. But here he is seen as the heir’ and representative, not of these alone, but of all the great world-powers which have set themselves; in opposition to God and to His people. The seven heads typify these powers. "Five are fallen, and one is." Egypt, Nineveh, Babylon, Persia, Greece, had fallen; and Rome then held the scepter of earthly sovereignty, the sixth in succession to the empires already named. [14] "And the other is not yet come, and when he cometh he must continue a short space," Here the prophecy is marked by the same strange "foreshortening" already noticed in each of Daniel’s visions. While Rome was the sixth kingdom, the seventh is the confederacy of the latter days, heading up in "the Coming Prince." The Coming Prince himself, in the full and final development of his power, is called the eighth, though belonging to the seven, [15] The importance of these conclusions will appear in the sequel. The subject of the twelfth chapter is the dragon, the woman in her travail, the birth of the man-child and his rapture to heaven; the conflict in heaven between the archangel and the dragon; (Verse 7; Compare Daniel 12:1.) the dragon’s banishment to earth; his persecution of the woman, and her flight to the wilderness, where she is sustained for "a time, and times, and half a time," or 1, 260 days (Verses 6, 14.) (the second half of Daniel’s seventieth week). The chapter ends by the statement that, baffled in attempting to destroy the woman, the dragon "went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." The thirteenth chapter, crossing the lines of Daniel’s visions, represents the fulfillment of the dragon’s purpose through the agency of the man of prophecy, whom he energizes to this end. Whatever meaning be attached to the birth and rapture of the woman’s child, there can be no reasonable doubt that the obedient, faithful "remnant of her seed" is the Jewish Church of the latter days, the persecuted "saints of the Most High" of Daniel’s prophecy. The serpent, the woman, and the man, appear together on the earliest page of Scripture, and they reappear upon the latest. But how significant and terrible the change! No longer the subtle tempter, Satan is now displayed in all his awfulness as the great fiery dragon, [16] who seeks to destroy the woman’s promised seed. And instead of the humbled penitent of Eden, the man appears as a wild beast, [17] a monster, both in power and wickedness. The serpent’s victim has become his willing slave and ally. God has found a man to fulfill all His will, and to Him He has given up His throne, with all power in heaven and "on earth." This will hereafter be travestied by Satan, and the coming man shall have the dragon’s "power, and his throne, and great authority." (Revelation 8:2) Both the Dragon and the Beast are seen crowned with royal diadems. (Revelation 12:3; Revelation 13:1.) Once, and only once, again in Scripture the diadem is mentioned, and then it is as worn by Him whose name is "King of kings and Lord of lords." (Revelation 19:12-16) It must be as pretenders to His power that the Beast and the Dragon claim it. The personality of Satan and his interest in and close connection with our race throughout its history, are among the most certain though most mysterious facts of revelation. The popular classification of angels, men, and devils, as including intelligent creation, is misleading. The angels [18] that fell are "reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the Great Day." (Jude 1:6) Demons are frequently mentioned in the narrative of the Gospels, and they have also a place in the doctrine of the Epistles. But THE DEVIL is a being who, like the Archangel, seems, in his own domain, to have no peer [19]. Another fact which claims notice here is the hold which serpent worship has had upon mankind. Among the nations of the ancient world there was scarcely one in whose religious system it had not a place. In heathen mythology there is scarcely a hero or a god whose history is not connected in some way with the sacred serpent. "Wherever the devil reigned the serpent was held in some peculiar veneration." [20] The true significance of this depends on a just appreciation of the nature of idol worship. It may be questioned whether idolatry as popularly understood has ever prevailed except among the most debased and ignorant of races. It is not the emblem that is worshipped, but a power or being which the emblem represents. When the Apostle warned the Corinthian Church against participating in anything devoted to an idol, he was careful to explain that the idol in itself was nothing. "But" (he declared) "the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, not to God, and I would not that ye should have fellowship with demons." (1 Corinthians 10:20.) This will afford an insight into the character of the predicted serpent worship of the last days. [21] Satan’s master lie will be a travesty of the incarnation: he will energize a man who will claim universal worship as being the manifestation of the Deity in human form. And not only will there be a false Messiah, but another being, his equal in miraculous power, yet having for his only mission to obtain for him the homage of mankind. The mystery of the Godhead will thus be parodied by the mystery of iniquity, and the Father, the Son, and the Spirit will have their counterpart in the Dragon, the Beast, and the False Prophet. [22] A silent heaven marks this age of grace. Whirlwind and earthquake and fire may awe, yet, as in the days of the old Hebrew prophet, [23] God is not in these, but in the "still small voice" which tells of mercy and seeks to win lost men from the power of darkness to Himself. But the very silence which betokens that the throne of God is now a throne of grace is appealed to as the crowning proof that God is but a myth; and the coarse blasphemer’s favorite trick is to challenge the Almighty to declare Himself by some signal act of judgment. In days to come, the impious challenge will be taken up by Satan, and death shall seize on men who refuse to bow before the image of the Beast. [24] The Antichrist will be more than a profane and brutal persecutor like Antiochus Epiphanes and some of the Emperors of Pagan Rome; more than a vulgar impostor like Barcochab. [25] Miracles alone can silence the skepticism of apostates, and in the exercise of all the Dragon’s delegated power, the Beast will command the homage of a world that has rejected grace. "All that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life." (Revelation 8:8) If it were possible, the very elect would be deceived by his mighty "signs and wonders"; (Matthew 24:24) but faith, divinely given, is a sure, as it is the only, safeguard against credulity and superstition. But this is what he will become in the zenith of his career. In his origin he is described as a "little horn," (Daniel 7:8) – like Alexander of Macedon, the king of a petty kingdom. Possibly he will be the head of some new Principality to arise in the final dismemberment of Turkey; it may be on the banks of the Euphrates, or perhaps upon the Asian shore of the Aegean Sea. The name of Babylon is strangely connected with events to come, and Pergamus, so long the home of serpent worship in its vilest forms, is the only place on earth which Scripture has identified with Satan’s throne (Revelation 2:13). Of the great political changes which must precede his advent, the most conspicuous are the restoration of the Jews to Palestine, and the predicted division of the Roman earth. The former of these events has already been considered in a previous chapter, and as regards the latter there is but little to be said. The attempt to enumerate the ten kingdoms of the future would involve a profitless inquiry. [26] History repeats itself; and if there be any element of periodicity in the political diseases by which nations are afflicted, Europe will inevitably pass through another crisis such as that which darkened the last decade of the eighteenth century. And should another revolution produce another Napoleon, it is impossible to foretell how far kingdoms may become consolidated, and boundaries may be changed. Moreover in forecasting the fulfillment of these prophecies, we are dealing with events which, while they may occur within the lifetime of living men, may yet be delayed for centuries. Our part is not to prophecy, but only to interpret; and we may well rest content with the certainty that when the Apocalyptic visions are in fact fulfilled, their fulfillment will be clear, not merely to minds educated in mysticism, but to all who are capable of observing public facts. Through the gradual unfolding, it may be, of influences even now in operation; or far more probably as the outcome of some great European crisis in the future, this confederation of nations [27] shall be developed, and thus the stage will be prepared on which shall appear that awful Being, the great leader of men in the eventful days which are to close the era of Gentile supremacy. If we are to understand aright the predicted course of the Antichrist’s career, certain points connected with it must be clearly kept in view. The first is that up to a certain epoch he will be, notwithstanding his pre-eminence, no more than human. And here we must judge of the future by the past. At two-and-twenty years of age, Alexander crossed the Hellespont, the prince of a petty Grecian state. Four years later he had founded an Empire and given a new direction to the history of the world. In the career of Napoleon Bonaparte, modern history affords a parallel still more striking and complete. When, now just a hundred years ago, he entered the French military school at Brienne, he was an unknown lad, without even the advantages which rank and wealth afford. So utterly obscure was his position that, not only did he owe his admission to the school to the influence of the Governor of Corsica, but calumny has found it possible to use that trifling act of friendly patronage to the disparagement of his mother’s name. If then such a man, by the gigantic force of his personal qualities, combined with the accident of favoring circumstances, could attain the place which history has assigned to him, the fact affords the fullest answer to every objection which can be urged against the credibility of the predicted career of the man of prophecy. Nor will it avail to urge that the last fifty years have so developed the mental activity of civilized races, and have produced such a spirit of independence, that the suggestion of a career like Napoleon’s being repeated in days to come involves an anachronism. "In proportion as the general standard of mental cultivation is raised, and man made equal with man, the ordinary power of genius is diminished, but its extraordinary power is increased, its reach deepened, its hold rendered more firm. As men become familiar with the achievements and the exercise of talent, they learn to despise and disregard its daily examples, and to be more independent of mere men of ability; but they only become more completely in the power of gigantic intellect, and the slaves of pre-eminent and unapproachable talent." [28] By the sheer force of transcendent genius the man of prophecy will gain a place of undisputed pre-eminence in the world; but if the facts of his after career are to be understood, considerations of a wholly different kind must be taken into account. A strange crisis marks his course. At first the patron of religion, a true "eldest son of the church," he becomes a relentless and profane persecutor. At first no more than a king of men, commanding the allegiance of the Roman earth, he afterwards claims to be divine, and demands the worship of Christendom. And we have seen how this extraordinary change in his career takes place at that epoch of tremendous import in the history of the future, the beginning of the 1, 260 days of the latter half of Daniel’s seventieth week. Then it is that that mysterious event takes place, described as "war in heaven" between the Archangel and the Dragon. As the result of that amazing struggle, Satan and his angels are "cast out into the earth," and the Seer bewails mankind because the devil is come down into their midst, "having great wrath because he knoweth that he hath but a short time" (Revelation 12:7; Revelation 12:12). The next feature in the vision is the rise of the ten-horned Beast. (Revelation 13:1) This is not the event described in the seventh of Daniel. The Beast, doubtless, is the same both in Daniel and the Apocalypse, representing the last great empire upon earth; but in the Apocalypse it appears at a later stage of its development. Three periods of its history are marked in Daniel. In the first it has ten horns. In the second it has eleven, for the little horn comes up among the ten. In the third, it has but eight, for the eleventh has grown in power, and three of the ten have been torn away by it. Up to this point Daniel’s vision represents the Beast merely as "the fourth kingdom upon earth," the Roman empire as revived in future times, and here the vision turns away from the history of the Beast to describe the action of the little horn as a blasphemer and persecutor. [29] It is at this epoch that the thirteenth chapter of Revelation opens. The three first stages of the history of the empire are past, and a fourth has been developed. It is no longer a confederacy of nations bound together by treaty, with a Napoleon rising up in the midst of them and struggling for supremacy; but a confederacy of kings who are the lieutenants of one great Kaiser, a man whose transcendent greatness has secured to him an undisputed pre-eminence. And this is the man whom the Dragon will single out to administer his awful power on earth in days to come. And from the hour in which he sells himself to Satan he will be so energized by Satan, that "ALL power and signs and lying wonders" shall characterize his after course. [30] There is a danger lest in dwelling on these visions as though they were enigmas to be solved, we should forget how appalling are the events of which they speak, and how tremendous the forces which will be in exercise at the time of their accomplishment. During this age of grace Satan’s power on earth is so restrained that men forget his very existence. This, indeed, will be the secret of his future triumphs. And yet how unspeakably terrible must be the dragon’s power, witness the temptation of our Lord! It is written, "The devil, taking Him up into an high mountain, showed unto Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time; and the devil said unto Him, All this power will I give Thee, and the glory of them, for that is delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will I give it. If Thou, therefore, wilt worship me, all shall be Thine." (Luke 4:5-7) It is this same awful being who shall give to the Beast his throne, his power, and great authority, (Revelation 8:2) – all that Christ refused in the days of His humiliation. The mind that has realized this stupendous fact will not be slow to accept what follows: "And power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations; and all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb" (Revelation 13:7-8). Of the events which afterwards must follow upon earth, it behooves us to speak with deep solemnity and studied reserve. The phenomenon of sudden and absolute darkness is inconceivably terrible, even when eagerly looked for with full intelligence of the causes which produce it. [31] How unspeakable then would be its awfulness, if unexpected, unaccounted for, and prolonged, it may be for days together. And such shall be the sign which Holy Writ declares shall mark the advent of earth’s last great woe. [32] The signs and wonders of Satanic power shall still command the homage of mankind, while the thunders of a heaven no longer silent will break forth upon the apostate race. Then will be the time of "the seven last plagues," wherein "is filled up the wrath of God," – the time when "the vials of the wrath of God" shall be poured out upon the earth. (Revelation 15:1; Revelation 16:1.) And if in this day of grace the heights and depths of God’s longsuffering mercy transcend all human thoughts, His WRATH will be no less Divine. "The day of vengeance of our God," "the great and the terrible day of the Lord," – such are the names divinely given to describe that time of unexampled horror. And yet when in the midnight darkness of the last apostasy, Divine longsuffering will only serve to blind and harden, mercy itself shall welcome the awful breaking of the day of vengeance, for blessing lies beyond it. Another day is still to follow. Earth’s history, as unfolded in the Scriptures, reaches; on to a Sabbatic age of blessedness and peace; an age when heaven shall rule upon the earth, when, "the Lord shall rejoice in all His works," (Psalms 104:31) and prove Himself to be the God of every creature He has made (Psalms 145:9-16). Further still, the veil is raised, and a brief glimpse afforded us of a glorious eternity beyond, when every trace of sin shall have been wiped out for ever, when heaven will join with earth, and "the tabernacle of God" – the dwelling place of the Almighty – shall be with men, "and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God" [33] It was a calamity for the Church of God when the light of prophecy became dimmed in fruitless controversy, and the study of these visions, vouchsafed by God to warn, and guide, and cheer His saints in evil days, was dismissed as utterly unprofitable. They abound in promises which God designed to feed His people’s faith and fire their zeal, and a special blessing rests on those who read, and hear, and cherish them. (Revelation 1:3) One of the most hopeful features of the present hour is the increasing interest they everywhere excite; and if these pages should avail to deepen or direct the enthusiasm even of a few in the study of a theme which is inexhaustible, the labor they have cost will be abundantly rewarded. FOOTNOTES [1] The Times, Monday, 18th December, 1876. [2] The Times, 18th December, 1876. [3] That Antichrist is to arise from the eastern part of the Roman empire, and from that part of the east which fell under the rule of Alexander’s successors, is rendered unquestionable by this chapter. But, seeing that in the eleventh chapter he is mentioned as conflicting with the king of the north (i. e., the king of Syria), and also with the king of the south (i. e., the king of Egypt), it is plain that he does not arise either from Egypt or Syria. He must, therefore, arise either from Greece or from the districts immediately contiguous to Constantinople. It is true that if he arose from the latter, or indeed from either of the four, he would be esteemed Greek in origin, because all the four we: re divisions of the Greek empire; but it seems far more probable that Greece proper will be the place of his rise. He is described as C waxing great towards the south and towards the east, and towards the pleasant land; ’ that is, toward Egypt, Syria, and Palestine – a description that would geographically suit the position of one who was supposed to be in Greece. "Moreover, a ’little horn’ (an emblem not of that which he is as an individual, but of that which he is as a monarch) is a symbol that well suits one who should arise from one of those petty principalities which once abounded in Greece, and have even still their memorial in the throne of the sovereigns of Montenegro." – NEWTON Ten Kingdoms, p. 193. [4] Daniel 8:23-25. The entire passage is quoted ante (note). [5] Daniel 11:36-45; Daniel 12:1. I am inclined to believe that the entire passage from ver. 5 of Daniel 11:1-45 : will receive a future fulfillment, and I have no doubt of this as regards the passage beginning with ver. 21. See especially ver. 31. But the future application of the portion quoted in the text is unquestionable. Although the chapter in part refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, "there are traits which have nothing to correspond to them in Antiochus, which are even the exact contradictory of the character of Antiochus, but which do reappear in St. Paul’s account of the Antichrist to come." I quote from Dr. Pusey. He adds (Daniel p. 93): "The image of the Antichrist of the Old Testament melts into the lineaments of the Antichrist himself… One trait only of the anti-religious character of Antichrist was true of Antiochus also; ’he shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods. ’ Blasphemy against God is an essential feature of any God-opposed power or individual. It belongs to Voltaire as much as to Antiochus. All besides has no place in him …The characteristics of this infidel king are (1) self-exaltation above every god; ’he shall magnify himself above every god; ’ (2) contempt of all religion; (3) blasphemy against the true God; (4) apostasy from the God of his fathers; (5) disregarding the desire of women; (6) the honoring of a god whom his fathers knew not. Of all these six marks, one only, in the least, agrees with Antiochus." The entire passage is valuable, and the arguments conclusive. A remark at p. 96 suggests that Dr. Pusey identifies this king with the second "Beast" of Revelation 13:1-18., and this view is maintained by others on the ground that a "Beast" in prophecy typifies kingly power. This is true generally, but the second beast of Revelation 13:1-18 : is expressly called "the false Prophet" (Revelation 19:20); and the passage proves that he is immediately connected with the first beast, and claims no position independently of him. The difficulties in the way of supposing him to be a king in his own right are insuperable. [6] A similar remark applies to the refusal to recognize the main outlines of the character and history of Antichrist. Fulfilled prophecy is our only safe guide in studying the unfulfilled. [7] The religious skeptic may refuse to accept their literal meaning, and the profane skeptic, in rejecting the fanciful interpretations of the pious, may dismiss the prophecies themselves as incredible; but this is only a further proof that their definiteness is too pronounced to admit of the half-faith accorded to other Scriptures. [8] Revelation 13:7-8. In the best reading of ver. 7, the same four words occur as in 7:9 –" nations, kindred’s, people, and tongues." [9] Revelation 18:20. So also in 17:6, the saints (the slaughtered dead of Old Testament times) are distinguished from the martyrs of Jesus. Luke 11:50-51 sets forth the principle of God’s judgments. [10] In Scripture the church of this dispensation is symbolized as the Body of Christ, never as the Bride. From the close of John Baptist’s ministry the Bride is never mentioned until she appears in the Apocalypse (John 3:29; Revelation 21:2; Revelation 21:9). The force of the "nevertheless" in Ephesians 5:33 depends on the fact that the Church is the Body, not the Bride. The earthly relationship is readjusted by a heavenly standard. Man and wife are not one body, but Christ and His church are one body, therefore a man is to love his wife "even as himself." [11] This, I believe, is the element of truth in the view of Auberlen and others, that the woman of chap. 17 is the woman of chap. 12., "the faithful city become an harlot" (Isaiah 1:21). [12] "I incline to think that the judgment (chap. 18:2) and the spiritual fornication (chap. 18:3), though finding their culmination in Rome, are not restricted to it, but comprise the whole apostate church, Roman, Greek, and even Protestant, in so far as it has been seduced from its first love to Christ, and (has) given its affections to worldly pomps and idols." – REV. A. R. FAUSSET’S Commentary. [13] ALFORD, Greek Test. in loco. Comp. Daniel 7:17-23. [14] Just as the mention of the ten horns upon the beast has set men trying to discover in the past a tenfold division of the Roman earth, so also these seven heads have suggested the idea of seven successive forms of government in the Roman empire. Neither of these conceptions would ever have been heard of, but for the prophecy of which they are supposed to be the fulfillment. The second, though not so visionary as the first, is open to the special objection that the word pipto betokens a violent fall, such as the catastrophe of ancient Babylon, or of the Babylon of the Apocalypse (comp. Revelation 18:2). It is wholly unsuitable to express such changes as marked the government of ancient Rome. [15] Revelation 17:10 expressly states that the duration of the seventh will be brief. Dean Alford’s comment on this is not marked by his usual candor. The words in ver. 11 are ek ton hepta, but this cannot mean merely that the Beast is "the successor and result of the seven" (Alford), for ver. 10 limits the entire succession to seven. Though because of his awful pre-eminence he is described as the eighth, yet he is really the supreme head of the seventh. [16] drakon purrhos megas, Revelation 12:3. "He is purrhos perhaps, for the combined reasons of the wasting properties of fire, and the redness of blood" (Alford, Greek Test., in loco). Compare ver. 9, "The great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan." The dragon both of Scripture and of heathen mythology is a serpent, and both refer to Satan. It is described by Homer as of huge size, coiled like a snake, of blood-red or dark color, and many-headed. "He seems to use the words drakon and ophis indifferently for a serpent" (Liddell and Scott). [17] The tharion or wild-beast of Revelation 8:1-13., etc., must not be confounded with the dzoon or living-being of chap. 4., most unfortunately rendered beast in E. V. [18] That is, the beings who before their fall were angels of God. The word angel in its secondary sense means no more than a messenger or attendant, and Satan has his angels (Revelation 12:7). The word is used of John Baptist’s disciples in Luke 7:24. [19] Our translators have used the word devil as a generic term for fallen beings other than men, but the word from which it is derived has not this scope in Greek. A duibolos is a slanderer, and the word is so used in 1 Timothy 3:11; 2 Timothy 3:3; Titus 2:3. But the diabolos is Satan, of whom alone the term is used elsewhere in the New Testament, save only in John 6:70, where it is applied to Judas Iscariot. The word daimonion, which occurs fifty-two times in the Gospels, and seven times in the rest of the New Testament, is invariably rendered devil, save in Acts 17:18 (gods). In classical Greek it means generally the Deity, especially an inferior god; and in the New Testament, an evil spirit, a demon. The ultimate reference of Ezekiel 28:1-26 : appears to be to Satan, and in the passage beginning, "Thou hast been in Eden in the garden of God," he is apostrophized as "the anointed cherub" (ver. 14). The cherubim appear to have some special relation to our race and world, hence their connection with the tabernacle. Can it be that our earth was at one time their domain, that Satan was of their number, and that he recognized in Adam a creature appointed to succeed him in the very scene of his glory and his fall? [20] Bp. Stillingfleet; quoted in Encyc. Metro., article on "Serpent Worship," q. v. In Bryant’s Ancient Mythology will be found a chapter on Ophiolatry (vol. 2., p. 197, 3rd ed., and see also p. 458) which fully warrants the general statements of the text. [21] "All the world wondered after the Beast; and they worshipped the Dragon (serpent) which gave power unto the Beast; and they worshipped the Beast" (Revelation 13:3-4). [22] The lamb-like Beast of Revelation 13:11, called the False Prophet in Revelation 19:20. The language of 13:3, 12, suggests that there will be some impious travesty of the resurrection of our Lord. [23] "The Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, but the Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire, a still small voice" (1 Kings 19:11-12). [24] In the persecutions under Pagan Rome, death was often the penalty for refusing to worship Caesar’s image; but Revelation 13:15 clearly points to some mysterious death which shall result in the very presence of the image of the future Caesar. The same power which will enable the False Prophet to give life to the image, will destroy the life of him who refuses to worship it. [25] In one of the darkest hours of their history, when the continued persecution of the Jews threatened the race with utter extinction, Barcochab proclaimed himself the Messiah, and led them in a revolt against the Romans, which ended in a carnage of the ill-fated people more horrible than any which had preceded it (A. D. 130-132). The man seems to have been a contemptible impostor who duped the people by juggler’s tricks, such as blowing fire from his mouth; and yet he attained to such an eminence, and brought about disasters so terrible, that some have sought to find in his career the fulfillment of the prophecies of Antichrist. [26] See App. 2., Note D. [27] I say nations, not kingdoms, advisedly, for though they will ultimately be kingdoms, i. e., under monarchical government, yet before the advent of the Kaiser such may not be the case. That this division of the Roman earth will take place before his appearance is expressly stated; but whether a year, a decade, or a century before, we are not informed. [28] Alford, Gr. Test. Proleg. 2 Thessalonians, § 36. [29] The passage (Daniel 7:2-14) is quoted in full ante. The distinctions above noticed clear up the seeming inconsistency between Daniel’s visions and the Revelation alluded to ante. [30] ho anomos … ou estin ha parousia kat energeian tou Satana en pasa dunamei, kai sameiois, kai tepasi pseudous (2 Thessalonians 2:8-9). [31] The Astronomer Royal (Sir G. B. Airy) used these words in a lecture delivered at the Royal Institution, 4th July, 1853, upon the total solar eclipses of 1842 and 1851: "The phenomenon, in fact, is one of the most terrible that man can witness, and no degree of partial eclipses gives any idea of its horror." [32] "The sun shall be turned into darkness... before the great and the terrible day of the Lord come" (Joel 2:31). [33] Revelation 21:3. The order of these events is noticed, ante. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 38: 1.03.17. APPENDIX 2. MISCELLANEOUS: WHO AND WHEN ======================================================================== APPENDIX 2. MISCELLANEOUS: WHO AND WHEN NOTE A ARTAXERXES LONGIMANUS AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF HIS REIGN So thorough is the unanimity with which the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah is now admitted to be Longimanus, that it is no longer necessary to offer proof of it. Josephus indeed attributes these events to Xerxes, but his history of the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes is so hopelessly in error as to be utterly worthless. In fact he transposes the events of these respective reigns (see, Ant. 11., caps 5: and 7.) Nehemiah’s master reigned not less than thirty-two years (Nehemiah 13:6); and his reign was subsequent to that of Darius Hystaspes (comp. Ezra 6:1; Ezra 7:1), and prior to that of Darius Nothus (Nehemiah 12:22). He must, therefore, be either Longimanus or Mnemon, for no other king after Darius Hystaspes reigned thirty-two years, and it is certain Nehemiah’s mission was not so late as the twentieth of Artaxerxes Mnemon, viz., B.C. 385. This appears, first, from the general tenor of the history; second, because this date is later than that of Malachi, whose prophecy must have been considerably later than the time of Nehemiah; and third, because Eliashib, who was high priest when Nehemiah came to Jerusalem, was grandson of Jeshua, who was high priest in the first year of Cyrus (Nehemiah 3:1; Nehemiah 12:10; Ezra 2:2; Ezra 3:2); and from the first year of Cyrus (B.C. 536), to the twentieth of Artaxerxes Longimanus (B.C. 445), was ninety-one years, leaving room for precisely three generations. [1] Moreover, the eleventh chapter of Daniel, if read aright, affords conclusive proof that the prophetic era dated from the time of Longimanus. The second verse is generally interpreted as though it were but a disconnected fragment of history, leaving a gap of over 130 years between it and the third verse, whereas the chapter is a consecutive prediction of events within the period of the seventy weeks. There were to be yet (i.e., after the issuing of the decree to build Jerusalem) "three kings in Persia." These were Darius Nothus (mentioned in Nehemiah 12:22), Artaxerxes Mnemon, and Ochus; the brief reigns of Xerxes II., Sogdianus, and Arogus being overlooked as being, what in fact they were, utterly unimportant. and indeed two of them are omitted in the Canon of Ptolemy. "The fourth" (and last) king was Darius Codomanus, whose fabulous wealth – the accumulated horde of two centuries – attracted the cupidity of the Greeks. What sums of money Alexander found in Susa is unknown, but the silver ingots and Hermione purple he seized after the battle of Arbela were worth over [2] £ 20, 000, 000. Verse 2 thus reaches to the close of the Persian Empire; verse 3 predicts the rise of Alexander the Great; and verse 4 refers to the division of his kingdom among his four generals. According to Clinton (F. H., vol. 2., p. 380) the death of Xerxes was in July B.C. 465, and the accession of Artaxerxes was in February B.C. 464. Artaxerxes of course ignored the usurper’s reign, which intervened, and reckoned his own reign from the day of his father’s death. Again, of course, Nehemiah, being an officer of the court, followed the same reckoning. Had he computed his master’s reign from February 464, Chisleu and Nisan could not have fallen in the same regnal year (Nehemiah 1:1; Nehemiah 2:1). No more could they, had be, according to the Jewish practice, computed it from Nisan. Dr. Pusey here remarks, [3] "The accession of Artaxerxes after the seven months of the assassin Artabanus would fall in the middle of 464. For it is clear from the sequel of the months in Nehemiah 1:2., and Ezra 7:7-9, that Chisleu fell earlier in the year of his reign than Nisan, and Nisan than Ab. Then the reign of Artaxerxes must have begun between Ab and Chisleu B.C. 464." This is altogether a mistake. As already mentioned, Chisleu and Nisan fell in the same regnal year; and so also did Nisan and the first day of Ab (Ezra 7:8-9). But the 1st Ab of B.C. 459 (the seventh year of Artaxerxes) fell on or about the 16th July, and therefore the passages quoted are perfectly consistent with the received chronology, and serve merely to enable us to fix the dates more accurately still, and to decide that the death of Xerxes and the epoch of the reign of Artaxerxes should be assigned to the latter part of July B.C. 465. Those who are not versed in what writers on prophecy have written on this subject, will be surprised to learn that this date is assailed as being nine years too late. All chronologers are agreed that Xerxes began to reign in B.C. 485, and that the death of Artaxerxes was in B.C. 423; and so far as I know, no writer of repute, unbiased by prophetic study, assigns as the epoch of the latter king’s reign any other date than B.C. 465 [4] (or 464; see ante). This is the date according to the Canon of Ptolemy, which has been followed by all historians; and it is confirmed by the independent testimony of Julius Africanus, who, in his Chronagraphy, [5] describes the twentieth year of Artaxerxes as the 115th year of the Persian Empire [reckoned from Cyrus, B.C. 559] and the fourth year of the eighty-third Olympiad. This fixes B.C. 464 as the first year of that king, as it was in fact the year of his actual accession. It was Archbishop Ussher who first raised a doubt upon the point. Lecturing on "Daniel’s Seventies" [6] in Trinity College, Dublin, in the year 1613, difficulties connected with his subject suggested an inquiry which led him ultimately to put back the reign of Longimanus to B.C. 474, which is the date given in his Annales Vet. Test. The same date was afterwards adopted by Vitringa, and a century later by Kruger. But Hengstenberg is regarded as the champion of this view, and the treatise thereon in his Chronology [7] omits nothing that can be urged in its favor. The objections raised to the received chronology depend mainly on the statement of Thucydides, that Artaxerxes was on the throne when Themistocles reached the Persian Court; for it is urged that the flight of Themistocles could not have been so late as B.C. 464. [8] But, as Dr. Pusey remarks, t "they have not made any impression on our English writers who have treated of Grecian history." [9] In common with the German writers, Dr. Pusey ignores Ussher altogether in the controversy, though Dr. Tregelles [10] . rightly claims for him the foremost place for scholarship among those who have advocated the earlier date. The apparent difficulty of making the prophecy and the chronology agree has led Dr. Pusey, following Prideaux, in opposition to Scripture, to fix the seventh year of Artaxerxes as the epoch of the seventy weeks, while it induced Dr. Tregelles [11] sheltering behind Ussher’s name, to adopt the B.C. 455 date for the twentieth year of that king’s reign. Bishop Lloyd when affixing Ussher’s dates to our English Bible reverted to the received chronology when dealing with the book of Nehemiah. It is unnecessary to enter here upon a discussion of this question. Nothing short of a reproduction of the entire argument in favor of the new chronology would satisfy its advocates; and for my present purpose it is a sufficient answer to that argument, that although everything has been urged which ingenuity and erudition can suggest in support of it, it has been rejected by all secular writers. Unfulfilled prophecy is only for the believer, but prophecy fulfilled has a voice for all. It is fortunate, therefore, that the proof of the fulfillment of this prophecy of the seventy weeks does not depend on an elaborate disquisition, like that of Hengstenberg’s, to disturb the received chronologies. One point only I will notice. It is urged in favor of limiting the reign of Xerxes to eleven years, that no event is mentioned in connection with his reign after his eleventh year. The answer is obvious: first, that it is to Greek historians, writing after his time, that we are mainly indebted for our knowledge of Persian history; and secondly, the battles of Thermopylae and Salamis may well have induced a king of the temperament and character of Xerxes to give himself up to a life of indolent ease and sensual enjoyment. But further, the twelfth year of Xerxes is expressly mentioned in the book of Esther (3:7), and the narrative proves that his reign continued to the twelfth (Jewish) month of his thirteenth year. [12] Hengstenberg answers this by asserting that it was customary with Hebrew writers to include in a regnal era the years of a co-regency where it existed, and he appeals to the case of Nebuchadnezzar as a proof of such a custom. [13] If Nebuchadnezzar’s reign was in fact reckoned thus, this solitary instance would establish no such custom, for it would prove nothing more than that the Jews in Jerusalem, knowing nothing of the politics or customs of Babylon, reckoned Nebuchadnezzar’s reign upon a system of their own. But I believe this theory about Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is a thorough blunder. If in the sacred history he is called King of Babylon, in connection with his first invasion of Judea, it is because the writers were his contemporaries. "Lord Beaconsfield was Chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord Derby’s administrations" is a statement which will be rightly condemned as an anachronism if made by the historian of the future, but it is precisely the language which would have been used by a contemporary writer acquainted with the living statesman. I have shown elsewhere (App. 1., ante) that the Jews reckoned Nebuchadnezzar’s reign according to their own custom, as dating from the Nisan preceding his accession. Unless, therefore, some entirely new case can be made in support of the co-regency theory of Xerxes’s reign, it remains that the book of Esther is absolutely conclusive against Ussher’s date, and in favor of the received chronology. NOTE B DATE OF THE NATIVITY IN treating of the date of the birth of our Lord, the arguments in favor of an earlier date than that which is here adopted are too well known to be left unnoticed. Dr. Farrar states the question thus in his Life of Christ (Excursus 1.):-- "Our one most certain datum is obtained from the tact that Christ was born before the death of Herod the Great. The date of that event is known with absolute certainty, for (2) Josephus tells us that he died thirty-seven years after he had been declared king by the Romans. Now it is known that he was declared King A. U. C. 714; and, therefore, since Josephus always reckons his years from Nisan to Nisan, and counts the initial and terminal fractions of Nisan as complete years, Herod must have died between Nisan A. U. C. 750 and Nisan A. U. C. 751, i.e., between B.C. 4 and B.C. 3 of our era. (2.) Josephus says that on the night in which Herod ordered Judas, Matthias, and their abettors to be burnt, there was an eclipse of the moon. Now this eclipse took place on the night of March 12th, B.C. 4, and Herod was dead at least seven days before the Passover, which, if we accept the Jewish reckoning, fell in that year on April 12th. But according to the clear indication of the Gospels, Jesus must have been born at least forty days before Herod’s death. It is clear, therefore, that under no circumstances can the nativity have taken place later than February B.C. 4." [14] This passage is a typical illustration of the relative value attached to the statements of sacred and profane historians. In the histories of Josephus an incidental mention of an eclipse or of the length of a king’s reign suffices to give "absolute certainty," before which the clearest and most definite statements of Holy Writ must give place, albeit they relate to matters of such transcendent interest to the writers that even if the Evangelists be dismissed to the category of mere historians, no mistake was possible. The following is a more temperate statement of the question, by the Archbishop of York, in an article (Jesus Christ) contributed to Smith’s Bible Dictionary. – "Herod the Great died, according to Josephus, in the thirty-seventh year after he was appointed king. His elevation coincides with the consulship of Cn Domitius Calvinus and C. Asinius Pollio, and this determines the date A. U. C. 714. There is reason to think that in such calculations Josephus reckons the years from the month Nisan to the same month, and also that the death of Herod took place in the beginning of the thirty-seventh year, or just before the Passover; if then thirty-six complete years are added, they give the year of Herod’s death, A. U. C. 750." According to this, the commonly received view, Herod’s death took place within the first six days of a Jewish year, and these days are reckoned as a complete year in his regnal era. Now it is admitted that in computing time the Jews generally included both the terminal units of a given period. A signal and well-known instance of this is afforded by the words of the Lord Himself, when He declared He would lie in death for three days and nights. What meaning did these words convey to Jews? Four-and-twenty hours after His burial they came to Pilate and said, "We remember that that deceiver said, while He was yet alive, ’After three days I will rise again;’ command, therefore, that the sepulcher be made sure until the third day." [15] Had that Sunday passed leaving the seal upon the tomb unbroken, the Pharisees would boldly have proclaimed their triumph; whereas, by our modes of reckoning, the resurrection ought to have been deferred till Monday night, or Tuesday morning. [16] Again, it may be assumed that Herod’s accession dated in fact from B.C. 40, and, therefore, that B.C. 4 was the thirty-seventh and last year of his reign. Further it is probable he died shortly before a Passover. The question remains whether his death occurred at the beginning or toward the close of the Jewish year. Josephus relates that when the event took place Archelaus remained in seclusion during seven days, and then presented himself publicly to the people. His first reception was not unfavorable, though he had to yield to many a popular demand then pressed on him; and after the ceremonial, he "went and offered sacrifice to God, and then betook himself to feast with his friends." Soon, however, discontent and disaffection began to smolder and spread, and fresh demands were made upon the king. To these again he yielded, though with less grace, instructing his general to remonstrate with the people, and persuade them to defer their petitions till his return from Rome. These appeals only increased the prevailing dissatisfaction, and a riot ensued. The king still continued to parley with the seditious, but, "upon the approach of the feast of unleavened bread," when the capital became thronged with the Jews from the country, the state of things became so alarming that Archelaus determined; to suppress the rioters by force of arms. This was "upon the approach of the feast," and the Jews considered the Passover was "nigh at hand" upon the eighth day of Nisan, when they repaired to Jerusalem for the festival. [17] The Passover began the 14th Nisan. This final riot took place during the preceding week. The earlier riot occurred before that again, £e., before the date of the incursion of Jews for the festival, the 8th Nisan. This again was preceded by some interval, measured from the day following the court mourning for Herod, which had lasted seven days. The history, therefore, establishes conclusively that Herod’s death was more than fourteen days before the Passover, and therefore at the close and not at the beginning of a Jewish year. But which year? His death must have been after the eclipse of 13th March, B.C. 4 [18] But the eclipse was only a month before the Passover of that year, and his death was fourteen days at least before the Passover, could then the events recorded by Josephus as occurring in the interval between the eclipse and the king’s death have taken place in a fortnight? Let the reader turn to the Antiquities and judge for himself whether it be possible. The natural inference from the history is that the death was not weeks but months after the eclipse, and therefore, again, at the close of the year. The correctness of this conclusion can be established by the application of the strictest of all tests, that of referring to the historian’s chronological statements. In his Wars (2:7, 3), Josephus assigns the banishment of Archelaus to the ninth year of his government; in his later work (Ant., 17, 13, 3), he states it was in his tenth year. And these dates are given with a definiteness and in a manner which preclude the idea of a blunder. They are connected with the narration of a dream in which Archelaus saw a number of ears of corn (nine in the Wars, ten in the Antiquities), devoured by oxen, – presaging that the years of his rule were about to be brought abruptly to an end. Now whether a ruler be Christian, Jew, or Turk, his ninth year is the year beginning with the eighth anniversary of his government, and his tenth year that beginning with the ninth anniversary; and it is mere casuistry to pretend that there is either mystery or difficulty in the matter. It is evident that the difference between the two statements of the historian is intentional, and that in his two histories he computed the Ethnarch’s government from two different epochs. But if Herod died in the first week of the Jewish year, as these writers maintain, this would be impossible, for Archelaus’s actual accession would have synchronized with his accession according to Jewish reckoning. Whereas if his government dated from the close of a Jewish year, A.D. 6 [19] would be his ninth year in fact, but his tenth year according to Mishna rule of computing reigns from Nisan. In numerous treatises on this subject will be found an argument based on John 2:20, "Forty and six years was this temple in building." According to Josephus (it is urged), "Herod’s reconstruction of the temple began in the eighteenth year of his reign," [20] and forty-six years from that date would fix A.D. 26 as the year in which these words were spoken, and therefore as the first year of our Lord’s ministry. That writers of repute should have written thus may be described as a literary phenomenon. Not only does Josephus not say what is thus attributed to him, but his narrative disproves it. The foundation for the statement is that either in his eighteenth or nineteenth year [21] Herod made a speech proposing to rebuild the temple. But the historian adds, that finding his intentions and promises thoroughly distrusted by the people, "the king encouraged them, and told them he would not pull down their temple till all things were gotten ready for building it up entirely again. And as he promised them this beforehand, so he did not break his word with them, but got ready a thousand wagons, that were to bring stones for the building, and chose out ten thousand of the most skillful workmen, and bought a thousand sacerdotal garments for the priests, and had some of them taught the art of stone-cutters, and others of carpenters, and then began to build; but this was not till everything was well prepared for the work." [22] What length of time these preparations occupied, it is of course impossible to decide, but if, as Lewin supposes, the work was begun at the Passover of B.C. 18, then forty-six years would bring us exactly to A.D. 29 – the first Passover of the Lord’s ministry. NOTE C CONTINUOUS HISTORICAL SYSTEM OF PROPHETIC INTERPRETATION THE historical interpreters of prophecy have grasped a principle the importance of which is abundantly proved by the striking parallelisms between the visions of the Apocalypse and the events of the history of Christendom. But not content with this, they have on the one hand brought discredit on prophetic study by wild and arrogant predictions about the end of the world, and on the other, they have reduced their principle of interpretation to a system, and then degraded it to a hobby. The result is fortunate in this respect, that the evil cannot fail to cure itself, and the time cannot be far distant when the "continuous historical interpretation," in the form and manner in which its champions have propounded it, will be regarded as a vagary of the past. The events of the first half of the present century produced on the minds of Christians such an impression in its favor, that it bid fair to gain general acceptance. But the late Mr. Elliott’s great work has thoroughly exposed its weaknesses. A perusal of the first five chapters of the Horae Apocalypticae cannot fail to impress the reader with a sense of the genuineness and importance of the writer’s scheme, nor will he fail to appreciate the erudition displayed, and the sobriety with which it is used. But when he passes from the commentary upon the first five seals, to the account of the sixth seal, he must experience a revulsion of feeling which will be strong just in proportion to his apprehension of the trueness and solemnity of Holy Writ. Let any one read the last six verses of the sixth chapter of Revelation, a passage the awful solemnity of which has scarcely a parallel in Scripture, and with what feelings will he turn to Mr. Elliott’s book to find that the words are nothing more than a prediction of the downfall of paganism in the fourth century! The words of the Apocalyptic vision in relation to the great day of Divine wrath (Revelation 6:17), are the language of Isaiah (13:9, 10) respecting "the day of the Lord," and again of Joel’s prophecy (Joel 2:1; Joel 2:30-31, quoted by St. Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:16-20). Nor is this all. The twenty-fourth chapter of St. Matthew is a Divine commentary upon the visions of the sixth chapter of Revelation, and each of the seals has its counterpart in the Lord’s predictions of events preceding His second advent:, ending with the mention of these same terrible convulsions of nature here described. Therefore, even if the mind be "educated" up to the point of accepting such an interpretation of the vision of the sixth seal, these other Scriptures remain to be accounted for. Many other points in Mr. Elliott’s scheme might be cited as equally faulty. Take for example the labored essay on the subject of the two witnesses, culminating in the amazing and-climax that their ascent to heaven (Revelation 11:12) was fulfilled when Protestants obtained "an advancement to political dignity and power." (Horae. Ap., 2., 410). Still more wild and reckless is his exposition of Revelation 12:5. "It seems clear" (he says) "that whatever the woman’s hope in her travail, the lesser consummation was the one figured in the man child’s birth and assumption, viz., the elevation of the Christians, first to recognition as a body politic, then very quickly to the supremacy of the throne in the Roman Empire" (vol. 3., 12). The reference to Wilberforce in connection with Revelation 15:1-8 : is almost grotesque (vol. 3., 430). And finally he drifts upon the rock on which every man who follows this false system must inevitably be wrecked – the chronology of prophecy: proving by cumulative evidence that the year 1865 would usher in the millennium, or if not 1865, then 1877 or 1882 (vol. 3., 256-266). "An apocalyptic commentary which explains everything is self-convicted of error." This dictum of Dan. Alford’s (Gr. Test.. Revelation 11:2) applies with full force to Mr. Elliott’s book. Maintaining as he does that these visions have received their absolute and final fulfillment, he is bound to explain everything;" and as the result these lucubrations mar a work which if recast by some intelligent student of prophecy would be of the highest value. In days like these, when we have to contend for the very words of Scripture, we cannot afford to dismiss them as harmless puerilities. They have given an impetus to the skepticism of the age, and have encouraged Christian men to treat the most solemn warnings of coming wrath as mere stage thunder. Mr. Elliott’s mantle appears now to have fallen upon the author of the Approaching End of t/re Age. Mr. Grattan Guinness’s treatise upon lunisolar cycles and epacts will be deemed by many the most interesting and valuable portion of the work. The study of it has confirmed an impression I have long entertained, that in some mystic interpretation of the prophetic periods of Daniel, the chronology of Gentile supremacy and of the Christian dispensation lies concealed. Professor Birks, however, justly remarks, that it is "very doubtful whether much of the specialty on which Mr. Guinness founds this part of his theory is not due to a partial selection unconsciously made of some epact numbers out of many, and that the special relations of the epacts to the Numbers 6:1-27; Numbers 7:1-89; Numbers 8:1-26; Numbers 13:1-33, would probably disappear on a comprehensive examination of all the epact numbers" (Thoughts on Sacred Prophecy, p. 64). It might also be remarked that with the latitude obtained by reckoning sometimes in lunar years, sometimes in lunisolar years, and sometimes in ordinary Julian years, the list of seeming chronological coincidences and parallelisms might be still further increased. The period from the Council of Nice (A.D. 325) to the death of Gregory XIII. (1585) was 1, 260 years. From the edict of Justinian (533) to the French Revolution was 1, 260 years; and again from A.D. 606, when the Emperor Phocas conferred the title of Pope on Boniface III., to the overthrow of the temporal power (1866-1870), was also 1, 260 years. If these facts prove anything, they prove, not that the periods mentioned are the fulfillment of Daniel’s visions, for Daniel’s visions relate to the history of Judah, with which these events have nothing to do, but that the chronology of such events is marked by cycles composed of multiples of seventy. Therefore, they greatly strengthen the a priori presumption that this is a general characteristic of "the tithes and seasons" as divinely planned, and that the visions will, hereafter, be literally fulfilled. In a word, such proofs prove far too much for the cause they are intended to support. I have already noticed the transparent fallacy of sup posing that the ten-horned beast and the Babylon of the Apocalypse can both be typical of Rome (p. 134, ante). In the, Approaching End of the Age this fallacy is accepted apparently without suspicion or misgiving, for the writer neither adopts nor improves upon the pleasing romance by which Mr. Elliott attempts to conceal the absurdity of such a view. As the Harlot comes to her doom by the agency of the Beast, it is absolutely certain that they are not identical; and every proof these writers urge to establish that the Church of Rome is Babylon, is equally conclusive to prove that the Papacy is not the Beast, the Man of Sin. Their whole system is like a house of cards which falls to pieces the moment it is tried. As such books are read by many who are unversed in history it may be well to repeat once more, that the division of the Roman earth into ten kingdoms has never yet taken place. That it has been partitioned is plain matter of history and of fact’ that it has ever been divided into ten is a mere conceit of writers of this school. [23] Of Daniel 9:24-27 Mr. Guinness writes, "From the then approaching command to restore and to build again Jerusalem, to the coming of Messiah the Prince, was to be seventy weeks" (p. 417). This is a typical instance of the looseness of the historical school in dealing with Scripture. The words of the prophecy are, "From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks." [24] As this error underlies his entire exposition of the prophecy which forms the special subject of these pages, it is needless to discuss it. He follows Prideaux in computing the weeks from the seventh year of Artaxerxes. Again, in common with almost all commentators he confounds the seventy years of Judah’s servitude with the seventy years of the desolations of Jerusalem. The prophecy he quotes from Jeremiah 25:1-38 (p. 414) was given in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, whereas the servitude began in his third year; and it foretold a judgment which fell seventeen years; later It would seem ungracious to notice’. minor inaccuracies, such as that of confounding Belshazzar with Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon. Such a book is useful in so far as it deals positively with the historical fulfillment as a primary and partial realization of the prophecies; and as a full and fearless indictment of the Church of Rome it is most valuable. But in the dogmatic negation of a literal fulfillment, in the blind and obstinate determination to establish, no matter at what cost to Scripture, that the Apocalypse has been "FULFILLED in the events of the Christian era," such a work cannot fail to be dangerous and mischievous. The real question at issue here is the character and value of the Bible. If the views of these writers be just, the language of Holy Writ in such passages as the close of the sixth chapter of Revelation is the most utter bombast. And if wild exaggeration characterize one portion of the Scriptures, what confidence can we have in any part? If the Great Day of Divine wrath, described in terms of unsurpassed solemnity, were nothing but a brief crisis in the history of a campaign now long past, the words which tell of the joy of the blessed and the doom of the impenitent may after all be mere hyperbole, and the Christian’s faith may be mere credulity. NOTE D THE TEN KINGDOMS "PROPHECY is not given to enable us to prophesy," and no one who has worthily pursued the study will fail to feel misgivings at venturing out upon the tempting field of forecasting "things to come." By patient contemplation we may clearly discern the main outlines of the landscape of the future; but "until the day dawn," our apprehension of distances and details must be inadequate, if not wholly false. The great facts of the future, so plainly revealed in Scripture, have been touched on in preceding pages. For what follows here no deference is claimed save what may be accorded to a "pious opinion" based on earnest and careful inquiry. Next to the restoration of the Jews, the most prominent political feature of the future, according to Scripture, is the tenfold partition of the Roman earth. The emphasis and definiteness with which ten kingdoms are specified, not only in Daniel, but in the Revelation, forbid our interpreting the words as describing merely a division of power such as has existed ever since the disruption of the Roman Empire, though this is undoubtedly a feature of the prophecy. Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome in turn sought to grasp universal dominion. That there should be a commonwealth of nations living side by side at peace, was a conception that nothing in the history of the world could have suggested. The principal clew which Scripture affords upon the subject is the connection between these kingdoms and the Roman Empire. [25] But some latitude must probably be allowed as to boundaries, otherwise we should have to choose between two equally improbable alternatives, namely, either that our own nation shall have sunk to the position of a province, not even Ireland remaining under her sway, [26] or else that the England which is to be numbered among the ten kingdoms will include the vast empire of which this island is the heart and center. May we not indulge the hope that however far our nation may lapse in evil days to come from the high place which, with all her faults, she has held as the champion of freedom and of truth, she will be saved from the degradation of participating in the vile confederacy of the latter days? These considerations as to boundaries apply also to Germany, though in a lower degree; and Russia is clearly out of the reckoning altogether. The special interest and importance of these conclusions depend upon the fact that the antichrist is to be at first a patron and supporter of the religious apostasy of Christendom, and that England, Germany, and Russia are precisely the three first-rate Powers who are outside the pale of Rome. But there is no doubt that Egypt, Turkey, and Greece will be numbered among the ten kingdoms; [27] and is it not improbable in the extreme that these nations will ever accept the leadership of a man who is to appear as the champion and patron of the Latin Church? A striking solution of this difficulty will probably be found in the definite prediction, that while the ten kingdoms will ultimately own his suzerainty, three of the ten will be brought into subjection by force of arms (Daniel 7:24.) Turning again to the West, the names of France, Austria, Italy, and Spain present themselves; and seven of the kingdoms are thus accounted for. Can the list be completed? Belgium, Switzerland, and Portugal remain, and these too would claim a place were we dealing with the Europe of today; but as it is the future we are treating of, any attempt to press the matter further seems futile. It has been confidently urged by some that as the ten kingdoms were symbolized by the ten toes of Nebuchadnezzar’s image, – five on either foot, – five of these kingdoms must be developed in the East, and five in the West. The argument is plausible, and possibly just; but its chief force depends upon forgetting that in the prophet’s view the Levant and not the Adriatic, Jerusalem and not Rome, is the center of the world. To the scheme here indicated the objection may naturally be raised: Is it possible that the most powerful nations of the world, England, Germany, and Russia, are to have no part in the great drama of the last days? But it must be remembered, first, that the relative importance of the great Powers may be different at the time when these events shall be fulfilled, and secondly, that difficulties of this kind may depend entirely on the silence of Scripture, or, in other words, on our own ignorance. I feel bound to notice, however, that doubts which have been raised in my mind regarding the soundness of the received interpretation of the seventh chapter of Daniel point to a more satisfactory answer to the difficulties in question. As the vision of the second chapter specifies the four empires which were successively to rule the world, and as the seventh chapter also enumerates four "kingdoms," and expressly identifies the fourth of these with the fourth - kingdom of the earlier vision, the inference appears legitimate that the scope of both visions is the same throughout. And this conclusion is apparently confirmed by some of the details afforded of the kingdoms typified by the lion, the bear, and the leopard. So strong indeed is the prima facie case in support of this view, that I have not felt at liberty to depart from it in the foregoing pages. At the same time I am constrained to own that this case is less complete than it appears to be, and that grave difficulties arise in connection with it; and the following observations are put forward tentatively to promote inquiry in the matter:-- 1st. Daniel 2:1-49; Daniel 7:1-28 are both in the Chaldee portion of the Book, and are therefore bracketed together, and separated from what follows. This strengthens the presumption, therefore, which would obtain in any case, that the later vision is not a repetition of the earlier one. Repetition is very rare in Scripture. 2nd. The date of the vision of the seventh chapter was the first year of Belshazzar, and therefore only some two or three years before the fall of the Babylonian empire. [28] How then could the rise of that empire be the subject of the prophecy? Verse 17 appears definite that the rise of all these kingdoms was future. 3rd. In the history of Babylonia there is nothing to correspond with the predicted course of the first Beast, for it is scarcely legitimate to suppose that the vision was a prophecy of the career of Nebuchadnezzar, whose death had taken place upwards of twenty years before the vision was given. Moreover, the transition from the lion with eagle’s wings to the human condition, though it may betoken decline in power, plainly typifies a signal rise morally and intellectually. 4th. Neither is there in the history of Persia anything answering to the bear-like beast with that precision and fullness which prophecy demands. The language of the English version suggests a reference to Persia and Media; but the true rendering appears to be: "It made for itself one dominion," [29] instead of" It raised up itself on one side." 5th. While the symbolism of the sixth verse seems at first sight to point definitely to the Grecian Empire, it will appear upon a closer examination that at its advent the leopard had four wings and four heads. This was its primary and normal condition, and it was in this condition that "dominion was given to it." This surely is very different from what Daniel 8:8 describes, and what the history of Alexander’s Empire realized, viz., the rise of a single power, which in its decadence continued to exist in a divided state. 6th. Each of the three first empires of the second chapter (Babylon, Persia, and Greece) was in turn destroyed and engulfed by its successor; but the kingdoms of the seventh chapter all continued together upon the scene, though "the dominion," was with the fourth (Daniel 7:12). Verse 3 seems to imply that the four beasts came up together, and at all events there is nothing to suggest a series of empires, each destroying its predecessor, though the symbolism of the vision was (in contrast with that of chap. 2.) admirably adapted to represent this. Compare the language of the next vision (Daniel 8:3-6). 7th. While the fourth beast is unquestionably Rome, the language of the seventh and twenty-third verses leaves no doubt that it is the Roman Empire in its revived and future phase. Without endorsing the views of Maitland, Browne, etc., it must be owned that there was nothing in the history of ancient Rome to correspond with the main characteristic of this beast unless the symbolism used is to be very loosely interpreted. To "devour the earth," "tread it down and break it in pieces," is fairly descriptive of other empires, but Ancient Rome was precisely the one power which added government to conquest, and instead of treading down and breaking in pieces the nations it subdued, sought rather to mold them to its own civilization and polity. All this – and more might be added [30] – suggests that the entire vision of the seventh chapter may have a future reference. We have already seen that sovereign power is to be with a confederacy of ten nations ultimately heading up in one great Kaiser, and that several of what are now the first-rate Powers are to be outside that confederacy: it is in the last degree improbable, therefore, that such a supremacy will be attained save after a tremendous struggle. At this moment the international politics of the old world center in the Eastern Question, which is after all merely a question of the balance of power in the Mediterranean. Now Daniel 7:2 expressly names the Mediterranean ("the Great Sea") as the scene of the conflict between the four beasts. May not the opening portion of the vision then refer to the gigantic struggle which must come some day for supremacy in the Mediterranean, which will doubtless carry with it the sovereignty of the world? The lion may possibly typify England, whose vast naval power may be symbolized by the eagle’s wings. The plucking of the wings may represent the loss of her position as mistress of the seas. And if such should be the result of the impending struggle, we would be eager to believe that her after course shall be characterized by moral and mental pre-eminence: the beast, we read, was "made to stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it." If the British lion have a place in the vision, the Muscovite bear can scarcely be omitted; and it may confidently be averred that the bear of the prophecy may represent the Russia of today fully as well as the Persia of Cyrus and Darius. The definiteness of the symbolism used in respect of the leopard (or panther) of the vision makes it more difficult to refer this portion of the prophecy to Germany or any oilier nation in particular. It would be easy to make out an ad captandum case in support of such a view, but it may suffice to remark that if the prophecy be still unfulfilled, its meaning will be incontestable when the time arrives. CHRONOLOGICAL DIAGRAM OF THE HISTORY OF JUDAH Anderson’s "Chronological Diagram of the History of Judah" is a panoramic view of both history and prophecy in relation to Daniel’s people (Judah) and city (Jerusalem), i.e., "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy" (Daniel 9:24). Anderson chronologically integrates secular history, Jewish history, the history of Jerusalem and the Temple, Daniel’s vision of the "great image" (2:31), and the ministry of the prophets, with a view toward the consummation of God’s program of judgment during the Seventieth Week (9:27). Simply studying the diagram to catch Anderson’s meaning is enough to provoke greater understanding of a subject that even the "angels desire to look into" (1 Peter 1:12). FOOTNOTES [1] Encyc. Brit., 9th ed., title "Artaxerxes." [2] W. K. Loftus, "Chaldea and Susiana," p. 341. [3] Daniel, p. 160. [4] On this point I have consulted the author of The Five Great Monarchies, a book to which frequent reference is made in these pages, and I am indebted to Canon Rawlinson’s courtesy and kindness for the following reply: "I think you may safely say that chronologers are now agreed that Xerxes died in the year B. C. 465. The Canon of Ptolemy, Thucydides, Diodorus, and Manetho are agreed; the only counter authority being Ctesias, who is quite untrustworthy." [5] Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. 9., second part, p 184. [6] Works, vol. 15., p. 108. [7] Arnold’s trans., pp. 443-454. [7-2] Kruger’s arguments are reviewed by Clinton in F. H., 2., p. 217. [8] Daniel, p. 171, note. [9] See ex. gr. Mitford, 2., 226; Thirlwall, 2., 428; Grote, 5., 379; and of Germans see Niebuhr, Lect. Anc. Hist. (Schmitz ed.), 2., 180-181. [10] Daniel, p. 266. [11] Ibid. p. 99, note. [12] The Feast of Purim derives its name from the fact that when Haman planned the destruction of the people of Mordecai, he cast lots day by day to find "a lucky day "for the execution of his scheme. A whole year — the twelfth year of Xerxes — was thus consumed (Esther 3:7); and the decree for the slaughter of the Jews was made on the 13th Nisan in the following year (ibid. 3:12). The decree in their favor was granted two months later (ibid. 8:9), and the king is mentioned in connection with the execution of that decree in the twelfth month of that year (ibid. 9: l, 13-17). The reign of Xerxes therefore certainly continued to the last month of his thirteenth year. The last chapter of Esther, moreover, clearly shows that his reign did not end with the events recorded in the book, but that his promotion of Mordecai was the beginning of a new era in his career. [13] Christology (Arnold’s trans.), Ch. 737. [14] Dr. Farrar’s book has done much to popularize a controversy which hitherto has interested only the few. It may be well to notice, therefore, that his sweeping statement as to the date of Herod’s death is doubtful (see Clinton, Fasti Rom., A. D. 29), and that Josephus does not always reckon reigns in the manner indicated. [15] Matthew 27:63-64; comp. 2 Chronicles 10:5-12. "He said unto them, Come again unto me after three days…so Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day?" [16] Whether such a system of reckoning appears strange or natural depends on the habit of thought of the individual. A professor of theology might have trouble in defending it in class, but a prison chaplain would have no difficulty in explaining it to his congregation! Our own civil day is a nuchthameron, beginning at midnight, and the law takes no cognizance of a part of a day. Therefore in a sentence of three days’ imprisonment, the prescribed term is equal to seventy-two hours; but though the prisoner seldom reaches the gaol till evening, the law holds him to have completed a day’s imprisonment the moment midnight strikes, and the gaoler may lawfully release him the moment the prison is opened the second morning after. As a matter of fact a prisoner committed for three days is seldom more than forty hours in gaol. This mode of reckoning and speaking was as familiar to the Jew as it is to the habitues of our police courts. [17] "When the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus" (i. e., Nisan) (Jos., Wars, 6. 5, 3. Comp. John 11:55; John 12:1). "The Jews’ Passover was nigh at hand, and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves. Then Jesus six days before the Passover came to Bethany." [18] There was no lunar eclipse visible at Jerusalem between that of the 13th March B. C. 4 and that of 9th January B. C. 1. Many writers take the latter to be the eclipse of Herod, and assign his death to that year. That of B. C. 1 was a fine total eclipse, totality coming on at fifteen minutes past midnight, whereas that of B. C. 4 was but a partial eclipse, and the greatest magnitude was not till 2 h. 34 m. a. m. (Johnson, Eclipses Past and Future). But though every consideration of this character points to B. C. 1 as the (late of Herod’s death, the weight of evidence generally is in favor of B. C. 4. Of recent writers, the former year is adopted by Dr. Geikie (Life of Christ, 6th ed., p. 150), and notably by the late Mr. Bosanquet, who argues the question in his Messiah the Prince, and more concisely in a paper read before the Society of Biblical Archaeology on 6th June, 1871. [19] This is the year specified by Dion Cassius for the Ethnarch’s banishment. Clinton, F. H., A. D. 6. [20] Farrar, Life of Christ, App. Exc. 1. [21] It depends on the meaning of the word gegonotos in the passage, whether the eighteenth or nineteenth year be intended. The narrative, as a whole, points to the nineteenth year. Cf Lewin’s Fasti Sacri, pp. 56: and 92. [22] Josephus, Ant., 15. 11, 27. [23] See p. 39, ante. Elliott’s list of the ten kingdoms is the following: The Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Allmans, Burgundians, Visigoths, Suevi, Vandals, Ostrogoths, Bavarians, and Lombards. If any one can read the seventh chapter of Daniel and the thirteenth chapter of Revelation and accept such an interpretation, there is really no common ground on which to discuss the matter. [24] I deprecate the idea that my object is to review this or any other book. Were such my intention I could point out other similar errors. Exodus gr., in Pt. III., chap. l, the writer enumerates five points of identity between the Harlot and the Church of Rome, and of these five the two last are sheer blunders, viz., "The minister of the harlot makes fire to descend from heaven," "And the harlot requires all to receive her mark." (Comp. Revelation 13:13; Revelation 13:16) [25] "The ten horns out of this kingdom" (Daniel 7:24). [26] Ireland was entirely, and Scotland was in part, outside the territorial limits of the Roman Empire. [27] In Daniel 11:40, Egypt and Turkey (or the Power which shall then possess Asia Millor) are expressly mentioned by their prophetic titles as separate kingdoms at this very time. [28] See Chron. Table, App. 1, ante. [29] Tregelles, Daniel, p. 34. [30] The beasts of Daniel 7:1-28 are those named in Revelation 13:2, to represent the Antichrist. Though this admits of the explanation given, it may also be used a strong argument in favor of the view above set forth. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 39: 1.03.18. APPENDIX 3. A RETROSPECT AND A REPLY ======================================================================== APPENDIX 3. A RETROSPECT AND A REPLY "TAKE heed that no man deceive you." Such were the first words of our Lord’s reply to the inquiry, "What shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the age?" And the warning is needed still. "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons," was almost His last utterance on earth, before He was taken up. And if this knowledge was denied to His holy apostles and prophets, we may be sure it has not been disclosed to us today. Nor can a secret which, as the Lord declared, "the Father hath put in His own power," (Acts 1:7) be discovered by astronomical research or flights of higher mathematics. But, on the other hand, no thoughtful Christian can ignore the signs and portents which mark the days we live in. I little thought as I penned the introductory chapter of this book that the advance of infidelity would be with such terribly rapid strides. In the few brief years that have since elapsed the growth of skepticism within the Churches has exceeded even the gloomiest forecast. And side by side with this, again, the spread of spiritualism and demon-worship has been appalling. Its rotaries are reckoned by tens of thousands; and in America it has already been systematized into a religion, with a recognized creed and cult. But these dark features of our times, striking and solemn though they be, are not the most significant. While the warned-against apostasy of the last days thus seems to be drawing near, we are gladdened by signal triumphs of the Cross. It is not merely that at home and abroad the Gospel is being preached by such multitudes with a freedom never known before, but that, in a way unprecedented since the days of the Apostles, the Jews are coming to the faith of Christ. The fact is but little known that during the last few years more than a quarter of a million copies of the New Testament in Hebrew have been circulated among the Jews in Eastern Europe, and the result has been their conversion to Christianity, not by ones and twos, as in the past, but in large and increasing numbers. Entire communities in some places have, through reading the word of God, accepted the despised Nazarene as the true Messiah. This is wholly without parallel since Pentecostal times. Then again, the return of the Jews to Palestine is one of the strangest facts of the day. There is scarcely a country in the world that does not offer more attractions to the settler, be he agriculturist or trader; and yet, since The Coming Prince was written, more Jews have migrated to the land of their fathers than returned with Ezra when the decree of Cyrus brought the servitude to a close. But yesterday the prophecy that Jerusalem should be inhabited "as towns without walls" seemed to belong to a future far remote. The houses beyond the gates were few in number, and no one ventured abroad there after nightfall. Today the existence of a large and growing Jewish town outside the walls is a fact within the knowledge of every tourist, and year by year the immigration and the building still go on. If I venture to touch upon the international politics of Europe, it will be but briefly, in connection with the prophecy of the seventh chapter of Daniel. I have given in detail my reasons for suggesting that the "historical" interpretation of that vision does not exhaust its meaning, [1] and I own to a deepening conviction that every part of it awaits its fulfillment. There, as elsewhere in the Scriptures, "the great sea" must surely mean the Mediterranean; and a terrible struggle for supremacy in the Levant appears to be the burden of the earlier portion of the vision. The nearness of such a struggle is now being anxiously discussed in every capital in Europe, and nowhere more anxiously than here at home. Never indeed since the days of Pitt has there been such cause for national anxiety; and the question of the balance of power in the Mediterranean has recently gained a prominence and interest greater and more acute than ever before attached to it. I will not notice topics of a more doubtful character, but confine myself to these; nor will I attempt by word-painting to exaggerate their significance. But here we are face to face with great public facts. On the one hand, there is this spread of infidelity and demon-worship, preparing the way for the great infidel and devil-inspired apostasy of the last days; and, on the other hand, there are these spiritual and national movements among the Jews, wholly without precedent during all the eighteen centuries which have elapsed since their dispersion. And, finally, the Cabinets of Europe are watching anxiously for the beginning of a struggle such as prophecy warns us will ultimately herald the rise of the last great monarch of Christendom. Is all this to be ignored? Is there not here enough on which to base, I will not say the belief, but an earnest hope, that the end may be drawing near? If its nearness be presented as a hope, I cherish and rejoice in it; if it be urged as a dogma, or an article of faith, I utterly repudiate and condemn it. As we dwell on these things a double caution will be opportune. These events and movements are not in themselves the fulfillment of the prophecies, but merely indications on which to found the hope that the time for their fulfillment is approaching. Any who searched their Bibles amidst the strange, and startling, and solemn events of a century ago must surely have concluded that the crisis; was then at hand; and it may be that once more the tide: which now seems so rapidly advancing may again recede:. and generations of Christians now unborn may still be: waiting and watching upon earth. Who will dare to set a limit to the long-suffering of God? and this is His own explanation of His seeming "slackness." (2 Peter 3:9.) We need further to be warned against the error into which the Thessalonian Christians were betrayed. Their conversion was described as a turning from idols to serve the true God and "to wait for His Son from heaven." And the coming of the Lord was presented to them as a practical and present hope, to comfort and gladden them as they mourned their dead. (1 Thessalonians 1:9-10; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.) But when the Apostle passed on to speak of "the times and seasons" and "the day of Jehovah," (1 Thessalonians 5:1-3.) they misunderstood the teaching; and, supposing that the coming of the Lord was immediately connected with the day of Jehovah, they concluded that that awful day was breaking. On both points they were wholly wrong. In the Second Epistle the Apostle wrote, "Now we beseech you, brethren, in behalf of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him, to the end that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by epistle as from us [referring of course to the First Epistle], as that the day of the Lord is now present." [2] "The times and seasons" are connected with Israel’s hope and the events which will precede the realization of it. (Acts 1:6-7.) The Church’s hope is wholly independent of them. And if the Christians of the early days were taught to "live looking for that blessed hope," how much more may we! Not a line of prophecy must first be fulfilled; not a single event need intervene. And any system of interpretation-or of doctrine which clashes with this, and thus falsities the teaching of the Apostles of our Lord, stands thereby condemned. [3] Let us then beware lest we fall into the common error of exaggerating the importance of contemporary movements and events, great and solemn though they be; and let the Christian take heed lest the contemplation of these things should lead him to forget his heavenly citizenship and his heavenly hope. The realization of that hope will but clear the stage for the display of the last great drama of earth’s history as foretold in prophecy. If the digression may be pardoned, it may be well to amplify this, and explain’ my meaning more fully. That Israel will again be restored to the place of privilege and blessing upon earth is not a matter of opinion, but of faith; and no one who accepts the Scriptures as Divine can question it. Here the language of the Hebrew prophets is unusually explicit. Still more emphatic, by reason of the time when it was given, is the testimony of the Epistle to the Romans. The very position of that Epistle in the sacred Canon gives prominence to the fact that the Jew had then been set aside. The New Testament opens by chronicling the birth of Him who was Son of Abraham and Son of David, (Matthew 1:1.) the seed to whom the promises were made and the rightful Heir to the scepter once entrusted to Judah; and the Gospels record His death at the hands of the favored people. Following the Gospels comes the narrative of the renewed offer of mercy to that people, and of their rejection of it. "To the Jew first" is stamped upon every page of the Acts of the Apostles; and it characterized the transitional Pentecostal dispensation of which that book is the record. The Pentecostal Church was essentially Jewish. Not only were the Gentiles in a minority, but their position was one of comparative tutelage, as the record of the Council of Jerusalem gives proof. (Acts 15:1-41. See also chap. 11:19.) Even the Apostle of the Gentiles, in the whole course of his ministry, brought the Gospel first to the Jews. "It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you," he said to them at Antioch. (Acts 13:46; cf. Acts 17:2; Acts 18:4.) "The salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and they will hear it," was his final word to them at Rome when they rejected his testimony and "departed." (Acts 28:29.) And the next book of the Canon is addressed to believing Gentiles. But in that very Epistle the Gentiles are warned that "God has not cast away His people." Through unbelief the branches are broken off, but the root remains, and "God is able to graft them in again." "And so all Israel shall be saved, as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob." [4] . Judgment will in that day mingle with mercy, for He "whose fan is in His hand" will then gather His wheat into the garner, but burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. The true remnant of the covenant people will become the "all Israel" of days of future blessedness. That remnant was typified by the "men of Galilee" who stood around Him on the Mount of Olives as "He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight." And as with straining eyes they watched Him, two angel messengers appeared to renew the promise which God had given centuries before through Zechariah the prophet: "This same Jesus shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven"; (Acts 1:1-19.) "His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east." (Zechariah 14:4.) A glance at the prophecy will suffice to show that the event it speaks of is wholly different from the Coming of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. It is the same Lord Jesus, truly, who is coming for His Church of this dispensation and coming to His earthly people gathered in Jerusalem in a dispensation to follow; but otherwise these "Comings" have absolutely nothing in common. The later manifestation – His return to the Mount of Olives – is an event as definitely localized as was His ascension from that same Mount of Olives; and its purpose is declared to be to bring deliverance to His people on earth in the hour of their supreme peril. Tim earlier Coming will have no relation to locality at all. All the wide world over, wherever His dead have been laid to rest, "the trump of God" shall call them back to life, in "spiritual bodies" like His own; and wherever living "saints" are found, they "will be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye," and all shall be caught up together to meet Him in the air. While the profane skeptic ridicules all this, and the religious skeptic ignores it, the believer remembers that his Lord was thus caught up to heaven; and as he ponders the promise, his wonder leads to worship, not to unbelief. And this event, which is the Church’s proper hope, is as independent of the chronology, as it is of the geography, of earth. It is with the fulfillment of Irsrael’s hope that the "times and seasons" have to do, and the signs and portents that belong to them. The Lord’s public manifestation to the world is a further event distinct from both. Our Jehovah-God will come with all His holy ones; (Zechariah 14:5.) the Lord Jesus will be revealed in flaming fire, taking vengeance. [5] What interval of time will separate these successive stages of "the Second Advent," we cannot tell. It is a secret not revealed. All that concerns us is, "rightly dividing the word of truth," to mark that they are in all respects distinct. [6] I use the expression "Second Advent" merely as a concession to popular theology, for it has no Scriptural warrant. It would be better to discard it altogether, for it is the cause of much confusion of thought and not a little positive error. It is a purely theological term, and it belongs properly to the great and final Coming to judge the world. But while many refuse to believe that there will be any revelation of Christ to His people upon earth until the epoch of that great crisis, the more careful student of Scripture finds there the clearest proof that there will be a "Coming" before the era popularly called "the millennium." Here again there are those who, while clearly recognizing a "pre-millennial advent," have failed to notice the difference, so plainly marked in Scripture, between the Coming for the Church of the present dispensation, the Coming to the earthly people in Jerusalem, and the Coming to destroy the Lawless One and to set up the kingdom. But, it may be urged, Is not the expression justified by the closing verse of the ninth chapter of Hebrews? It is only the superficial reader of the passage, I reply, who can use it thus. "Unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time," our Authorized Version renders it. And the words are taken as though they were equivalent to "His second appearing," "the Appearing" being a recognized synonym for "the Coming." But this is merely: trading on the language of our English version. The word actually employed is wholly different. It is a general word, and it is the very word used with reference to His manifestation to His disciples after the Resurrection. [7] And further, the definite article must be omitted: "Insomuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment, so Christ also, having been once [i.e., once for all] offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for Him, unto salvation." (Hebrews 9:27-28.) The statement is not prophetic, but doctrinal; and the doctrine in question is not the Advent, but the priesthood. It is not the prediction of an event to be realized by those who shall be alive on earth at the time of the end, but the declaration of a truth and a fact to be realized by every believer, no matter in what dispensation his sojourn upon earth may fall. The passage therefore cannot be appealed to in support of the dogma that never again but once will Christ appear to His people upon earth. And as the expression "Second Advent" is so intimately connected with that dogma, it would be well that all intelligent students of Scripture should unite in discarding it. The Coming of Christ is the hope of His people in every age. The only adverse criticism I have seen of The Coming Prince has appeared in later editions of The Approaching End of the Age. Feelings of esteem and friendship for the author influenced my notice of that work, but no considerations of this kind have restrained his pen in replying to my strictures; and the fact that a writer so able and so bitterly hostile has not ventured to question in a single point the main conclusions here established is a signal proof that they are irrefutable. Dr. Grattan Guinness complains that I have made no attempt to "reply" to his book. My only reference to it has been made incidentally in an appendix note; and in so far as it deals with the "primary and partial realization of the prophecies" I have taken the liberty of praising it. Why then should I "reply "to a treatise in respect of that in it which I value and adopt? These pages give proof how thoroughly I accept a historical interpretation of prophecy; [8] and if any one demands why then I have not given it greater prominence, I recall St. James’s answer when the Apostles were accused of neglecting in their teaching the writings of Moses. "Moses," he declared, "hath in every city them that teach him. "What was needed, therefore, if the equilibrium of doctrine was to be maintained, was that they should teach grace. On similar grounds the task I here set myself was to deal with the fulfillment of the prophecies. But I have no controversy with those who use their every talent in unfolding the "historical" interpretation of them. My quarrel is only with men who practically deny the Divine authorship of the sacred word, by asserting that their apprehension of it is the limit of its scope, and exhausts its meaning. And The Coming Prince is a crushing reply to the system which dares to write". Fulfilled" across the prophetic page. "The real question at issue here," I again repeat, "is the character and value of the Bible." Dr. Guinness asserts that the apocalyptic visions have been fulfilled in the events of the Christian era. I hold him to that issue, and I test it by a reference to the vision of the sixth chapter. Has this been fulfilled, as in fact he dares to assert it has? The question is vital, for if this vision still awaits fulfillment, so also do all the prophecies which follow it. Let the reader decide this question for himself, after studying the closing verses of the chapter, ending with the words, "For THE GREAT DAY OF HIS WRATH IS COME, and who shall be able to stand?" The old Hebrew prophets were inspired of God to describe the terrors of "the great day of His wrath," and the Holy Spirit has here reproduced their very words. (Cf. Isaiah 13:9-10, and Joel 2:31; Joel 3:15; see also Zephaniah 1:14-15.) The Bible contains no warnings more awful in their solemnity and definiteness. But just as the lawyer writes "Spent" across a statute of which the purpose has been satisfied, so these men would teach us to write "Fulfilled" across the sacred page. They tell us, forsooth, that the vision meant nothing more than to predict the rout of pagan hordes by Constantine [9] To speak thus is to come perilously near the warned-against sin of those who "take away from the words of the book of this prophecy." But when our thoughts turn to these teachers themselves we are restrained by remembering their piety and zeal, for "their praise is in all the Churches." Let us then banish from our minds all thoughts of the men, and seize upon the system which they advocate and support. No appeal to honored names should here be listened to. Names as honorable, and a hundred times more numerous, can be cited in defense of some of the crassest errors which corrupt the faith of Christendom. What then, I ask, shall be our judgment on a system of interpretation which thus blasphemes the God of truth by representing the most awful warnings of Scripture as wild exaggeration of a sort but little removed from falsehood? If it be urged that the events of fifteen centuries ago, or of some other epoch in the Christian dispensation, were within the scope of the prophecy, we can consider the suggestion on its merits; but when we are told that the prophecy was thus fulfilled, we can hold no parley with the teaching. It is the merest trifling with Scripture. And more than this, it clashes with the great charter truth of Christianity. If the day of wrath has come, the day of grace is past, and the Gospel of grace is no longer a Divine message to mankind. To suppose that the day of wrath can be an episode in the dispensation of grace is to betray ignorance of grace and to bring Divine wrath into contempt. The grace of God in this day of grace surpasses human thought; His wrath in the day of wrath will be no less Divine. The, breaking of the sixth seal heralds the dawning of that awful day; the visions of the seventh seal unfold its unutterable terrors. But, we are told, the pouring out of the vials, the "seven plagues which are the last, for in them is finished the wrath of God," (Revelation 15:1, R.V.) is being now accomplished. The sinner, therefore, may comfort himself with the knowledge that Divine wrath is but stage thunder, which, in a practical and busy world, may safely be ignored! [10] I called attention to Dr. Guinness’s statement that "from the then approaching command to restore and to build again Jerusalem to the coming of Messiah the Prince was to be seventy weeks"; and I added," This is a typical instance of the looseness of the historical school in dealing with Scripture." Of this, and of some other errors which I noticed, the only defense he offers is that "expressions not strictly correct, yet perfectly legitimate, because evidently elliptical, are for brevity’s sake employed." How brevity is attained by writing "seventy" instead of "sixty-nine" I cannot conceive. The statement is a sheer perversion of Scripture, unconsciously made, no doubt, to suit the exigencies of a false system of interpretation. The prophecy plainly declares the period "unto Messiah the Prince" to be sixty-nine weeks, leaving the seventieth week to be accounted for after the specified epoch; but Dr. Guinness’s system can give no reasonable account of the seventieth week, and so, unconsciously, I repeat, he shirks the difficulty by misreading the passage. Insist on his reading it aright and accounting for the last seven years of the prophetic period, and his interpretation of the vision at once stands refuted and exposed. When the language of Scripture is treated so loosely by this writer, no one need be surprised if my words fare badly at his hands. He is wholly incapable of deliberate misrepresentation, and yet his inveterate habit of inaccuracy has led him to misread The Coming Prince on almost every point on which he refers to it. [11] The fact is, he only knows two schools of prophetic interpretation, the Futurist and his own; and therefore he seems unable even to understand a book which is throughout a protest against the narrowness of the one and the mingled narrowness and wildness of the other. But his personal references are unworthy of the writer and of the subject. I pass on to deal with the only points on which his criticisms are of any general interest or importance; I mean the predicted division of the Roman earth, and the relations between Antichrist and the apostate Church. My statement was: "The division of the Roman earth into ten kingdoms has never yet taken place. That it has been partitioned is plain matter of history and of fact; that it has ever been divided into ten is a mere conceit of writers of this school." "An astonishingly reckless assertion" Dr. Guinness declares this to be; and yet we have but to turn the page to obtain from his own pen the plainest admission of its truth. It must be borne in mind, he says, that the ten kingdoms are to be sought "only in the territory west of Greece." And if we are prepared to accept this theory, we shall find, after making large allowances as to boundaries, that in this, which is prophetically the least important moiety of the Roman earth, "the number of the kingdoms of the European commonwealth has, as a rule, averaged ten." Mr. Guinness gives a dozen lists – and he tells us he has a hundred more in reserve – to prove that, with kaleidoscopic instability and vagueness, or, to quote his words, "amidst increasing and almost countless fluctuations, the kingdoms of modern Europe have from their birth to the present day always averaged about ten in number." "Averaged about ten," mark, though the prophecy specifies ten with a definiteness which becomes absolute by its mention of an eleventh rising up and subduing three of them. And "modern Europe," too! Zeal for the Protestant cause seems to blind these men to the plainest teaching of Scripture. Jerusalem, and not Rome, is the center of the Divine prophecies and of God’s dealings with His people; and the attempt to explain Daniel’s visions upon a system which ignores Daniel’s city and people does violence to the very rudiments of prophetic teaching. This vaunted canon of interpretation, which reads "modern Europe" instead of the prophetic earth, is, I repeat, "a mere conceit of writers of this school." First they minimize and tamper with the language of prophecy, and then they exaggerate and distort the facts of history to suit their garbled reading of it. "Can they," Dr. Guinness demands of us, "alter or add to this tenfold list of the great kingdoms now occupying the sphere of old Rome? – Italy, Austria, Switzerland, France, Germany, England, Holland, Belgium, Spain, and Portugal. Ten, and no more! ten, and no less!" I answer, Yes, we can both alter it and add to it. The list includes territory which was never within "the sphere of old Rome" at all, and it omits altogether nearly half of the Roman earth. This is bad enough, but it is not all. For if we accept his statements, and seek to interpret the thirteenth chapter of Revelation by them, he at once changes his ground and protests against our numbering "Protestant nations "among the ten horns at all. They are "chronologically out of the question," he tells us. Here is the language of this vision about Antichrist. "And there was given to him authority over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation. And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name hath not been written in the book of life." (Revelation 13:7-8, R.V.) What mean these most definite and solemn words? Nothing, he tells us, but that "throughout the Dark Ages," and "prior to the rise of Protestantism," the Roman Catholic religion should prevail in the western moiety of the Roman earth. This, he declares, is "the fulfillment of the prediction." He calls this "explaining" Scripture. Most people would call it explaining it away! I now come to the last point. "Our critics maintain," Dr. Guinness writes, "that Babylon runs her career, and is destroyed by the ten horns, who then agree and give their power to Antichrist, or the Beast. That is, they hold that the reign of Antichrist follows the destruction of Babylon by the ten horns." The foundation of this statement must be sought in the author’s own lucubrations, for nothing to account for it will be found in the pages he criticizes; and a similar remark applies to his references to The Coming Prince in the paragraphs which follow. I will not allude to them in detail, but in a few sentences dispose of the position he is seeking to defend. We have now got to the seventeenth chapter of Revelation. His argument is this. The eighth head of the Beast must be a dynasty; the Beast carries the Woman; the Woman is the Church of Rome. Therefore the dynasty symbolized by the eighth head must have lasted as long as the Church of Rome; and thus the Protestant interpretation is settled "on a foundation not to be removed." It is not really worth while pausing to show how gratuitous are some of the assumptions here implied. Let us, for the sake of argument, accept them all, and what comes of it? In the first place, Dr. Guinness is hopelessly involved in the transparent fallacy I warned him against in this volume. The Woman is destroyed by the agency of the Beast. How then is he going to separate the Pope from the apostate Church of which he is the head, and which, according to the "Protestant interpretation," would cease to be the apostate Church if he were no longer owned as head? The historicist must here make choice between the Woman and the Beast. They are distinct throughout the vision, and in direct antagonism at the close. If the Harlot represents the Church of Rome, his system gives no account whatever of the Beast; it ignores altogether the foremost figure in the prophecy, and the vaunted "foundation" of the so-called "Protestant interpretation" vanishes into air. Or if he takes refuge upon the other horn of the dilemma, and maintains that the Beast symbolizes the apostate.. Church, the Harlot remains to be accounted for. He, forgets, moreover, that the Beast appears in Daniel’s visions; in relation to Jerusalem and Judah. Suppose, therefore,. we should admit everything he says, what would it amount to? Merely a contention that "the springing and germinant accomplishment" of these prophecies "throughout many’ ages" (I quote Lord Bacon’s words once more) is fuller, and clearer than his critics can admit, or the facts of history’ will warrant. The truth still stands out plainly that "the height or fullness of them" belongs to an age to come:, when Judah shall once more be gathered in the Promised Land, and the light of prophecy which now rests dimly’ upon Rome shall again be focused on Jerusalem. The popularity of the historical system lies no doubt in the appeal it makes to the "Protestant spirit." But surely we can afford to be sensible and fair in our denunciation of the Church of Rome. Who can fail to perceive the growth of an antichristian movement that may soon lead [ us to hail the devout Romanist as an ally? With such, the Bible, neglected though it be, is still held sacred as the inspired word of God; and our Divine Lord is reverenced and worshipped, albeit the truth of His Divinity is obscured by error and superstition. I appeal here to the Pope’s Encyclical Letter of the 18th November, 1893, on the study of the Holy Scriptures. The following is an extract from it:-- "We fervently desire that a greater number of the faithful should undertake the defense of the holy writings, and attach themselves to it with constancy; and, above all, we desire that those who have been admitted to Holy Orders by the grace of God should daily apply themselves more strictly and zealously to read, meditate upon, and explain the Scriptures. Nothing can be better suited to their state. In addition to the excellence of such knowledge and the obedience due to the word of God, another motive impels us to believe that the study of the Scriptures should be counseled. That motive is the abundance of advantages which follow from it, and of which we have the guarantee in the words of Holy Writ: ’All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. It is with this design that God gave man the Scriptures; the examples of our Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles show it. Jesus Himself was accustomed to appeal to the holy writings in testimony of His Divine mission." There is here surely, in some sense at least, the ground for a common faith, which might, as regards individual Christians, be owned as a bond of brotherhood; but an impassable gulf divides us from the ever-increasing host of so-called Protestants who deny the Divinity of Christ and the inspiration of the Scriptures. These have their true place in the great army of infidelity which will muster at last around the banner of the Antichrist. My protest is made, not in defense of the Papacy, but of the Bible. If any one can point to a single passage of Scripture relating to Antichrist, whether in the Old Testament or in the New, which can, without whittling it down, and frittering away the meaning of the words, find its fulfillment in Popery, I will publicly retract, and confess my error. Take 2 Thessalonians 2:4 as a sample of the rest. The "man of sin" "opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped [Greek, that is an object of worship], so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God." This means merely, forsooth, that on certain occasions the Pope’s seat in St. Peter’s is raised above the level of the altar on which the "consecrated wafer" lies! Such statements – I care not what names may be cited in support of them – are an insult to our intelligence and an outrage upon the word of God. [12] Then, again, in the ninth verse, the coming of the "Lawless One" is said to be "according to the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders." These words are explained by the vision of the Beast in the thirteenth chapter of the Revelation, which declares that "the Dragon gave him his power, and his throne, and great authority." And we have from the lips of our blessed Lord Himself the warning, that the "great signs and wonders," thus to be wrought by Satanic power, shall be such that, "if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." (Matthew 24:24.) In a word, the awful and mysterious power of Satan will be brought to bear upon Christendom with such terrible effect, that human intellect will be utterly confounded. Agnosticism and infidelity will capitulate in presence of overwhelming proof that supernatural agencies are at work. And if faith itself, divinely given, shall stand the test, it is only because it is impossible for God to allow His own elect to perish. When we demand the meaning of all this, we get answer "Popery." But where, we ask, are the "great signs and wonders" of the Popish system? And, in reply, we are told of its millinery, and its mummery, and all the well-known artifices of priestcraft, which constitute its special stock-in-trade. As though there were anything in these to deceive the elect of God! To take the low ground of mere Protestantism, it is notorious that here in England none become entangled in the toils of Rome save such as have already become enervated and corrupted by sacerdotalism and superstition within the communion they abandon. And it is no less notorious that, in Roman Catholic countries, the majority of men maintain towards it an attitude of either benevolent or contemptuous indifference. Remembering, moreover, that the followers of the Beast are doomed to endless and hopeless destruction, we go on to inquire whether this is to be the fate of every Roman Catholic. By no means, we are assured; for, in spite of the evils and errors of the Romish Church, some within its pale are reckoned among the number of "God’s elect." What conclusion, then, are we to come to? Are we to accept it as a canon of interpretation that Scripture never means what it says? Are we to hold that its language is so loose and unreliable as to be practically false? We repudiate the profane suggestion; and, adopting the only possible alternative, we boldly assert that all these solemn words still await their fulfillment. In a word, we are shut up to the conclusion that THE ANTICHRIST IS YET TO COME. FOOTNOTES [1] Were I now writing that note in the light of passing events, I should specify France where I have named Germany, and I should allude to the efforts now making by Russia to acquire a naval station in the Mediterranean. [2] 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2, R. V. "The day of Christ" in A. V. is a wrong reading. [3] See 1 Corinthians 11:26 : "As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till He come." No past but the Cross; no future but the Coming. To separate the believer from the Coming is as great an outrage upon Christianity as to separate him from the Cross. [4] Romans 11:1-36; see vv. 1, 2, 9, 12, 15-26. Note that "all Israel" is not = every Israelite, for in the Greek there is no such ambiguity as in English; and the seeming contradictions in the chapter are explained by the fact that the "cast away" of vv. 1, 2, is a wholly different word from the "casting away" of ver. 15, and the "fall" of ver. 11 from the "fall" of ver. 12. [5] 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8. The "mighty angels" of the prophecy are, I presume, the "holy ones" of Zechariah 14:5. [6] Between the first of these and the second, there will no doubt intervene a period at least as long as that which elapsed between His coming to Bethlehem and His manifestation to Israel at His first advent, and probably a period very much more prolonged. Whether the interval between the second and third will be measured by days or years, we are wholly unable to decide. The only certain indication of its length is that the Antichrist, whose power will be broken by the one, will be actually destroyed by the other. I am here assuming that all the events which are yet to be fulfilled will occur in a comparatively brief period. But I wish to guard myself against the idea that I assert this. I deprecate in the strongest way the idea, now so common, that students of astronomy and mathematics have solved the mystery which God has expressly kept in His own power. Could any student of the Old Testament have dreamed that nearly two thousand years would intervene between the sufferings of Christ and His return in glory? Would the early Christians have tolerated such a suggestion? And if another thousand years should yet run their course before the Church is taken up, or if a thousand years should intervene between that event and the Coming to the Mount of Olives, not a single word of Scripture would be broken. As, I have said, "it is only in so far as prophecy falls within the seventy weeks that it comes within the range of human chronology." Much is made of supposed eras of 1, 260 and 2, 520 years. But even if we could certainly fix the epoch of any such era, the question would remain whether they may not be mystic periods, like the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1. [7] It occurs four times in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8. [8] See, e. g., Chap. 9. and App., note C. [9] See especially the quotation from Dean Alford. [10] It is only by reason of its almost inconceivable silliness that such. teaching can escape the charge of profanity. [11] For instance, he becomes vehement in denouncing my statement that "all Christian interpreters are agreed" in recognizing a parenthesis in Daniel’s prophetic vision of the beasts. No doubt he read the passage as though I had there spoken of the fall of the Roman empire, and not its "rise"; for the statement is indisputably true, and he himself is numbered among the "Christian interpreters" who endorse it. Here is another specimen. With reference to the question of the ten kingdoms, he says, "Dr. Anderson and other Futurist writers…teach — (1) that the ten horns are not yet risen; (2) that when they do rise five will be found in Greek territory, and five only in Roman; and that when at last developed, (3) after a gap of 1, 400 years of which the prophecy takes no notice at all, (4) they will last for three and a half years" (p. 737). I have numbered these sentences to enable me briefly to remind the intelligent reader that, excepting No. I, everything here attributed to me is in flat opposition to some of the plainest statements in my book. In the same way he attributes to me the figment that the career of Antichrist will be limited to three and a half years. I have sometimes wondered whether he ever read The Coming Prince at all! A word as to his strictures on my title. I am aware of course that in the Hebrew of Daniel 9:26, there is not the article, but I am not misled by the inference he draws from its omission. Had the article been used, the prince intended would clearly have been "Messiah the Prince" of ver. 25. In English the article has not this force, and therefore it is rightly inserted, as both the Translators and the Revisers have recognized. Dr. Tregelles here remarks, "This destruction is here said to be wrought by a certain people, not by the prince who shall come, but by his people: this refers us, I believe, to the Romans as the last holders of undivided Gentile power; they wrought the destruction long ages ago. The prince who shall come is the last head of the Roman power, the person concerning whom Daniel had received so much previous instruction." Such is the pre-eminence of this great leader that he is bracketed with our Lord Himself in this prophecy, and the people of the Roman empire are described as being his people. Yet Mr. Guinness believes that Titus is referred to! Really the day is past for discussing such a suggestion. I may here remark that the rendering of Daniel 9:27 in the Revised Version disposes of the figment that it was Messiah who made a seven years’ covenant with the Jews. The causing the sacrifice to cease is not an incident in the midst of the "week," but a violation of the treaty "for half of the week." [12] The reference to the Temple is explained by Daniel 9:27; Daniel 12:11, and Matthew 24:15. These teachers ask us to believe that while the Church of Rome is the Beast and the Harlot and everything that is corrupt and infamous in apostate Christianity, yet St. Peter’s, the great central shrine of this apostasy, is owned by God as being the Temple of God. The sacrifice of the Mass they denounce as idolatrous and blasphemous, and yet we are t6 suppose that Holy Scripture refers to it as representing all that is Divine on earth! The sacred words admit of only one meaning, viz., that the Antichrist, claiming to be himself Divine, will suppress all worship rendered to any other god. Such are the wild extravagances and puerilities of interpretation and of forecast which mar the writings of these interpreters, that men have come to regard these visions, which ought to inspire reverence and awe, as "principal subjects of ridicule" — the specialty of mystics and faddists. How great the need, then, for a united and sustained effort to rescue the study from the contempt into which it has fallen! Each of the recognized schools of interpretation has truth which the rival schools deny. A new era would begin if Christians would turn from all these schools — Preterist, Historical, and Futurist — and learn to read the prophecies as they read the other Scriptures: as being the word of Him who is, and was, and is to come, our Jehovah-God, with whom present, past, and future are but one "eternal now." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 40: 1.04.00. DANIEL IN THE CRITICS' DEN ======================================================================== PART 4: DANIEL IN THE CRITICS’ DEN ======================================================================== CHAPTER 41: 1.04.01. PREFACE ======================================================================== PREFACE ALTHOUGH this volume appears under an old title, it is practically a new work. The title remains, lest any who possess my "Reply to Dean Farrar’s Book of Daniel" should feel aggrieved on finding part of that treatise reproduced under a new designation. But the latter half of this book is new; and the whole has been recast, in view of its main purpose and aim as a reply to Professor Driver’s Commentary in "The Cambridge Bible" series. The appearance of Professor Driver’s Book of Daniel marks an epoch in the Daniel controversy. (It appeared first as an article in Blackwood’s Magazine, and afterwards separately in book form.) Hitherto there has been no work in existence which English exponents of the skeptical hypothesis would accept as a fair and adequate expression of their views. But now the oracle has spoken. The most trusted champion of the Higher Criticism in England has formulated the case against the Book of Daniel; and if that case can be refuted - if it can be shown that its apparent force depends on a skillful presentation of doubtful evidence upon the one side, to the exclusion of overwhelmingly cogent evidence upon the other - the result ought to be an "end of controversy" on the whole question. It rests with others to decide whether this result is established in the following pages. I am willing to stake it upon the issues specified in Chapter VII. And even if the reader should see fit to make that chapter the starting-point of his perusal of my book, I am still prepared to claim his verdict in favor of Daniel. And here I should premise, what will be found more than once repeated in the sequel, that the inquiry involved in the Daniel controversy is essentially judicial. An experienced Judge with an intelligent jury - any tribunal, indeed, accustomed to sift and weigh conflicting testimony - would be better fitted to deal with it than a Company of all the philologists of Christendom. The philologist’s proper place is in the witness-chair. He can supply but a part, and that by no means the most important part, of the necessary evidence. And if a single well-ascertained fact be inconsistent with his theories, the fact must prevail. But this the specialist is proverbially slow to recognize. He is always apt to exaggerate the importance of his own testimony, and to betray impatience when evidence of another kind is allowed legitimate weight. And nowhere is this tendency more marked than among the critics. In the preface to his Continuity of Scripture, Lord Hatherley speaks of "the supposed evidence on which are based some very confident assertions of a self-styled ’higher criticism.’" And he adds, "Assuming the learning to be profound and accurate which has collected the material for much critical performance, the logic by which conclusions are deduced from those materials is frequently grievously at fault, and open to the judgment of all who may have been accustomed to sift and weigh evidence." My apology for this book is that I can claim a humble place in the category described in these concluding words. Long accustomed to deal with evidence in difficult and intricate inquiries, I have set myself to investigate the genuineness of the Book of Daniel, and the results of my inquiry are here recorded. Lord Hatherley was not the only Lord Chancellor of our time to whom earnest thought and study brought a settled conviction of the Divine authority and absolute integrity of Holy Scripture. The two very great men who in turn succeeded him in that high office, though versed in the literature of the critics, held unflinchingly to the same conclusion. And while some, perhaps, would dismiss the judgment of men like Lord Cairns and Lord Selborne as being that of "mere laymen," sensible people the whole world over would accept their decision upon an intricate judicial question of this kind against that of all the pundits of Christendom. As regards my attitude towards criticism, I deprecate being misunderstood. Every book I have written gives proof of fearlessness in applying critical methods to the study of the Bible. But the Higher Criticism is a mere travesty of all true criticism. Secular writers are presumed to be trustworthy unless reason is found to discredit their testimony. But the Higher Criticism starts with the assumption that everything in Scripture needs to be confirmed by external evidence. It reeks of its evil origin in German infidelity. My indictment of it, therefore, is not that it is criticism, but that it is criticism of a low and spurious type, akin to that for which the baser sort of "Old Bailey" practitioner is famed. True criticism seeks to elucidate the truth: the Higher Criticism aims at establishing pre-judged results. And in exposing such a system the present volume has an importance far beyond the special subject of which it treats. A single instance will suffice. The "Annalistic tablet" of Cyrus, which records his conquest of Babylon, is received by the critics as Gospel truth, albeit the deception which underlies it would be clear even to a clever schoolboy. But even as read by the critics it affords confirmation of Daniel which is startling in its definiteness in regard to Belshazzar and Darius the Mede. It tells us that the capture of the inner city was marked by the death of Belshazzar, or (as the inscription calls him throughout) "the son of the king." And further, we learn from it that Cyrus’s triumph was shared by a Median of such note that his name was united with his own in the proclamation of an amnesty. And yet so fixed is the determination of the critics to discredit the Book of Daniel, that all this is ignored. The inadequacy of the reasons put forward for rejecting Daniel clearly indicate that there is some potent reason of another kind in the background. It was the miraculous element in the book that set the whole pack of foreign skeptics in full cry. In this age of a silent heaven such men will not tolerate the idea that God ever intervened directly in the affairs of men. But this is too large a subject for incidental treatment. I have dealt with it in The Silence of God, and I would refer specially to Chapter III. of that work. Other incidental questions involved in the controversy I have treated of here; but as they are incidental, I have relegated them to the Appendix. And if any one claims a fuller discussion of them, I must ask leave to refer to the work alluded to by Professor Driver in his Book of Daniel - namely, The Coming Prince, or The Seventy Weeks of Daniel. R.A. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 42: 1.04.02. PREFATORY NOTE TO THE THIRD EDITION ======================================================================== PREFATORY NOTE TO THE THIRD EDITION MOST of the "historical errors" in Daniel, which Professor Driver has copied from Bertholdt’s work of a century ago, have been disposed of by the erudition and research of our own day. But the identity of Darius the Mede has been referred to in former editions of the present work as an unsolved historical difficulty in the Daniel controversy. That question, however, seems to be settled by a verse in Ezra, which has hitherto been used only by Voltaire and others to discredit the Prophet’s narrative. Ezra records that in the reign of Darius Hystaspis the Jews presented a petition to the King, in which they recited Cyrus’ decree authorizing the rebuilding of their Temple. The wording of the petition clearly indicates that, to the knowledge of the Jewish leaders, the decree in question had been filed in the house of the archives in Babylon. But the search there made for it proved fruitless, and it was ultimately found at Ecbatana (or Achmetha: Ezra 6:2). How, then, could a State paper of this kind have been transferred to the Median capital? The only reasonable explanation of this extraordinary fact completes the proof that the vassal king whom Daniel calls Darius was the Median general, Gobryas (or Gubaru), who led the army of Cyrus to Babylon. As noticed in these pages (163, 165, ftost), the testimony of the inscriptions points to that conclusion. After the taking of the city, his name was coupled with that of Cyrus in proclaiming an amnesty. And he it was who appointed the governors or prefects; which appointments Daniel states were made by Darius. The fact that he was a prince of the royal house of Media, and presumably well known to Cyrus, who had resided at the Median Court, would account for his being held in such high honour. He had governed Media as Viceroy when that country was reduced to the status of a province; and to anyone accustomed to deal with evidence, the inference will seem natural that, for some reason or other, he was sent back to his provincial throne, and that, in returning to Ecbatana, he carried with him the archives of his brief reign in Babylon. I will only add that the confusion and error which the "Higher Critics" attribute to the sacred writers are mainly due to their own failure to distinguish between the several judgments of the era of the exile – the "Servitude," the "Captivity," and the "Desolations" (Jeremiah 29:10; 2 Chronicles 36:21. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 43: 1.04.03. CHAPTER 1: THE "HIGHER CRITICISM," AND DEAN FARRAR'S ESTIMATE OF THE BIBLE ======================================================================== CHAPTER 1: THE "HIGHER CRITICISM," AND DEAN FARRAR’S ESTIMATE OF THE BIBLE By "all people of discernment" the "Higher Criticism" is now held in the greatest repute. And discernment is a quality for which the dullest of men are keen to claim credit. It may safely be assumed that not one person in a score of those who eagerly disclaim belief in the visions of Daniel has ever seriously considered the question. The literature upon the subject is but dull reading at best, and the inquiry demands a combination of qualities which is comparatively rare. A newspaper review of some ponderous treatise, or a frothy discourse by some popular preacher, will satisfy most men. The German literature upon the controversy they know nothing of; and the erudite writings of scholars are by no means to their taste, and probably beyond their capacity. Dean Farrar’s Book of Daniel therefore meets a much-felt want. Ignored by scholars it certainly will be, and the majority of serious theologians will deplore it; but it supplies "the man in the street" with a reason for the unfaith that is in him. The narrowness with which it emphasizes everything that either erudition or ignorance can urge upon one side of a great controversy, to the exclusion of the rest, will relieve him from the irksome task of thinking out the problem for himself; and its pedantry is veiled by rhetoric of a type which will admirably suit him. He cannot fail to be deeply impressed by "the acervation of endless conjectures," and "the unconsciously disingenuous resourcefulness of traditional harmonics." His acquaintance with the unseen world will be enlarged by discovering that Gabriel, who appeared to the prophet, is "the archangel"; and by learning that "it is only after the Exile that we find angels and demons playing a more prominent part than before, divided into classes, and even marked out by special names." It is not easy to decide whether this statement is the more astonishing when examined as a specimen of English, or when regarded as a dictum to guide us in the study of Scripture. But all this relates only to the form of the book. When we come to consider its substance, the spirit which pervades it, and the results to which it leads, a sense of distress and shame will commingle with our amazement. What the dissecting-room is to the physician criticism is to the theologian. In its proper sphere it is most valuable; and it has made large additions to our knowledge of the Bible. But it demands not only skill and care, but reverence; and if these be wanting, it cannot fail to be mischievous. A man of the baser sort may become so degraded by the use of the surgeon’s knife that he loses all respect for the body of his patient, and the sick-room is to him but the antechamber to the mortuary. And can we with impunity forget the reverence that is due to "the living and eternally abiding word of God"? It behooves us to distinguish between true criticism as a means to clear away from that word corruptions and excrescences, and to gain a more intelligent appreciation of its mysteries, and the Higher Criticism as a rationalistic and anti-Christian crusade. The end and aim of this movement is to eliminate God from the Bible. It was the impure growth of the skepticism which well-nigh swamped the religious life of Germany in the eighteenth century. Eichhorn set himself to account for the miracles of Scripture. The poetic warmth of oriental thought and language sufficed, in his judgment, to explain them. The writers wrote as they were accustomed to think, leaving out of view all second causes, and attributing results immediately to God. This theory had its day. It obtained enthusiastic acceptance for a time. But rival hypotheses were put forward to dispute its sway, and at last it was discarded in favor of the system with which the name of De Wette is prominently associated. The sacred writers were honest and true, but their teaching was based, not upon personal knowledge, still less upon divine inspiration, but upon ancient authorities by which they were misled. Their errors were due to the excessive literalness with which they accepted as facts the legends of earlier days. De Wette, like Eichhorn, desired to rescue the Bible from the reproach which had fallen upon it. Upon them at least the halo of departed truth still rested. But others were restrained by no such influence. With the ignorance of Pagans and the animus of apostates they perverted the Scriptures and tore them to pieces. One of the old Psalms, in lamenting with exquisite sadness the ruin brought by the heathen upon the holy city and land, declares that fame was apportioned according to zeal and success in the work of destruction. A like spirit has animated the host of the critics. It is a distressing and baneful ordeal to find oneself in the company of those who have no belief in the virtue of women. The mind thus poisoned learns to regard with suspicion the purest inmates of a pure home. And a too close familiarity with the vile literature of the skeptics leads to a kindred distrust of all that is true and holy in our most true and holy faith. Every chapter of this book gives proof to what an extent its author has suffered this moral and spiritual deterioration; and no one can accept its teaching without sinking, imperceptibly it may be, but surely and inevitably, to the same level. Kuenen, one of the worst of the foreign skeptics, is. Dean Farrar’s master and guide in the interpretation of Daniel. And the result is that he revels in puerilities and extravagances of exegesis and criticism which the best of our British contemporary scholars are careful to repudiate. The Book of Daniel is not "the work of a prophet in the Exile" (if indeed such a personage as Daniel ever really existed), "but of some faithful Chasid in the days of the Seleucid tyrant." Its pretended miracles are but moral fables. Its history is but idle legend, abounding in "violent errors" of the grossest kind. Its so-called predictions alone are accurate, because they were but the record of recent or contemporary events. But Dr. Farrar will not tolerate a word of blame upon "the holy and gifted Jew" who wrote it. No thought of deceiving anyone ever crossed his mind. The reproach which has been heaped upon him has been wholly owing to Jewish arrogance and Christian stupidity in misreading his charming and elevating romance. For it is not only fiction, but "avowed fiction," and was never meant to be regarded in any other light. In a word, the book is nothing more than a religious novel, differing from other kindred works only in its venerable antiquity and the multiplicity of its blunders. Accepting these results, then, what action shall we take upon them? In proportion surely to our appreciation of the preciousness of Holy Scripture, shall be our resoluteness in tearing the Book of Daniel from its place in the sacred canon, and relegating it to the same shelf with Bel and the Dragon and The Story of Susanna. By no means. Dr. Farrar will stay our hand by the assurance that- "Those result are in no way derogatory to the preciousness of this Old Testament Apocalypse." "No words of mine," he declares, "can exaggerate the value which I attach to this part of our Canonical Scriptures. . . . Its right to a place in the Canon is undisputed and indisputable, and there is scarcely a single book of the Old Testament which can be made more richly profitable for ’teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, completely furnished unto every good work.’ Again and again throughout this volume the author uses like words in praise of the Book of Daniel. Here are a few of them: "It is indeed a noble book, full of glorious lessons" (p. 36). "Its high worth and canonical authority" (p. 37). "So far from undervaluing its teaching, I have always been strongly drawn to this book of Scripture" (p. 37). "We acknowledge the canonicity of the book, its high value when rightly apprehended, and its rightful acceptance as a sacred book". And most wonderful of all, at p. 118 the author declares that, in exposing it as a work of fiction, "We add to its real value"!) Christian writers who find reason to reject one portion of the sacred canon or another are usually eager to insist that in doing so they increase the authority and enhance the value of the rest. It has remained for the Dean of Canterbury, in impugning the Book of Daniel, to insult and degrade the Bible as a whole. An expert examines for me the contents of my purse. I spread out nine-and-thirty sovereigns upon the table, and after close inspection he marks out one as a counterfeit. As I console myself for the loss by the deepened confidence I feel that all the rest are sterling coin, he checks me by the assurance that there is scarcely a single one of them which is any better. The Book of Daniel is nothing more than a religious novel, and it teems with errors on every page, and yet we are gravely told that of all the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament there is scarcely a single book which is of any higher worth! The expert’s estimate of the value of my coins is clear. No less obvious is Dr. Farrar’s estimate of the value of the books of the Bible. It is precisely this element which renders this volume so pernicious. The apostle declares that "Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work;" and in profanely applying these words to a romance of doubtful repute, Dr. Farrar denies inspiration altogether. But "What is inspiration?" someone may demand. In another connection the inquiry might be apt; here it is the merest quibble. Plain men brush aside all the intricacies of the controversy which the answer involves, and seize upon the fact that the Bible is a divine revelation. But no one can yield to the spirit which pervades this book without coming to raise the question, "Have we a revelation at all?" The Higher Criticism, as a rationalistic crusade, has set itself to account for the Bible on natural principles; and this is the spirit which animates the Dean of Canterbury’s treatise. (2 Timothy 3:16. I quote the R.V. because it gives more unequivocal testimony to the inspiration of Scripture than does the A.V. According to the A.V. the apostle asserts that all Scripture is inspired of God: according to the R.V. he assumes this as a truth which does not need even to be asserted. For "every Scripture" here means every part of the Holy Scriptures mentioned in the preceding sentence. Indeed, ypa4~ has as definite a meaning in N.T. Greek as "Scripture" has in English, and is never used save of Holy Scripture. But I am bound in honesty to add that I believe the R.V. is wrong, albeit it has the authority of some of our earlier versions. The same construction occurs in eight other passages, viz., Rom. Vii. 12; 1 Corinthians 11:30; 2 Corinthians 10:10; 1 Timothy 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:3; 1 Timothy 4:4; 1 Timothy 4:9; Hebrews 4:13. Why did the Revisers not read, e.g., "the holy commandment is also just and good" (Romans 7:22); and "many weak ones are also sickly" (1 Corinthians 11:30)?) ======================================================================== CHAPTER 44: 1.04.04. CHAPTER 2: THE "HISTORICAL ERRORS" OF DANIEL ======================================================================== CHAPTER 2: THE "HISTORICAL ERRORS" OF DANIEL "THE historical errors" of the Book of Daniel are the first ground of the critic’s attack. Of these he enumerates the following: (1.) "There was no deportation in the third year of Jehoiakim." (2.) "There was no King Belshazzar." (3.) "There was no Darius the Mede." (4) "It is not true that there were only two Babylonian kings - there were five." (5.) "Nor were there only four Persian kings-there were twelve." (6.) Xerxes seems to be confounded with the last king of Persia. (7.) And "All correct accounts of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanies seem to end about B.C. 164." Such is the indictment under this head. Two other points are included, but these have nothing to do with history; first, that the decrees of Nebuchadnezzar are extraordinary - which may at once be conceded; and secondly, that "the notion that a faithful Jew could become president of the Chaldean magi is impossible "-a statement which only exemplifies the thoughtless dogmatism of the writer, for, according to his own scheme, it was a "holy and gifted Jew," brought up under the severe ritual of post-exilic days, who assigned this position to Daniel. A like remark applies to his criticism upon Daniel 2:46 - with this addition, that that criticism betokens either carelessness or malice on the part of the critics, for the passage in no way justifies the assertion that the prophet accepted either the worship or the sacrifice offered him. So far as the other points are concerned, we may at once dismiss (4.), (5), and (6), for the errors here ascribed to Daniel will be sought for in vain. They are "read into" the book by the perverseness or ignorance of the rationalists. And as for (7), where was the account of the reign of Antiochus to end, if not in the year of his death! The statement is one of numerous instances of slipshod carelessness in this extraordinary addition to our theological literature. The Bible states that there was a deportation in the reign of Jehoiakim the critic asserts there was none; and the Christian must decide between them. (As regards (5) and (6), the way "kisses and kicks" alternate in Dr. Farrar’s treatment of his mythical "Chasid" is amusing. At one moment he is praised for his genius and erudition; the next he is denounced as an ignoramus or a fool! Considering how inseparably the history of Judah had been connected with the history of Persia, the suggestion that a cultured Jew of Maccabean days could have made the gross blunder here attributed to him is quite unworthy of notice. And may I explain for the enlightenment of the critics that Daniel 11:2 is a prophecy relating to the prophecy which precedes it? It is a consecutive prediction of events within the period of the seventy weeks. There were to be "yet" (i.e., after the rebuilding of Jerusalem) "three kings in Persia." These were Darius Nothus, Artaxerxes Mnemon, and Ochus; the brief and merely nominal reigns of Xerxes II., Sogdianus, and Arogus being ignored - two of them, indeed, being omitted from the canon of Ptolemy. “The fourth" (and last) king was Darius Codomanus, whose fabulous wealth attracted the cupidity of the Greeks.) Nothing can be clearer than the language of Chronicles; and, even regarding the book as a purely secular record, it is simply preposterous to reject without a shadow of reason the chronicler’s statement on a matter of such immense interest and importance in the national history. But, it is objected, Kings and Jeremiah are silent upon the subject. If this were true, which it is not, it would be an additional reason for turning to Chronicles to supply the omission. But Kings gives clear corroboration of Chronicles. Speaking of Jehoiakim, it says: "In his days Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years; then he turned and rebelled against him." Daniels tells us this was in his third year, and that Jerusalem was besieged upon the occasion. This difficulty again springs from the habit of "reading into" Scripture more than it says. There is not a word about a taking by storm. The king was a mere puppet, and presumably he made his submission as soon as the city was invested. Nebuchadnezzar took him prisoner, but afterwards relented, and left him in Jerusalem as his vassal, a position he had till then held under the King of Egypt. But Dr. Farrar’s statements here are worthy of fuller notice, so thoroughly typical are they of his style and methods. For three years Jehoiakim was Nebuchadnezzar’s vassal. This is admitted, and Scripture accounts for it by recording a Babylonian invasion in his third year. But, says the critic: "It was not till the following year, when Nebuchadnezzar, acting as his father’s general, had defeated Egypt at the battle of Carchemish, that any siege of Jerusalem would have been possible. Nor did Nebuchadnezzar advance against the Holy City even after the battle of Carchemish, but dashed home across the desert to secure the crown of Babylon on hearing the news of his father’s death." The idea of dashing across the desert from Carchemish to Babylon is worthy of a board-school essay! The critic is here adopting the record of the Babylonian historian Berosus, in complete unconsciousness of the significance of his testimony. We learn from Berosus that it was as Prince-royal of Babylon, at the head of his father’s army, that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Palestine. And, after recording how in the course of that expedition Nebuchadnezzar heard of his father’s death, the historian goes on to relate that he "committed the captives he had taken from the Jews" to the charge of others, "while he went in haste over the desert to Babylon." Could corroboration of Scripture be more complete and emphatic? The fact that he had Jewish captives is evidence that he had invaded Judea. Proof of it is afforded by the further fact that the desert lay between him and Babylon. Carchemish was in the far north by the Euphrates, and the road thence to the Chaldean capital lay clear of the desert altogether. Moreover, the battle of Carchemish was fought in Jehoiakim’s fourth year, and therefore after Nebuchadnezzar’s accession, whereas the invasion of Judea was during Nabopolassar’s lifetime, and therefore in Jehoiakim’s third year, precisely as the Book of Daniel avers. It only remains to add that Scripture nowhere speaks of a general "deportation" in the third year of Jehoiakim. Here, as elsewhere, the critic attributes his own errors to the Bible, and then proceeds to refute them. The narrative is explicit that on this occasion Nebuchadnezzar returned with no captives save a few cadets of the royal house and of the noble families. But Dr. Farrar writes: "Among the captives were certain of the king’s seed and of the princes." Nor is this all: he goes on to say, "They are called ’children,’ and the word, together with the context, seems to imply that they were boys of the age of from twelve to fourteen." What Daniel says is that these, the only captives, were "skillful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science." What prodigies those Jewish boys must have been! The word translated "children" in the A.V. is more correctly rendered "youths" in the R.V. Its scope may be inferred from the use of it in 1 Kings 12:8, which tells us that Rehoboam "forsook the counsel of the old men, and took counsel with the young men that were grown up with him." This last point is material mainly as showing the animus of the critic.’ (The question of course arises how this battle should have been fought after the successful campaign of the preceding year. There are reasonable explanations of this, but I offer none. Scripture has suffered grievously from the eagerness of its defenders to put forward hypotheses to explain seeming difficulties.) But the Scripture speaks of King Nebuchadnezzar in the third year of Jehoiakim, whereas it was not till his fourth year that Nabopolassar died. No doubt. And a writer of Maccabean days, with the history of Berosus before him, would probably have noticed the point. But the so-called in. accuracy is precisely one of the incidental proofs that the Book of Daniel was the work of a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar. The historian of the future will never assert that Queen Victoria lived at one time in Kensington Palace, though the statement will be found in the newspapers which recorded the unveiling of her statue in Kensington Gardens. (The only reason for representing Daniel as a mere boy of twelve or fourteen is that thereby discredit is cast upon the statement that three years later he was placed at the head of "the wise men" of Babylon. It is with a real sense of distress and pain that I find myself compelled to use such language. But it would need a volume to expose the errors, misstatements, and perversions of which the above are typical instances. They occur in every chapter of Dr. Farrar’s book.) The references to Jeremiah raise the question whether the book records the utterances of an inspired prophet, or whether, as Dr. Farrar’s criticisms assume, the author of the book wrote merely as a religious teacher. This question, however, is too large to treat of here; and the discussion of it is wholly unnecessary, for the careful student will find in Jeremiah the clearest proof that Scripture is right and the critics wrong. The objection depends on confounding the seventy years of the "Servitude to Babylon" with the seventy years of "the Desolations of Jerusalem "- another of the numerous blunders which discredit the work under review.’ "The Captivity," which is confounded with both, was not an era of seventy years at all. (The careful reader of Dr. Farrar’s book will not fail to see that his references to the Scriptures generally imply that the prophecies came by the will of the prophets; whereas Holy Scripture declares that "No prophecy ever came by the will of man; but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:20-21).) The prophecy of the twenty-fifth chapter of Jeremiah was a warning addressed to the people who remained in the land after the servitude had begun, that if they continued impenitent and rebellious, God would bring upon them a further judgment - the terrible scourge of "the Desolations." The prophecy of the twenty-ninth chapter was a message of hope to the Jews of the Captivity. And what was that message? That "after seventy years be accomplished for Babylon, I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place." And that promise was faithfully fulfilled. The Servitude began in the third year of Jehoiakim, B.C. 606. It ended in B.C. 536, when Cyrus issued his decree for the return of the exiles. By the test of chronology, therefore - the severest test which can be applied to historical statements - the absolute accuracy of these Scriptures is established. (These "seventy years" dated, not from their deportation to Babylonia as captives, but from their subjection to the suzerainty of Babylon. That is, the year beginning with Nisan, B.C. 6o6, and ending with Adar, B.C. 605.) Owing to the importance of this Jehoiakim "error" I have added an excursus upon the subject. See Appendix I. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 45: 1.04.05. CHAPTER 3: HISTORICAL ERRORS CONTINUED: BELSHAZZAR AND DARIUS THE MEDE ======================================================================== CHAPTER 3: HISTORICAL ERRORS CONTINUED: BELSHAZZAR AND DARIUS THE MEDE PROFESSOR Driver acknowledges "the possibility that Nabunahid may have sought to strengthen his position by marrying a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, in which case the latter might be spoken of as Belshazzar’s father (= grandfather, by Hebrew usage)." And the author of the Ancient Monarchies, our best historical authority here, tells us that Nabonidus (Nabunahid) "had associated with him in the government his son Belshazzar or Bel-shar-uzur, the grandson of the great Nebuchadnezzar," and "in his father’s absence Belshazzar took the direction of affairs within the city." The only question, therefore, is whether Belshazzar, being thus left as regent at Babylon when his father was absent at Borsippa in command of the army, would be addressed as king. But Dr. Farrar settles the matter by asserting that "there was no King Belshazzar," and that Belshazzar was "conquered in Borsippa." This last statement is a mere blunder. The accuracy of Daniel in this matter is confirmed in a manner which is all the more striking because it is wholly incidental. Why did Belshazzar purpose to make Daniel the third ruler in the kingdom? The natural explanation is, that he himself was but second. "Unhappily for their very precarious hypothesis," Dr. Farrar remarks, "the translation ’third ruler’ appears to be entirely untenable. It means ’one of a board of three.’ "As a test of the author’s erudition and candour this deserves particular notice. Every scholar, of course, is aware that there is not a word about a "board of three" in the text. This is exegesis, not translation. But is it correct exegesis? Under the Persian rule there was a cabinet of three, as the sixth chapter tells us; but there is no authority whatever for supposing such a body existed under the empire which it supplanted. As regards chapter 5:, it will satisfy most people to know that the rendering which Dr. Farrar declares to be "entirely untenable" has been adopted by the Old Testament company of Revisers. And I have been at the pains to ascertain that the passage was carefully considered, that they had no difficulty in deciding in favour of the reading of the A.V., and that it was not until their final revision that the alternative rendering "one of three" was admitted into the margin. In the distinguished Professor Kautzsch’s recent work on the Old Testament, representing the latest and best German scholarship, he adheres to the rendering "third ruler in the kingdom," and his note is, "either as one of three over the whole kingdom, or as third by the side of the king and the king’s mother." Behrmann, too, in his recent commentary, adopts the same reading - as third he was to have authority in the kingdom," and adds a note referring to the king and his mother as first and second.’ This surely will suffice to silence the critic’s objection, and to cast suspicion upon his fairness as a controversialist. (In reply to an inquiry I addressed to him, the Chief Rabbi wrote to me as follows : "I have carefully considered the question you laid before me at our pleasant meeting on Sunday relative to the correct interpretation of the passages in Daniel, chapter 5:, verses 7 and x6. I cannot absolutely find fault with Archdeacon Farrar for translating the words ’the third part of the kingdom,’ as he follows herein two of our Hebrew commentators of great repute, Rashi and Ibn Ezra. On the other hand, others of our commentators, such as Saadia, Jachja, etc., translate this passage as ’he shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.’ This rendering seems to be more strictly in accord with the literal meaning of the words as shown by Dr. Winer in his Grammatik des Chaldaismus. It also receives confirmation from Sir Henry Rawlinson’s remarkable discovery, according to which Belshazzar was the eldest son of King Nabonidus, and associated with him in the government, so that the person next in honour would be the third." This applies equally to Prof. Driver’s note, which says "The rendering of A.V. is certainly untenable." And his reference to the LXX. is unfair, seeing that his view is refuted by the version of Theodotion, which is of higher authority than that to which he appeals.) But, we are told, the archeological discoveries of the last few years dispose of the whole question, and compel us entirely to reconstruct the traditional history of the Persian conquest of Babylon. "We now possess the actual records of Nabonidos and Cyrus," Professor Sayce tells us, and he adds, "They are records the truth of which cannot be doubted." What "simple child-like faith" these good men have in ancient records, Holy Scripture only excepted! The principal record here in question is "the Annalistic tablet of Cyrus," an inscription of which the transparent design is to represent his conquest of Babylon as the fulfillment of a divine mission, and the realisation of the wishes of the conquered. And any document of the kind, whether dated in the sixth century B.C. or the nineteenth century A.D., is open to grave suspicion, and should be received with caution. Even kings may pervert the truth, and State-papers may falsify facts! But even assuming its accuracy, it in no way supports the conclusions which are based upon it. No advance will be made towards a solution of these questions until our Christian scholars shake themselves free from the baneful influence of the skeptics, whose blind hostility to Holy Scripture unfits them for dealing with any controversy of the kind. The following is a typical instance of the effect of the influence I deprecate: "But Belshazzar never became king in his father’s place. No mention is made of him at the end of the Annalistic tablet, and it would therefore appear that he was no longer in command of the Babylonian army when the invasion of Cyrus took place. Owing to the unfortunate lacuna in the middle of the tablet we have no account of what became of him, but since we are told not only of the fate of Nabonidos, but also of the death of his wife, it seems probable that Belshazzar was dead. At any rate, when Cyrus entered Babylonia he had already disappeared from history. Here, then, the account given by the Book of Daniel is at variance with the testimony of the inscriptions. But the contradictions do not end here. The Biblical story implies that Babylon was taken by storm; at all events it expressly states that ’the king of the Chaldeans was slain.’ Nabonidos, the Babylonian king, however, was not slain, and Cyrus entered Babylon ’in peace.’ Nor was Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadrezzar, as we are repeatedly told in the fifth chapter of Daniel." May I criticize the critic? Daniel nowhere avers that Belshazzar became king in his father’s place. On the contrary, it clearly implies that he reigned as his father’s viceroy. Daniel nowhere suggests that he was in command of the Babylonian army. The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments, pp. 525, 526. This last point is typical of the inaccuracy and pertinacity of the critics. We are nowhere told in Daniel that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar. We are told that he was so addressed at the Court of Babylon, which is a wholly different matter. He was probably a descendant of the great king, but it is certain that if, rightly or wrongly, he claimed relationship with him, no one at his court would dispute the claim. In a table of Babylonian kings I find mention of a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar who married the father of Nabonidus (Trans. Vict. Inst., vol. 18: p. 99). This of course would dispose of the whole difficulty. She, perhaps, was "the king’s mother," whose death eight years before was followed by national mourning (Anna. Tablet). To trade on the word "son "is a mere quibble, which has been exposed again and again. (See Pusey’s Daniel, p. 405, and Rawlinson’s Egypt and Babylon, p. 1) The Annalistic tablet, on the other hand, tells us that Nabonidus was at the head of the army, and that he was at Sippara when the Persian invasion took place, and fled when that town opened its gates to the invaders. To the fact that more than half of the inscription is lost Professor Sayce attributes the absence of all mention of Belshazzar. And yet he goes on to assume, without a shadow of evidence, that he had died before the date of the expedition; and upon this utterly baseless conjecture he founds the equally baseless assertion that "Daniel is at variance with the testimony of the inscriptions"! As a matter of fact, however, the tablet is not silent about Belshazzar. On the contrary, it expressly refers to him, and records his death. But to resume. Daniel nowhere avers that "Babylon was taken by storm." Neither is it said, "the king of the Chaldeans was slain"; the words are explicit that "Belshazzar, the Chaldean king, was slain." How his death was brought about we are not told. He may have fallen in repelling an assault upon the palace, or his death may have been caused in furtherance of the priestly conspiracy in favour of Cyrus, or the "wise men" may have compassed it in revenge for the preferment of Daniel. All this is mere conjecture. Scripture merely tells us that he was slain, and that Darius the Mede, aged about sixty-two, "received the kingdom." The same word occurs again in 2: 6 ("Ye shall receive of me gifts," etc.), and in 7: i8 (" The saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom "). No word could more fitly describe the enthronement of a vassal king or viceroy. No language could be more apt to record a peaceful change of dynasty, such as, according to some of the students of the inscriptions, took place when Nabonidus lost the throne. But this is not all; and the sequel may well excite the reader’s astonishment. First, we are asked to draw inferences from the silence of this document, though we possess but mutilated fragments of it, and, for ought we know, the lost portions may have contained matter to refute these very inferences. And secondly, accepting the contents of the fragments which remain, the allegation that they contradict the Book of Daniel has no better foundation than Professor Sayce’s heretical reading of them; and if we appeal to a more trustworthy guide, we shall find that, so far from being inconsistent with the sacred narrative, they afford the most striking confirmation of its truth. According to this tablet, "Sippara was taken without fighting, and Nabonidus fled." This was on the i4th day of Tammuz;’ and on the 16th, "Gobryas and the soldiers of Cyrus entered Babylon without fighting." On the 3rd day of Marchesvan, that is, four months later, Cyrus himself arrived. Following this comes the significant statement: "The 13th day of Marchesvan, during the night, Gobryas was on the bank of the river. The son of the king died"; or, as Professor Driver reads it, "Gubaru made an assault, and slew the king’s son." Then follows the mention of the national mourning and of the State burial conducted by Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, in person. But instead of "the son of the king," Professor Sayce here reads "the wife of the king," and upon this error rests the entire superstructure of his attack upon the accuracy of Daniel.’ Nor is this all, the main statements in the tablet may reasonably be accepted. We may assume that the Persian troops entered Sippara on the 14th Tammuz, and reached Babylon on the 16th. But the assertion that in both cases the entry was peaceful will, of course, be received with reserve. Professor Sayce, however, would have us believe it all implicitly, and he goes on to assert that Cyrus was King of Babylon from the 14th Tammuz, and therefore that Daniel’s mention of the death of Belshazzar and the accession of Darius the Mede is purely mythical. He dismisses to a footnote the awkward fact that we have commercial tablets dated in the reign of Nabonidus throughout the year, and even after the arrival of Cyrus himself; and his gloss upon this fact is that it gives further proof that the change of dynasty was a peaceful one! It gives proof clear and conclusive that during this period Nabonidus was still recognized as king, and therefore that Cyrus was not yet master of the city. As a matter of fact we have not a single "Cyrus" tablet in this year dated from Babylon. All, with one exception, the source of which is not known, were made in Sippara.’ But who was this personage whose death was the occasion of a great national mourning and a State funeral? As the context shows clearly that "the king" referred to was not Cyrus, he can have been no other than Nabonidus; and as "the king’s son," so frequently mentioned in the earlier fragments of the inscription and in the contract tablets, is admittedly Belshazzar, there is no reason whatever to doubt that it was he whose death and obsequies are here recorded. What then does all this lead us to? The careful and impartial historian, repudiating the iconoclastic zeal of the controversialist, will set himself to consider how these facts can be harmonized with other records sacred and profane; and the task will not prove a difficult one. Accepting the fact that at the time of the Persian invasion Nabonidus was absent from Babylon, he will be prepared to find that "the king’s son" held command in the capital as viceroy. Accepting the fact that the Persian army entered Babylon in the month Tammuz, and that Cyrus arrived four months later, but yet that Nabonidus was still recognized as king, he will explain the seeming paradox by inferring that the invaders were in possession only of a part of the vast city of Nebuchadnezzar, and that Belshazzar, surrounded by his court and the wealthy classes of the community, still refused to yield. Accepting the fact that Cyrus desired to represent his conquest as a bloodless one, he will be prepared to assume that force was resorted to only after a long delay and when diplomacy was exhausted. And he will not be surprised to find that when at last, either in an attack upon the palace, or by some act of treachery in furtherance of the cause of the invaders, "Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain," the fact was veiled by the euphemistic announcement that "the king’s son died." But while the record is thus shown to be entirely consistent with Daniel, so far as the mention of Belshazzar is concerned, what room does it leave for Darius the Mede? The answer is that the inscription fails us at this precise point. "The rest of the text is destroyed, but the fragments of it which remain indicate that it described the various attempts made by Cyrus and his son Kambyses, after the overthrow of Nabonidus, to settle the affairs of Babylonia and conciliate the priesthood." Such is Professor Sayce’s own testimony. In a word, it is doubtful whether the tablet mentions Darius or not, but it is certain that any such mention would be purely incidental, and wholly outside the purpose with which the inscription was framed. While its mention of him, therefore, would be conclusive, its silence respecting him would prove nothing. (When the fall of the Empire scattered the Secret Service staff of the French Prefecture of Police, many strange things came to my knowledge. I then learned that Count D’Orsay’s death was caused by a pistol- bullet aimed at the Emperor, with whom he was walking arm-in-arm. But it was publicly announced, and universally believed, that he died of a carbuncle in the back. If, even in these days of newspapers, facts can be thus disguised for reasons of State, who will pretend that the circumstances of Belshazzar’s death may not have been thus concealed in Chaldea twenty-five centuries ago? Moreover, Professor Driver’s reading of the tablet (see p. 32, ante) renders even this suggestion unnecessary. ) Nor will the omission of his name from the commercial tablets decide the matter either way. If, as Daniel indicates, Darius was but a viceroy or vassal king, his suzerain’s name would, in the ordinary course, be used for this purpose, just as the name of Nabonidus was used during the regency of Belshazzar. ( The language of the Cyrus inscription is very striking, as indicating that Gobryas was no mere subordinate; e.g., "Peace to the city did Cyrus establish. Peace to all the princes of Babylon did Gobryas his governor proclaim. Governors in Babylon he (Gobryas) appointed.") But who was this Darius? Various hypotheses are maintained by scholars of eminence. By some he is identified with Gobryas, and this suggestion commends itself on many grounds. Others, again, follow the view adopted by Josephus, according to which Darius was "the son and successor of Astyages "- namely, Cyaxares II. Xenophon is the only authority for the existence of such a king, but his testimony has been rejected too lightly on the plea that his Cyropadia is but a romance. The writers of historical romances, however, do not invent kings. Yet another suggestion remains, that Darius was the personal name of "Astyages," the last king of the Medes. "This," says Bishop Westcott, "appears to satisfy all the conditions of the problem." Although I myself adopt the first of these rival hypotheses, my task is merely to show that the question is still open, and that the grounds on which it is now sought to prove it closed are such as would satisfy no one who is competent to form an opinion upon the evidence. Though Professor Driver here remarks that "mere seems to be no room for such a ruler," he is careful to add that the circumstances are not inconsistent with either his existence or his office, "and a cautious criticism will not build too much on the silence of the inscriptions, where many certainly remain yet to be brought to light." The identity of Darius the Mede is one of the most interesting problems in the Daniel controversy, and it is a problem which cannot be ignored. The critics do not dispose of it by declaring the Book of Daniel to be a "pseudepigraph" of Maccabean days. Accepting that hypothesis for the sake of argument, the mention of Darius remains to be accounted for. Some writers reject it as "pure fiction"; others denounce it as a "sheer blunder." Though these are wholly inconsistent hypotheses, Dr. Farrar adopts both. Both, however, are alike untenable; and the "avowed fiction" theory may be dismissed as unworthy of notice. The writer would have had no possible motive for inventing a "Darius," for the events of Daniel VI. might just as well have been assigned to some other reign, and a figment of the kind would have marred his book. The suggestion is preposterous. And the author must have been a man of extraordinary genius and of great erudition. He would have had before him historical records now lost, such as the history of Berosus. He would have had access to the authorities upon which the book of the Antiquities is based; for the student of Josephus cannot fail to see that his history is partly derived from sources other than the Book of Daniel. And besides all this, he would have had the Book of Ezra, which records how Darius the Persian issued an edict to give effect to the decree of Cyrus for the rebuilding of the Temple, and also the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, which bring this fact into still greater prominence. It may safely be averred, therefore, that no intelligent schoolboy, no devout peasant, in all Judah could have been guilty of a blunder so gross and stupid as that which is attributed to this "holy and gifted Jew," the author of the most famous and successful literary fraud the world has ever seen! The "sheer blunder" theory may be rejected as sheer nonsense. Accepting, then, for the sake of argument, the pseudepigraph theory of Daniel, the book gives proof of a definite and well-established historical tradition that when Cyrus conquered Babylon, "Darius the Mede received the kingdom." How, then, is that tradition to be accounted for? The question demands an answer, but the critics have none to offer. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 46: 1.04.06. CHAPTER 4: "PHILOLOGICAL PECULIARITIES": THE LANGUAGE OF DANIEL ======================================================================== CHAPTER 4: "PHILOLOGICAL PECULIARITIES": THE LANGUAGE OF DANIEL "THE philological peculiarities of the book" constitute the next ground of the critic’s attack on Daniel. "The Hebrew" (he declares) "is pronounced by the majority of experts to be of a later character than the time assumed for it." The Aramaic also is marked by idioms of a later period, familiar to the Palestinian Jews.’ And not only are Persian words employed in the book, but it contains certain Greek words, which, it is said, could not have been in use in Babylon during the exile. (The opening passage of Daniel, from Ch. 1. 1 to Ch. 2. 3, is written in the sacred Hebrew, and this is resumed at Ch. 8. 1 and continued to the end. The intervening portion, from Ch. 2: 4 to the end of Ch. 7, is written in Chaldee or Aramaic. Professor Cheyne accepts a suggestion of Lenormant’s that the whole book was written in Hebrew, but that the original of 2: 14 to 7: was lost (Smith’s Bible Dict., art."Daniel"). Here is Professor Driver’s summary of the argument under this head: "The verdict of the language of Daniel is thus clear. The Persian words presuppose a period after the Persian Empire had been well established: the Greek words demand, the Hebrew supports, and the Aramaic permits, a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great (B.C. 332). With our present knowledge, this is as much as the language authorizes us definitely to affirm." Now, the strength of this case depends on one point. Any number of argumentative presumptions may be rebutted by opposing evidence; but here, it is alleged, we have proof which admits of no answer: the Greek words in Daniel demand a date which destroys the genuineness of the book. Will the reader believe it that the only foundation for this is the presence of two words which are alleged to be Greek! Dr. Farrar insists on three, but one of these (kitliaros) is practically given up. The story was lately told that at a church bazaar in Lincoln, held under episcopal patronage, the alarm was given that a thief was at work, and two of the visitors had lost their purses. In the excitement which followed, the stolen purses, emptied of course of their contents, were found in the bishop’s pocket. The Higher Criticism would have handed him over to the police! Do the critics understand the very rudiments of the science of weighing evidence? The presence of the stolen purses did not "demand" the conviction of the bishop. Neither should the presence of the Greek words decide the fate of Daniel. There was no doubt, moreover, as to the identity of the purses, while Dr. Pusey and others dispute the derivation of the words. But in the one case as in the other the question would remain, How did they come to be where they were found? (The attempt to explain in this way difficulties of another kind is to force the hypothesis unduly. But assuming, what there is no reason whatever to doubt, that such a revision took place, we should expect to find that familiar idioms would be substituted for others that were deemed archaic, that familiar words would be substituted for terms which then seemed strange or uncouth to the Jews of Palestine, and that names like Nebuchadrezzar would be altered to suit the then received orthography. And the "immense anachronism," if such it were, of using the word "Chaldeans" as synonymous with the caste of wise men is thus simply and fully explained. As regards the name Nebuchadnezzar, it is hard to repress a feeling of indignation against the dishonesty of the critics. They plainly imply that this spelling is peculiar to Daniel. The fact is that the name occurs in nine of the books of the Old Testament, and in all of them, with the single exception of Ezekiel, it appears in this form. In Jeremiah it is spelt in both ways, proving clearly that the now received orthography was in use when the Book of Daniel was written, or else that the spelling of the name throughout the sacred books is entirely a matter of editing.) The Talmud declares that, in common with some other parts of the canon, Daniel was edited by the men of the Great Synagogue - a college which is supposed to have been founded by Nehemiah, and which continued until it gave place to the Great Sanhedrim. May not this be the explanation of all these philological difficulties? This is not to have recourse to a baseless conjecture in order to evade well- founded objections: it is merely to give due weight to an authoritative tradition, the very existence of which is primafacie proof of its truth.’ It may be added that in view of recent discoveries no competent scholar would now reproduce without reserve the argument based on the presence of foreign words in the book. The fact is, the evolution theory has thrown its shadow across this controversy. The extraordinary conceit which marks our much- vaunted age has hitherto led us to assume that, in what has been regarded as a prehistoric period, men were slowly emerging from barbarism, that written records were wanting, and that there was no interchange among nations in the sphere either of scholarship or of trade. It is now known, however, that at even a far earlier period the nations bordering upon the Mediterranean possessed a literature and enjoyed a civilization of no mean excellence. Merchants and philosophers travelled freely from land to land, carrying with them their wares and their learning; and to appeal to the Greek words in Daniel as proof that the book was written after the date of Alexander’s conquests, no longer savors of scholarship. According to Professor Sayce, "there were Greek colonies on the coast of Palestine in the time of Hezekiah "-a century before Daniel was born; "and they already enjoyed so much power there that a Greek usurper was made King of Ashdod. The Tel el-Amarna tablets have enabled us to carry back a contract between Greece and Canaan to a still earlier period." Indeed he goes on to indicate the possibility "that there was intercourse and contact between the Canaanites or Hebrews in Palestine and the Greeks of the Aegean as far back as the age of Moses." But this is not all. Will the reader believe it, I ask again with increasing emphasis and indignation, that the Greek words, the presence of which is held to "demand" the rejection of the Book of Daniel, are merely the names of musical instruments? If the instruments themselves came from Greece it might be assumed that they would carry with them to Babylon the names by which they were known in the land of their origin. In no other sphere would men listen to what passes for proof when Scripture is assailed. In no other sphere would such trifling be tolerated. What would be thought of a tribunal which convicted a notorious thief of petty larceny on such evidence as this? The Persian words are of still less account. That the Persian language was unknown among the cultured classes in Babylon is incredible. That it was widely known is suggested by the ease with which the Persian rule was accepted. The position which Daniel attained under that rule renders it probable in the extreme that he himself was a Persian scholar. And the date of his closing vision makes it certain that his book was compiled after that rule was established. But, it will be answered, the philological argument does not rest upon points like these; its strength lies in the general character of the language in which the book is written. The question here raised, as Dr. Farrar justly says, "involves delicate problems on which an independent and a valuable opinion can only be offered" by scholars of a certain class and very few in number.’ But the student will find that their decision is by no means unanimous or clear. And of course their dicla must be considered in connection with evidence of other kinds which it is beyond their province to deal with. Dr. Pusey’s magnificent work, in which the whole subject is handled with the greatest erudition and care, is not dismissed by others with the contempt which Dr. Farrar evinces for a man who is fired by the enthusiasm of faith in the Bible. In his judgment the Hebrew of Daniel is "just what one should expect at the age at which he lived." (1 Dr. Farrar’s words are, "by the merest handful of living scholars" (p. 17). How many scholars make a "handful" he does not tell us, and of the two he proceeds to appeal to, one is not living but dead!) And one of the highest living authorities, who has been quoted in this controversy as favoring a late date for the Book of Daniel, writes in reply to an inquiry I have addressed to him: "I am now of opinion that it is a very difficult task to settle the age of any portion of that book from its language." This is also the opinion of Professor Cheyne, a thoroughly hostile witness. His words are: "From the Hebrew of the Book of Daniel no important inference as to its date can be safely drawn."’ And, lastly, appeal may be made to Dr. Farrar himself, who remarks with signal fairness, but with strange inconsistency, that "Perhaps nothing certain can be inferred from the philological examination either of the Hebrew or of the Chaldee portions of the book." And again, still more definitely, he declares: "The character of the language proves nothing." This testimony, carrying as it does the exceptional weight which attaches to the admissions of a prejudiced and hostile witness, might be accepted as decisive of the whole question. And the fact being what is here stated, the stress laid on grounds thus admitted to be faulty and inconclusive is proof only of a determination by fair means or foul to discredit the Book of Daniel. In his History of the Criminal Law, Sir James Fitzjames Stephen declares that, as no kind of evidence more demands the test of cross-examination than that of experts, their proper place is the witness chair and not the judgment seat. Therefore when Professor Driver announces "the verdict of the language of Daniel," he goes entirely outside his proper province. The opinions of the philologist are entitled to the highest respect, but the "verdict" rests with those who have practical acquaintance with the science of evidence. Before turning away from this part of the subject, it may be well to appeal to yet another witness, and he shall be one whose competency Dr. Farrar acknowledges, and none will question. His words, moreover, have an interest and value far beyond the present controversy, and deserve most careful consideration by all who have been stumbled or misled by the arrogant dogmatism of the so-called Higher Critics. The following quotation is from An Essay on the Place of Ecclesiasticus in Semitic Literature by Professor Margoliouth: "My lamented colleague, Dr. Edersheim, and I, misled by the very late date assigned by eminent scholars to the books of the Bible, had worked under the tacit assumption that the language of Ben-Sira was the language of the Prophets; whereas in reality he wrote the language of the Rabbis" (p. 6). (It should be explained that the Proverbs of Jesus the son of Sirach have come down to us in a Greek translation, but the character of that translation is such that the reconstruction of the original Hebrew text is a task within the capacity of competent scholarship, and a preface to that translation fixes the date of the book as not later than about B.C. 200. But to resume:) "If by 200 B.C. the whole Rabbinic farrago, with its terms and phrases and idioms and particles, was developed, . . . then between Ben-Sira and the Books of the Old Testament there must lie centuries - nay, there must lie, in most cases, the deep waters of the Captivity, the grave of the old-Hebrew and the old Israel, and the womb of the new-Hebrew and the new Israel. If Hebrew, like any other language, has a history, then Isaiah (first or second) must be separated from Ecclesiastes by a gulf; but a yet greater gulf must yawn between Ecclesiastes and Ecclesiasticus, for in the interval a whole dictionary has been invented of philosophical terms such as we traced above, of logical phrases, . . . legal expressions, . . . nor have the structure and grammar of the language experienced less serious alteration. . . . It may be, if ever Ben-Sira is properly restored, . . . that while some students are engaged in bringing down the date of every chapter in the Bible so late as to leave no room for prophecy and revelation, others will endeavor to find out how early the professedly post-exilian books can be put back, so as to account for the divergence between their awkward middle-Hebrew and the rich and eloquent new-Hebrew of Ben-Sira. However this may be, hypotheses which place any portion of the classical or old-Hebrew Scriptures between the middle-Hebrew of Neheniiah and the new-Hebrew of Ben-Sira will surely require some reconsideration, or at least have to be harmonized in some way with the history of the language, before they can be unconditionally accepted." These weighty words have received striking confirmation by the recent discovery of the "Cairene Ecclesiasticus," a Hebrew MS. the genuineness of which is maintained by most of the critics, though others regard it as merely an attempt to reconstruct the original of Ben-Sira. According to Dr. Schechter, who has edited the document for the University of Cambridge, an examination of the language establishes "the conclusion that at the period in which B.-S. composed his ’Wisdom’ classical Hebrew was already a thing of the past, the real language of the period being that Hebrew idiom which we know from the Mishnah and cognate Rabbinic literature." And again, after freely quoting from Ben-Sira: "These specimens are enough to show that in the times of B.-S. the new-Hebrew dialect had long advanced beyond the transitory stage known to us from the later Biblical books, and had already reached, both in respect of grammar and of phraseology, that degree of development to which the Mishnah bears testimony." ( The Wisdom of Ben-Sira, etc., by S. Schechter, M.A., Litt.D., etc., and C. Taylor, D.D., Master of St. John’s College, Cambridge (Cambridge University Press, 1899). As Professor Driver and his school have unreservedly accepted this MS., it is not open to them to plead that its genuineness is doubtful. And if Professor Margoliouth’s judgment should ultimately prevail that it is a forgery of late date - the tenth or eleventh century - it would be still, as an attempt to reconstruct the Hebrew original, a notable confirmation of the views and opinions above cited. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 47: 1.04.07. CHAPTER 5: THE POSITIVE EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF DANIEL ======================================================================== CHAPTER 5: THE POSITIVE EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF DANIEL THE critics claim a competency to judge whether this portion or that of the canon of Scripture be divinely inspired, and in the exercise of this faculty they have decided that certain passages of Daniel give proof that the book could not have a divine sanction. Their dicta on this subject will have weight with us just in proportion to our ignorance of Scripture. The opening chapters of the book which follows Daniel in the canon present far greater difficulties in this respect, and yet the prophetic character of Hosea is unquestionable. Other Scriptures also might be cited to point the same moral; but as these pretensions of the critics are not accepted by Christians generally, the matter need not be further discussed. Still more summarily we may dismiss Dean Farrar’s argument from the absence of references to Daniel in the apocryphal literature of the Jews. Indeed, he himself supplies the answer to it, for when he approaches the subject from another standpoint he emphasizes the influence which the book exercised upon that very literature. And as for the silence of Jesus the son of Sirach, the argument only serves to indicate the dearth of weightier proofs. The reader can turn to the passage referred to and decide the matter for himself. If an omission from this panegyric of "famous men" proves anything, Ezra and the book which bears his name must also be rejected. The next point claims fuller notice. Daniel was admittedly received into the canon; but, we are told, "it is relegated to the Kethuvim, side by side with such a book as Esther." The answer to this is complete. In the Jewish canon the Old Testament Scriptures were reckoned as twenty-four books. These were classified as the Torak, the Neveeim, and the Kethuvim - the Law, the Prophets, and the Other Writings. Now, the objection implies that the Neveeim embraced all that was regarded as prophecy, and nothing else; and that the contents of the Kethuvim were deemed inferior to the rest of the canon. Both these implications are false. In the former class are placed the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. And the latter included two books at least, than which no part of the Scriptures was more highly esteemed,- the Psalms, associated so inseparably with the name of King David; and Esther, which, pace the sneer of the critic, was held in exceptional honour. Dr. Driver avers that it came to be "ranked by the Jews as superior both to the writings of the prophets and to all other parts of the Hagiographa." The Psalms headed the list. Then came Proverbs, connected with the name of Solomon. Then Job, one of the oldest of the books. Then followed the five Megilloth (Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther). And finally Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, and Chronicles. To have placed Daniel before the Megilloth would have separated it from the books with which it was so immediately associated. In a word, its place in the list is normal and natural. The Book of Psalms, as already mentioned, stood first in the Keihuvim, and in later times gave it its name; for when our Lord spoke of "the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms," he thereby meant "all the Scriptures." Many of the Psalms were rightly deemed prophetic; but though David was a prophet in the highest sense, it was not as prophet but as king that his name was enshrined in the memory of the people, and the book thus naturally found its place in the third division of the canon. For the books were grouped rather by authorship than by the character of their contents. Precisely the same reason existed for placing Daniel where it stood; for it was not till the end of a long life spent in statecraft that the visions were accorded to the Exile. But this is not all. As Dr. Farrar urges, though he is obviously blind to its significance, Daniel had no claim to the prophet’s mantle. The prophets "spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost:" he merely recorded the words addressed to him by the angel, and described the visions he witnessed. And the question here, be it remembered, is not what weight would be given to this distinction by our modern critics, but how it would influence the minds of the men who settled the canon. I am here assuming that the place which the Book of Daniel now holds in the Hebrew Bible is that which was originally assigned to it. But this is by no means certain. There are definite reasons to suspect that it was the Talmudists who removed it from the position it occupies in the LXX. version and in our English Bible, and relegated it to the third division of the canon. And now it is high time to raise a question which the critic systematically ignores, a question which possibly he is incompetent to deal with. For the Higher Criticism claims an entirely false position in this controversy. The critic is a specialist; and specialists, though often necessary witnesses, are proverbially bad judges. To some men, moreover, every year that passes brings more experience in the art of weighing evidence than the theologian or the pundit would be likely to acquire in a lifetime. And such men are familiar with cases where a mass of seemingly invincible proof seems to point one way, and yet fuller inquiry establishes that the truth lies in a wholly opposite direction. But the caution which such experience begets is not to be looked for in the critic. And as for Dr. Farrar, his book reminds us of a private prosecution conducted by that type of lawyer whose remuneration is proportionate to the vehemence with which he presses every point against the defendant. It never seems to have crossed his mind that there may possibly be two sides to the question. Here, then, we have everything which can possibly be urged against the Book of Daniel: the inquiry remains, What further can be said in its defense? Let us call a few of the witnesses. First comes the mention of Daniel, three times repeated, in the prophecies of Ezekiel (xiv. 14, 20, and 28: 3). The critics urge that a man so famous as the Daniel of the Exile is represented to have been in the book which bears his name, would have filled a large place in the literature of the nation, and they appeal to the silence of that literature in proof that no such personage in fact existed. And yet when the testimony of Ezekiel is cited, they declare that there must have been another Daniel of equal if not greater fame, who flourished at some earlier epoch of their history, albeit not even the vaguest tradition of his existence has survived! Such casuistry is hard to deal with. But here Dr. Farrar is rash enough to leave the path so well worn by the feet of those he follows, and to venture upon a piece of independent criticism. He fixes B.C. 6o6 as the date of Daniel’s captivity, and twelve years as his age when carried to Babylon; and he adds: "If Ezekiel’s prophecy was uttered B.C. 584, Daniel at that time could only have been twenty-two: if it was uttered as late as B.C. 572, Daniel would still have been only thirty-four, and therefore little more than a youth in Jewish eyes. It is undoubtedly surprising that among Orientals, who regard age as the chief passport to wisdom, a living youth should be thus canonized between the Patriarch of the Deluge and the Prince of Uz." The author’s words have been given verbatim, lest someone should charitably suppose they have been misrepresented. For the reader will perceive that this pretentious argument has no better foundation than a transparent blunder in simple arithmetic. According to his own showing, Daniel was upwards of thirty- four, and he may have been forty-six, when Ezekiel’s prophecy was uttered. And setting aside the absurd figment that Daniel was but a child of twelve when deported to Babylon, his age at the date of the prophecy must, as a matter of fact, have been forty at the least, or "if it was uttered as late as B.C. 572," he must have already reached middle age. In either case he had already attained the prime of his powers and the zenith of his fame. What, then, are the facts? We have Daniel in a position of dazzling splendor and influence at the Court of Nebuchadnezzar, second only to that of the great king himself. His power and fame, great though they were, cannot fail to have loomed greater still in the estimate of the humbler exiles by the river Chebar, among whom Ezekiel lived and prophesied. Neither "the Patriarch of the Deluge" nor "the Prince of Uz" would have held as large a place in the heart or in the imagination of the people. The name of their great patron must have been on every lip. His power was their security against oppression. His influence doubtless fired their hopes of a return to the land of their fathers. Nor was this all. The college of the Chaldean Magi was famous the wide world over; and for more than twenty years Daniel had been "chief of the wise men," and thus, in wisdom as well as in statecraft, the foremost figure of the Court of Babylon. Among Orientals, and especially among his own people, the record of the event which gained him that position, and of his triumphs of administration as Grand Vizier, would have lost nothing in the telling. And though his piety was intense and wholly phenomenal, his reputation in this respect also could not fail to be exaggerated. Such, then, was the time and such the circumstances of Ezekiel’s prophecy - words of scorn addressed to one of the great enemies of their race: "Behold thou art wiser than Daniel, there is no secret that they can hide from thee;" or words of denunciation of the wickedness which brought such judgments upon Jerusalem: "Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness." The refusal therefore to accept the testimony of Ezekiel as evidence to accredit the Book of Daniel is proof that neither honesty nor fairness may be looked for from the skeptics. In the judgment of all reasonable men, this single testimony will go far to decide the issue. The First Book of Maccabees is a work of the highest excellence. It has an authority and value which no other part of the Apocrypha possesses, and even Luther declared it not unworthy to be reckoned among the sacred books of Scripture. The author was indeed "a holy and gifted Jew," and though the suggestion that he was no other than John Hyrcanus is now discredited, it gives proof of his eminence both for piety and learning. And one of the most striking and solemn passages of this book, the record of the dying words of the venerable Mattathias, refers to the Daniel of the Exile and the book which bears his name. Notwithstanding the extraordinary erudition which has been brought to bear upon this controversy, so far as I am aware the full significance of this fact has hitherto escaped notice. There is internal evidence that I Maccabees was written before the death of John Hyrcanus (B.C. 106). Allowing, then, for the sake of argument, the utterly improbable hypothesis that the canon was not closed till after the time of Antiochus, the book affords conclusive proof that among the learned of that day Daniel was regarded as the work of the great prophet-prince of the Captivity. It was as such, therefore, that it must have been admitted to the canon. The theory is thus exploded that it was as a "pseudepigraph" that the Sanhedrim received it; and the fact of its reception becomes evidence of its genuineness which would outweigh the whole mass of the objections and difficulties which have been heaped together upon the other side. If space were of no account, numerous points might thus be turned against the argument in support of which the critic adduces them. But these may be safely ignored in presence of other proofs of principal importance. It was Sir Isaac Newton’s opinion that "to reject Daniel’s prophecies would be to undermine the Christian religion." Bishop Westcott declares that no other book of the Old Testament had so great a share in the development of Christianity. To cite a hostile witness, Professor Bevan admits that "the influence of the book is apparent almost everywhere." In this connection he adds: "The more we realize how vast and how profound was the influence of Daniel in post-Maccabean times, the more difficult it is to believe that the book existed previously for well-nigh four centuries without exercising any perceptible influence whatsoever." On this it may be remarked, first, that it is far more difficult to believe that a "pseudepigraph" could possibly have had an influence so vast and so profound on the development of Christianity. The suggestion indeed, if accepted, might well discredit Christianity altogether. And secondly, it is extraordinary how any person can fail to see that the influence of the Book of Daniel in post-Maccabean times was due to the fulfillment of its predictions relating to those times. Dr. Farrar quotes, though with special reprobation, the dictum of Hengstenberg, that "there are few books whose divine authority is so fully established by the testimony of the New Testament, and in particular by the Lord Himself." And yet the truth of all this no thoughtful Christian can question. St. Paul’s predictions of the Antichrist point back to the visions of Daniel. And with those visions the visions of St. John - the Daniel of the New Testament - are so inseparably interwoven, that if the former be attributed to imagination, the latter must be attributed to lunacy. The Book of Daniel and the Apocalypse stand or fall together. But the matter becomes far more serious and solemn when we realize how definitely the visions of Daniel have been adopted in the teaching of Christ. Dr. Farrar imagines that he has disposed of the matter by the figment that in the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew the reference to "Daniel the prophet" was added by the evangelist as an explanatory note. But even if such a wild suggestion could be allowed, every intelligent reader of the passage can see that any such interpolation must have been based upon the obvious and unmistakable connection between the words of our Lord and the visions of the prophet of the Exile. Here is a dilemma from which escape is impossible. If the Gospels be authentic and true, our Lord has adopted, and identified Himself with, the visions of this now discredited book. If the Gospels be unreliable and fictitious, the foundations of our faith are destroyed, and belief in Christianity is sheer superstition. "To the last degree dangerous, irreverent, and unwise" this may seem in the Dean of Canterbury’s judgment, but its truth is none the less obvious and clear. It cannot be asserted too plainly that Christianity is a Divine revelation. Nor need the admission be withheld that, apart from revelation in the strictest sense, the Christian’s faith would be without adequate foundation. It is easy, indeed, to formulate a religious system based on the teaching of a traditional "Jesus Christ." But this is no more than a Christianized Buddhism; it is certainly not Christianity. The main fact on which Christianity as a system rests is the incarnation; and the man who, apart from revelation, believes in the incarnation is a credulous weak creature who would believe anything. "The Nazarene was admittedly the son of Mary. The Jews declared that he was the son of Joseph; the Christian worships Him as the Son of God. The founder of Rome was said to be the divinely begotten child of a vestal virgin. And in the old Babylonian mysteries a similar parentage was ascribed to the martyred son of Semiramis gazetted Queen of Heaven. What grounds have we, then, for distinguishing the miraculous birth at Bethlehem from these and other kindred legends of the ancient world? To point to the resurrection is a transparent begging of the question. To appeal to human testimony is utter folly. At this point we are face to face with that to which no consensus of mere human testimony could lend even an a priori probability." The editor of Lux Mundi and his allies would here seek to save their reputation for intelligence by setting up the authority of "the Church" as an adequate ground for faith. This theory, however, is a plant of foreign growth, which, happily, has not taken root in England. But while on this point the Dean of Canterbury would probably repudiate the teaching with which, in its degenerate days, Pusey House identified itself, he would doubtless endorse the words which follow. Here is the passage: "The Christian creed asserts the reality of certain historical facts. To these facts, in the Church’s name, we claim assent; but we do so on grounds which, so far, are quite independent of the infiltration of the evangelical records. All that we claim to show at this stage is that they are historical: not historical so as to be absolutely without error, but historical in the general sense, so as to be trustworthy. All that is necessary for faith in Christ is to be found in the moral dispositions which predispose to belief, and make intelligible and credible the thing to be believed: coupled with such acceptance of the generally historical character of the Gospels, and of the trustworthiness of the other Apostolic documents, as justifies belief that our Lord was actually born of the Virgin Mary," etc. This language is plain enough. The gospels are not even divinely accredited as true. They are "historical in the general sense" indeed, and therefore as trustworthy as history in general. They afford, therefore, ample ground for belief in the public facts of the life and death of Christ. But who denies or doubts these facts? They have their place in the Koran and the writings of the Rabbis, as well as in our Christian literature. But on what ground can we justify our faith in the transcendental facts to which these public facts owe all their spiritual significance? "To these facts, in the Church’s name, we claim assent," is the only reply vouchsafed to us. Let a man but yield up his judgment and bow before his priest, and he will soon acquire "the moral dispositions which predispose to belief, and make intelligible and credible the thing to be believed." And whether the object of his worship be Buddha or Mahomet or Christ, the result will be the same!’ "But," Dr. Farrar here exclaims, "Our belief in the Incarnation, and in the miracles of Christ, rests on evidence which, after repeated examination, is to us overwhelming. Apart from all questions of personal verification, or the Inward Witness of the Spirit, we can show that this evidence is supported, not only by the existing records, but by myriads of external and independent testimonies." Contempt is poured upon our belief that an angel messenger appeared to Daniel, and we are not even permitted to believe that an angel ministered to our Divine Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane. But if, as the natural outcome of this teaching, we should be led to doubt the reality of the angelic apparition at Bethlehem, the indignation of the teacher will find vent in a scream of hysterical and unmeaning rhetoric. For the question at issue here is the truth of the opening statement of the Gospel narrative. I allude to Matthew 1:18-25, the last verse especially. To the facts there recorded only two persons in the world could testify, and the witness of Mary and Joseph reaches us only in the very records which, we are told, are unreliable and marred by error. But Dean Farrar will assure us that, while words attributed to our Lord Himself are not to be accepted as authentic and true, the evidence here is "overwhelming." Of the reality of Joseph’s visions, and of the fact of Mary’s faithfulness and purity, we are supposed to have satisfied ourselves, first by "personal verification," secondly by "the inward witness of the Spirit," thirdly by study of the "existing records "-the very records which he disparages - and lastly by "tens of thousands of external testimonies"! To discuss this is impossible, for here the writer passes out of the region in which reason holds sway, and parts company even with commonsense. The position of the Christian is an intelligible one. Though he believes in the unseen and the unprovable, his faith is strictly rational; for, assuming a Divine revelation, belief is the highest act of reason. I cannot here discuss the grounds on which he claims to possess such a revelation.’ I merely note the fact that the Christian maintains such a claim, and that, if it be assented to, his position is unassailable. But if once the validity of that claim be destroyed, every fearless thinker must fall back upon skepticism as "the rational attitude of a thinking mind towards the supernatural." The story of the Incarnation sinks at once to the level of a Galilean legend, and our faith in Christianity is the merest superstition. Not that the removal of spurious portions of the canon need necessarily lessen faith in what remains. But, as already urged, if the Book of Daniel be expunged the Revelation of John must share its fate, and in view of their exclusion numerous passages in the Gospels and Epistles must be fearlessly re-edited. Some may imagine that the process, if intrusted to reverent hands, would not undermine the fabric of the Bible as a whole; but all will admit that it could not fail to weaken it. Nor is this plea put forward as an excuse for clinging to what is doubtful. It is designed only as a protest and a warning against the recklessness and levity of the critics. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 48: 1.04.08. CHAPTER 6: "VIOLENT ERRORS" ======================================================================== CHAPTER 6: "VIOLENT ERRORS" "THE existence of violent errors as to matters with which a contemporary must have been familiar, at once refutes all pretense of historic authenticity in a book professing to have been written by an author in the days and country which he describes." "By no possibility could the book have been written in the days of the Babylonian exile." Thus it is that Dean Farrar disposes of the Book of Daniel. Such dogmatism, while it will surprise and distress the thoughtful and well-informed, will no doubt overwhelm the simple folk whom this volume of the Expositor’s Bible is presumably intended to enlighten. Indeed, the writer betrays throughout his belief that, from Bacon to Pusey, all who have accepted the Book of Daniel as authentic have been wanting either in honesty or intelligence. And it suggests that he himself is one of a line of scholars who, as the result of independent inquiry, are agreed in rejecting it. The discovery of the hidden records of the court of Babylon cannot be much longer deferred, and when these shall have been brought to light we shall learn, perchance, on which side the folly lies - that of the believers or of the critics. And while an ignorant public is easily imposed upon by a parade of seeming scholarship, no one who is versed in the Daniel controversy can fail to recognise that fair and independent inquiry is absolutely wanting. Porphyry the Pagan it was who set the ball rolling long ago. After resting for centuries it was again put in motion by the rationalists. And now that the fashion has set towards skepticism, and "Higher Criticism" is supposed to denote higher culture, critic follows critic, like sheep through a gap. Here in this last contribution to the controversy the writer falls into line, wholly unconscious that the "violent errors" he pillories have an existence only in the ignorance of those who denounce them. And we seek in vain for a single page that gives proof of fair and unbiassed inquiry. But the critic will tell us that the time for inquiry is past, for the question is no longer open. "There is no shadow of doubt on the subject left in the minds of such scholars as Driver, Cheyne, Sanday, Bevan, and Robertson Smith." This list of names is intended as a climax to the pretentious periods which precede it, but this grouping together of the living and the dead makes it savour rather of anti-climax. Do these writers monopolise the scholarship of England? or does the list represent the authorities hostile to the Book of Daniel? It may seem ungracious to add that not one of these distinguished men has ever given proof of fitness for an inquiry so difficult and complex. And as for the treatise here under review, every part of it gives proof of absolute unfitness for the task. It is easy to convict an accused person if all his witnesses are put out of court and refused a hearing, and his own words and acts are misrepresented and distorted. Yet such is the treatment here accorded to the Book of Daniel. Not one of the champions of faith is allowed a hearing, and the exegesis offered of the prophetic portions of the book would be denounced as a mere travesty by every intelligent student of prophecy. In not a few instances, indeed, the transparent error and folly of the critic’s scheme will be clear even to the ordinary reader. Take the Seventy Weeks as an example. In adopting what he terms "the Antiochian hypothesis" of the skeptics, the critic is confronted by the fact that "it does not accurately correspond with ascertainable dates." "It is true," he says, "that from B.C. 588 to B.C. 164 only gives us 424 years, instead of 490 years." But this difficulty he disposes of by declaring that "precise computation is nowhere prevalent in the sacred books." And he adds, "to such purely mundane and secondary matters as close reckoning of dates the Jewish writers show themselves manifestly indifferent." No statement could well be more unwarrantable. A "close reckoning of dates" is almost a speciality of "Jewish writers." No other writings can compare with theirs in this respect. But let us hear what the critic has to urge. "That there were differences of computation," he remarks, "as regards Jeremiah’s seventy years, even in the age of the exile, is sufficiently shown by the different views as to their termination taken by the Chronicler (2 Chronicles 36:22), who fixes it B.C. 536, and by Zechariah (Zechariah 1:1-21 : i 2), who fixes it about B.C. 519." This is his only appeal to Scripture, and, as I have already shown, it is but an ignorant blunder, arising from confounding the different eras of the Servitude, the Captivity, and the Desolations. Dr. Farrar next appeals to "exactly similar mistakes of reckoning" in Josephus, and he enumerates the following "1. In his Jewish Wars (VI. 4: 8) he says that there were 639 years between the second year of Cyrus and the destruction of the Temple by Titus (A.D. 70). Here is an error of more than 30 years. "2. In his Antiquities (XX. 10:) he says that there were 434 years between the return from the Captivity (B.C. 536) and the reign of Antiochus Eupator (B.c. 164-162). Here is an error of more than 60 years. "3. In his Antiquities, XIII. 11: I, he reckons 481 years between the return from the Captivity and the time of Aristobulus (B.C. 105-104). Here is an error of some 50 years. These "mistakes" will repay a careful scrutiny. In the passage first cited, Josephus reckons the period between the foundation of the first temple by Solomon and its destruction by Titus as 1130 years 7 months and 15 days. "And from the second building of it, which was done by Haggai, in the second year of Cyrus the king," the interval was 639 years and 45 days. This, be it remarked, is given as proof that "precise computation" is nowhere to be looked for in Jewish writers! The enumeration of the very days, however, renders it certain that Josephus had before him chronological tables of absolute precision. But in computing the second era above mentioned, he refers to the prophet Haggai, who, with Zechariah, promoted the building of the second temple in the second year of Darius Hystaspis. As this historian speaks elsewhere of ’Artaxerxes as Cyrus,’ so here he calls Darius by that title. The period, therefore, was (according to our chronology) from B.C. 520 to A.D. 70 - that is, 589 years - that is, about fifty years less than Josephus reckons. In Dr. Farrar’s third example, this same excess of about fifty years again appears; and if in his second example we substitute 424 years for the doubtful reading of 434 years, we reach a precisely similar result. What are we to conclude from these facts? Not that the ancient Jews were careless or indifferent in regard to chronology, which would be flagrantly untrue; but that their chronological tables, though framed with absolute precision, were marked by errors which amounted to an excess of some fifty years in the very period of which the era of the seventy weeks must be assigned. Here, then, we have a solution which is definite and adequate of the only serious objection which the critic can urge against the application of this prophecy to Messiah. Of that application Dr. Farrar writes: "It is finally discredited by the fact that neither our Lord, nor His apostles, nor any of the earliest Christian writers, once appealed to the evidence of this prophecy, which, on the principles of Hengstenberg and Dr. Pusey, would have been so decisive! If such a proof lay ready to their hand - a proof definite and chronological - why should they have deliberately passed it over?" The answer is full and clear, that any such appeal would have been discredited, and any such proof refuted, by reference to what (as Josephus shows us) was the received chronology of the age they lived in. But what possible excuse can be made for those who, with the full light that history now throws upon the sacred page, not only reject its teaching, but use their utmost ingenuity to darken and distort it? "From the decree to restore Jerusalem unto the Anointed One (or ’the Messiah ’), the Prince "- this, to quote Dr. Farrar’s own words, describes the era here in view. There is no question that the Holy City was restored. There is no question that its restoration was in pursuance of a decree of Artaxerxes I. The date of that decree is known. From that date unto "the Messiah, the Prince," was exactly the period specified in the prophecy. But Dr. Farrar will tell us that the real epoch was not the decree to restore Jerusalem, but the catastrophe by which Jerusalem was laid in ruins. "It is obvious," be says, after enumerating "the views of the Rabbis and Fathers," "that not one of them accords with the allusions of the narrative and prayer, except that which makes the destruction of the Temple the terminus a quo." This sort of talk is bad enough with those who seek to adapt divine prophecy to what they suppose to be the facts it refers to. But the suggestion here is that a holy and gifted Chasid, writing in B.C. 164, with the open page of history before him, described the destruction of Jerusalem as "a decree to restore Jerusalem," and then described a period of 424 years as 490 years! And at the close of the nineteenth century of the Christian era, these puerilities of the skeptics are solemnly reproduced by the Dean of Canterbury for the enlightenment of Christian England! To escape from a difficulty by taking refuge in an absurdity is like committing suicide in order to escape from danger. Other writers tell us that the era of the seventy weeks dated from the divine promise recorded in Jeremiah 29:10. But though this view is free from the charge of absurdity it will not bear scrutiny. That was not a "commandment" to build Jerusalem, but merely a promise of future restoration. All these theories, moreover, savour of perverseness and casuistry in presence of the fact that Scripture records so definitely the "commandment" in pursuance of which it was in fact rebuilt. Neither was it without significance that the prophetic period dated from the restoration under Nehemiah. The era of the Servitude had ended with the accession of Cyrus, and the seventy years of the Desolations had already expired in the second year of Darius. But the Jews were still without a constitution or a polity. In a word, their condition was then much what it is today. It was the decree of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes which restored the national autonomy of Judah. And a precedent which is startling in its definiteness may be found to justify the belief that such an era would not begin while the existence of Judah as a nation was in abeyance. I allude to the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1, computed from the Exodus to the Temple. If a little of the time and energy which the critics have expended in denouncing that passage as a forgery or a blunder had been devoted to searching for its hidden meaning, their labours might perchance have been rewarded. That the chronology of the period was correctly known is plain from the thirteenth chapter of the Acts, which enables us to reckon the very same era as 573 years. How then can this seeming error of 93 years be accounted for? It is precisely the sum of the several eras of the Servitudes.The inference therefore is clear that “the 480th year” means the 480th year of national life and national responsibilities. And if this principle applied to an era apparently historical, we may a priori be prepared to find that it governs an era which is mystic and prophetic. (Acts 13:1-52 : i8—21 gives 40 years in the wilderness, 450 years under the Judges, and 40 years for the reign of Saul. To which must be added the 40 years of David’s reign, and the first three years of Solomon, for it was in his fourth year that he began to build the Temple. The servitudes were to Mesopotamia for 8 years, to Moab for 18 years, to Canaan for 20 years, to Midian for 7 years, and to the Philistines for 40 years. See Judges 3:8; Judges 3:14; Judges 4:2-3; Judges 6:1-40 : I; 13: I. But 8+58+20+7+40 years are precisely equal to 93 years. To believe that this is a mere coincidence would involve an undue strain upon our faith. Acts 13:20 is one of the very many passages where the New Testament Revisers have corrupted the text through neglect of the well-known principles by which experts are guided in dealing with conflicting evidence. It is certain that neither the apostle said, nor the evangelist wrote, that Israel’s enjoyment of the land was limited to 450 years, or that 450 years elapsed before the era of the Judges. The text adopted by R.V. is therefore clearly wrong. Dean Alford regards it "as an attempt at correcting the difficult chronology of the verse" and he adds, "taking the words as they stand, no other sense can be given to them than that the time of the Judges lasted 450 years." That is, as he explains, not that the Judges ruled for 450 years—in which case the accusative would be used, as in verse i8—but, as the use of the dative implies, that the period until Saul, characterised by the rule of the Judges, lasted 450 years. The objection that I omit the servitude of Judges 10:7-8 is met by a reference to the R.V. The punctuation of the passage in Bagster’s Bible perverts the sense. That servitude affected only the tribes beyond Jordan.) ======================================================================== CHAPTER 49: 1.04.09. CHAPTER 7: PROFESSOR DRIVER'S "BOOK OF DANIEL THE EVIDENCE OF THE CANON" ======================================================================== CHAPTER 7: PROFESSOR DRIVER’S "BOOK OF DANIEL THE EVIDENCE OF THE CANON" To have answered Dean Farrar’s Book of Daniel may appear to some but a cheap and barren victory. For they will urge that if the attack on Daniel were entrusted to abler hands, the issue would be different. But the suggestion is untenable. While the passing years are bringing to light from time to time fresh evidence to confirm the authenticity of the book, the treasury of the critics is exhausted. They have no abler, no more trusted, champion than Professor Driver of Oxford; yet in his Introduction there is not a single count in the elaborate indictment of Daniel that will not be found in his apparatus criticus. And now, in his Book of Daniel, after an interval of ten years, he has reproduced these same stock difficulties and objections, and for the most part in the same words. That volume is fitted to excite feelings of surprise and disappointment. An "Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament” may fitly cite what German skeptics have written on the Book of Daniel. But it is deplorable that a commentary for the use of "schools and colleges," coming from the pen of an English clergyman, a scholar of high repute, and the occupant of a chair in the University of Oxford, should be merely a modified reproduction of what German rationalism has to urge on one side of a pending controversy. Surely we might have expected some indication of independent inquiry and free thought; but we look for it in vain. The very same criticisms which Dr. Farrar has strung together are once again paraded. Of these criticisms there is only one which is of vital importance. If, as the critics assert, there was no invasion of Judea and no deportation of Jewish captives in the third year of Jehoiakim, the historical basis upon which the Book of Daniel rests is destroyed, and the book as a whole is discredited. To that criticism, therefore, I invite the reader’s close and earnest attention. If he finds it to be sustained, let him regard the controversy as closed. But if he finds it disproved by Scripture, and demonstrated to be erroneous by the strict test of chronology, let him look upon it as discrediting the critics. (1 Pages 14 - 18, ante, seemed a sufficient reply to Dr. Farrar on this point. But as Dr. Driver blindly follows the same false lead, not even avoiding the blunder of the journey from Carchemish to Babylon across the desert, I add an excursus on the subject. See Appendix I., p. 153.) As for the rest of these criticisms, what Professor Driver says of some is true of them all: they will influence the mind "according as the critic, upon independent grounds, has satisfied himself that the book is the work of a later author or written by Daniel himself." If, therefore, any one of the visions of Daniel can be shown to be a Divine prophecy, the authority of the book is established. And of this, full and incontestable proof is afforded by the fulfillment of the vision of the Seventy Weeks. The course of study which led me to these results was begun a quarter of a century ago under pressure of doubts whether the Bible could withstand the attacks of the skeptical movement known as the "Higher Criticism." In accordance with my usual habit, I set myself to test the matter by examining the critics’ strongest position. For their indictment of the Book of Daniel is supposed to be unanswerable, and I confess that at first it seemed to me most formidable. But no one who has much experience of judicial inquiries is ever surprised to find that a case which seems convincing when presented ex parte, breaks down under cross-examination, or is shattered by opposing evidence. And this is emphatically true of the skeptical attack on Daniel. And let it not be forgotten that the present inquiry is altogether judicial. The question involved is precisely similar in character to issues such as are daily decided in our Courts of Justice. And one of H.M. Judges with a good "special jury" would be a fitter tribunal to deal with it than any company of philologists, however eminent. Due weight would of course be given to the evidence of such men as experts. But the dictum, so familiar to the lawyer, would not be forgotten, that the testimony which least deserves credit is that of skilled witnesses, for the judgment of such men becomes warped by their habit of regarding a subject from one point of view only. The critics maintain that the definiteness of the predictions of Daniel is due to the fact that the book was written after the events referred to; and further, that its "visions" cease with the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. The main issues of fact, therefore, to be decided at such a trial would be these:— Was the Book of Daniel in existence in pre-Maccabean days? and Was any one of its visions fulfilled in later times? And if either of these issues should be found against the critics their whole case would be shattered. The discovery of Neptune was due to the fact that astronomers found reason to assume the existence of such a planet. And if the Book of Daniel had been lost, true criticism would assume the presence of a Daniel at the Court of Babylon. For otherwise the story of the exile and return of the Jews would be intelligible only on the assumption of miracles such as those which marked the Exodus. And further; if the advocates of the pseud-epigraph theory of Daniel were versed in the science of evidence, they would recognize that, on their own hypothesis, the presence of the book in the canon is evidence of the existence of the man. For the Sanhedrim would never have accepted it unless they had had knowledge of the historical facts on which it is based. But while the existence of Daniel was indisputable when Dr. Driver wrote his introduction, it was only "probable" when he came to write his Book of Daniel - a deplorable lapse from true criticism to "Higher Criticism," and from rational belief to unreasoning skepticism. On this point I have already cited the testimony of Ezekiel; and that testimony is conclusive unless the critics can find some adequate answer to it. The only answer they offer is not even reasonable. And as regards the existence of the Book of Daniel, the same remark applies, though in a modified degree, to the testimony of 1Ma 2:1-70 Even if the testimony of these witnesses stood alone, it would prevail with any impartial tribunal. But when we come to consider the general question of the canon, the weight of proof becomes overwhelming. Apart from the disturbing influence of these controversies, no reasonable person would reject the clear and definite tradition that the completion of the Old Testament canon was the work of the men of the Great Synagogue. In an age when skepticism of a singularly shallow type has been allowed to run riot, it is the fashion to reject that tradition because of the myths and legends which have attached themselves to it. But a soberer scholarship would recognize, first, that this very element is a proof of its antiquity, and of the hold it gained upon the Jewish mind in early times; and secondly, that if historical facts are to be ignored on this ground the whole volume of ancient history must shrink to very small proportions. But all that concerns me here is to establish that the canon was complete before the Maccabean epoch. And upon this point I might almost rest the case upon the evidence of a single witness. As mentioned in an earlier chapter, 1 Ecclesiasticus was written not later than about B.C. 200. The object of the book is thus explained by the grandson of the writer, who translated it into Greek not later than B.C. 132: "My grandfather Jesus, seeing he had much given himself to the reading of the law, of the prophets and the other books of the Fathers, and had gotten therein sufficient proficiency, was drawn himself to write something pertaining to learning and wisdom." Now it is acknowledged even by hostile critics that the words "the law and the prophets and the other books," or as he calls them again, "the rest of the books," refer to the sacred writings, and that they imply the existence at that time of a recognized canon. Dr. Ryle’s book has a fair statement of the arguments in favor of a late date. And anyone who is used to frequent our courts of justice will recognize the kinship of those arguments with the case which is always made against any claim to prescriptive or ancient rights. For treatises of a different kind see by all means Dr. Alexander’s article on the "Canon," and Dr. Ginsburg’s on the "Great Synagogue," in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia; and also Lecture VI. in Pusey’s Daniel the Prophet. 1 P. 52, ante. ~ The evidence clearly points to an earlier date for both the book and the translation of it. But as I wish to avoid all "collateral issues?" I adopt for the sake of argument the dates accepted by the critics. See, however, Dr. Ginsburg’s article in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia, also Edersheim’s Life and Times of the Messiah, vol. 1. pp. 26ff. "I think it quite incredible," says Dr. Ryle, "that the thrice repeated formula should have been an invention of the Greek translator, and not rather the description of the Hebrew Scriptures commonly used among the Jews." The Law, The Prophets, and the Writings - these same words stand upon the title-page of the Jewish Bible of to-day, and no fair and competent tribunal would hesitate to find that that title has covered the same books for more than twenty-three centuries. Ben-Sira was "a poetical paraphraser" of the Old Testament, and his book abounds in passages which are imitations of the canonical writers. And, "as clear examples of such imitation can be found of all the canonical books, with the doubtful exception of the Book of Daniel, these books must, as a whole, have been familiar to Ben-Sira, and must therefore be much anterior to him in date." These words are from Dr. Schechter’s Introduction, already quoted, and they are substantiated by a list of the passages referred to. That list includes three quotations from Daniel; these however are, of course, rejected by the critics. Now I confidently maintain that upon the evidence any impartial tribunal would find that the canon was complete before Ben-Sira wrote. But assuming, for the sake of argument, that the inclusion of Daniel is doubtful, the matter stands thus: It is admitted, (1) that the canon was complete in the second century B.C.; and (2) that no book was included which was not believed to have been in existence in the days of Nehemiah. For the test by which a book was admitted to the canon was its claim to be inspired; and the Sanhedrim held that inspiration ceased with the prophets, and that no "prophet” - that is, no divinely inspired teacher - had arisen in Israel after the Nehemiah era. When, therefore, Josephus declares that the Scriptures were "justly believed to be Divine," and that the Jews were prepared "willingly to die for them," he is not recording merely the opinion of his contemporaries, but the settled traditional belief of his nation. How, then, can the critics reconcile their hypothesis as to the origin of the Book of Daniel with its inclusion in the canon? As regards point (I) above indicated, the Bishop of Exeter’s testimony carries with it the special authority which attaches to the statements of a hostile witness. "If," he says, "all the books of ’the Kethubim’ were known and received in the first century A.D., and if, as we believe, the circumstances of the Jewish people rendered it all but impossible for the canon to receive change or augmentation in the first century B.C., we conclude that ‘the disputed books’ received a recognition in the last two or three decades of the second century B.C., when John Hyrcanus ruled and the Jews still enjoyed prosperity." This ought to decide the whole question. For mark what it means. The critics would have us believe that after the death of Antiochus some Jewish Chasid incorporated a history of his reign in a historical romance, casting it into the form of a prophecy supposed to have been delivered hundreds of years before; and that, at a time when this was still a matter within living memory, the work was accepted as divinely inspired Scripture, and bracketed with the Psalms of David among the sacred books of the Hebrew nation! We are dealing here, remember, with the acts, not of savages in a barbarous age, but of the religious leaders of the Jews in historic times. And the matter in question related to the most solemn and important of all their duties. Moreover, the Sanhedrim of the second century B.C. was composed of men of the type of John Hyrcanus; men famed for their piety and learning; men who were heirs of all the proud traditions of the Jewish faith, and themselves the sons or successors of the heroes of the noble Maccabean revolt. And yet we are asked to believe that these men, with their extremely strict views of inspiration and their intense reverence for their sacred writings - that these men, the most scrupulous and conservative Church body that the world has ever known - used their authority to smuggle into the sacred canon a book which was a forgery, a literary fraud, a religious novel of recent date. Such a figment is worthy of its pagan author, but it is wholly unworthy of Christian men in the position of English ecclesiastics and University Professors. And were it not for the glamour of their names it would be deemed undeserving of notice. But our respect for Church dignitaries of our own times must not make us forget what is due to the memory of Church dignitaries of another age, men whose fidelity to their trust as the divinely appointed custodians of "the oracles of God" has earned for them the gratitude and admiration of the Church for all time. Their fitness, moreover, to judge of the genuineness and authenticity of the Book of Daniel was incomparably greater than could be claimed for any of those who join in this base and silly slander upon their intelligence or their honesty. For if the critics are right, these men who were, I repeat, the divinely appointed custodians of the Hebrew Scriptures, and from whom the Christian Church has received them, were no better than knaves or fools. Let no one start at this language, for it is not a whit too strong. They were utter fools if they were deceived by a literary forgery of their own time; they were shameless knaves if they shared in a plot to secure the acceptance of the fraud. For let it be kept steadily in view that no book would have been thus honored unless it was believed to be ancient. The "avowed fiction" theory of Daniel is puerile in its absurdity. If the book was not genuine it was a forgery palmed off upon the Sanhedrim. And like all forgeries of that kind the MS. must have been "discovered" by its author. But the "finding" of such a book at such a period of the national history would have been an event of unparalleled interest and importance. Where then is the record of it? When it suits them, the critics make great use of the argument from the silence of witnesses; but in a case like this where that argument has overwhelming force they ignore it altogether. Moreover, the suggestion of the critics that the Sanhedrim admitted a book to the canon in the way a library committee adds a volume to their catalogue is grotesque in the extreme. "They never determined a book to be canonical in the sense of introducing it into the canon. In every instance in which a writing is said to have been admitted to the canon, the writing had already been in existence for generations, and had for generations been claimed as canonical before the discussions arose in regard to it. In every instance the decision is not that the book shall now be received into the collection of sacred writings, but that the evidence shows it to have been regarded from the first as a part of that collection." (Imagine a meeting of the upper House of Convocation to discuss a proposal to add Dr. Farrar’s Life of Christ to the canon of the New Testament! Quite as grotesquely ridiculous is the suggestion that the Jewish Sanhedrim in the second century B.C. would have entertained the question of adding "an elevating romance" of their own age to the canon of the Old Testament.) One point more. While books of great repute, such as Ecclesiasticus and 1 Maccabees, were absolutely excluded from the canon, and even canonical books, such as the Book of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and even Ezekiel were challenged, "the right of the Book of Daniel to canonicity was never called in question in the Ancient Synagogue." In disparagement of Daniel the critics point to the extraordinary additions which mark the Septuagint version. But owing to their want of experience in dealing with evidence, they fail to see what signal proof this affords of the antiquity of the book. The critics themselves allow that the Greek version of Daniel was in existence before 1 Maccabees was written. According to their own case, therefore, the interval between the appearance of the book and its translation into Greek must have been within the memory of the older members of the Sanhedrim. And yet they ask us to believe that though during that interval it was under consideration for admission to the canon, it was guarded so carelessly that these additions and corruptions were allowed. The Septuagint version is evidence that Daniel was a pre-Maccabean work: the corruptions of the text which mark that version are evidence that it was in existence long before the Maccabean era. (The presumption is strong that the LXX. version was in existence at the date to which the critics assign the book itself. But here, as on every other point, I am arguing the question on bases accepted by the critics themselves.) In view of all this it is not surprising that even a writer so cautious and so far as Canon Girdlestone should assert that "there is not an atom of ground for the supposition that any of the books or parts of books which constitute our Old Testament were the work of men of that age." "Of one thing," he adds, "we may be quite certain: nothing would be introduced into the ’Sacred Library’ which was not believed to be ’prophetic,’ and therefore in some sense Divine, and though there were occasionally men after Nehemiah’s time who had semi-prophetic gifts, the Jews do not acknowledge them as prophets.’ . . . We look in vain down the remains and traditions of Hebrew history between the age of Nehemiah and the Christian era for the appearance of any men who would venture to add to or take from the sacred library or canon which existed in Nehemiah’s days." I therefore claim a decision in favor of the Book of Daniel. I now proceed to state the grounds upon which, with equal confidence, I claim a verdict also on the second. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 50: 1.04.10. CHAPTER 8: THE VISION OF THE "SEVENTY WEEKS" THE PROPHETIC YEAR ======================================================================== CHAPTER 8: THE VISION OF THE "SEVENTY WEEKS" THE PROPHETIC YEAR As the solution of the problem of the Seventy Weeks is my personal contribution to the Daniel controversy, I may be pardoned for dealing with the subject here in greater detail, albeit this involves some repetition. It is all the more necessary, moreover, because in his recent work Professor Driver has adopted the labored efforts of the foreign skeptics to evade the Messianic reference of the vision. Indeed, his exposition of the passage reminds us of that sort of dream in which words never have their natural meaning and events always happen in some unexpected way. In the ninth chapter of Daniel the scene is laid in Babylon, and the occasion is the approaching end of the "Desolations," an era which the critics without exception confound with either the "Servitude" or the "Captivity." "I Daniel," the writer tells us, "understood by the books the number of the years whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet for the accomplishing of the desolations of Jerusalem, even seventy years." Then follows the record of his passionately earnest prayer on behalf of his city and his people, which prayer brings in answer the angel’s message. Here is the text of Daniel 9:24-27 (R.V.) "Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression and to make an end of sins and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in everlasting righteousness and to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy. Know therefore and discern that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the anointed one (or Messiah) the prince shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks: it shall be built again with street and moat, even in troublous times. And after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one (or Messiah) be cut off and shall have nothing: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and his end shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined. And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and for the half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." Well may Professor Driver and Dean Farrar comment upon the hopeless divergence which marks "the bewildering mass of explanations" offered by the numberless expositors of this passage. But there is no reason why the intelligent reader should follow these eminent critics who, in their "bewilderment," have adopted the most preposterous interpretation of it ever proposed. For such indeed is the suggestion that any devout Jew - whether the prophet of the Exile or a Maccabean zealot, it matters not which - could thus anticipate "the complete redemption of Israel” apart from the advent of Messiah. It is absolutely certain that the vision points to the coming of Christ, and any other view of it is indeed "a resort of desperation." May I now invite my reader to follow me in the path which I myself have traversed in seeking the explanation of the vision? Rejecting all mystical or strained interpretations, let him insist on taking the words in their simple and obvious meaning; and with the help of a key which, though long overlooked, is ready at hand, he will find the solution, full and clear, of what may have seemed a hopeless enigma. Here was a man trained by his Scriptures to look for a Messiah whose advent would bring fullness of blessing to his people and city. But his people were in captivity and his city was in ruins. And having himself already passed the allotted span of life, he could not hope to outlive the period of the Divine judgment of the Desolations, of which some seventeen years were still unexpired. So he set himself to plead for light; and the answer came that the realization of the promised Messianic blessings was deferred until the close of an era of seven times the seventy years of the Desolations - not seventy years, but "seventy weeks" of years.’ These seventy weeks, moreover, were divided thus-7+ 62 + 1. The period "unto Messiah the prince" was to be "seven weeks and threescore and two weeks;" and at the close of the middle era -"after the threescore and two weeks "- Messiah was to be "cut off." In other words, the presentation and rejection of Messiah were to be 69 weeks, or 483 years, from the epoch of the era. The first question, then, which claims attention is the character of the year of which this prophetic era is composed. Here expositor after expositor and critic after critic has held in his hand the key to the whole problem, but has thrown it away unused. With the Jew the effect of his laws was "to render the word week capable of meaning a seven of years almost as naturally as a seven of days. Indeed the generality of the word would have this effect at any rate. Hence its use to denote the latter in prophecy is not mere arbitrary symbolism, but the employment of a not unfamiliar and easily understood language."- Smith’s Bib. Dic., art. "Week." All are agreed that the "seventy weeks" of verse 24 are seven times the seventy years of verse 24; if, then, the duration of the seventy years of the Desolations can be ascertained, the problem is solved. Seventy years was the appointed duration of the Servitude to Babylon. But the stubborn refusal of the people to submit to that judgment, or to profit by the further chastisement of the Captivity, which followed eight or nine years afterwards, brought on them the terrible scourge of the Desolations. The essential element in this last judgment was not merely ruined cities, but a land laid desolate by a hostile invasion, the effects of which were perpetuated by famine and pestilence, the continuing proofs of the Divine displeasure. The Desolations, therefore, were reckoned from the day the capital was invested, the 10th day of the 10th month in the ninth year of Zedekiah. This was the epoch of the judgment as revealed to the prophet Ezekiel in his exile and for four-and-twenty centuries it has been observed as a fast by the Jews in every land. As an interval of seventeen years elapsed between the epoch of the Servitude and that of the Desolations, so by seventeen years the second period overlapped the first. And this explains the seemingly inexplicable fact that a few refractory Samaritans were allowed to thwart the execution of the work expressly ordered by the edict of Cyrus. Until the era of the Desolations had run its course the Divine judgment which rested upon the land vetoed the rebuilding of the sacred Temple. As the epoch of that era is recorded with absolute definiteness, so also is its close. It ended upon the 24th day of the 9th month in the second year of Darius Hystaspis of Persia. The reader will do well here to peruse the prophecy of Haggai and the first chapter of Zechariah. I will quote but a single sentence of each: "Then the angel of the Lord answered and said, 0 Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which Thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years?" "Consider now from this day and upward, from the four-and-twentieth day of the ninth month, even from the day that the foundation of the Lord’s temple was laid, consider it. . . . From This day will I bless you." Now the Julian date of the 10th day of the 10th month in the ninth year of Zedekiah was the 15th December, B.C. 589; and that of the 24th day of the 9th month in the second year of Darius Hystaspis was the 7th December, B.C. 520. The intervening period, therefore, was exactly sixty-nine years. But sixty-nine years contain 25,200 days, the precise equivalent of seventy years of 360 days. It is clear, therefore, that, as the era of the Desolations was a Divine judgment upon Judah, the period was measured with all the accuracy of a judicial sentence. Even if this stood alone it would be conclusive. But, further, we are expressly told that the era of the Desolations was fixed at seventy years, because of the neglect of the Sabbatic years. Therefore we might expect to find that a period of 70 X 7 years, measured back from the end of the Desolations, would bring us to the time when Israel entered into their full national privileges, and thus incurred their full responsibilities. And such, in fact, will be found to be the case. From the year after the dedication of Solomon’s temple to the year before the foundation of the second temple was a period of 490 years of 360 days. But even this is not all. No one doubts that the visions of the Revelation refer to the visions of Daniel, and for this purpose they may be read together. And there we find a part of the prophetic era sub-divided into the days of which it is composed. Half of one week of the vision is twice described as forty-two months 2 and twice as 1260 days. But 1260 days are exactly equal to forty-two months of thirty days, or three and a half years of 360 days. To English ears the suggestion may seem fanciful that a chronological era should be reckoned thus in luni-solar years. But it was not so with those for whom the prophecy was given. Such, it is reasonably certain, was the form of year then in use both at Babylon and at Jerusalem. Such was in fact the year of the Noachian age. Tradition testifies that it was the year which Abraham knew in his Chaldean home, and which was afterwards preserved in his family. And Sir Isaac Newton avers that "All nations, before the just length of the solar year was known, reckoned months by the course of the moon, and years by the return of winter and summer, spring and autumn; and in making calendars for their festivals, they reckoned thirty days to a lunar month, and twelve lunar months to a year, taking the nearest round numbers, whence came the division of the ecliptic into 360 degrees." And in quoting this statement, Sir G. C. Lewis declares that "All credible testimony and all antecedent probability lead to the result that a solar year containing twelve lunar months, determined within certain limits of error, has been generally recognized by the nations adjoining the Mediterranean from a remote antiquity." In view of all this mass of cumulative proof, the conclusion may be regarded as raised above the sphere of controversy or doubt, that the prophetic year is not the Julian year of 365+ days, but the ancient year of 360 days. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 51: 1.04.11. CHAPTER 9: THE FULFILMENT OF THE VISION OF THE "WEEKS" ======================================================================== CHAPTER 9: THE FULFILMENT OF THE VISION OF THE "WEEKS" IN view of the proofs adduced in the preceding chapter, it may now be accepted as a demonstrated fact that the unit of the prophetic era of the seventy weeks is the luni-solar year of the ancient world. Our next inquiry must be directed to ascertaining the epoch of that era. The language of the vision is simple and clear: "From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks." Here at least we might suppose that no question could arise. But with Professor Driver, following the lead of the wildest and worst of the foreign skeptical expositors, "the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem" becomes the prophecy that Jerusalem would be rebuilt; "Messiah, the Prince" becomes "Cyrus, King of Persia;" and by a false punctuation which divides the sentence in the middle, the sixty-two weeks become the period for which the city was to be restored. I appeal to the reader to reject this nightmare system of interpretation, and to follow the early fathers and the best of the modern expositors in accepting the words in their plain and natural meaning. What then was the "commandment," or edict, or firman to build Jerusalem? The Book of Ezra records three several decrees of Persian kings, relating to the Jews. The opening verses record the edict of Cyrus, which authorized the return of the exiles. But this decree mentioned only the temple and not the city; and moreover it referred to the era of the Servitude, and not of the Desolations, which later era it was that Daniel had in view. The sixth chapter records a decree issued by Darius Hystaspis to confirm the decree of Cyrus, but this in no way extended the scope of the earlier edict. The seventh chapter records a third decree, issued by Artaxerxes Longimanus in his seventh year, but this again related merely to the temple and its worship. The Book of Ezra therefore will be searched in vain for what we seek, but the book which follows it gives it fully and explicitly. The Book of Nehemiah opens by relating that while at Susa, where he was in attendance as cupbearer to the king, "an honour of no small account in Persia," he learned from certain of his brethren who had just arrived from Judea that the Jews there were "in great affliction and reproach;" "the wall of Jerusalem also was broken down, and the gates thereof were burned with fire."’ The next chapter relates that while discharging the duties of his high office, Artaxerxes noticed his distress, and called for an explanation of it. "Let the king live forever," Nehemiah answered, "why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers’ sepulchers, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are burned with fire?" “For what dost thou make request?" the king demanded. To which Nehemiah answered, "That thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers’ sepulchres, THAT I MAY BUILD IT." Artaxerxes forthwith granted the petition, and issued an edict to give effect to it. This occurred in the beginning of the Jewish year; and before the Feast of Tabernacles, in the seventh month, Jerusalem was once more a city, enclosed by gates and ramparts. Of course there must have been many streets of inhabited houses in Jerusalem ever since the first return of the exiles. But, as Dr. Tregelles justly says, "the very existence of the place as a city depended upon such a decree" as that of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. Once, at an earlier period, work which the Jews were executing under the decree of Cyrus had been stopped on the false charge that its design was to restore the city. "A rebellious city" it had ever proved, the local officials declared in reporting to the king; and they added, "If this city be builded, and the walls thereof again, by this means thou shalt have no portion on this side the river." The edict of Cyrus was in keeping with the general policy of toleration, to which the inscriptions bear testimony: it was a wholly different matter to allow the conquered race to set up again the famous fortifications of Jerusalem, and to restore under Nehemiah the old polity of the Judges. This was a revival of the political existence of Judah; and therefore no doubt it was that the event was divinely chosen as the beginning of the prophetic era of the seventy weeks. It is certain, moreover, that this edict of Artaxerxes is the only "commandment to restore and build Jerusalem" recorded in history, and that under this "commandment" Jerusalem was in fact rebuilt. Unless, therefore, the nightmare system of interpretation must prevail, we may accept it, not as a plausible theory or a happy guess, but as a definite fact, that the seventy weeks are to be computed from the date of the issuing of this decree. The date of it is expressly recorded by Nehemiah. It was made in the beginning of the Jewish year in the twentieth year of the king’s reign. And the Julian date of the first Nisan in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes is the 14th March B.C. Here let me quote the words of the vision once again. "From the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks. And after the threescore and two weeks shall the Messiah be cut off." If, therefore, the vision be a Divine prophecy, an era of" sixty-nine weeks," that is, of 483 prophetic years, reckoned from the 14th March B.C. 445, should close with the public presentation and death of "Messiah the Prince." No student of the Gospels can fail to see that the Lord’s last visit to Jerusalem was not only in fact but in intention the crisis of His ministry. From the time that the accredited leaders of the nation had rejected His Messianic claims, He had avoided all public recognition of those claims. But now His testimony had been fully given, and the purpose of His entry into the capital was to openly proclaim His Messiahship and to receive His doom. Even His apostles themselves had again and again been charged that they should not make Him known; but now He accepted the acclamations of "the whole multitude of the disciples." And when the Pharisees protested, He silenced them with the indignant rebuke, "I tell you that if these should hold their peace the stones would immediately cry out." These words can only mean that the divinely appointed time had arrived for the public announcement of His Messiahship, and that the Divine purpose could not be thwarted. The full significance of the words which follow is lost in our Authorized Version. As the cry was raised by His disciples, "Hosanna to the Son of David, blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord," He looked off towards the Holy City and exclaimed, "If thou also hadst known, even ON THIS DAY, the things that belong to thy peace - but now they are hid from thine eyes!” The nation had already rejected Him, but this was the fateful day when their decision must be irrevocable. And we are expressly told that it was the fulfillment of the prophecy, "Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold thy King cometh unto thee." It was the only occasion on which His kingly claims were publicly announced. And no other day in all His ministry will satisfy the words of Daniel’s vision. And the date of that first "Palm Sunday" can be ascertained with certainty. No year in the whole field of ancient history is more definitely indicated than that of the beginning of our Lord’s public ministry. According to the Evangelist it was "the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar." Now "the reign of Tiberius, as beginning from 19th August, A.D. 14, was as well known a date in the time of Luke as the reign of Queen Victoria is in our own day." The Evangelist, moreover, with a prophetic anticipation of the perverseness of expositors and "reconcilers," goes on to name six prominent public men as holding specified positions in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and each one of these is known to have actually held the position thus assigned to him in the year in question. As, therefore, the first Passover of the Lord’s ministry was that of Nisan, A.D. 29, the date of the Passion is thus fixed by Scripture itself. For it is no longer necessary to offer proof that the crucifixion took place at the fourth Passover of the ministry. According to the Jewish custom, our Lord went up to Jerusalem on the 8th Nisan, which, as we know, fell that year upon a Friday. And having spent the Sabbath at Bethany, He entered the Holy City the following day, as recorded in the Gospels. The Julian date of that 10th Nisan was Sunday the 6th April, A.D. 32.1 What then was the length of the period intervening between the issuing of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and this public advent of" Messiah the Prince "- between the 14th March, B.C. 445, and the 6th April, A.D. 32? THE INTERVAL WAS EXACTLY AND TO THE VERY DAY 173,880 DAYS, OR SEVEN TIMES SIXTY-NINE PROPHETIC YEARS OF 360 DAYS. From B.C. 445 to AD. 32 is 476 years 273,740 days (476 X 365) +116 days for leap years. And from 14th March to 6th April (reckoned inclusively according to Jewish practice) is 24 days. But 173,740+116+24=173,880. And 69 X 7X 360= 173,880. It must be borne in mind here that in reckoning years from B.C. to A.D. one year must always be omitted; for, of course, the interval between B.C. I and A.D. 1 is not two years but one year. In fact B.C. 1 ought to be called B.C. 0; and it is so described by astronomers, with whom B.C. 445 is - 444 (see App. V., p. 274, 75ost). And again, as the Julian year is 11m. 20.46 s., or about the 129th part of a day, longer than the mean solar year, the Julian calendar has three leap years too many in every four centuries. This error is corrected by the Gregorian reform, which reckons three secular years out of four as common years. For instance, 2700, 1800, and 2900 were common years, and 2000 will be a leap year. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 52: 1.04.12. CHAPTER 10: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ======================================================================== CHAPTER 10: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION IT will be obvious to the intelligent and thoughtful that unless the conclusions recorded in the preceding chapter can in some way be disproved or got rid of, there is an end of the Daniel controversy. The reader, therefore, will be interested to know what reply Professor Driver has to give to them. After noticing the solution of the Seventy Weeks proposed by Julius Africanus, the father of Christian chronologers, he proceeds "This view has been revived recently, in a slightly modified form, by Dr. Robert Anderson, according to whom the ’year’ of Daniel was the ancient luni-solar year of 360 days; reckoning, then, 483 years (= 69 ’weeks ’), of 360 days each, from I Nisan, B.C. 445, the date of the edict of Artaxerxes, Dr. Anderson arrives at the 10th of Nisan in the 18th year of Tiberius Caesar, the day on which our Lord made His public entry into Jerusalem (Luke 19:37 if.). Upon this theory, however, even supposing the objections against B.C. 445 as the terminus a quo to be waived, the seventieth week remains unexplained." There is one objection, I admit, to the B.C. 445 date; it violates the canon of interpretation, that Scripture never means what it says! But waiving that point, the only criticism which the highest scholarship has to offer upon my scheme is that it leaves the seventieth week "unexplained." His reference is to The Coming Prince, or The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 5:1-31 th Ed. The first edition of the book appeared in 1880: the ninth is now current. The scheme has thus been before the public for many years; and during that time every detail of it has been subjected to the most searching criticism, both here and in America; but neither error nor flaw has been detected in it. This objection would be irrelevant even if it were well founded. But as a matter of fact the book to which Dr. Driver refers his readers deals fully and in much detail with the seventieth week. One of the blunders of this controversy is that of supposing that the era of the seventy weeks was to end either with the advent or the death of Christ. Here the language of Daniel is explicit: the period "unto Messiah the Prince" was to be, not seventy weeks, but sixty-nine weeks. The crucifixion is the event which marks the end of the sixty-ninth week; the seventieth week ends with the restoration of the Jews to prosperity and blessing. Those who regard that week as cancelled hold an intelligible position. And the same may be said of those who maintain that it still awaits fulfillment. But the figment that a prophecy of temporal and spiritual good for the Jews was fulfilled by their rejection and ruin is one of the very wildest vagaries of interpretation. Another amazing vagary of the same type is that Daniel 9:27 means that our Lord made some sort of seven years’ covenant with the Jews at the beginning of His ministry, and that it was broken by His death. See The Coming Prince, Ch. 14:, and especially pp. 182, 183. Upon this point three different opinions prevail. By some the restoration of the Jews is dismissed as a dream of Hebrew poetry. Others consider that the Jewish promises were finally forfeited by the rejection of Christ, and now belong to the Gentile Church. And others again are bold enough to believe that God will make good every promise and every prophecy the Bible contains, but that the realization of the distinctive blessings of the favored nation is postponed until the close of this Gentile dispensation. I am not ashamed to rank myself in this third category; and following the teaching of the Ante-Nicene Fathers - for this is precisely the sort of question as to which apostolic tradition is least likely to have been corrupted - to hold that the seventieth week, and the events pertaining to it, belong to the future. But what bearing has all this upon the point at issue? The question here is whether the vision of the seventy weeks was a mere human prediction or a Divine prophecy. The popular view of the matter appears to be that, as the advent of Christ was expected about the time when He actually appeared, there was nothing extraordinary in a chronological forecast of the event. But this betrays a strange misconception and confusion of thought. True it is that the advent of their Messiah was a hope universally cherished by the Jews - a fact which, as I have urged, proves the error and folly of denying the Messianic interpretation of the 9th of Daniel. But if His coming was expected nineteen centuries ago, the hope was based on these very visions. For, apart from Daniel, Scripture contains no hint of a time limit within which the advent was to take place. Apart from Daniel, indeed, the theory was plausible that it would herald the dawn of the seventh millennium of the world’s history - an epoch which, by the Jewish calendar, is even now in the distant future. But here is a book which specifies the precise date of the presentation and death of Christ, and the prediction has been fulfilled. Had it been fulfilled within the year, the result might well stagger unbelief. And if the apparent margin of error had been a month, the explanation would be obvious and adequate, that Nehemiah does not record the day of the month on which the edict was signed. But, as a matter of fact, it was fulfilled with absolute accuracy, and to the very day. Let us for a moment ignore the controversy about the date of Daniel - whether in the second century B.C., or in the sixth, and confine our attention to this simple issue: Could the prediction have been a mere guess by some learned and pious Jew? If we refer this question to a mathematician he will ask what data there were to work upon; and on hearing that there were none, he will tell us that in such circumstances the chance of accuracy would be so small, and the probability of error so great, that neither the one nor the other could be expressed arithmetically in figures. The calculation, in fact, would become lost in infinity. I would not be understood as urging this. I presume the banquet at which the edict was issued took place on New Year’s Day. Nehemiah began to build the walls on the third day of the fifth month (Nehemiah 6:15). Ezra’s journey from Babylon to Jerusalem occupied precisely four months (Ezra 7:9), and in "the unchanging east" Nehemiah’s journey from Susa would have occupied as long. I conclude, therefore, that he set out in the beginning of Nisan. And this being so, any attempt to dismiss the facts and figures set forth in the preceding chapter as being accidental coincidences is not intelligent skepticism, but a crass misbelief which is sheer credulity. And this brings us back again to the question, What is the character, and what the credentials, of the book which contains this most marvelous vision? The critics themselves admit that the authority of the Book of Daniel was unchallenged by Jews and Christians alike for at least two thousand years. It was not that the question of its claims was never raised; for Porphyry the Neo-Platonist devoted to the subject one of his discourses against the Christians. But Porphyry’s attack evoked no response in the Christian camp until modern German infidelity began its crusade against the Bible. The visions of Daniel afforded an unanswerable testimony to the reality of inspiration, and their voice had to be silenced. No matter to what date the 53rd chapter of Isaiah be assigned, the skeptics would reject the Messianic interpretation of it. But if it can be proved that the visions of Daniel were written in the sixth century B.C., skepticism becomes an impossible attitude of mind. Therefore, a propagandism designed to degrade the Bible to the level of a human book found it essential to prove that Daniel was written after the events it professed to predict. To attain this end all the great erudition and patient subtlety for which German scholarship is justly famed, were prostituted without reserve; and the attack of the apostates was an immense advance upon the attack of the Pagan. "Apostates," I say advisedly, for in its origin and purpose the movement was essentially anti-Christian. In course of time, however, men who had no sympathy with the aims of the rationalists were led to adopt their conclusions; and in our own day the sinister origin of the movement is in danger of being forgotten. Its obtaining recruits among English scholars of repute is a matter within living memory. First, then, we have the fact that the Book of Daniel, regarded as a classic, is a work of the very highest character, and that the attack upon it originated in the exigencies of modern rationalism. But secondly, the critics admit, for the fact is indisputable, that the Book of Daniel has entered more closely into the warp and woof of the New Testament than any other portion of the Hebrew Scriptures. And if they do not admit as unreservedly that it comes to us expressly accredited by our Lord Himself, it is because the "Higher Criticism" is purely destructive, and therefore violates at times the principles on which all true criticism rests. But whether they admit it or not, it is none the less certain. And as Keil justly says: "This testimony of our Lord fixes the seal of Divine confirmation on the external and internal evidences which prove the genuineness of the book." And in view of these overwhelming proofs of its genuineness, if Hebrew scholars were agreed that its language was not that of the sixth century B.C., but of a later time, true criticism would seek for an explanation of that fact. But even those Hebraists who reject the book contradict one another on this very point; and so Professor Driver falls back on the alleged presence of two Greek words in the text as settling the whole question. But in the circumstances this is but a travesty of true criticism, and proves nothing save the critic’s want of practical experience in the art of sifting and weighing evidence. The case of the philologist having thus collapsed, the critic still further shakes our confidence in him by turning aside to borrow from the German rationalists a farrago of objections upon minor points. Some of these prove on inquiry to be either sheer blunders or mere quibbles, and most of them are so petty that no competent tribunal would listen to them, save in the absence of evidence worthy of the name. I do not say this by way of complaint. Regarding the Book of Daniel as no more than a classic, he treats it, of course, on that footing. I recognize the difference between what he has written on this subject and such productions, e.g., as the article in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, of which he is one of the editors; or the article in Professor Cheyne’s rationalistic Encyclopedia Biblica. Were Porphyry the Pagan to come to life again he might without reserve put his name to those articles, and to many another article in both these works. If this is the sort of food supplied to divinity students nowadays it is no wonder that so many of them either lapse to rationalism or take refuge in the superstitions of mere religion. If any should think that in my reply to Professor Driver I have treated these minor points of criticism too lightly, I would plead the advice once given by a great advocate, always to ignore the petty details of an opponent’s evidence if his case can be shattered on some vital issue. There is not one of these difficulties and objections to which I have not given full and fair consideration and a reply to them will be found in these pages. But, I repeat, I am prepared to stake the whole case for Daniel on the two issues I have specified, namely, the inclusion of the book in the canon, and the fulfillment of its great central vision in Messianic times. Behind these is the fact - which in itself ought to satisfy the Christian - that the book bears the express imprimatur of our Divine Lord. And we have the further fact that its visions are inseparably interwoven with the Christian revelation and with the whole scheme of unfulfilled prophecy. But this last topic I do not now discuss. These pages are not addressed to students of prophecy, for no student of prophecy doubts the genuineness of Daniel. But prophecy fulfilled has a voice for every man; and as Professor Driver’s treatise is addressed to men of the world from their own standpoint, I have here, waiving the vantage ground of spiritual truth, appealed to the judgment of all fair and reasonable men. Ptolemy the astronomer was a "Higher Critic." The belief had long prevailed that the sun was the centre of our system; but he had no difficulty in proving that this traditional belief was untenable. Once he got men to consider the matter from their own standpoint all could see the absurdity of supposing that the earth on which they lived and moved was flying helter-skelter round the sun. And nothing more was needed but to keep the mind occupied with the many apparent difficulties of the hypothesis he opposed, to the exclusion of all thought of the few but insurmountable difficulties of the theory he advocated. The professors and experts were convinced, the multitude followed suit, and for more than a thousand years the puerilities of the Ptolemaic System held sway, with the sanction of infallible science and the blessing of an infallible Church. The allegory is a simple one. There is a "Ptolemaic System" of studying the Bible, which is now struggling for supremacy. Let us, following the rationalists, insist on shutting out God, and dealing with the Bible from the purely human standpoint, and then we need but to weary our minds by the consideration of seeming difficulties of one kind, while we ignore overwhelming difficulties of another kind, and the victory of that false system will be assured. For the capacity of fairly considering both sides of a controversy is not common, and the habit of doing so is rare. Therefore it is that the best judge is not the legal expert, but the patient, broad-minded arbitrator, who will calmly hear both sides of a case, and then adjudicate upon it without prejudice or passion. This brings me to my closing appeal; and I address it specially to those who are accustomed to take part in any capacity in the proceedings of our courts of justice. Once again, I ask them to remember that the question here at issue is essentially one for a judicial inquiry, and that if they possess experience of such inquiries their fitness for the task is greater than usually belongs to the professional scholar, however eminent. Philologists of high repute will tell them that the Book of Daniel is a forgery. Other philologists of equal fame will assure them that it is genuine. Let them set the opinion of the one set of experts against that of the other; and then, turning to consider the question on broader grounds, let them fearlessly decide it for themselves, uninfluenced by the glamour of great names. The religious revolt of the sixteenth century rescued the Bible from the Priest: God grant that the twentieth century may bring a revolt which shall rescue it from the Professor and the pundit. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 53: 1.04.13. APPENDIX I: NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S FIRST INVASION OF JUDEA ======================================================================== APPENDIX I: NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S FIRST INVASION OF JUDEA THE opening statement of the Book of Daniel is here selected for special notice for two reasons. First, because the attack upon it would be serious, if sustained. And secondly and chiefly, because it is a typical specimen of the methods of the critics; and the inquiry may convince the reader of their unfitness to deal with any question of evidence. I am not here laying down the law, but seeking to afford materials to enable the reader to form his own opinion. Daniel 1:1 reads: "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem and besieged it." The German rationalists denounce this statement as a blunder. Their humble disciples, the English skeptics, accept their conclusion and blindly reproduce their arguments. Dr. Driver (more suo) takes a middle course and brands it as "doubtful" (Daniel, pp. xlviii and 2). I propose to show that the statement is historically accurate, and that its accuracy is established by the strict test of chronology. For a complete and exhaustive analysis of the chronology I would refer to the "Chronological Treatise" in The Coming Prince. A reference to Rawlinson’s Five Great Monarchies (vol. 3: 488-494), and to Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, will show how thoroughly consistent the sacred history of this period appears to the mind of an historian or a chronologer, and how completely it harmonizes with the history of Berosus. Jerusalem was first taken by the Chaldeans in the third year of Jehoiakim. His fourth year was current with the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:1). This accords with the statement of Berosus that Nebuchadnezzar’s first expedition took place before his actual accession (Josephus, Apion, 1. 19). Then follows the statement quoted at p. 27, ante. But here we must distinguish between the narrative of Josephus, which is full of errors, and his quotation from Berosus, which is consistent and definite. Dr. Driver tells us that on this expedition, when Nebuchadnezzar reached Carchemish, he was confronted by the Egyptian army, and defeated it; and that then, on hearing of his father’s death, he hastened home across the desert. That German rationalists should have fallen into such a grotesque blunder as this, is proof of the blind malignity of their iconoclastic zeal that English scholars should adopt it is proof that they have not brought an independent judgment to bear on this controversy. What Berosus says is that when Nebuchadnezzar heard of his father’s death, "he set the affairs of Egypt and the other countries in order, and committed the captives he had taken from the Jews, and the Phoenicians, and Syrians, and of the nations belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends, while he went in haste over the desert to Babylon." Will the critics tell us how he could have had Jewish captives if he had not invaded Judea; how he could have reached Egypt without marching through Palestine; how he could have returned to Babylon over the desert if he had set out from Carchemish on the Euphrates? One error leads to another, and so Dr. Driver has to impugn also the accuracy of Jeremiah 46:2 (which states that the battle of Carchemish was in Jehoiakim’s fourth year), and further, to cook the chronology of Jehoiakim’s reign by making his regnal years date from Tishri (p. 49:) - a blunder that the Mishma exposes. (Treatise, Rosh Hashanah.) The regnal years of Jewish kings are always reckoned from Nisan. According to the Canon of Ptolemy, the reign of Nebuchadnezzar dates from B.C. 604: 1:e. his accession was in the year beginning the 1st Thoth (which fell in January), B.C. 604. But the Captivity began in Nebuchadnezzar’s eighth year (cf. Ezekiel 1:2, and 2 Kings 24:12); and in the thirty-seventh year of the Captivity Nebuchadnezzar’s successor was on the throne (2 Kings 25:27). This, however, gives Nebuchadnezzar a reign of at least forty-four years, whereas according to the canon (and Berosus confirms it) he reigned only forty-three years. It follows, therefore, that Scripture antedates his reign and computes it from B.C. 605. (Clinton, F. H., vol. 1. p. 367.) This might be explained by the fact that the Jews acknowledged him as suzerain from that date. But it has been overlooked that it is accounted for by the Mishna rule of computing regnal years from Nisan to Nisan. In B.C. 604, the first Nisan fell on the 1st April, and according to the Mishna rule the king’s second year would begin on that day, no matter how recently he had ascended the throne. Therefore the fourth year of Jehoiakim and the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:1) was the year beginning Nisan B.C. 605; and the third year of Jehoiakim, in which Jerusalem was taken and the Servitude began, was the year beginning Nisan B.C. 6o6. This result is confirmed by Clinton, who fixes the summer of B.C. 6o6 as the date of Nebuchadnezzar’s first expedition. And it is strikingly confirmed also by a statement in Daniel which is the basis of one of the quibbles of the critics: Daniel was kept three years in training before he was admitted to the king’s presence, and yet he interpreted the king’s dream in his second year (Daniel 1:5; Daniel 1:18; Daniel 2:1). The explanation is simple. While the Jews in Palestine computed Nebuchadnezzar’s reign in their own way, Daniel, a citizen of Babylon and a courtier, of course accepted the reckoning in use around him. But as the prophet was exiled in B.C. 6o6, his three years’ probation ended in B.C. 603, whereas the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, reckoned from his actual accession, extended to the early months of B.C. 602. B.C. 561 and the thirty-seventh year of the Captivity was then current (2 Kings 25:27). Therefore the Captivity dated from the year Nisan 598 to Nisan 597. But this was (according to Jewish reckoning) the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24:12). His reign, therefore, dated from the year Nisan 605 to Nisan 604. And the first siege of Jerusalem and the beginning of the Servitude was in the preceding year, 606-605. But seventy years was the appointed duration of the Servitude (not the Captivity, see p. 21, ante). And the Servitude ended in the first year of Cyrus, B.C. 536. It must therefore have begun in B.C. 606 (the third year of Jehoiakim), as the Book of Daniel records. That date, therefore, is the pivot on which the whole chronology turns. On what ground then does Dr. Driver impugn it? Will it be believed that the only ground suggested is that 2 Kings 24:1-20 : r, which so definitely confirms Daniel, does not specify the particular year intended, and that Jeremiah 25:36 : are silent with regard to the invasion of that year. Let me examine this. I open Jeremiah 25:1-38 to find these words: "The word that came to Jeremiah . . . in the fourth year of Jehoiakim . . . that was the first year of Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon." Now Jeremiah had been a prophet for more than twenty years, yet till the fourth year of Jehoiakim he never mentions Nebuchadnezzar; but in that year he fixes a date by reference to his reign. How is this to be explained? The explanation is obvious, namely that by the capture of Jerusalem, the year before, as recorded in Daniel 1:1, and 2 Chronicles 36:6-7, Nebuchadnezzar had become suzerain. And yet Professor Driver tells us that "the invasion of Judea by Nebuchadnezzar, and the three years’ submission of Jehoiakim, are certainly to be placed after Jehoiakim’s fourth year - most probably indeed, towards the close of his reign" (Daniel, p. 2). I now turn to Jeremiah 36:1-32 : This chapter records prophecies of the fourth and fifth year of Jehoiakim (verse. 1 and 9), and it is true that they do not mention an invasion before these years. But the critic has overlooked chapter 35: This chapter belongs to the same group as the chapter which follows it, and should of course be assigned to a date not later than the fourth year of the king. And in this chapter (verse ii) the presence of the Rechabites in Jerusalem is accounted for by the fact that Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion had driven them from their homes. This chapter also thus affords signal confirmation of Daniel. The critics therefore hold, of course, that it belongs to the close of Jehoiakim’s reign. And if we ask, Why should the history be turned upside down in this way? they answer, Because the prophecies of the earlier years of his reign are silent as to this invasion! This is a typical illustration of their logic and their methods. I will only add that the silence of a witness is a familiar problem with the man of affairs, who will sometimes account for it in a manner that may seem strange to the student at his desk. It may be due, not to ignorance of the event in question, but to the fact that that event was prominently present to the minds of all concerned. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 54: 1.04.14. APPENDIX II: THE DEATH OF BELSHAZZAR ======================================================================== APPENDIX II: THE DEATH OF BELSHAZZAR THE following is Professor Sayce’s rendering of the concluding (decipherable) portion of the Annalistic tablet of Cyrus "On the fourteenth day of the month Sippara was taken without fighting; Nabonidos fled. On the sixteenth day Gobryas (Ugbaru), the Governor of the country of Kurdistan (Gutium), and the soldiers of Cyrus, entered Babylon without fighting. Afterwards Nabonidos was captured, after being bound in Babylon. At the end of the month Tammuz the javelin-throwers of the country of Kurdistan guarded the gates of E-Saggil; no cessation of services took place in E-Saggil and the other temples, but no special festival was observed. The third day of the month Marchesvan (October) Cyrus entered Babylon. Dissensions were allayed before him. Peace to the city did Cyrus establish, peace to all the province of Babylon did Gobryas his governor proclaim. Governors in Babylon he appointed. From the month Chisleu to the month Adar (November to February) the gods of the country of Accad, whom Nabonidos had transferred to Babylon, returned to their own cities. The eleventh day of the month Marchesvan, during the night, Gobryas was on the bank of the river. The wife of the king died. From the twenty- seventh day of Adar to the third day of Nisan there was lamentation in the country of Accad; all the people smote their heads. On the fourth day Kambyses the son of Cyrus conducted the burial at the temple of the Sceptre of the world. The priest of the temple of the Sceptre of Nebo, who upbears the sceptre [of Nebo in the temple of the god], in an Elamite robe took the hands of Nebo, . . . the son of the king (Kambyses) [offered] free-will offerings in full to ten times [the usual amount]. He confined to E-Saggil the [image] of Nebo. Victims before Bel to ten times [the usual amount he sacrificed]." The reader’s surprise will naturally be excited on learning that the tablet is so mutilated and defective that the text has here and there to be reconstructed, and that the above, while purporting to be merely a translation is, in fact, also a reconstruction. I will here confine myself, however, to one point of principal importance. I wish to acknowledge my obligation to the Rev. John Uquhart, the author of The Inspiration and Accuracy of the Holy Scriptures, for placing this letter at my disposal. Mr. Theo. G. Pinches, by whom this very tablet was first brought to light, is perfectly clear that the reading "the wife of the king died" cannot be sustained. He writes as follows 1 (I omit the cuneiform characters) "Professor Sayce has adopted a suggestion of Professor Schrader. The characters cannot be ‘and the wife of,’ but must be either . . . ‘and ‘(as I read it at first) or . . . ‘and the son of.’ This last improved reading I suggested about four years ago, and the Rev. C. J. Ball and Dr. Hagen, who examined the text with me, adopted this view. Dr. Hagen wrote upon the subject in Delitzsch’s Beitrage, vol. 1. Of course, whether we read ‘and the king died,’ or ‘and the son of the king died,’ it comes to the same thing, as either expression could refer to Belshazzar, who, after his father’s flight, would naturally be at the head of affairs." The following extract is from Mr. Pinches’s article "Belshazzar" in the new edition of Smith’s Bible Dictionary "As is well known, Belshazzar was, according to Daniel 5:1-31 :, killed in the night, and Xenophon (Cyrop., 7: 5, 3) tells us that Babylon was taken by Cyrus during the night, whilst the inhabitants were engaged in feasting and revelry, and that the king was killed. So in the Babylonian Chronicle, lines 22—24, we have the statement that ‘On the night of the 11th of Marchesvan, Ugbaru (Gobryas) [descended?] against [Babylon?] and the king died. From the 27th of Adar until the 3rd of Nisan there was weeping in Akkad. All the people bowed their head.’ The most doubtful character in the above extract is that which stands for the word ‘and,’ the character in question having been regarded as the large group which stands for that word. A close examination of the original, however, shows that it is possible that there are two characters instead of one—namely, the small character for ‘and,’ and the character tur, which in this connection would stand for u mar, ‘and the son of’ in which case the line would read, ‘and the son of the king died.’ Weeping in Akkad for Belshazzar is just what would be expected, when we take into consideration that he was for many years with the army there, and that he must have made himself a favorite by his liberality to the Akkadian temples. Even supposing, however, that the old reading is the right one, it is nevertheless possible that the passage refers to Belshazzar; for Berosus relates that Nabonidos, on surrendering to Cyrus, had his life spared, and that a principality or estate was given to him in Carmania, where he died. It is therefore at least probable that Belshazzar was regarded even by the Babylonians as king, especially after his father’s surrender. With this improved reading of the Babylonian text, it is impossible to do otherwise than identify Gobryas with Darius the Mede (if we suppose that the last verse of the 5th chapter of Daniel really belongs to that chapter, and does not form part, as in the Hebrew text, of chap. 6:), he being mentioned, in the Babylonian Chronicle, in direct connection with the death of the king’s son (or the king, as the case may be). This identification, though not without its difficulties, receives a certain amount of support from Daniel 6:1, where it is stated that ‘it pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes,’ &c.—an act which finds parallel in the Babylonian Chronicle, which states ‘that, after Cyrus promised peace to Babylon, Gobryas, his governor, appointed governors in Babylon." On this same subject I am indebted to Mr. St. Chad Boscawen for the following note: — "Owing to the mutilated state of the latter part of the tablet, it is extremely difficult to arrange the events, and also in some cases to clearly understand the exact meanings of the sentences. As far as I can see, the course of events seems to have been as follows. Sippara was taken on the 14th of Tammuz, and two days later Babylon. Nabonidos had fled, but he was still recognized as king by the majority of the people, especially by rich trading communities such as the Egibi firm, who continued to date their contracts in his regnal years. At Sippara the people seem to have recognized Cyrus as king earlier than at Babylon, as the tablets of his accession year are all, with one exception, the source of which is not known, from Sippara. On the 3rd of Marchesvan Cyrus entered Babylon and appointed Gobryas (the prefect of Gutium) ‘prefect of the prefects’ (pikhat-pikhate) of Babylon; and he (Gobryas) appointed the other prefects. That reading of the sentence is perfectly legitimate. Cyrus seems only to have occupied himself with the restoration of religious order, and on restoring the gods to their temples who had been transported to Babylon. We have then a remarkable passage. Sayce reads ‘the wife of the king died’; but Hagen reads the son of the king, and I have examined this tablet, and find that although the tablet is here broken, the most probable reading is the son, not the wife." "In Daniel 5:1-31 : we read, and ‘Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years.’ In a second passage, however, this is modified. We read, ‘In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans, (ix. I); and again, ‘It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty princes’ (vi. I). Here we have an exact parallel to the case of Gobryas. Gobryas was a Manda—among whom were embraced the Medes, for Astyages, an undoubted Median king, ruler of the Median capital of Ecbatana, is called . . . a soldier of the Manda, or barbarians. He is appointed on the 3rd Marchesvan B.C. 538— after taking the kingdom on 16th Tammuz—’prefect of the prefects’; and he appoints other prefects over the kingdom. His reign did not last more than one year, terminating in either Adar 538 or early in B.C. 537. The end is rendered obscure by the fractures in the tablet. "If, then, Gubaru or Gobryas was prefect of Gutium before his conquest of Babylon in B.C. 538, there is nothing whatever against his being a Mede; and as Astyages was deposed by a revolt, when ‘he was taken by the hands of the rebels and given to Cyrus’ (Chronicle Inscr.), it is very probable that Gobryas was the leader of the conspiracy. Indeed he seems to me to fulfill in every way the required conditions to be Darius the Mede. . . . The appointment of the satraps does not seem exorbitantly large, nor are these to be confounded with the satrapies of the Persian Empire." And finally, in his Book of Daniel (p. xxx) Professor Driver, in citing the foregoing extract from the tablet, reads the crucial sentence thus :—" On the 11th day of Marchesvan, during the night, Gubaru made an assault and slew the king’s son." And at pp. 60, 6i he writes: "After Gubaru and Cyrus had entered Babylon he (Belshazzar) is said (according to the most probable reading) to have been slain by Gubaru ‘during the night,’ 1:e. (apparently) in some assault made by night upon the fortress or palace to which he had withdrawn." I will only add that, in view of the testimony of these witnesses, so thoroughly competent and impartial, it is not easy to restrain a feeling of indignation at the effrontery (not to use a stronger word) of Professor Sayce’s language in pp. 525, 526 of his book. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 55: 1.04.15. APPENDIX III: THE PUNCTUATION OF DAN_9:25 ======================================================================== APPENDIX III: THE PUNCTUATION OF Daniel 9:25 THE Massoretic punctuation of Daniel 9:25 has been adopted by Dean Farrar and Professor Driver, who fail to see that it is fatal to their pseud-epigraph theory of Daniel. The passage when thus read limits to 62 "weeks" the period during which Jerusalem was to remain as an inhabited city; and it is quite certain that no Jew writing "in the days of the Seleucid tyrant, anxious to inspire the courage and console the sufferings of his countrymen," would have used words which could only mean that the destruction of their holy city was imminent. Assuming the genuineness of the Book of Daniel, the R.V. punctuation renders the meaning of the passage more obscure, but it cannot alter it; for as 7+62+1 make up 70, it is obvious that the lesser periods mentioned are subdivisions of the 70 weeks of the prophecy. It is clear, therefore, that the 62 weeks follow the 7 weeks, and that the death of Messiah (according to verse 26) was to be at the close of the 69th week. "The sacred writings - Torah, Prophets, and Hagiographa - were written in archaic style, the letters were unaccompanied by vowel or punctuation signs. . . . The accents and the vowel system are an integral part of the Massorab." And further, "The Received, or, as it is commonly called, the Massoretic, text of the Old Testament Scriptures, has come down to us in manuscripts which are of no very great antiquity, and which all belong to the same family or recension" (Preface, R.V.). As the words "of no very great antiquity" may be explained to mean not more than about one thousand years old, the reader can appreciate Professor Margoliouth’s statement "that we possess the Old Testament in a partially anti- Christian recension." And as a false punctuation of Daniel 9:25 would suffice to obscure, though it could not destroy, the Messianic reference of the passage, the Jewish editors may have possibly sought in this way to lessen the weight of proof which Daniel affords of the truth of Christianity. But we may clear the Jewish editors from this charge, though at the expense of the Old Testament Company of Revisers. Punctuation marks (as we understand the term) there are none in Hebrew. But the Hebrew accents serve to a certain extent the same purpose. The following extract from the Gesenius- Kautzsch Hebrew Grammar (than which there is no higher authority) will enable the reader to judge of this matter for himself: - "The design of the accents is primarily to regulate the musical enunciation (chanting) of the sacred Text; and thus they are first of all a kind of musical notes. . . . On the other hand, according to their original design they have also a twofold use which is still of the greatest importance for the grammar - viz., their value (a) as marking the tone; (b) as marks of punctuation." And to this a footnote is added to explain "that the value of the accent as a mark of punctuation is always relative. Thus, e.g., ‘Athnah, as regards the logical structure of the sentence, may at one time indicate a very strong caesure (thus Genesis 1:4); at another, one which is almost imperceptible (thus Genesis 1:1)." Now it is the presence of the Athnah accent which has led the Revisers to divide Daniel 9:25 by a colon. On the same principle and for the same reason they ought to have rendered Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created: the heaven and the earth." In the Hebrew the order of the words is, "In the beginning created God;" and the force of the Athnah is to make the reader pause at the sacred name in order that the hearers may grasp the solemn meaning of the words. In every case, therefore, the context must decide whether the accent should be "translated" by the insertion of a colon in the English version. The Revisers, however, by a majority vote, and in spite of the protest of the American Company, have thus corrupted Daniel 9:25. It is one of the blemishes of the R.V. of the Old Testament, which is generally free from these "schoolboy translations," that so often mark the R.V. of the New Testament. I will conclude by repeating that if their punctuation here is right, it is proof that Daniel was not written in the Maccabean era. Since writing the foregoing my attention has been called to the presence of the Athnah in verse 2 of this very chapter. If the critics are right they ought to render it, "I, Daniel, understood by the books: the number of the years, &c. But their position is in fact utterly untenable. 1 Ecclesiastes 12:5 is a notable instance of this. The beautifully veiled reference implied in the caper-berry is rendered with exquisite propriety in our A.V., "and desire shall fail." The R.V. reading, "and the caper-berry shall fail," is a mere schoolboy translation, and absolutely meaningless to the English reader. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 56: 1.04.16. APPENDIX IV: THE JEWISH CALENDAR ======================================================================== APPENDIX IV: THE JEWISH CALENDAR ACCORDING to the Mishnah (treatise Rosh Hathanak), "On the 1st of Nisan is a new year for the computation of the reign of kings and for festivals." To which the Jewish editors of the English translation of the Mishnah add this note: "The reign of Jewish kings, whatever the period of accession might be, was always reckoned from the preceding Nisan; so that if; for instance, a Jewish king began to reign in Adar, the following month (Nisan) would be considered as the commencement of the second year of his reign. This rule was observed in all legal contracts, in which the reign of kings was always mentioned." This rule, I may add, will explain what Christian expositors and critics are pleased to call the "errors" in the chronological statements of Scripture as to Jewish regnal years. Full information on the subject of the present Jewish year will be found in Lindo’s Jewish Calendar, and in the Encyc. Brit., 9th ed., article "Hebrew Calendar." But while their calendar is now settled with astronomical accuracy, it was not so in early times. And nothing is certainly known of the embolismal system then in use, to adjust the lunar to the solar year. But the testimony of the Mishnah is definite that the great characteristic of the sacred year, as ordained in the Mosaic age, remained unchanged in Messianic times; namely, it began with the first appearance of the Paschal moon. The Mishnah states that the Sanhedrim required the evidence of two competent witnesses that they had seen the new moon. The rules for the journey and examination of the witnesses contemplate the case of their coming from a distance, and being "a night and a day on the road." The proclamation by the Sanhedrim may therefore have been delayed for a day or two after the phasis, and the phasis may sometimes have been delayed till the moon was 1d. 17 h. old. So that the 1st Nisan may sometimes have fallen several days later than the true new moon. (See Clinton, Fasti Rem., vol. 2: p. 240.) All writers therefore who, e.g., fix the date of the Crucifixion by assigning it to a year in which the Paschal full moon was on a Friday, are clearly wrong. The elements of doubt are: (1) The time of the phasis; (2) the appearance of the necessary witnesses; (3) the rules to prevent the festivals falling on unsuitable days; and (4) the embolismal system in force, of which we know nothing certainly. The use of the Metonic cycle in settling the Jewish calendar dates only from the fourth century A.D.; and as the old eight years’ cycle was in use among the early Christians for settling Easter, the presumption is that it was borrowed from the Jews. Let me illustrate this by A.D. 32, the year which Scripture itself marks out as the year of the Crucifixion. The true new moon was late on the night (10h. 57m.) of the 29th March. The proclamation of the Sanhedrim therefore would naturally have occurred on the 31st. But, as above explained, it may have been delayed till 1st April; and in that case the 15th Nisan should have fallen on Tuesday the 15th April. But according to the scheme of the eight years’ cycle, the embolismal month was inserted in the 3rd, 6th, and 8th years; and an examination of the calendars from A.D. 22 to 45 will show that A.D. 32 was the 3rd year of such a cycle. And as the difference between the solar year and the lunar is 11.5 days, it would amount in three years to 33.75 days, and the addition of a 13th month (Ve-Adar) of 30 days would leave an epoch still remaining of 3.75 days. And the "ecclesiastical moon" being that much before the real moon, the Passover festival would have fallen on Friday (11th April). I have dealt with this question at greater length in The Coming Prince, pp. 99 - 105. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 57: 1.04.17. APPENDIX V: THE TWENTIETH YEAR OF ARTAXERXES ======================================================================== APPENDIX V: THE TWENTIETH YEAR OF ARTAXERXES THE month Nisan in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes is the epoch of the prophetic era of the seventy weeks. In dealing with this subject, therefore, it is of vital importance to fix that date, and I have dealt with the matter exhaustively in an Excursus (App. II. Note A) added to The Coming Prince, to which I beg leave to refer the reader. I will here give but one extract: "According to Clinton (F. H., vol. 2: p. 380), the death of Xerxes was in July, B.C. 465, and the accession of Artaxerxes was in February, B.C. 464. Artaxerxes, of course, ignored the usurper’s reign, which intervened, and reckoned his own reign from the day of his father’s death. Again, of course, Nehemiah, being an officer of the court, followed the same reckoning. Had he computed his master’s reign from February 464, Chisleu and Nisan could not have fallen in the same regnal year (Nehemiah 1:1; Nehemiah 2:1). No more could they, had he, according to Jewish practice, computed it from Nisan." Not content, however, with my own investigations, I appealed to the author of The Five Great Monarchies, and Canon Rawlinson favored me with the following reply: "You may safely say that chronologers are now agreed that Xerxes died in the year B.C. 465. The Canon of Ptolemy, Thucidides, Diodorus, and Manetho are agreed, the only counter authority being Ctesias, who is quite untrustworthy." Then as regards the Julian date of the 1st Nisan, B.C. 445 (Nehemiah 2:1-20 :), when my book was in the press, I began to fear lest my own lunar calculations to fix the Jewish New Year (see Appendix IV., ante), might prove untrustworthy, and accordingly I wrote to the then Astronomer-Royal, Sir George Airy, who replied as follows: "I have had the moon’s place calculated from Largeteau’s Tables in additions to the Connaisance des Temps, 1846, by one of my assistants, and have no doubt of its correctness. The place being calculated for - 444, March 12d. 20 h., French reckoning, or March 12d. 8 h. P.M., it appears that the said time was short of New Moon by about 8 h. 47 m., and therefore the New Moon occurred at 4 h. 47 ni. A.M., March 13th, Paris time." The New Moon, therefore, occurred at Jerusalem on the 13th March, B.C. 445 (-144 Astronomical) at 7h. 9m. A.M. And the next day, the 14th, was the 1st Nisan. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 58: 1.04.18. APPENDIX VI: THE DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION ======================================================================== APPENDIX VI: THE DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION AS regards the date of the Ministry and of the Passion, Luke 3:1 is an end of controversy with all who reject the nightmare system of interpreting Scripture. The 15th year of the Emperor Tiberius is as certain a date as the 15th year of Queen Victoria. He began to reign on the 19th August A.D. 14. "And no single case has ever been, or can be, produced in which the years of Tiberius were reckoned in any other manner." But Gibbon tells us that "The Roman Emperors invested their designed successor with so large a share of present power as should enable him, after their decease, to assume the remainder without suffering the empire to perceive the change of masters. Thus Augustus . . . obtained for his adopted son [Tiberius] the censorial and tribunitian power, and dictated a law by which the future prince was invested with an authority equal to his own over the provinces and the armies. Thus Vespasian . . . associated Titus to the full powers of the Imperial dignity" (Decline and Fall, I. ch. 3). And this is made an excuse for "cooking" the chronology by those who, in spite of the clear testimony of Scripture, insist on assigning the Crucifixion to A.D. 29 or 30. They treat the reign of Tiberius as beginning some years before the death of Augustus, and take his 15th year to mean his 12th year. Sanclementi, indeed, finding "that nowhere in his time, or on monuments or coins, is a vestige to be found of any such mode of reckoning the years of this emperor," disposes of the difficulty by taking the date in Luke 3:1-38 : I to refer to the Passion! Browne adopts this in a modified form. He says "it is improbable to the last degree" that Luke, who wrote specially for a Roman officer, and generally for Gentiles, would have so expressed himself as to be certainly misunderstood by them. Therefore, though the statement of the Evangelist clashes with his date for the Passion, he owns his obligation to accept it. The Evangelist’s chronology refutes the traditional date embodied in the spurious Acta Pilati formerly quoted in this controversy, and in the writings of certain of the Fathers - "by some because they confounded the date of the baptism with the date of the Passion; by others, because they supposed both to have happened in one year; by others, because they transcribed from their predecessors without examination" (Fynes Clinton, Fasti Rom., A.D. 29). The advocates of this false chronology rely, first, on a wrong inference from the Evangelist’s statement that the Lord "when He began (to teach) was about thirty years of age" (Luke 3:23). But, as Alford says, this "admits of considerable latitude, but only in one direction, viz, over thirty years." And, secondly, on the figment that the Passion must have occurred in a year when the Paschal moon was full upon a Friday. But this is a blunder. John 18:3 makes it clear that the Passover of the Crucifixion was not at the full moon. For in that case there would have been no "lanterns and torches," especially having regard to Luke 22:2. See Appendix IV. (p. 172f ante); and also Clinton’s Fasti Rom., vol. 2: p. 240, as to the impossibility of determining in what year the Passover fell on a Friday. The whole question is dealt with fully in The Coming Prince, 151: 8: ======================================================================== CHAPTER 59: 1.04.19. APPENDIX VII: PROFESSOR DRIVER'S INDICTMENT OF DANIEL ======================================================================== APPENDIX VII: PROFESSOR DRIVER’S INDICTMENT OF DANIEL THE following is a brief summary of Professor Driver’s indictment of the Book of Daniel. He enumerates under nine heads "facts of a historical nature" which point to an author later than Daniel (pp. xlvii—1v1). These are:— 1. The position of the Book in the Jewish Canon. (As to this see pp. 57—61, and 103—108, ante.) 2. The omission of his name from Ecclesiasticus. (See pp. 57, 98 n., ante.) 3. That the Book of Kings is silent as to the siege mentioned in Daniel 1:1. (See p.15 and App. I., ante.) 4. The use of the term "Chaldean." (See p. 45 a., ante.) 5. That Belshazzar is spoken of as king, and as son of Nebuchadnezzar. (See p. 23 if., ante.) 6. The mention of Darius the Mede as King of Babylon. (See p. 31ff. and i65, ante.) 7. The mention of "the books" in Daniel 9:2. The word sepher means simply a scroll It often denotes a book; often a letter (as, e.g., Jeremiah 29:1-32 : i, or Isaiah 37:14.) Then again Jeremiah 36:1-32 : I, 2 records that Jeremiah’s prophecies up to that time were recorded in a "book." And ten years later a further "book" of them was sent to Babylon (Jeremiah 2:6 o, 61). Or if any one insists that "the books" must here mean a recognized canon, where is the difficulty? The statement that no such "collection" existed in B.C. 536 is one of those wanton assertions that abound in this controversy. It may "safely be affirmed" with certainty that the scrolls of the Law were kept together. And there was no man on earth more likely to possess them than the great prophet-prince of the Captivity. 8. "The incorrect explanation of the name Belshazzar in 4: 8." (As Dr. Driver goes on to describe this as "doubtful" (p. 54:), I have not deemed it necessary to notice it.) 9. The "improbability" that strict Jews would have accepted a position among the "wise men" (see p. 13, ante), and other like "improbabilities." (As Dr. Driver goes on to admit that these do not possess weight, and "should be used with reserve," I have not dwelt upon them.) His second ground of attack is the language of the book (lvi.-lxiii.). This has been fully discussed in these pages (ch. 4:). And the third ground is "the theology of the book." After deprecating the "exaggerations of the rationalists" under this head, he proceeds: - "It is undeniable that the conception of the future Kingdom of God, and the doctrines of angels, of the resurrection, and of a judgment on the world, appear in Daniel in a more developed form than elsewhere in the Old Testament." Far be it from me to deny it! It is largely on this very account that the Christian values the book, remembering as he does, what Professor Driver ignores, that its teaching in all these respects is definitely adopted and developed in the New Testament. And if he finds that the later Jewish apocalyptical literature resembles the book in some respects, he has no difficulty in accounting for the resemblance. (See p. 57, ante.) I make the critic a present of the entire argument under this head of "the theology of the book," save on three points. And they are points which would never have been urged by an English Christian writer save under the influence of German infidelity. 1. It is not true that the interest of the book culminates in the history of Antiochus. As all Christian expositors with united voice maintain, it culminates in the prophecy of Messiah’s advent and death. And as all students of prophecy recognize, it reaches on to the time of the treat Antichrist of whom Antiochus was but a type. 2. Daniel’s passionately earnest prayer recorded in ch. 9: is a complete answer to the statement that he took "little interest in the welfare and prospects of his contemporaries." 3. We are told that "the minuteness of the predictions embracing even special events in the distant future, is also out of harmony with the analogy of prophecy." If this were sustained it would not affect the book as a whole, but serve merely to accredit the suggestion urged by some writers that part of chap. 11: is an interpolation. But in view of the facts this allegation is as strange as that under (2) supra, and as many others in Professor Driver’s book. What about the minute predictions scattered through the Old Testament respecting the Nativity and the Passion? And the last eight chapters of Ezekiel contain a mass of predictions which still await fulfillment, as minute as anything in Daniel This is all that the Higher Criticism has to urge against the Book of Daniel. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 60: 1.05.0. ELECTION AND LORDSHIP ======================================================================== PART 5: ELECTION AND LORDSHIP ======================================================================== CHAPTER 61: 1.05.1. ELECTION AND LORDSHIP ======================================================================== ELECTION AND LORDSHIP Sir Robert Anderson There is a special subject I want to speak about, but I will begin with this vexed question of Election, for there are many people here, I dare say, who are distressed and troubled about it. I would like to say this, that if the doctrine of Election is the ground of your confidence before God, I would very tenderly and earnestly ask you to reconsider your whole position. God never intended that His people should be saved by a doctrine, or, to make a stronger statement still, that they should be saved by a fact. We have a Saviour. God is our Saviour; and the great truth of Election does not speak to us about a fact relating to ourselves; it is a revelation of the character of God. It speaks to us of His love, which, like everything else connected with Himself, is timeless; and if you ask what particular date is to be attached to it, you do not understand what you are talking about - it is before all time, before the foundation of the world. It speaks to us also of the unchangeableness of His purpose. And if you search the Scripture upon this subject (and there is no book to open up the Scriptures like the Bible itself) you will find by the use of the word in the passages where it occurs, that for the people of God Election has to do with privilege and dignity - this is the characteristic thought in it. Who is the Elect of God? The Lord Jesus Christ Himself. The Jew, in many respects, knows his Bible better than we do, and their taunt at the cross was "Let Him save Himself if He be the Christ, the Elect of God" (Luke 23:35). A title, I say, of dignity and affection. You and I, if we are indeed in Him, are in the elect, and we, too, are the Elect of God. So we read: "As the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on," etc. That does not mean that we are people who, for some inscrutable reason, are separated off from other people, and put into a position which makes us independent of the grace of God, independent of His mercy to us in Christ. If you have that thought of Election get rid of it. We are as much dependent upon God our Saviour, dependent for our life here upon earth, and for the eternity that is before us, as if there was not a word about election in the Bible. Is it possible that there is a Christian here who shrinks back from the statement of this truth, and would like to have something, as it were, paid over the counter that would make us independent of our Saviour God? Banish the thought, and learn to have truer and worthier thoughts about Him and His salvation. Two other thoughts before I pass away from this. First of all, the truth of Election is wholly distinct from any thought of reprobation. God never elects people to damnation. That is a corollary upon what I said before; and if time permitted I might turn to Scripture after Scripture to enforce the truth of it. And, secondly, I want very definitely to press - and it is very helpful to those who are seeking to bring the Gospel before others - that this truth of Election in no way affects the question as to the persons and the classes to whom the Gospel is addressed. You know the kind of theology which we generally connect with the term Calvinism, and which would teach us that the work of Christ has relation only to a certain definitely limited number of people in the world, and that all the rest are beyond the reach of grace. Well, if what I have said just now be true, this is utterly false. You point to an unconverted man passing down the road, and ask me "Is that man elect?" I answer "Most certainly not"; if he is not in Christ he has no right whatever to a title of dignity and privilege that belongs primarily to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and to us only as in Him. But that does not touch this question. So far as the death of Christ is concerned, its relation to that man is expressed by the words of the Gospel message. Are they true words? I don’t mean can we so state them that no one will detect that they are not true? The Gospel has not got a pulpit side, and another side turned to the people. No! it is like God Himself, absolutely and unreservedly true. "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." "Who gave Himself a ransom for all, the testimony to be borne in its own times." I will read you a few words which, though only from a man, are of very much higher authority than any Calvinist dare to pretend to. "Though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him." Whose words do you think these are? They are the words of Calvin himself, in his commentary upon Romans 5:1-21, and the editor of the English edition of his works, adds these notable words: "It appears from this sentence that Calvin held general redemption." These words I have verified myself. I came the other day upon another quotation from Calvin in the writings of Bishop Ryle, of Liverpool, and I give them on his authority. On John 3:1-36, he says, "Christ employed the universal term whosoever both to invite indiscriminately all to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is the import of the term world. Though there is nothing in the world that is worthy of God’s favour, yet He shows Himself to be reconciled to the whole world when He invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ." Now this leads me to say - and I am sure I carry with me here the sympathy and conviction of every Christian - that every question about salvation is falsely stated, and every thought about salvation is wrong in some way unless it connects itself with God as the centre. If you have been trying to work out your personal salvation, or to get proof of it apart from God, you have begun at the wrong end, and you will never find settled peace. I know we are very proud of ourselves, for it is quite characteristic of this end of the nineteenth century talk to suppose that we are wonderful creatures. But in His presence we are just like insects creeping upon the ground; we are very contemptible creatures indeed. The angels who never sinned are more wonderful creatures than we are, aye, and the angels that sinned too. But God has set His love upon us. He so loved us that He gave His only begotten Son to die for us, and now God Himself has become our Saviour. In the words of the old prophet, "The Lord Jehovah has become our salvation." What a magnificent truth this is. If the Lord Jehovah has become my salvation, then my salvation is become a part of the very ground plan of the universe of God; and it calls forth the word, ‘Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?" It is not intended that the elect should start up and exclaim, "What wonderful people we are, to be sure!" Our thoughts should be of God, His power, His faithfulness, His mercy, His grace and His love. And we are in God’s hands now; who then shall lay anything to our charge? We have seen something like this in the history of our own country in the last few years. What are a handful of soldiers to this nation? A general who knows his business is willing to sacrifice whole regiments for the sake of gaining a victory; but if you have a handful of Englishmen shut up in Chitral the whole power of England is pledged to bring deliverance to them; and I venture to say that this country would sacrifice thousands of men and millions of money to accomplish this, once it declared it would deliver them. And you, who are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, have to do with God’s purposes as revealed in Him, and when you get hold of this and know that He has linked you with His own glory, you cease to rack your brains about your Election; you learn to think about the throne of God and its steadfastness, about the Blood of Christ and its preciousness, about the Word of God that endureth forever; and there you have a confidence and peace that nothing can shake, either in this world or in the world that is to come. This leads me to another thought. One great reason of the confusion which exists in the minds of Christians about all kinds of things is because they know little or nothing about Christianity. I am using the word in a special sense. This is called a Christian country, just as we talk of China as a heathen country. But - though you have no right to deny that use of the word, for it is quite legitimate- it is not its only meaning. In a deeper sense of the word the Christian is one who is in Christ, and in this sense no one has a right to call himself a Christian who has not eternal life in Christ. But there is yet another meaning of the word. No one, albeit he is in Christ, and has eternal life, has any right whatever to be acknowledged as a Christian before men unless he is living a Christ life upon earth. To live as a man of the world, and yet hold yourself out to be a Christian - this is shameful and wrong. If you will live a worldly life, keep your Christianity to yourself, and don’t stumble other people, both Christians and the unconverted around you, by claiming to be a Christian. In the meanness of your spirit thank God in secret that He has saved your miserable soul, but don’t retard His work in the world by telling others you are a Christian. But even this does not exhaust the meaning of the word Christian. There is another most important thought connected with it which is too much ignored. If you ask whether a man is a lawyer, you may mean merely whether he is by profession barrister or solicitor, or the object of your inquiry may be to ascertain whether he is really versed in the knowledge of the law. Now, do you see my last thought about the meaning of the word Christian? It is one who is versed in the doctrine of Christianity. How very little there is of it! The Lord Jesus Christ has come. He is the centre of all truth; and He has called us to stand with Himself in the midst of all the truth that has been revealed to us in the Word, not only for the present, but as regards the past and the future, so that in the full intelligence of all this we should live out our life here for Him. And this is what it means to be a Christian. Some people are very indignant when you speak about dispensational truth, but you will never know anything about Christianity until you understand dispensational truth. Years ago, in a country town where I was holding some meetings, a gentleman came to help me. He had only recently been converted, and a friend had been trying to teach him dispensational truth, but it only made him angry. "So you mean to tell me," he demanded, "that this verse and that verse is not for me?" And so on. Our discussion continued till we set out for the meeting. At the meeting he took up Luke 14:1-35, and read about the great man who made a great supper, and bade many. He talked about the invitation, which he told the hearers was for them, and pressed them to accept it. So he went on preaching what he considered a clear Gospel. He next described the servants going out to the highways and hedges, and bringing in the poor, maimed, halt, and blind, and then he came to the words, "For none of these men that were bidden shall taste of my supper." As he turned round and looked at me, he stumbled, halted, and hesitated, and abruptly sat down. I got up and gave out a hymn, and while we were singing it he disappeared. When the meeting was over I went home and found him doubled up on the sofa sobbing like a child. "I see it all now," said he, "I have been setting myself against the truth of God. God did that which is described in the parable, He made a great upper and invited His friends, but now the word has gone forth - ’not one of those men that were bidden shall taste of My supper.’" Now, I do not want to offend you, but that, is where you have come in - the poor, maimed, halt, blind - the dregs of the streets: that is what we are before God, and He has brought us into the banquet that His friends refused. We are now God’s elect, and have this wonderful place of privilege and blessing, and are united immediately in the closest relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. I met a friend of mine the other day, one of those enthusiastic people I am afraid of, because they try to force me beyond my pace, and it is not always safe to allow people to force you beyond your pace; and he took hold of me and almost gave me a shake, as he said, "I hope you are looking for the King." "No," I said, "I am not looking for the King." "What?" he said, "Don’t you believe in the coming of the Lord?" "Of course I do! I am looking for the Lord from heaven, but I am not looking for the King." He is King and Priest too, but it is not in that character He is coming. The great characteristic truth of the present dispensation is Lordship - the Lordship of Christ. I was asked the other night, by Mr. Andrew Murray, what special truth was wanted at the present time on account of the state of the Church? I have thought of it a good deal since, and I would say that it is the truth, so utterly neglected, of the Lordship of Christ. You ask, "Is it not obedience?" That is only a sequence, a corollary upon the other. Let us get hold of this, that He is LORD, and then will come in obedience. It is the great purpose which God has in view in all that He is working out. He has given Him the name that is above every name, not only in this world, but in that which is to come. And I give my judgment humbly, but confidently, that there is only one name which is above every name in this world, or the world which is to come - the great, incommunicable name of Jehovah; but He has given Him that name that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow - a name that speaks of humiliation, oh, how deep! We forget its significance. It was a common name among the Jews, more common than Samuel, or Daniel; yet in that name every knee shall bow, of knees in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. It is for this that the great purpose of the ages is slowly working out. Think of this, any of you here that are troubled about those questions that have been alluded to as to the condition of the lost; get rid of your theology upon that subject, and get hold of the truth that there will not be a creature in the universe but will bow before Him and own Him Lord. What, then, is the Christian position, and what is the Christian life? Is it to anticipate the realization of the prayer, "Thy will be done on earth as it is done in heaven"? Is it our thought that, so far as it rests with us, His will should be done on earth as it is done in heaven? We talk about the future when all shall show it. But do our lives show it now? It is possible to take up the most blessed truths which we receive from this Word, or hear from the lips of others, and yet to make them our own opinions, and so degrade them till they become our own fads, instead of so receiving them that they shall bring us to His feet in the acknowledgment of His Lordship, and create in us deeper and more earnest longings to be in the true place of service. Christianity is not based upon the teaching of Christ while on earth; we have heard Him who speaks from Heaven, and this is the special revelation of Christianity. Do not mistake me; it is not that any portion of this book is to be disregarded, for everything that belongs to Him belongs to us and what is there that does not belong to Him? What is there that does not concern His glory? But when I speak of the special revelation of Christianity, I mean the revelation that dates, not from the cross, much less from His life on earth before the cross, not even from His resurrection as He talked and walked with His disciples in His body of glory, but from His place in Ascension at the right hand of God. The voice that speaks to us speaks from heaven. And if we are Christians, we are looking for the Lord from heaven. In closing I want to ask you, as you talk about the Coming, do you realize the meaning of the word? Am I wrong in thinking that when you speak of the Coming you are thinking mainly, if not exclusively, of an event to be fulfilled in the future? But the word Parousia means literally His “Presence." It speaks of His being with us. If it be in relation to earth, it speaks of His being here. It is only in a secondary sense that it means the actual fact of His arrival, and yet we take that as though it were the exclusive meaning of the word. And if we get hold of this thought that it is not a strange thing that the Lord should be present with His people, I think it will revolutionize the ideas which some of us have upon this whole subject. It is the strangest thing in the world that He should be absent. If a man has to go abroad - it may be as a servant of his country, or as a bread-winner - in such circumstances that he cannot have his wife and children with him, are they not always longing to be together again? And when you talk about his coming back, people do not exclaim, "What an extraordinary idea!" He longs to come back simply because his loved ones are here. Everybody understands this, for the children of this world are wiser than the children of light. So also, if the Lord Jesus has gone away He is certainly coming back again. And yet they tell me that in America, in certain circles, a man’s head is thought affected if he talks about the Lord’s coming, as though it were some extraordinary craze he had taken hold of. Oh, have you ever known what it is, in all this talk about the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, to have felt a want, so that the words, "Come, Lord Jesus," are no mere cuckoo cry, but the expression of a deep longing, caused by a real sense of His absence - a want of Himself? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 62: 1.06.00. FORGOTTEN TRUTHS ======================================================================== PART 6: FORGOTTEN TRUTHS ======================================================================== CHAPTER 63: 1.06.01. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION ======================================================================== PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION THE early demand for a new edition of "Forgotten Truths" gives proof that truths which have been let slip by so many are still cherished by not a few. The only adverse criticism the book has evoked is that which was anticipated in the closing pages of Chap. 12. In the early years of my Christian life I was greatly perplexed and distressed by the supposed position that the plain and simple words of such Scriptures as John 3:16, 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:6 were not true, save in a cryptic sense understood only by the initiated. For, I was told, the overshadowing truth of Divine sovereignty in election barred our taking them literally. But half a century ago a friend of those days - the late Dr. Horatius Bonar - delivered me from this strangely prevalent error. He taught me that truths may seem to us irreconcilable only because our finite minds cannot understand the Infinite; and we must never allow our faulty apprehension of the eternal counsels of God to hinder unquestioning faith in the words of Holy Scripture. Nor was this a plausible effort to evade the special difficulty raised by a misuse of the great truth of election; for a kindred mystery permeates our whole existence. We are conscious of possessing a free and independent will which enables us to turn hither and thither as we please, and to do good or evil. Were it otherwise, indeed, the Divine judgment of the sinner would be unjust. And yet, when we review the consequences of our conduct, we recognize the hand of God. True it is that we think of Him only when the consequences are serious; but, as the Lord explicitly taught, His sovereignty declares itself even in the fall of a sparrow. All this has its counterpart in relation to the promise of the Coming. The believer and the infidel are agreed that in Apostolic times the saints were taught to regard the Lord’s return as a hope that might be realized during their lifetime. But now we are asked to acknowledge that the infidel is right in maintaining that this was entirely a mistake! For, it is argued, the Lord cannot come till "the number of His elect" is complete. And Ephesians 1:4 is construed to mean that at some epoch in time, prior to 4004 B.C. (or whatever date be fixed for "the foundation of the world"), people now living were made beneficiaries of God’s favour. It follows, therefore, that, as "the number of the elect" was not complete prior to this twentieth century of our era, the Advent could not have taken place at any period in the past; and possibly the thirtieth century may dawn before the promise is fulfilled! And when in amazement we seek for some explanation of the words, "Surely I am coming quickly," we are told that "with the Lord a thousand years are as one day" (2 Peter 3:8.). But does anyone really imagine that there is a celestial timepiece with a thousand-year dial! Is it not clear as light from the language of these and kindred Scriptures, such as Psalms 90:4, that eternity is God’s domain? Therefore is it that His judgments are unsearchable and His ways past finding out. For eternity is not unlimited time, but the antithesis of time; whereas time is the law of our being, "the condition under which all created things exist" (Trench, Synonyms). Those who put a special meaning on certain words in Gospel texts can plead with truth that these words are sometimes used in a restricted sense. But no plea of the kind is tenable here. "I am surely coming quickly":" Yet a very little while and the Coming One will come, and will not delay." These words are too definite to admit of any second meaning; and to refuse to take them literally is equivalent to challenging their truth. But how then can we explain the fact that they are still unfulfilled? A solution of that most perplexing difficulty is supplied by the following pages. R. A. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 64: 1.06.02. CHAPTER 1: QUESTIONS RAISED ======================================================================== CHAPTER 1: QUESTIONS RAISED THE lapse of time has not effaced from my memory the details of a conversation of many years ago with a liberal-minded and cultured Jewish Rabbi. He introduced himself by telling me that he was a student of the New Testament, and that my friend, the then Chief Rabbi, had recommended one of my expository books to his attention. "We regard Jesus as one of the greatest of our Rabbis," was one of his opening remarks. And he added, "It was not he that founded Christianity, but your Paul." I astonished him by replying that beneath his assertion there lay a truth which the theology of Christendom had let slip. For the words of the Lord Jesus (1) were explicit: "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel"; "Salvation is of the Jews." In this connection I cited also the Apostle’s words, that "Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers, and that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy." (Romans 15:8) And this I explained by reference to the Lord’s parable of the great supper. "You were the invited guests," I said, "for to you pertained the Fathers and the promises, whereas the Gentiles are beholden to uncovenanted mercy. But though by nature the waifs and strays of the highways and the streets, grace has given us a place of special favour and nearness to God." The pleasant tenor of a prolonged conversation was interrupted at one point by an outburst about "the persecutions and cruelties his nation had suffered from the Christian religion." This evoked a no less indignant outburst on my part at his confounding the religion of Christendom with the Christianity of the New Testament. I assured him that the best Christian theologians of our own time were free from the ignorance which in other days claimed for "the Christian Church" (2) all the promises of the Hebrew Scriptures, leaving nothing for Israel but the threatened judgments. And I exemplified my statement by quoting Dean Alford’s scathing words (7) about the evil history and predicted doom of "the Christian Church.": I said that while in the past the Christians seem to have skipped the 11th chapter of Romans, nowadays we studied it. We recognized, therefore, that the people of the Abrahamic covenant were "the natural branches" of the olive tree which symbolizes the position of testimony and blessing upon earth, and that they would yet be restored to the place they had lost by unbelief; "for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." (Romans 11:13-29) This is but an outline of a discussion which ended, as it had begun, in a most amicable tone and spirit, my companion repeatedly assuring me of the interest and surprise my words excited in his mind. But the questions raised and the truths involved are far too large and too important for treatment here in this incidental fashion; and I proceed to offer a more definite and systematic statement of them. (8) ======================================================================== CHAPTER 65: 1.06.03. CHAPTER 2: ETERNAL WORD OF GOD ======================================================================== CHAPTER 2: ETERNAL WORD OF GOD "O THE depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" (Romans 11:33) Such was the burst of praise that rose from the heart of the inspired Apostle as he realized that the seeming failure of all that Hebrew prophets had foretold of blessing upon earth at the coming of Messiah had been made the occasion of a new revelation, which should lead up to the fulfillment of all their God-breathed words. "The seeming failure," I say advisedly. For though theologians have written "The enlargement of the Church" over such Scriptures as Isaiah 54:1-17; Isaiah 60:1-22; Isaiah 66:1-24, no sane and sensible person will pretend that there exists today, or has ever existed in the past, a condition of things on earth that could be accepted as the fulfillment of these prophecies. And to suppose that such a condition of things will result from the influences at work in the present economy betokens sheer blindness and folly. The time has come for plain speaking on this subject. "Clear the decks," is the first order given when a warship prepares for action. And the vagaries of old-fashioned "orthodox" exegesis are top-hamper that grievously embarrasses the defense of Holy Scripture in these days when its Divine authority is so virulently attacked. As the inspired Apostle declared at Pentecost, "the times of the restitution of all things" — or, in other words, the times when all things will be put right — are the burden of Hebrew prophecy from Moses to Malachi, (Acts 3:19) and the fulfillment of these prophecies awaits the return of Christ. The fact is plain to all who will use their brains that the condition of Christendom, and of the world at large, differs essentially from what is portrayed and promised in the visions of the Hebrew Seers. But these "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," (2 Peter 1:21) and no word of God can fail. No lapse of time affects it; for in His sight a thousand years are as a forgotten yesterday, or as a watch in the night. (Psalms 90:4) Thus it is that He would teach us that time is but a law of human thought, and that eternity is His domain. Therefore, while unbelief dismisses these prophecies as old-world classics, the Christian accepts them as divine - the Word of God, "which liveth and abideth for ever." And this being so, chronology has no bearing on the vital question here at issue. For we are "not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (2 Peter 3:8) "Today is the third day since these things were done," was the despairing lament of the disciples on the road to Emmaus; but their unbelief brought upon them the Lord’s rebuke, "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken." And when the skeptical pundits would shake our faith by reminding us that the prophets’ words are still unfulfilled after the lapse of well-nigh three thousand years, we exclaim, "Three thousand years! Then today is the third day since these things were spoken!" Spiritual discernment and ordinary intelligence are needed in the study of Holy Scripture. Spirituality is the prime essential, for spiritual truths are spiritually discerned; but common sense, to use the popular phrase, will generally save us from the follies of false exegesis. And false exegesis, I repeat, affords a vantage-ground for skeptical attacks on Scripture. To give an illustration of this, extremely apt in the circumstances of the day, I will quote a passage from Professor Tyndall’s famous address on "Science and Man." Referring to the "Angels’ Song," he exclaimed, "Look to the East at the present moment, as a comment on the promise of peace on earth and good will toward men. The promise is a dream ruined by the experience of eighteen centuries." The answer to this taunt is full and clear. The great birth in Bethlehem heralded the fulfillment of all that God had promised of blessing to the world. "The times of the restitution of all things," to quote the Apostle Peter’s words again, were to come with the advent of Christ. And now "the Coming One" had come. Why then were not the promised blessings realized? Why, but because of His rejection. "His own received Him not," and "the world knew Him not." The Christ was crucified on Calvary. And when the Apostles were divinely commissioned to proclaim to His murderers that a national repentance would bring Him back to earth, with the fulfillment of every blessing of which their prophets spoke, the response made by that guilty people was to persecute the ministers of this great reconciliation and hound them to death. But it may be asked, Has the sin of man changed the purposes of God? Most assuredly not. But, on account of that sin, the fulfillment of the Divine purposes his been postponed. This then is the answer which Scripture gives to the skeptic’s taunt. But very different are the conflicting answers which "old-fashioned orthodoxy" offers. For some would have us believe that "the millennium" will result from the preaching of the Gospel in the present dispensation. And by others we are told that all we have to look for is "the end of the world," when the Lord will come to take His people to Himself, and judgment fire will engulf this sin cursed earth. The former view was popular in the early days of the nineteenth-century revival; but in the present state of Christendom in general, and of the Churches of the Reformation in particular, anyone who clings to it today must be either a mystic or a fossil And if the other view be accepted, the closing words of the 11th of Romans must be dismissed as the wildest rhapsody; for the unsearchable judgments of Divine wisdom and knowledge are thus made to find their realization in a pandemonium to be followed by a bonfire.(1) This "spiritualizing," as it is called, of the Hebrew Scriptures has given the Jew a fair ground for rejecting the Christian’s appeal to the Messianic prophecies. And thus, as Adolf Saphir says with sorrow, "It is out of the arsenal of the orthodox that the weapons have been taken with which the very fundamental truths of the Gospel have been assailed." And he goes on to show how "this spiritualistic interpretation paved the way for Rationalism and Neology." Let us then be done with it once for all; and rejecting absolutely the popular canon of exegesis, that Holy Scripture never says what it means, and never means what it says, let us learn with humility and reverence to accept all the Divine words at their face value. When the Lord declared that not a jot or tittle of the law shall fail of its fulfillment, He was speaking, not of the Decalogue, but, as the context indicates, of the Hebrew Scriptures as a whole. Remembering, then, that these Scriptures are the Word of Him with whom both the past and the future are a living present, let us read them with the settled conviction that every promise, and every prophecy, relating to earth and the earthly people must be fulfilled as definitely as were the seemingly unbelievable prophecies and promises about the birth and death of Christ. But on this subject our theology, so far from reflecting "the wisdom and knowledge of God," partakes of the ignorance and the errors of the Patristic theologians. Plain words, I repeat, are needed here. For the writings of the Latin Fathers afford a vantage-ground both for Romish attacks upon the citadel of Divine truth, and for the insidious efforts of German skepticism to undermine its very foundations. It is noteworthy that though the writers of the New Testament, one and all, were men who, like Timothy, had known the Hebrew Scriptures from infancy, the Patristic theologians were converts from Paganism. And having regard to their comparative want of acquaintance with the Old Testament, it is not strange, perhaps, that in the then condition of the Jewish people, crushed apparently beyond hope of recovery by the judgments that had overwhelmed them, the belief prevailed that God had "cast away His people whom He foreknew." But it is both strange and sad that such a belief should still survive in these enlightened days of ours. In proof that it does survive, appeal might be made to many a standard work; but for my present purpose it will suffice to quote the following sentence from the prolific pen of a writer of the highest repute as a popular theologian: "The divine and steady light of history first made clear to the Church that our Lord’s prophetic warnings as to His return applied primarily to the close of the Jewish dispensation, and the winding up of all the past, and the inauguration of the last great aeon of God’s dealings with mankind."2 If we are to recover truth which the Church, in its incipient apostasy, lost through following the human light of history, we must seek it by "the Divine and steady light" of Holy Writ. And that light will make clear to us that, like many another Scripture, the promise to Abraham has a twofold aspect. It pointed to Christ and the redemption of Calvary; but it still awaits its secondary fulfillment through the agency of the covenant people. "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 22:18.) The spiritually intelligent Bible student accepts that promise as the Word of the Lord, that endureth forever, and he knows that it will be literally fulfilled. And he knows also, that this Christian dispensation is not "the last great aeon of God’s dealings with mankind," but rather a beginning of what, in His unsearchable counsels, He has in store for the blessing of this sin-blighted world. That glorious vista of future blessing, which filled so large a place in the visions of the Hebrew Seers, was but the unfolding of the prophecy of the sacred calendar. For the Passover is only the first of the great Festivals which typify the harvest of redemption. This present dispensation with its sheaf of the first-fruits,4 the true, the heavenly Church, is to be followed by the Feast of Pentecost, when Israel reunited - the two wave loaves of the typical ritual - will be restored to Divine favor. And beyond these spring-time festivals there comes the harvest-home of redemption upon earth, in the fulfillment of the great Feast of Tabernacles, when unnumbered multitudes of the saved shall know and serve the Lord. This is no "cunningly devised fable," no mere dream of a visionary; it is a summary of what Scripture plainly teaches. And, rejecting the unworthy figment that earth is merely a recruiting-ground for heaven, to be given up to fire when the Church has been safely garnered, faith looks out with joy upon this glorious vista of the future, when the Abrahamic promise shall receive complete fulfillment, and Christ "shall see of the travail of His soul, and shall be satisfied." It is in this spirit and on these principles that the present inquiry shall proceed. And the nature and scope of the inquiry may be stated thus - "What light does Scripture throw upon the abnormal condition of things on earth during this age, when "the people of the covenant" are in rejection?" And what are the distinctive truths of Christianity, or, in other words, the special "mystery" truths of the New Testament revelation? As this word "mystery" will occur again and again in the following pages, it may be well to explain that it is here employed in its Scriptural acceptation, as signifying "not a thing unintelligible, but what lies hidden and secret till made known by the revelation of God." Or as Dr. Sanday gives it, "something which up to the time of the Apostles had remained secret, but had then been made known by Divine intervention." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 66: 1.06.04. CHAPTER 3: BLESSING FOR GENTILES ======================================================================== CHAPTER 3: BLESSING FOR GENTILES IN Lord Beaconsfield’s Life of Lord George Bentinck there is a pathetically interesting chapter about the treatment meted out to the Jews by Christendom. He attributes their persistent rejection of Christianity to the fact that it was by a campaign of persecution and outrage that "the Christian religion" sought to force itself upon their acceptance. His own Jewish ancestors, as we know, were driven out of Spain by the Inquisition. "Is it wonderful, therefore," he might well ask, "that a great portion of the Jewish race should not believe in the most important portion of the Jewish religion?" For thus he correctly describes the atonement of Calvary. The "orthodox" figment that Christ came to found a new religion was in effect the gravamen of the charge on which the Apostle Paul was arraigned by his Jewish persecutors. For preaching a new religion was an offence against Roman law. And the Apostle’s defense was an emphatic repudiation of that charge. In his ministry among them, he declared, he taught "nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say should come." (Acts 26:22-23) Blessing for Gentiles is not a New Testament truth. It was assured by the promise to Abraham, and explicitly foretold in Hebrew prophecy. But that "the people of the covenant" should lose nationally the privileged position of earthly testimony is a New Testament "mystery,"(Romans 11:25) albeit Christians in general regard it as a matter of course. The 11th chapter of Romans teaches explicitly that the present economy is abnormal and temporary. For the olive tree is not the symbolism of a heavenly calling, but of the place of earthly testimony. And the "natural branches" of the olive tree are the covenant people. But were not the natural branches broken off? Such is the false belief of Christendom religion. The teaching of Scripture is that "some of the branches" were broken off, and that, "contrary to nature," wild olive branches (i.e. Gentiles) have been "grafted in among them." But the root of the olive remains, and the root is the people of the Abrahamic covenant. (Romans 11:17-24) For "to them pertaineth the covenants." (Romans 9:4) This cannot be evaded by the plea that, when the Epistle to the Romans was written, the "Pentecostal Dispensation" was still current, and therefore a place of repentance was still open to the Jews. For the very same principle obtains with reference to the heavenly Church, the full revelation of which is found in "the Captivity Epistles." Gentile Christians seem to regard the Church, the Body of Christ, as theirs in a peculiar sense, whereas in Ephesians 3:6 the Apostle represents it as a signal proof of Divine grace "that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs (with Israelites) and fellow-members of the body." Appealing to the Savior’s intercessory prayer upon the Cross as securing Divine forgiveness for Israel for crucifying the Messiah, Lord Beaconsfield rightly challenges the received belief that the destruction of Jerusalem was a judgment for that greatest of all human sins. And yet that it was a Divine judgment is unquestionable. And if not for the crucifixion, how can it be accounted for. Here Lord Beaconsfield entirely misses the significance of the facts, and the nature of the question to which the facts give rise. It is a question, moreover, of exceptional interest, and of great importance in relation to the present inquiry. And a clue to the solution of it will be found in the events of the Babylonian era. Because of national apostasy, the Divine judgment of the Servitude to Babylon fell upon Judah in the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim. But owing to their continued impenitence, the severer judgment of the "Captivity" followed, nine years after the "Servitude" began. Even this, however, failed to move them; and in the seventeenth year of the "Servitude," their persistent obduracy brought on them the third, and far more terrible, judgment of the seventy years’ "Desolations." That era began on the day when, for the third time, the Babylonian army invested Jerusalem; and the capture and burning of the city followed. (See Appendix 1.) A national repentance after the "Servitude" began would not have canceled that judgment. Nor would a repentance after the people were carried into captivity have brought them back to their land. But all further chastisement would have been averted; and when the seventy years of the Servitude ended, and the decree of Cyrus permitted their return, they would have found their city intact and the holy temple still standing. Now mark the parallel between all this and the events of the Apostolic age. The proto- martyr Stephen was the messenger sent after the banished king to say, "We will not have this man to reign over us." His murder was the nation’s response to the Pentecostal promise that a national repentance would bring Christ back to them. But repentance even after that murder, though it would not have restored them to the privileged position which they had forfeited, would have saved them from further punishment. And the parallel may be carried further still. For forty years before the city was captured and burned by Nebuchadnezzar, the prophet’s warning voice was never silent in their midst. So for forty years before Jerusalem was taken and destroyed by Titus, the gospel was preached unceasingly in every place where Hebrews congregated. During all the forty years of Jeremiah’s ministry, as the chronicler records, God in mercy waited, "because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place. But they mocked the messengers of God and despised His words, and misused His prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against His people, till there was no remedy." (2 Chronicles 36:15-16) These words might have been repeated without the slightest variation with reference to the forty years that elapsed between the ministry of Christ and the time of that awful judgment, when Jerusalem was sacked and burned by the Roman army. "They misused His prophets." The murder of Stephen was due to no sudden burst of passion; and their Roman governors had no share in it. It was the execution of a judicial sentence passed by the great Council of the nation. Not even the Crucifixion itself was more unequivocally the act of "the Commonwealth of Israel"; and the inspired narrative which records it marks its deep significance by recording as its sequel the call of the Apostle of the Gentiles. But God is "abundant in mercy," and though Israel thus forfeited the national blessing which a national repentance would have brought them, the Apostle of the Gentiles was charged with a special mission to the Jews of the dispersion; and in every place his first appeal was to the synagogue. And can we doubt that if his testimony had been accepted, God, who would have spared Sodom for the sake of even ten righteous, would have certainly spared Jerusalem? But in all the wide circuit of the Apostle’s ministry, there was not a single provincial Sanhedrin or local synagogue that accepted the proffered mercy. Divine forbearance met with no response. "There was no remedy." So at last the judgment fell. Amid circumstances of unparalleled horror Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Jews were driven out as homeless wanderers from the land of their inheritance. Now but for that judgment the Jews would have remained in a position akin to that assigned to them in the Servitude to Babylon — a nation in vassalage to Gentile sovereignty, but with their own land and their own city. And it is a fact of extreme importance that this was their actual condition when the Epistle to the Romans was written. But ignoring all this, the 11th chapter of that Epistle, which ought to be read in the clear light of Holy Scripture, came to be misread in the dim and discolored light of human inferences from human history. The destruction of Jerusalem was supposed to be the end of Jewish hopes and Jewish story. And as Romans was written prior to the time of that disaster, the 11th chapter of the Epistle was taken as cancelled; and Old Testament prophecy relating to the future glory of Israel was "spiritualized" to mean the present glory of "the Church." And this explains a fact which Protestantism struggles to evade, namely, that the writings of the Fathers laid the foundations on which the fabric of the apostasy of Christendom was reared. For the figment that "God has cast away His people whom He foreknew," and therefore that the present economy is the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy and the realization of Divine purposes for earth, is in the warp and woof of the theology of Christendom. Hence the baneful superstitions about "the Christian Church" which are the secret of Rome’s aggressive influence. There is never a Protestant drawn into that fold who is not the dupe of these superstitions. And even evangelical and spiritual Christians are corrupted by them; for they are so congenial to human nature that the exposure of them, not only by the Reformers, but by eminent divines of our own day, is generally ignored. Blessing for Gentiles, I repeat, is not a New Testament revelation. Witness the words of the promise to Abraham and, as a Divine commentary upon that promise, the inspired prayer at the dedication of the Temple -"Moreover concerning the stranger, which is not of Thy people Israel, but is come from a far country for Thy great name’s sake, and Thy mighty hand, and Thy stretched out arm; if they come and pray in this house; then hear Thou from the heavens, even from Thy dwelling place, and do according to all that the stranger calleth to Thee for; that all the people of the earth may know Thy name, and fear Thee." (2 Chronicles 6:32-33; Isaiah 56:3-7) But "the Jewish Church" was false to its trust, though not so grossly false as "the Christian Church" has proved. For while the Jew treated the Gentile as a pariah, Christendom has regarded Jews as enemies to be shunned, if not as vermin to be exterminated. Hence the fact that so few Gentiles came within the blessing during the old economy, and that, during the new, so few Jews have accepted Christ. "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you" (Romans 2:24) was the scathing charge brought against "the Jewish Church" in its apostasy, and it is due to the deeper apostasy of "the Christian Church" that the name of Christ is blasphemed among the Jews. But in modern times British Christianity has done not a little to clear itself from this reproach. And the question is germane to the present inquiry only in so far as it bears upon the character of the professing Church on earth. For Christian thought, even among Evangelicals, is leavened with the root error of the Roman Apostasy, namely, the confounding the true and heavenly Church, the Body of Christ, with "the Christian Church" on earth, or, to adopt Dean Alford’s synonym for it, "the outward frame of so-called Christendom." It is a sad proof that we have lapsed from the teaching of Scripture and the principles of the Reformation. With the Reformers "the Holy Catholic Church" was not an unholy alliance with all Christendom, but "the whole congregation of Christian people dispersed throughout the whole world." Thus it was that they sought to break the entail of hideous guilt attaching to the historic Church. They had drunk deep of the spirit of the Apostle’s words to the Ephesian elders in days of incipient apostasy "I commend you to God, and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified." (Acts 20:32.) Let us then seek to follow their noble example; and clearing our minds of the prevalent superstitions about the Church on earth, let us take our stand with them upon Holy Scripture and the faithfulness of God. The next branch of our inquiry relates to other "mystery" truths of the New Testament revelation, which, no less than that of the present phase of the olive tree, are well-nigh forgotten. And the mystery of grace enthroned in heaven claims priority of notice. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 67: 1.06.05. CHAPTER 4: GRACE ENTHRONED ======================================================================== CHAPTER 4: GRACE ENTHRONED IT is extraordinary that any student of Scripture can miss the clearly marked difference between the gospel of the opening clause of the Epistle to the Romans, and the gospel specified in the characteristically "Pauline" postscript at its close. "Sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes," were among the multitudes who heard the Divine amnesty proclaimed at Pentecost. And it was "to Jews only" that in those early days the word of that gospel was preached. (Acts 11:19) In Rome therefore, as elsewhere, Jews and proselytes constituted the nucleus and rallying centre of the Church. And we read the Epistle to the Romans amiss, if we fail to recognize what an important place its teaching accords to those Hebrew Christians. The word which had won them to Christ was that "gospel of God which He had promised afore by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son who was born of the seed of David." Language could not more definitely indicate that it was the fulfillment of the hope of every true Israelite. Hence his words to the "Chief of the Jews" in Rome "For the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain." (Acts 28:20) And, as already noticed, his answer to the charge on which he was imprisoned was that his preaching to the Jews was based entirely on the Law and the Prophets. (Acts 26:22) Such, then, was the burden of his ministry to his own people, a ministry he shared with all his brethren. But to Gentiles he preached a gospel which he had received by special revelation. And the specific purpose of his third visit to Jerusalem was to communicate that gospel to the other Apostles. (Galatians 2:2) In writing to Timothy he speaks of it as "the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust." It was the precious deposit which, on the eve of his martyrdom, he handed back, as it were, to the God who had entrusted it to him. (2 Timothy 1:12) And this is the "My gospel," of the postscript to his Epistle to the Romans. (Romans 16:25-26)1 Here are his words’ "Now to Him that is able to stablish you according to my gospel, even the preaching of Jesus Christ according to a revelation of a mystery kept in silence through times eternal, but now manifested, and by prophetic writings according to the commandment of the Eternal God made known to all the nations unto obedience of faith" (or "obedience to the faith").2 It was in grace that God made promise to Abraham and granted him the covenant. But on the faithfulness of God it is that we rely to keep His promise and to fulfill His covenant. It is of his "kinsmen according to the flesh" that the Apostle speaks in the opening words of Romans 9:1-33. And of them, the Israelites, he says, "Whose is the adoption and the glory, and the covenants and the giving of the law, and the service of God and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came." And it was as "sons of the covenant" that the gospel was preached to them at Pentecost. (Acts 3:25) "The promise is to you and to your children," the Apostle testified; (Acts 2:39.) for to them belonged the gospel of the covenant. But to the Gentiles, who were" strangers from the covenants of promise," (Ephesians 2:12) was preached the gospel of grace - the gospel of the "mystery" truth, that grace was "reigning through righteousness unto eternal life." The covenants and promises to the Patriarchs neither exhausted nor limited the grace of God to men. And though "grace came by Jesus Christ," it was restrained during all His ministry on earth. "I have a baptism to be baptized with (He exclaimed), and how am I straitened till it be accomplished." Not till Divine righteousness was manifested in the death and resurrection of Christ, could Divine grace be fully and openly revealed. That there was forgiveness for the earnest seeker after God is not a distinctively Christian truth at all. It was always so. But the revelation of grace enthroned far transcends all that earlier ages knew. A parable may explain what that revelation means. "The Lord’s day"4 is one of our national institutions (for England is still a Christian country). And under English law that day is a day of grace, on which no court of justice can deal with criminals. Let their crimes be never so heinous, they cannot even be arraigned until the day of grace is over. And the present age is God’s great day of grace; "He knoweth how… to reserve the unjust unto the Day of Judgment to be punished." (2 Peter 2:9) We have a Divine commentary upon this from the lips of Christ Himself, when, on that Sabbath day in the synagogue of Nazareth, He stood up to read the 61st chapter of Isaiah, and stopped in the middle of its opening sentence. The record tells us that having uttered the words "He sent me…to preach the acceptable year of the Lord," He closed the book and sat down. And then, in reply to the wondering looks of all the hearers, "He began to say unto them, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears." (Luke 4:16-21) "And the day of vengeance of our God" are the words that follow without break or pause, but He left those words unread. For till "the acceptable year of the Lord" has run its predestined course, the coming of "that great and terrible day of the Lord" is, through Divine longsuffering, delayed. In view of the rejection and death of the Son of God, the only possible alternatives were the doom of Sodom or the mercy of the gospel; and mercy triumphed. The Indian Mutiny was followed by an amnesty. And so long as that amnesty remained in force, the honour of the Sovereign and Government of Britain was pledged to the rebels that on laying down their arms they would receive a pardon, instead of having their treasonable acts imputed to them. And during this day of grace, God is "not imputing unto men their trespasses." Nay, more than this - for Divine grace surpasses every human parallel - He is pleading with them to accept the gospel amnesty. These amazing truths are well-nigh unbelievable. And yet behind them lies another truth that is still more wonderful: the Divine prerogative of judgment has been delegated without reserve or limit to the Lord Jesus Christ; and He is now "exalted to be a Saviour." And this is the solution of the crowning wonder of a silent heaven. God is silent because the gospel of His grace is His last word of mercy, and when again He breaks the silence it must be in wrath. The moral government of the world is not in abeyance, and men reap what they sow; but all direct punitive action against sin awaits the Day of Judgment. For in virtue of the Cross of Christ the throne of God has become a throne of grace. And the silence of heaven will be unbroken until the Lord Jesus passes to the throne of judgment. In the ages before Christ came, men may well have craved for public proofs of the action of a personal God. But in the ministry and death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, God has so plainly manifested, not only His power, but His goodness and love-toward-man, that to grant evidential miracles, now, would be an acknowledgment that questions which have been for ever settled are still open. Moreover, miracles of another kind abound. For in recent years the gospel has achieved triumphs in heathendom, which transcend anything recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. And infidelity is thus confronted by surer proofs of the presence and power of God than any miracle in the natural sphere could offer. For miracles in the natural sphere are not necessarily a proof of Divine action they are the lure by which some of the demon cults of the present day ensnare their dupes; and the time may be near when such signs and wonders will abound. While therefore we dare not limit what God may do in response to individual faith - for there is a gift of faith - to claim a sign is to tempt God, and to leave ourselves open to be deceived by the seducing spirits of these last days.5 This truth of grace enthroned may be called the basal truth of the distinctively Christian revelation. And yet, in common with certain other truths of that revelation, it was lost in the post-apostolic age. The writings of the Patristic theologians will be searched in vain for a clear enunciation of it. And though it flashed out like April sunshine at the Reformation, it soon disappeared again. And, needless to say, the Romish system is a flagrant and open denial of it. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 68: 1.06.06. CHAPTER 5: THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST ======================================================================== CHAPTER 5: THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST THE Bible has suffered more from Christian exponents than from infidel assailants. The prophets of Israel, "moved by the Holy Spirit," spoke with united voice of a time when righteousness and peace would triumph and rule upon the earth; but "old-fashioned orthodoxy" interpreted their glowing periods much as an American crowd interprets the rodomontade of political stump orators at election times! And thus the sublime words of the Hebrew Scriptures are supposed to find their fulfillment in the history of Christendom. They are read as referring to us and to our own age. And after us, the deluge! What wonder is it that sensible men of the world are skeptical both about the past predictions and the coming deluge! On this system of exegesis, for example, the sublime flights of Isaiah, when reduced to sober prose, find their realization - I repeat the phrase - in a pandemonium and a bonfire! This nightmare system of interpreting Holy Scripture makes the sacred pages seem to unbelief a hopeless maze of mysticism. As we open the New Testament narrative we read that "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." And "when John was cast into prison," the Lord Himself took up this same testimony, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." (Matthew 3:1-2; Matthew 4:17) Now the only meaning these words can bear, is that the time was at hand when heaven would rule upon earth, a hope which, as the inspired Apostle declared at Pentecost, was the burden of Hebrew prophecy. But, as we have seen, the fulfillment of that hope has been postponed owing to the apostasy and sin of the Covenant people. And, because of its postponement, it has dropped out of the creed of Christendom; albeit Christendom, million-mouthed, daily recites the words the Lord Himself has given us with which to pray for its fulfillment - "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is done in heaven." With the vast majority of Christians that prayer is merely a pious incantation; but the words are His own, and they shall be realized to the full. And yet, "in our covert atheism" - to borrow a phrase from Charles Kingsley - those who cherish this belief are commonly regarded as fanatics. Indeed the skeptical crusade which masquerades as "Higher Criticism" began with the assumption that God must be a cipher in the world which He Himself created; and so every book of Scripture which records any immediate Divine intervention in human affairs had to be got rid of. But the atheist, who is more intelligent and logical than these "Christian" pundits, triumphantly points to the absence of all such intervention as proof that there is no God at all. And the majority even of real Christians are quite indifferent to the amazing mystery of a silent heaven. "The mystery of God" it is called in Scripture; and the time is foretold when "the mystery of God shall be finished." {Revelation 10:7) And, as the Seer declares, when that time comes, "great voices in heaven" will proclaim that "the sovereignty of this world is become the sovereignty of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign." And God will then do that which the thoughtful wonder He does not do now and always, "He will give their reward to His servants and to His saints and to all that fear His name and He will destroy them that destroy the earth." (Revelation 11:15-18) The first act in that awful judgment drama will include the doom of the professing Church on earth. (Revelation 19:2) And when a mighty voice proclaims that "God hath avenged the blood of His servants at her hand" - the unnumbered myriads of the martyrs - all heaven raises its hallelujah. And the Seer adds: "I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Hallelujah, for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." (Revelation 19:6) But both the judgment of the Harlot and the restoration of the Covenant people await the close of the reign of grace. For, as we have seen, so long as grace is reigning, not only can there be no punitive action against human sin, but there can be no distinction made between one class of sinners and another. "There is no difference, for all have sinned": (Romans 3:22-23) "There is no difference, for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon Him." (Romans 10:12-13) These are the principles of the reign of grace. But did not the Lord Himself declare that "salvation is of the Jews"? And did He not say, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel"? How, then, can we reconcile statements so conflicting? This question has been already answered on a preceding page. Grace in its fullness is a "mystery" truth that could not be revealed until the Covenant people had lost their vantage-ground of privilege. But the same Scripture which records their "fall" declares with explicit definiteness that the economy resulting from that fall is abnormal and temporary; and that when the Divine purposes relating to this present age have been fulfilled, the covenant people shall be restored and "all Israel shall be saved." (Romans 11:1-36)2 It is as clear as light, therefore, that this Christian dispensation differs as essentially from the future as it does from the past. I have sought to pillory the belief that earth is merely a recruiting-ground for heaven; but in a sense this characterizes the present age, marked, as it is, by failure and apostasy, and ending, as it will, in judgment. But it was not a forecast of "Christendom religion" that evoked the outburst of praise with which the dispensational chapters of Romans end. As the Apostle’s spiritual vision became filled with the truth of a glorious heavenly purpose which God would accomplish in spite of sin and failure, he exclaimed, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" And that purpose is revealed in "the mystery of Christ," which finds its fullest unfolding in the "Captivity Epistles" - "the mystery which from all ages hath been hid in God" - namely, that sinners of earth are called to the highest glory of heaven in the closest possible relationship with Christ. The bridal relationship and glory of the heavenly election from the earthly people of the covenant might well seem the acme of everything to which redeemed humanity could ever rise; but this crowning "mystery" of the Christian revelation speaks of a bond more intimate and a glory more transcendent. The figure of the Bride betokens the closest union, but absolute oneness is implied in the figure of the Body. Some people regard the Old Testament as entirely superseded by the New, forgetting that all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable. And others again regard the New as merely an unfolding of the Old, forgetting that it reveals distinctively Christian truths of which no trace can be found in the Hebrew Scriptures. And in this category is "the mystery of Christ." The Apostle’s words could not be more explicit: "By revelation He made known unto me the mystery which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men." (Ephesians 3:3; Ephesians 3:5) This amazing climax of the New Testament revelation of grace is dragged into the mire by the Church of Rome, trading as it always does on the teaching of the Latin Fathers, who claimed for the professing Church all that pertains to the true and heavenly Church. The Body of Christ is a truth of practical import for the Christian, profoundly influencing his personal life on earth, and his relationships with his fellow Christians. But yet "the Church which is His body" is not on earth, nor can it have a corporate existence until all the members are brought in, and the Divine purpose respecting it is accomplished. The parallel of the bridal relationship of the heavenly election out of Israel may teach us a lesson here. For it is not until the future age of the Apocalyptic visions that the Bride is displayed, and her marriage takes place. In like manner the consummation and display of the Body relationship awaits the coming of the Lord. For in the Divine purpose it is entirely for the glory of our Lord and Saviour that these elect companies of the redeemed are given positions of special nearness; and therefore the element of display has prominence. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 69: 1.06.07. CHAPTER 6: THE LORD JESUS' RETURN ======================================================================== CHAPTER 6: THE LORD JESUS’ RETURN A FRUITFUL cause both of skepticism and of error is ignorance of what may be described as the ground plan and main purpose of the Old Testament Scriptures. "The whole Scriptures are a testimony to Christ: the whole history of the chosen people, with its types and its law and its prophecies, is a shewing forth of Him."1 This, however, is the spiritual teaching of the Bible, which of course unspiritual men ignore, and I am here referring to what any intelligent reader ought to recognize. The book relates in the main to the Hebrew race. A brief preface of eleven chapters tells us all that we are concerned to know about "the earth and man," prior to the call of Abraham. We are there told of the creation and fall of Adam: that the human family sprang from a first man, but not as he came from the hand of God; for our first progenitor was a sinner and an outcast. In that same preface are briefly recorded certain great crises in human history, the most notable being the judgment of the flood. A new era was then inaugurated with the family of Noah. In course of time, however, abounding iniquity brought about another crisis, and God once more made a new beginning with a single family; though in fulfillment of His promise to Noah, He did not again destroy the guilty race. With the call of Abraham begins the main narrative of the Bible, which relates solely to Abraham’s descendants, other nations being mentioned only when, and so far as, Israel’s interests became in some way identified with theirs. And from that time the continually swelling stream of Messianic promise and prophecy runs in the channel of the national history of Abraham’s descendants. In our own days the spade of the explorer has brought to light abundant proofs that, at an earlier period, man had enjoyed a Divine revelation, and that he had utterly perverted and corrupted it. And now the revelation was entrusted to the Covenant people. They were chosen, so to speak, to be the Divine agents upon earth, and "unto them were committed the oracles of God." Now in commerce an agent is appointed, not to restrict, but to facilitate, the supply of goods to the public; and also to ensure that they shall reach the public pure and unadulterated. And the Divine purpose in giving that position to the Covenant people, and "committing to them the oracles of God," was that the truth of God in its purity, and the blessings which accompany the knowledge of it, might be accessible to all mankind. We know what an employer would do if his agent acted as though the wares entrusted to him were his own, ignoring the interests of his principal, and treating the public with contempt. And this was precisely the case with Israel. The house of God, designed to be "a house of prayer for all nations," they treated as their own, and ended by making it "a den of thieves." And the Gentiles whom it was their duty to serve, they repelled with scorn. This agency parable explains the Lord’s words, "Salvation is of the Jews." "For Christ was a Minister of the circumcision for the truth of God"; (Romans 15:8) and during His ministry on earth He recognized the divinely accorded position of the Covenant people. But to resume my parable, if the principal dismisses his agent, he begins to deal directly with all who apply to him for supplies, and the dismissed agent must take his place as one of the public. And so was it with reference to Israel’s "fall," "the setting- aside of them being the reconciling of the world." (Romans 11:15) Thus deprived of their stewardship, they are relegated to the position of other men. And the purpose and effect of their fall are stated in the words, "God hath concluded them all in unbelief that He might have mercy upon all." (Romans 11:32) Thus it was that the way was opened up for the revelation of the great "mystery" truth of grace enthroned. For, as we have seen, that truth is absolutely incompatible with the recognition of special privileges, or of any vantage-ground of favor. Language could not be more explicit "All the world is brought under the judgment of God"; (Romans 3:19) There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek." (Romans 10:12) But the very same Scripture which teaches this declares with equal clearness and emphasis that "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance"; that "God has not cast away His people"; that "they are beloved for the fathers, sakes," and that they are yet to be restored to the favored position which they have now lost through unbelief. But Israel’s restoration must involve as definite a change in God’s dealings with the world as did that which marked the inauguration of the Christian dispensation. In fact that future dispensation must differ as essentially from the present, as the present differs from the past. For just as we aver that "God cannot lie," we may assert that He cannot act at the same time upon two wholly different and incompatible principles. Most certain it is, therefore, that some great crisis must occur in the spiritual sphere before the now pent-up stream of unfulfilled prophecy relating to Israel can again begin to flow. Does Holy Scripture foretell any crisis of the kind? Many students of prophecy believe that the Jews will regain possession of their land, and rebuild their temple, while still in unbelief. And in view of recent events in the near East there is nothing improbable in such a forecast. The stage may be thus prepared for the great drama of the prophecies which await fulfillment. But the question here cannot be satisfied by proofs, however striking, of Jewish prosperity and influence on earth — events that might be due to advancing civilization and the exigencies of international politics. The solution of it must be sought for in Holy Scripture. The preceding pages have dealt with certain "mysteries" of the Christian revelation — truths which were kept secret until Apostolic times, and of which therefore no trace can be found in the Hebrew Scriptures — the "mystery" of Israel’s present rejection, and of the resulting economy on earth; the "mystery" of the Gospel; the "mystery of God," and the great "mystery of Christ." But there are also other "mysteries," and one of them seems to point to the very crisis about which we are seeking light. I refer to the neglected truth of the Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ to take His people home from earth to heaven. "For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then 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." (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17) The Old Testament speaks plainly of His coming to bring deliverance to His earthly people upon the earth, after their restoration to Divine favor; and it contains many prophecies about His coming in judgment. These events, therefore, though specifically mentioned in the New Testament, are not "mystery" truths. But the language of Scripture is explicit respecting the event which will bring the present dispensation to a close. Here are the Apostle’s words: Behold, I shew 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 15:51-52) This "Coming" is sometimes called "the first stage of the Second Advent." But the phrase "Second Advent" has no Biblical sanction, (Hebrews 9:28) it is the badge of the erroneous traditional belief that the Lord will never again appear until the last great judgment. Though the subject is one that calls for caution and reserve, we may assert with confidence that the numerous Scriptures which speak of the return of Christ cannot all refer to the same appearing. Compare, for example, the "Coming" of the passages above cited from the Epistles, with that foretold by the heavenly messengers on the Mount of the Ascension. While the Lord was standing with His disciples on the Mount of Olives, "He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight." And as they were gazing heavenward "two men stood by them" and said, "This same Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven." (Acts 1:11) "But surely," someone may exclaim, "this cannot mean that the Lord will ever again stand upon His feet on Mount Olivet" Yes, this is precisely what it means. The words are a confirmation of an Old Testament prophecy relating to times and events that are still future. In Zechariah 14:4 we read, "His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives which is before Jerusalem upon the East." Now save that it is the same Christ in both cases, this "Coming" has nothing in common with that described in the Epistles. The one is strictly local, and it has to do with His earthly people in Jerusalem in the circumstances described by Zechariah; whereas the purpose of the other is to take out of the earth His people of "the heavenly calling," scattered the wide world over. And this will suffice to clear our minds of the error suggested by the phrase "the Second Advent," and thus to open the way for an unprejudiced inquiry as to the scope and meaning of the various Scriptures which speak of His coming again. On such a subject, I repeat, caution and reserve should mark our thoughts and words; but on a few main points we may speak with definiteness and certainty. It is certain, for example, that before "the times of restitution of all things," the Lord will be manifested to put down all open evil and rebellion against God upon earth. Then again, the reign of righteousness and peace will last not less than a thousand years, and not until after that period will be His appearing for the last great judgment. The question arises then, whether the "Coming" described in 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians is connected with any of these "Appearings." And here a brief pause for "stock-taking" may expedite the inquiry. We have seen that the Covenant people, though now set aside, are to be again restored to Divine favor, and that "the receiving of them" necessarily implies what is called "a change of dispensation." And we have seen also that "the times of restitution of all things" fall within that future dispensation. Now this obviously creates a presumption that there will be a "Coming" to bring this "Christian dispensation" of ours to an end. It remains to be seen then whether such a presumption is confirmed or vetoed by Scripture. And here, as in the preceding chapters, the appeal shall be neither to authority, nor to prejudice, but only to Holy Scripture itself, and to the intelligence of the reader. But let us not forget the momentous importance of the issue, for it must decide for us whether the Lord’s return is a present hope, or merely an event in the great drama of prophecy to be fulfilled at some future time, when most, if not all, of us shall have finished our course on earth. And this suggests another thought. If such a hope be a mere delusion, it is a delusion which is full of comfort, and has a sanctifying influence upon the life. Why, then, it may well be asked, should any Christian wish to rob us of it? And yet the belief is attacked with untiring zeal, and at times with acrimony, as though it ranked with heresies that dishonor Christ. It is specially to the ephemeral literature on the subject that this reproach attaches; a literature that is generally marked by confusion of thought and neglect of the main landmarks that guide the intelligent interpretation of Scripture. The following, for example, is a typical sentence: "The Lord Jesus Himself warned His disciples against the thought of an immediate coming, and sketched a whole series of events which should happen before His personal return, adding, For all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.’ — Matthew 24:6." Some of us have learned to distinguish between "the coming of the Son of Man" in judgment, "to gather out of His Kingdom all things that offend and them which do iniquity," and the coming of the Lord, as Saviour, to call His people out of earth to heaven. (Matthew 13:41) In the very same discourse in which the Lord gave the warning above quoted, He gave another warning still more emphatic and explicit. Here are His words "Watch therefore for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come"; and again, "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of Man cometh." (Matthew 24:42; Matthew 25:13) But as the one warning seems to support the writer’s argument, whereas the other entirely refutes it, the one is quoted and the other is ignored. Indeed the system followed by writers of this school is to separate texts from their context, and throwing them into hotchpotch, to pick out any that suit their purpose. And it is not open to them to plead that this particular advent is not the same as that described in the Epistles. For their argument depends on the assumption, thus proved to be false, that there cannot be an unheralded advent of Christ; and in view of this Scripture, that argument collapses like a child’s house of cards. This hotchpotch system of exegesis makes it easy to prove or disprove almost anything. And it leaves the Bible open to infidel attacks; for if it be discredited by contradictions, it cannot be Divine, or even true. But the intelligent Bible student has the clue to the seeming labyrinth. What is needed, as Lord Bacon quaintly puts it, is "that every prophecy of Scripture be sorted with the event fulfilling the same." The task of attempting some "sorting" of this kind is reserved for another chapter. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 70: 1.06.08. CHAPTER 7: THE GENTILE CHURCH ======================================================================== CHAPTER 7: THE GENTILE CHURCH ON the subject of the Coming of the Lord the First Epistle to the Thessalonians has an altogether exceptional importance. And the more closely we study the condition and circumstances of those to whom it was addressed, our sense of its importance will increase. The opening clauses of the 17th chapter of the Acts contain all that the narrative records about the Apostle’s ministry in Thessalonica. And were it not for the incidental reference of verse 11, we might suppose that his preaching in the synagogue was crowned with unusual success; whereas that verse tells us that the Jews refused even to consider the Scriptures on which his appeals to them were based. We may therefore assume with confidence that, after his three Sabbath days’ "reasoning" with them, the Apostle "turned to the Gentiles," and that the 4th verse of the chapter gives the results, not of his synagogue ministry, but of all his evangelistic labours in Thessalonica. We thus learn that some of the Jews believed, "and of the devout Greeks a great multitude." It is often assumed that these Greeks were proselytes, albeit it is most improbable that the whole company of the proselytes connected with the synagogue were numerous enough to justify the phrase "a great multitude." But the question is absolutely settled by the Apostle’s explicit statement that these converts had been pagan idolaters. (1 Thessalonians 1:9) And as his Epistle makes no reference to Hebrew Christians, we may assume that the "some among the Jews" who believed must have been few in number. It is certain that the Church of the Thessalonians was essentially Gentile. And the bearing of this fact will appear in the sequel. How long the Apostle remained among them is a matter of conjecture; but the facts give proof that his sojourn cannot have been brief. For it is quite incredible that a congregation of recently converted pagans, if left to themselves, would have reached and maintained such a standard of saintship as to become a pattern church, exerting an influence "not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place." (1 Thessalonians 1:8) Results like these must have been the fruit of much doctrinal teaching and not a little pastoral care. And that they enjoyed such a ministry is definitely indicated by the many references to it scattered throughout both Epistles. But at last a storm of persecution robbed them of the Apostle’s presence. After a brief but happy ministry in Berea he was again obliged to flee, and he journeyed to Athens. During his stay in Athens some grave tidings reached him about the Thessalonian converts, tidings which raised fears whether all his labours among them had not been in vain. (1 Thessalonians 3:1-5) And much though he needed companionship and help at such a time, he commissioned Timothy to return at once to Macedonia. He himself passed on to Corinth, where in due course Timothy rejoined him, bringing him the particulars he longed for about the trouble in the Thessalonian Church. And the nature of that trouble is clearly indicated by the letter which he forthwith addressed to them. It was due to no lapse toward either immorality or heresy, but to the fact that certain of their leaders had been martyred. (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15; 1 Thessalonians 3:4) We fail to appreciate the fears and difficulties of these Gentile converts of early days. The faith of the spiritual Christian who has the Bible in his hands, and to whom the story of the Church’s sufferings is an open page, may pierce the darkest clouds; but these Thessalonians had no such glorious records of a faith-tried past, and it is doubtful to what extent they had access even to the Hebrew Scriptures. They had been told, moreover, that He in whom they believed had all power in heaven and earth; and yet they had been left a prey to the hate of their heathen enemies. But with exquisite tenderness the Apostle reminds them that they were not only the followers of the Hebrew Christians who had endured similar sufferings from their fellow-Jews, but also the disciples of the Lord Jesus, who had Himself been put to death by them. The groundwork of the Epistle was evidently supplied by the tidings which Timothy had brought him.2 But the Epistle was (to change the figure) a casket to convey to them a special message which the Lord had entrusted to him, a message to comfort their hearts and confirm their faith. That this was its character is plainly indicated by the words "This we are saying unto you in the word of the Lord." We cannot solve the mysteries of inspiration, but from certain passages in his Epistles it is clear that special revelations were occasionally received by the Apostle Paul with peculiar definiteness. By a revelation of this kind, and at this very time, he had "received" the very words in which to preach the Gospel in Corinth. After the utter failure of his testimony at Athens, we can well believe that, with importunate supplication, he may have pleaded for special guidance in preaching to the Corinthians. And he reminds them of this in his First Epistle, in restating the Gospel he had proclaimed to them. For here the Revised Version of 1 Corinthians 15:2 is explicit’ "I make known, I say, in what words I preached it unto you; for I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received" — the identical phrase he uses in the 11th chapter with reference to the revelation accorded him respecting the Lord’s Supper. Here, then, are the words in which he conveyed the Lord’s special message to the Thessalonians" (13) But we would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning the sleeping ones, that ye may not sorrow, even as the rest do who have no hope. (14) For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also who fell asleep through Jesus will God bring together with Him. (15) For this we say unto you in the word of the Lord, that we who are living, who remain behind unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise gain an advantage over them who fell asleep, (16) because the Lord Himself shall come down from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:3 (17) then we who are living who remain behind, shall be caught up all together with them, in the clouds, to meet the Lord, into the air: and so shall we be always with the Lord. (18) So then comfort one another with these words" (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). This is Dean Alford’s translation of the passage, save only that in verse 18 his version reads, "them that are sleeping." The more literal rendering, "the sleeping ones," makes it still clearer that, whereas the 16th verse speaks of all the dead in Christ, the reference in the preceding verses is to the particular individuals whose loss the Thessalonians were mourning. The popular rendering of the 14th verse, "them that sleep in Jesus," is an obvious mistranslation. And a more literal rendering even than Alford’s would bring out more fully the exquisite pathos of the Lord’s message to them. For the primary meaning of the verb koimao is not to fall asleep but to put to sleep. What troubled these sorely-tried disciples was that they regarded the death of their friends as a sign that the Lord had failed them. And this is the Lord’s answer. As it was for His own name’s sake that they had suffered, He speaks of them as having been put to sleep by Himself. It is as though He said, "Though I was the cause of their death, I have not failed them. Was not I Myself put to death? And as surely as I died and rose again, they too shall rise, and God will bring them with Me at My coming." And our sense of the infinite grace of this is intensified by the fact that the message of hope and comfort is given in the name of His humiliation — the name under which He Himself was slain! It is His first recorded message to His saints on earth after His ascension. And in that same name is His final message, given us upon the last page of Holy Scripture’ "I, Jesus…am the bright and morning star…Surely I am coming quickly." But what voice has this message for ourselves today? This is the question which specially concerns us. And to enable us to answer it, we do well to consider what it meant, and what it was intended to mean, for those to whom it was primarily addressed hence the importance of this inquiry respecting the condition and circumstances of the Thessalonian Christians. Let us keep clearly in view that they were Gentile converts. They had no share, therefore, in Israel’s national hopes; nor do the Epistles give us any reason to believe that they had any doctrinal knowledge of those hopes. The Pentecostal promise which, as a present hope, the Jews had already forfeited was that, in fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy, Christ would come to His earthly people to put all things right upon the earth. And the literal definiteness of that hope appears from the promise of the Ascension Day, confirming Zechariah’s explicit words. (Acts 1:11; Zechariah 14:4) But these Thessalonians had "turned to God from idols…to wait for His Son from heaven." And the Lord’s message to them plainly indicates the meaning of that special hope of theirs. Now if His coming to call away His heavenly people signifies the same thing as His coming to deliver Jerusalem and the Jews from Gentile armies, we must conclude that in Scripture words may mean anything, and all discussion of them is idle. It may be said perhaps that although the earthly hope and the heavenly hope differ so essentially, they will be fulfilled at the same advent. But any presumption there may be in favor of this view rests entirely on popular misbeliefs about "the Second Advent." There is no proof whatever of it, and it clashes with the teaching of the Epistles. The Thessalonians were waiting for the Lord. But, for some reason unknown to us, they believed that at His coming it was only the living who would be called away. The martyred dead therefore had lost their part in this "blessed hope," and as their "call" would thus be deferred till a resurrection in the distant future, their death was mourned with a hopeless sorrow. Now if our popular misbeliefs were true, the Apostle would surely have told them that their grief was due to the error of expecting the speedy return of Christ they had mistaken a future for a present hope, and before the Advent could take place they would all have joined their martyred friends "beyond the veil." But in striking contrast with this, mark the God-given words of the Epistle, "that we who are living, who remain behind unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise gain an advantage over the sleeping ones." "WE who are living": if they were wrong in believing that the Lord might come in their own lifetime, could even a trained lawyer have drafted words better fitted to confirm them in the error! I repeat, therefore, with increased emphasis, that the knowledge which the Thessalonian Epistle gives us of the circumstances of those to whom it was written, and of their special griefs and difficulties, lends to its teaching a peculiar definiteness and importance. Indeed if our expectation of the Lord’s return had no other Scriptural warrant, this Epistle might suffice us. But the references to the hope are many in other Epistles also. To deal with them in full detail, however, would be foreign to the scheme of these pages, and a few leading passages will here suffice. The 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians claims very special notice. That wonderful exposition and defense of the great truth of the resurrection leads up to the following pregnant words: — "Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shah 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 shah be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. Oh death, where is thy sting? Oh grave, where is thy victory? 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. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord."(1 Corinthians 15:51-58) "We shall not all sleep"’ Is this to be read as a mere recital of the obvious fact that when the Lord returns He will find some of His people living upon earth? What an empty platitude to introduce into one of the sublimest passages in all the New Testament Epistles! The purpose of the words is clear. The Corinthians were "waiting for the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ"; (1 Corinthians 1:7) and he thus seeks to confirm them in that attitude, and (as the 58th verse so clearly indicates) to make it increasingly a present hope, fitted to influence heart and life. Therefore is it that, though he speaks of the dead in the third person, he always speaks of the living in the first — "We shall not all sleep." For while the Resurrection is the hope of those who fall asleep, the Coming is the hope of living saints. But if he had known that the advent was an event in a remote future, this would have been so misleading that in a merely human writing it would be regarded as almost a suggestio falsi! A like thought is suggested by his reference to this truth in his Second Epistle. The symbolism of the 5th chapter is as simple as it is graphic. Our "natural body" is likened to a tent, the spiritual body to a house. Not a house like the Jerusalem temple, built on earth by human hands, and liable to perish; but a building of God, eternal, and in the heavens. Then the symbolism assumes another phase. Death is likened to our being unclothed; and in contrast with being thus stripped naked, our receiving the heavenly body without passing through death is symbolized by our being "clothed upon." Three distinct conditions are thus indicated — clothed, clothed upon, and found naked. The first is our condition during our life on earth, and the last is that to which death reduces us. This is plain to all; but the "being clothed upon" is apt to be misunderstood. It does not refer to the Resurrection, but to the change which the Coming of the Lord will bring to those "who are alive and remain."4 Death is an outrage upon life, a hideous and hateful outrage. And yet (as the Apostle wrote to the Philippians)"to have died is gain"; for at death do we not pass from earth to be "with Christ," which is "far better"? So here he says, We are "willing rather" to be absent from the body and to be "at home with the Lord." "Willing rather" denotes a bare preference; but when he speaks of the hope to be realized at the Coming, "earnestly desiring" is the phrase he uses. And his purpose in all this, as the sequel plainly shows, is not to instruct them in eschatology, but to enforce the practical bearing of the hope upon life and conduct. How unreasonable this would be, if the Coming were not a present hope! The closing sentence of the 3rd chapter of Philippians is of special interest in this connection’ "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, according to the working whereby He is able even to subject all things unto Himself." (Php 3:20-21, R.V.) Here again, mark the form of the sentence — the present tense, and the first person plural — "We are expecting a Saviour." But this is not all. When challenged by the question, "How are the dead raised up and With what body do they come!" the Apostle’s answer was, "Thou fool!" But when in that same chapter he came to speak of the living, his words were explicit, "We shall all be changed." And here to the Philippians he uses a kindred, but still stronger word — the body of our humiliation shah be transformed. The holy dead, it need not be said, will be raised in bodies like the Lord’s. But it is not of the Resurrection that he is speaking here, nor yet of the buried dust of them that are "fallen asleep," but of the "flesh and blood" of the living men whom he is addressing; and to them he says, "We are waiting for the Saviour who will transform the body of our humiliation." First Corinthians was one of the Apostle’s earlier Epistles’ Philippians was written toward the close of his life, and after the close of his special ministry to Israel. But the doctrine of the Coming is unchanged — the hope is the same; the only difference being that, when writing from his Roman prison, he uses a stronger word than ever before — "We are assiduously and patiently waiting for the Savior."6 And still further to impress upon the Philippian saints the reality and definiteness of that hope, he adds, "The Lord is at hand."7 The Apostle’s words to Titus may fittingly conclude this notice of his teaching about the Coming of the Lord. In this Epistle, believed to have been written in the very year of his martyrdom, we find the same glad note of comfort and hope. "For the grace of God hath appeared, salvation-bringing to all men, disciplining us in order that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, justly and godly in this present world, looking for that blessed hope, even the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." (Titus 2:11-13)8 Will anyone dare to rob us of these words by referring them to "the great and terrible day of the Lord". True it is that the Lord Jesus shall be "revealed in flaming fire to take vengeance on them that know not God." But to call that a "blessed hope" would savor of the spirit of the Spanish Inquisition, rather than of the Christian’s grace-taught heart! One word more. In common with certain other distinctive truths of the Christian revelation, this of the Coming has peculiar prominence in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. But in proof that it was a hope shared by "all saints" in the Apostolic age, appeal may be made to the following words of the Apostle Peter "Knowing that I must shortly put off this tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me." (2 Peter 1:14) Me emphatic. And the student of evidence will ask what need there could have been for such a special revelation to Peter, if death were the common lot of all; for when these words were written he must have been nearing his threescore years and ten. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 71: 1.06.09. CHAPTER 8: THE SECOND COMING, WHEN? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 8: THE SECOND COMING, WHEN? IT is a fact of great significance that the Coming of the Lord is never mentioned in the Epistles of the New Testament save in an incidental manner - never once as a doctrine that needed to be expounded, but only and always as a truth with which every Christian was supposed to be familiar. This is strikingly exemplified by the passages already cited. And it explains what to some may seem strange, that there is no notice of the Coming in Ephesians or Colossians. If these were the latest of the Apostle Paul’s Epistles, the omission might possibly suggest to some that the hope had been abandoned. But not only does it appear in Philippians, which was also written from his Roman prison; but, as we have seen, one of the fullest and clearest references to it is contained in Titus, which was written at a still later date than "the Captivity Epistles." The Coming is not mentioned in Ephesians and Colossians; but neither is justification by faith. A "Higher Critic" might find in this a proof of different authorship. And a lawyer might think that each book of the New Testament ought to begin with recitals, and with many a "whereas," referring to the contents of earlier writings; but happily the Scriptures are not written in that fashion The fact is clear then, that in Apostolic times the converts were taught to expect the Lord’s return. So certain is this indeed, that discussion would be useless with any who deny it. But what explanation can be found for the no less salient fact that, although we have reached the twentieth century of the Christian era, the hope appears to be no nearer its fulfillment? Rejecting the infidel taunt that the teaching was erroneous, and the hope which it inspired a delusion, we are shut up to choose between the following alternatives. Either the promise has been cancelled or withdrawn; or else, owing to some cause which came fully into operation after the close of the sacred Canon, its fulfillment has been delayed. But all the promises of God are assured in Christ, (2 Corinthians 1:20) and there is no variableness with Him. The one alternative, therefore, we reject: the other shall be considered in the sequel. Some indeed would seek to escape from this conclusion by a mistaken reading of First Thessalonians. They take the day of the Lord in chapter 5 to be a synonym for the Coming of the Lord in chapter 4; and they appeal to the Second Epistle in proof that notable events must precede its happening. Even if this were tenable, it would have no bearing upon the Epistles to the other Churches, And that it is quite untenable appears from the fact that the Coming of the Lord is a distinct event, whereas the day of the Lord is an era, the course and character of which are described both by the Hebrew prophets, and by the Lord Himself in the "Second Sermon on the Mount." (Matthew 24:1-51) But it may be asked, Does not that sermon definitely declare that the Lord will come at the close of "the great tribulation"? Yes, truly; but the seeming relevance of this to the present question depends entirely on the prevalent error respecting "the Second Advent." The promise of the Incarnation was so utterly incredible that it may well have staggered faith. But now that He has lived upon earth and gone back to heaven, His coming again seems a natural sequence to His ascension. Indeed if we were left to reason out the matter, we should expect Him to return again and again. And this is precisely what Scripture tells us to look for. Common sense might veto the suggestion that His coming as Avenger and Judge is the event described as "that blessed hope." And it is no less clear that the message received by the disciples on the Mount of the Ascension does not relate to the same Coming as the Apostle’s words to the Thessalonians and the Corinthians. But the Coming of the Lord as Saviour is now confounded with "the day of the Lord" - the day of wrath. In fact the error which the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was designed to correct is now in the creed of Christendom! Are we to believe that the Gentile converts were taught to live in expectation of the Coming, although, ex hypothesi, before that hope could be realized the people of God were doomed to pass through a time of horror unparalleled in all the ages? And yet no Epistle except that to the Thessalonians contained a warning word about that awful time. And the Apostle’s words to them, if intended as a warning, could scarcely have been more deceptive. For after speaking of the Coming as a present hope with which to comfort one another, he went on to speak of the day of the Lord as pertaining to the "times and seasons" of Israel’s national history. To the world that day would come as a day of wrath, for, "when they shall say peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them." But in contrast with this, the Apostle adds, "God has not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain deliverance by our Lord Jesus Christ." What meaning could the Thessalonians put upon these words, save that the appointed deliverance was by the Coming of the Lord? And to make this still more clear he again exhorts them to comfort one another with his words. "Times and seasons" these well-known words come from the Book of Daniel. The Lord made use of them when, on the Mount of the Ascension, the disciples asked Him, "Wilt Thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" "It is not for you (He said) to know times or seasons." And this reply confirmed the truth that underlay the question. The word which He had spoken by the mouth of Daniel shall be fulfilled, and the Kingdom shall yet be restored to Israel; but "the times and seasons" are with God. I will offer no conjectures as to what the course of events would have been if the nation had accepted the Divine amnesty proclaimed at Pentecost. Certain it is, however, that none of the words of Christ will fail of their ultimate fulfillment on account of Israel’s rejection of the proffered mercy But so long as Israel’s national position is in abeyance, the stream of fulfillment is tided back; or to change the figure, the hands upon the dial of prophetic time are motionless. Without this clew to guide us in our study of them, the Scriptures appear to be full of confusion, if not of error. "The times and seasons" rest with Him to whom a thousand years are as one day. And when in Matthew 24:1-51, for example, the Lord addressed His hearers as though they themselves would pass through the Great Tribulation, we recognize that this would have proved literally true if the Jews had accepted Him as their Messiah. But with Romans 11:1-36 before us, we recognize also that, when Israel was cast aside the clock of prophetic time was stopped, to be set in motion once again at the close of this intercalary "Christian dispensation." And then the Lord’s prophetic words shall be fulfilled as though this age of ours had never intervened. And now, if we will but rise above the mists of controversy, and arguments based on isolated texts, and take note of the prominent landmarks of prophetic interpretation, and the distinctive truths of the Christian revelation, we shall find abundant proof that the fulfillment of Matthew 24:1-51 belongs to a future age, and to an economy essentially different from our own. The last verse of Daniel 9:1-27 might almost be paraphrased in the language of modern diplomacy. The "prince" of that prophecy - the last great Kaiser of Christendom - will make a seven years’ treaty with the Jews, guaranteeing respect for the ordinances of their religion. But in the middle of that term he will violate the treaty, and defile the Temple by enthroning himself within it. This last particular we learn from 2 Thessalonians 2:4. And the Lord’s own words, spoken with express reference to this very prophecy, for the guidance of His Jewish people who will witness its fulfillment, warn them that the defilement of the holy place is to be the signal for immediate flight; "for then shall be great tribulation such as never was since the beginning of the world." (Matthew 24:21) Daniel’s prophecy, to which the Lord explicitly refers, describes it as "a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation," (Daniel 12:1) and other references to it might be quoted from the Hebrew prophets, such for example as the words of Jeremiah, who calls it "the time of Jacob’s trouble." (Jeremiah 30:7) Here is something to disturb the complacency of Christians who are in the habit of treating the Bible as though it were a lottery bag of texts, rejecting what they slightingly call "dispensationalism." The Apocalyptic visions indicate that Christendom will come within the awful persecution of the latter days, whereas these Old Testament prophecies relate only to Judah and Jerusalem, and in the Lord’s own teaching there is never a word to suggest that they will have any wider range. How is this to be explained? Not by saying, with the Higher Critics, that the Lord was ignorant, but by recognizing that this "Christian Dispensation" is a New Testament "mystery," unknown to the people of God, and unnoticed in the Word of God, until after Israel had been set aside, and the Apostle to the Gentiles had received his call. Therefore was it that, from the standpoint of the Mount of Olives, the world consisted of Israel and heathendom, and the Lord spoke of the tribulation in relation only to His earthly people; whereas from the standpoint of Patmos, He took account of the new element of Christendom. But the words He spoke on Olivet were the words of God, and no dispensational change affects their eternal truth. And from them we learn that, when the time of their fulfillment comes, the Covenant people will have regained their normal status as the people of God, and that a believing community of Israelites will be living in their own land and their own "city," with a restored sanctuary accredited as "the Temple of God." Not "Jewish Christians" in the present-day sense, but Jews whose faith will be akin to that of the Lord’s disciples during His earthly ministry. And the very words which these disciples heard from the Master’s lips will reach His disciples in that future age, just as they reach us today, by means of the printed page on which they are recorded. Once we shake free from the influence of traditional exegesis, we can see with noontide clearness that the entire scene, and all the circumstances, portrayed by the Lord’s teaching in the 24th chapter of Matthew, pertain to the future age of a restored Israel. And therefore, prior to their fulfillment this "Christian dispensation" must have been brought to an end. And as it was in the past, so possibly it will be in the future, the change will be unheralded by any portents upon earth. But it will be ushered in by an event of vastly greater solemnity than any sights or sounds in the natural sphere. For then shall come the fulfillment of the word, "the Master of the house is risen up and hath shut to the door." The Lord will have passed from the throne of grace to the throne of judgment; and "the acceptable year of the Lord" will have run its course, and will soon be followed by "the day of vengeance of our God." Great reserve is needed in attempting to map out the future as revealed in prophecy. But the Book of Daniel (9:27) tells us explicitly that the event predicted in Matthew 24:15 will take place in the middle of the 70th "week" of the prophetic era. And the Lord’s words are perfectly explicit that the Tribulation will be followed immediately by the awful signs and portents which are to herald the coming of "the great and terrible day of the Lord" (Joel 2:31). But the 30th verse is commonly misread as though "the Coming of the Son of Man" were contemporaneous with the appearing of "the Sign of the Son of Man in heaven." So far from this being the case, the Lord’s words which follow teach unmistakably that the "Coming", will be separated from the "Sign" by an interval sufficiently prolonged to allow the worldling to forget the awful portents of the coming judgments, and to make His people need exhortations to continued watchfulness. When verse 15 is fulfilled, His people will know that a definite period of three years and a half (1260 days) will bring the fulfillment of verse 29; but none save the Father Himself can tell when the Son of Man will come. Hence the significance of the warning, "The day of the Lord shall so come as a thief in the night." For it is "the coming of the Son of Man" that will usher in that awful period of judgment.3 But let us not forget that Matthew 24:25 relate to the Coming of the Son of Man. In our hymnology and indeed in our Christian literature generally, the Lord’s names and titles are used just as the caprice of the writer, or the exigencies of rhythm or rhyme may suggest; but it is far otherwise in Scripture. And never once does the Lord’s title of Son of Man occur in the Epistles of the New Testament: never once is it used in Scripture in relation to the Church of God or the people of God of this dispensation. Surely this fact alone might save us from the error of confounding the Coming of the Son of Man for the deliverance of His earthly people and the judgment of living nations upon earth, with the Coming of the Lord to call His heavenly people home, and to bring this "Christian dispensation" to an end. And yet the question will be asked in unison by many otherwise discordant voices, "Will not the Church pass through the tribulation?" If the question refers to the professing Church on earth, it has been already answered.4 But if to the Church, the Body of Christ, it is unintelligent; for it ignores the great truths of the Christian revelation, noticed in preceding chapters. The Body of Christ is not on earth, nor can it have a corporate existence until the Divine purpose respecting it has been fulfilled. And moreover, as we have seen, the Lord’s own teaching is most explicit, that a restored Israel will be, so to speak, the prime objective in that awful persecution; and a restored Israel implies the close of this Christian dispensation of grace. Most strange it is that any Christian who studies the 24th chapter of Matthew can tolerate the thought that the Lord would tell us to live looking for His Coming, if intervening events barred the fulfillment of His words. For here in His teaching about His Coming as Son of Man, He warns His earthly people to look, not for His Coming, but for "things that must come to pass" before His Coming. And His words, "Watch, for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come," relate to a time when every intervening event has actually come to pass, and not a line of prophecy has to be fulfilled before His return. And in view of all this we may surely ask, Would the Lord be less gracious - less true, I might almost add - in dealing with His heavenly people in this dispensation? We are taught to look for Him, and that a crowning blessing will be theirs "who are alive and remain unto the Coming of the Lord." Are we then to believe that this involves our passing through such times and scenes of terror as would make us "praise the dead that are already dead more than the living that are yet alive!" In his Patmos vision of that awful time the Seer hears a voice from heaven proclaiming, "Blessed are the dead." (Revelation 14:13) And if this Tribulation theory were true, should we not, in the spirit of those words, cry to God with earnest importunity to be allowed to die, rather than to await the Coming of the Lord? And now we raise again the question, Are we who cling to the belief that the words of Holy Scripture mean what they seem to mean - are we the dupes of a blind delusion? Well, be it so. Some of us at least will cling to the delusion; and even if the "blessed hope" be no more than a happy dream, we shall refuse to change it for the hideous nightmare of "the Tribulation." But is it a delusion? The opening sentence of the present chapter may seem a startling statement. How was it then, some may ask, that all the early saints were led to expect the Lord’s return? The answer is not far to seek. Never a week went by, never a Lord’s Day passed, without their hearing those charter words, "Until He come." And who among them could fail to ask their meaning! Whatever else of Christian truth they lacked, this at least they knew from the day they first took part in the sacred rite - the Lord who died for them would return again, and they were to live looking for His Coming. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 72: 1.06.10. CHAPTER 9: MEANTIME, THE CHURCH AGE ======================================================================== CHAPTER 9: MEANTIME, THE CHURCH AGE "MY people doth not consider." Such was the reproach cast upon Israel in the days of Isaiah’s prophecy. And surely a like reproach rests upon the people of God today in regard to the promise of the Lord’s return. During all His ministry He spoke of His coming again; and He confirmed the promise after His resurrection from the dead. The teaching of His inspired Apostles gave prominence to the hope. And in His final message to His people, as recorded on the last page of Scripture, the words are three times repeated, "I am coming quickly." "Surely I am coming quickly." No reference here to a thousand-year day of the eternal God, but to the time calendars of men. "The time was long," was Daniel’s lament as he pondered the revelation made to him, that seven times seventy years would pass before the realization of the promised blessings to his people. And more than four centuries elapsed between the promise of the land to Abraham, and the day when his descendants took possession of it. But nineteen centuries! And in view of such a promise, "Surely I am coming quickly"! Here it would be the pettiest quibble to raise the question of the Tribulation - persecution definitely limited to a term that might be covered twenty times within a single lifetime. At this point, then, let us turn aside from controversy. Let us awake to realities and think. And if we do but think, the staggering fact of a nineteen centuries’ delay will lead us to "consider" with a solemnity and earnestness we have never known before. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, given to "lead them into all truth," the Apostles taught the saints to look for the Coming as a present hope. The suggestion of subterfuge or mistake would be profane. The facts are not in dispute, how then can they be explained? Israel’s story may teach us something here. When the people were encamped at Sinai, Canaan lay but a few days’ march across the desert. And in the second year from the Exodus, they were led to the borders of the land, and bidden to enter and take possession of it. "But they entered not in because of unbelief." The Canaan rest, moreover, was only a type of the promised rest of the Messianic Kingdom. That rest was preached again "in David," (Hebrews 4:7) but lost again through unbelief and the apostasy which unbelief begets. And in the exile it was revealed to Daniel that it would be further deferred for seven times seventy years. Lastly it was preached at Pentecost, and lost once more by unbelief. And to continued unbelief is due the fact of these nineteen centuries of Israel’s rejection. Does not this throw light on the seeming failure of "the hope of the Church"? Putting from us the profane thought that the Lord has been unmindful of His promise, are we not led to the conclusion that this long delay has been due to the unfaithfulness of His people upon earth? The third chapter of 2 Peter has no bearing upon the question. In that passage the Apostle is not dealing with either the hopes or the heresies of Christians, but with the scoffing of the unbeliever who mocks at the Divine warning that the world shall at last be given up to judgment fire. The scientist may possibly be right in thinking that "for untold millions of years this earth has been the theatre of life and death."1 All that we know is that "in the beginning" (whenever that was) God created it, and that He did not create it "a waste," albeit it had become a waste (Isaiah 45:18, R.V. Cf. Genesis 1:2, R. V.,)2 before the epoch of the Adamic creation. And 2 Peter 3:5-6, points to the cataclysm referred to in Genesis 1:2, by which "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." "Where is the promise of His coming!" is not the appeal of an inquirer as to the Coming of Christ, but the taunt of a scoffer about the coming of "the day of God." And the Apostle answers his appeal to the permanence of "all things from the beginning of the creation" by referring to the aeons of Genesis 1:2, and to a God with whom a thousand years are as one day. But what bearing can this passage in Peter’s Epistle have upon the question here at issue? The long-suffering of God explains His tiding back the sea of fire by which the world is at last to be engulfed, but it cannot explain the Lord’s delaying to fulfill His promise to His believing people. "The coming of the day of God" means endless destruction for all the ungodly inhabitants of the earth; whereas beyond the coming of the Lord Jesus there lies the fulfillment of the hope of Israel, which is to be "as life from the dead" to the nations of the earth; and beyond that again there lies the deliverance of a groaning creation. No, no; the question here cannot be solved in that way. Nor can we tolerate the thought that the promise has failed. Sometimes in the past, God has not fulfilled His word, but only when His word threatened wrath. (See, e.g., Exodus 32:11-14; Joshua 3:10) No Divine promise of blessing has ever failed. But if we reject that solution of the difficulty, what other can be found? No event or influence of a transient nature deserves a moment’s consideration; nothing partial or merely local in its effects. We must find a cause of which the influence began to be felt before the Apostles left the earth, and which has been in operation during all the centuries until the present hour. And by a process of negative induction the suggestion forces itself upon us that the evil history of the Church on earth may afford a solution of the mystery. Christian thought, I again repeat it, is leavened with the error of failing to distinguish between the heavenly Church and the Church on earth. But here I would fain shirk the role of an iconoclast, and I will shelter myself behind the words of others in seeking to expose the prevalent; superstitions to which that error has given rise, superstitions which are inconsistent with undivided loyalty to our Lord Jesus Christ. The following sentences are quoted from Canon T. D. Bernard’s Bampton Lectures of 1864, a great book which ought to find a place in every Christian library: "How fair was the morning of the Church! How swift its progress! What expectations it would have been natural to form of the future history which had begun so well! Doubtless they were formed in many a sanguine heart but they were clouded soon… "While the Apostles wrote, the actual state and the visible tendencies of things showed too plainly what Church history would be; and at the same time prophetic intimations made the prospect still more dark… "I know not how any man in closing the Epistles could expect to find the subsequent history of the Church essentially different from what it is. In those writings we seem, as it were, not to witness some passing storms which clear the air, but to feel the whole atmosphere charged with the elements of future tempest and death… "The fact which I observe is not merely that these indications of the future are in the Epistles, but that they increase as we approach the close; and after the doctrines of the Gospel have been fully wrought out, and the fullness of personal salvation and the ideal character of the Church have been placed in the clearest light, the shadows gather and deepen on the external history. The last words of St. Paul in the second Epistle to Timothy, and those of St. Peter in his second Epistle, with the Epistles of St. John and St. Jude, breathe the language of a time in which the tendencies of that history had distinctly shown themselves; and in this respect these writings form a prelude and a passage to the Apocalypse." The Church’s story from the close of the New Testament Canon to the era of the Patristic theologians must be gleaned from the revelations their writings afford of its condition in their own time. Who can doubt that then, as in the days of Israel’s apostasy, there were many who feared the Lord and thought upon His name? But here I am speaking of the Church as a whole. Protestantism delights in attributing to the Romish apostasy the vices which disgraced the Church of Christendom during the Middle Ages; but in this regard the Church of Rome was merely the product and development of the much-vaunted "primitive Church" of the Fathers. Abundant proof of this will be found in the acts and words of some of the great and holy men who sought in vain to stem the evil tide. The facts are disclosed in various standard works; here of course s few characteristic extracts must suffice. The birth of Cyprian occurred about a century after the death of the last of the Apostles. Born and bred in Paganism, he was converted in middle age, and three years afterwards he became Bishop of Carthage. Ten years later he suffered martyrdom in the Valerian persecution. The following words may indicate the condition of the Church in his time -"Serious scandals existed even among the clergy. Bishops were farmers, traders, and moneylenders, and by no means always honest. Some were too ignorant to teach the catechumens. Presbyters made money by helping in the manufacture of idols." In Cyprian’s day "the virgins of the Church" ("nuns" we call them now) were held in special honour on account of their reputed sanctity. What, then, passed for superior sanctity may be gleaned from the following words of that eminent and holy man - "What have the virgins of the Church to do at promiscuous baths, there to violate the commonest dictates of feminine modesty! The places you frequent are more filthy than the theatre itself; all modesty is there laid aside; and with your robes your personal honour and reserve are cast off." Half a century before these words were written, Clement of Alexandria had bewailed the low morality which prevailed among Christians, even at a time when, as he said, "the wells of martyrdom were flowing daily." Referring to their attendance at church he wrote: "After having waited upon God and heard of Him, they leave Him there, and find their pleasure without in ungodly fiddling, and love songs, and what-not - stage plays and gross revelries." The "conversion of Constantine" set free the Church to put her house in order, and pursue her mission to the world without hindrance from without. But her condition in those halcyon days may be judged by the fact that at a single visitation the great Chrysostom deposed no fewer than thirteen bishops for simony and licentiousness. Nor was this strange, having regard to the means by which men secured election to the episcopal office. Here are Chrysostom’s words: "That some have filled the churches with murders, and made cities desolate when contending for this position, I now pass over, lest I should seem to say what is incredible to any." He was equally unsparing in dealing with the vices of the lower orders of the clergy. The natural result followed. The "historic Church" convened a packed council, which deprived him of his archbishopric, and he was banished to Nicaea. Moved, however, by the indignant fury of the laity, the Emperor recalled him, and his return to Constantinople was like a public triumph. But his fearless and scathing denunciations of the corruptions and immoralities of Church and Court led to the summoning of another council, more skillfully arranged; and his second banishment was intended to be, as in fact it proved, a death sentence. He practically died a martyr - one of the first of the great army whose blood cries to God for vengeance upon the "historic Church." Nor were licentiousness and simony evils of recent growth in the Church; nor were they peculiar to the see of Chrysostom. In A. D. 870 an imperial edict was read in the churches of Rome, prohibiting clerics and monks from resorting to the houses of widows or female wards, and making them "incapable of receiving anything from the liberality or will of any woman to whom they may attach themselves under the plea of religion; and (the edict adds) any such donations or legacies as they shall have appropriated to themselves shall be confiscated." This edict, sweeping though its terms were, had to be confirmed and strengthened by another twenty years later. And here is the comment of Jerome on the subject: "I blush to say it, heathen priests, players of pantomimes, drivers of chariots in the circuses, and harlots are allowed to receive legacies; clergy and monks are forbidden to do so by Christian princes. Nor do I complain of the law (he adds), but I am grieved that we deserve it." According to Jerome, so great was the evil, that men actually sought ordination in order to gain easier access to the society of women, and to trade upon their credulity. He, at least, maintained no reserve about the vices of the clergy of his day. And the picture he draws of the state of female society among the Christians is so repulsive that, as a recent writer remarks, we would gladly believe it to be exaggerated; but (he adds) "if the priesthood, with its enormous influence, was so corrupt, it is only too probable that it debased the sex which is always most under clerical influence." Of "Saint" Cyril of Alexandria, Dean Milman writes’ "While ambition, intrigue, arrogance, rapacity, and violence are proscribed as unchristian means, barbarity, persecution, bloodshed, as unholy and unevangelical wickednesses, posterity will condemn this orthodox Cyril as one of the worst of heretics against the spirit of the Gospel." A kindly estimate this, of a man who was morally guilty of the murder of Hypatia, and who was a notorious mob leader, and the brutal persecutor of the Jews, whom he drove out of Alexandria in thousands, giving up their houses to pillage. This turbulent pagan claims notice here only because he was the ruling spirit in the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 481), which dealt with the heresies of Nestorius. Cyril had hurled anathemas against him for refusing to acknowledge the Virgin Mary as the "Mother of God," and he procured his condemnation by means that would discredit the lowest political contest, including the free use of a hired mob. So disgraceful was the disorder which prevailed that the Emperor dissolved the Council with the rebuke’ "God is my witness that I am not the author of this confusion. His providence will discover and punish the guilty. Return to your provinces, and may your private virtues repair the mischief and scandal of your meeting."10 No one need suppose that a wider outlook would lead us to reverse the judgment to which these facts and testimonies point. A portly volume would not contain the evidence available to prove the utter apostasy of "the primitive Church of the Fathers." One more testimony, however, is all I will here adduce. In his early life Salvian of Marseilles was the contemporary of Jerome and Augustine, the greatest of all the Latin Fathers. A century had elapsed since "the conversion of Constantine." The "persecution" which the Christians had most to fear from the State was due to their vices and crimes, and to the operation of penal laws of drastic severity, designed to prevent their lapsing back to paganism. Why was it then that God seemed to have forsaken the Church? Here is Salvian’s answer - "See what Christians actually are everywhere, and then ask whether, under the administration of a righteous and holy God, such men can expect any favour? What happens every day under our very eyes is rather an evidence of the doctrine of Providence, as it displays the Divine displeasure provoked by the debauchery of the Church itself." The following are further extracts from the same treatise: "How can we wonder that God does not hearken to our prayers…Alas! How grievous and doleful is what I have to say! The very Church of God, which ought to be the appeaser of God, is but the provoker of God. And a very few excepted who flee from evil, what is almost every assembly of Christians but a sink of vices. For you will find in the Church scarcely one who is not either a drunkard or a glutton, or an adulterer, or a fornicator or frequenter of brothels, or a robber or a murderer. I put it now to the consciences of all Christian people whether it be not so… "The Churches are outraged by indecencies…You may well imagine what men have been thinking about at church when you see them hurry off, some to plunder, some to get drunk, some to practice lewdness, some to rob on the highway… "How should we exult and leap for joy if we could believe that the good and bad were nearly balanced in the Church as to numbers!…How happy should we be in so thinking, but in fact we have to mourn over almost the whole mass as guilty." In accounting for the growth of Christianity in early days, Gibbon the infidel gives prominence to the morality of the Christians. And Tertullian declared that no one who transgressed the rules of Christian discipline and propriety was recognized as a Christian at all. And yet two centuries later, "almost every assembly of Christians had become a sink of vices!" There is no need in this connection to speak of the Church of the Middle Ages - the fiendish enemy and persecutor of all who feared the Lord and followed righteousness and truth. The estimates formed of the number of the martyrs are unreliable; for though not one of those many millions is forgotten in heaven, the records on earth are altogether faulty. This at least is certain, that for long ages God was on the side of the martyrs and that the Church of Christendom was the most awful impersonation of the powers of hell that earth has ever known. "No means came amiss to it, sword or stake, torture chamber or assassin’s dagger. The effects of the Church’s working were seen in ruined nations and smoking cities, in human beings tearing one another to pieces, like raging maniacs, and the honour of the Creator of the world befouled by the hideous crimes committed in His name. All this is forgotten now, forgotten and even audaciously denied." And what of the Churches of the Reformation? Here I will call another witness whose words should command attention. The following is a quotation from Dean Alford’s Commentary on the Lord’s Parable recorded in Matthew 12:38-44. After explaining the direct application of the parable to the Jewish people, he proceeds: "Strikingly parallel with this runs the history of the Christian Church. Not long after the apostolic times, the golden calves of idolatry were set up by the Church of Rome. What the effect of the captivity was to the Jews, that of the Reformation has been to Christendom. The first evil spirit has been cast out. But by the growth of hypocrisy, secularity, and rationalism, the house has become empty, swept, and garnished by the decencies of civilization and discoveries of secular knowledge, but empty of living and earnest faith. And he must read prophecy but ill, who does not see under all these seeming improvements the preparation for the final development of the man of sin, the great repossession when idolatry and the seven worse spirits shall bring the outward frame of so-called Christendom to a fearful end." With what increased emphasis might Dean Alford write these words today if he were still with us! Half a century ago the Church of England was giving a bold testimony to the principles of the Reformation, or, in other words, to the Divine authority of Scripture, and the great truths which Scripture teaches. And Nonconformity was a great spiritual power throughout the land. But today the Epistle to Laodicea is finding its fulfillment on every hand. For though "empty of living and earnest faith," the Churches were never so boastful of their condition. "The tree of knowledge, now, yields its last, ripest fruit," for men sit in judgment on the Word of God! The Philadelphian Epistle promised an open door that none could shut; and at the Reformation the Bible was given to the people. The Devil has thus been baffled for centuries; for a return to his former methods is barred by the printing-press. But quite as effectually, and by far more subtle means, the Old Serpent is now filching the Bible from us. It is acclaimed as the best of books, but it is not the Word of God. And the agency by which he is seeking to achieve this fell design is the same as that which he used in pre- Reformation times - the Professing Church on earth. And the Churches of the Reformation are his chief agents in this evil work. Within living memory they stood together in defense of the Bible, but there is not one of them that corporately maintains that testimony today. Stier’s epigram about the teaching of German Rationalists applies to the teaching of most of our Theological Colleges and numberless quasi-Christian pulpits -"Heaven and earth will never pass away, but the words of Christ pass away in time!" Someone may object, perhaps, that all this refers only to the Professing Church, and not to the true Church. But there are not two Churches on earth in this dispensation, any more than in that which preceded it. "The Jewish Church" was Divine in its origin, but it was apostate; and so is it with the Church on earth today. The only true Church is that which the Lord is building, and it has no corporate existence upon earth. But it may be said that the real Christians, though within the Professing Church, are in no way responsible for its apostasy. In the age of the martyrs this plea might, perhaps, have been sustained, but never before or since. And certainly not today; for their apathy amounts in effect to positive connivance with evils which are undermining true Christianity. If they stood together in refusing to enter any church in which an altar, with its pagan furniture, has supplanted the Communion Table, or where, in the ministry of the pulpit, the "Higher Criticism" has dethroned the Word of God, the very apostasy itself might prove a blessing in disguise. But faithfulness to the Lord is subordinated to the maintenance of "Church unity." And so "the salt has lost its savor," and all hope of recovery is gone. It seems to be forgotten that discipleship is a personal bond. "Follow Me" is not addressed to congregations, but to the individual Christian. To love father or mother more than Christ is to be unworthy of Him; but it is deemed allowable to love one’s Church more than Him? In the Epistles to the Seven Churches, from Ephesus to Laodicea, the ruling note is individual faithfulness - "to him that overcometh." A similar note vibrates in the Apostle Paul’s address to the Elders of Ephesus. The future of the Church was dark. Grievous wolves would enter in among them, and of their ownselves there would arise fomenters of heresy and leaders of schism. And what was to be their resource? "I commend you to God and to the word of His grace." (Acts 20:29-32) It marks a crisis in the Apostle’s ministry. His earlier Epistles had been addressed to churches; but Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, written during his Roman imprisonment, were addressed to "saints." In sympathy with the Apostle’s words, Chrysostom, writing three centuries later, lamented that "all things which are Christ’s in the truth" were counterfeited in the prevailing heresies of that age, and he urged that Christians "should betake themselves only to the Scriptures." And in our own day all this found an echo in the exhortation of the late Bishop Ryle, that Christians should expect nothing from churches, but look only to the Lord. The student of human nature who has adequate means and opportunities of inquiry respecting the vices and crimes of men finds no need of a devil to account for everything in that sphere. But, without the Satan of Scripture, the religion of men is an insoluble enigma. For Satan is the god of this world, and therefore the religion of the world is the normal sphere of his activities. And, as Luther said, all his assaults are aimed at Christ Himself. He blinds the minds of men to the revelation of a Christ who is "the image of God." (2 Corinthians 4:4-6) The Deity of Christ is thus his main objective, for upon that depends everything that is vital in Christianity. Hence his campaign against the Bible. For no one whose mind is not warped or blinded by the superstitions of religion can fail to recognize that it is only through the written Word that we can reach "the living Word." The man who denies the Divine authority and inspiration of Holy Scripture and yet clings to a belief in the atonement of Calvary and the Deity of Christ is a superstitious creature who would believe anything. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 73: 1.06.11. CHAPTER 10: WHY THE DELAY? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 10: WHY THE DELAY? FULL well I know that the preceding chapter will give offence and be resented. But having regard to the awfully solemn import of the question here at issue, considerations of that kind must be ignored. For what concerns us is whether the lapse of nineteen centuries gives proof that the Lord has been false to His promise, or whether the history of the Professing Church during all the centuries, down to the present hour, does not amply explain why the fulfillment of His promise is delayed. Coupled with the promise are the words in which He expects His people to respond - "Even so, come, Lord Jesus." But there is not one of the Churches of the Reformation that would corporately identify itself with that prayer. And the Church that claims to be the Divine oracle and interpreter of Scripture, displays its enlightenment by an error that might disgrace a schoolboy, for it interprets the Lord’s words about "the consummation of the age" to mean the end of the world. The blunder is as crassly ignorant as that of finding in the parable of the tares a warrant for murdering the martyrs. But the Churches of the Reformation, while of course rejecting the heresy which found expression in the fires of Smithfield, have adopted the heresy which relegates the "Second Advent" to the "end of the world"; and as the result (to quote Bengel’s words) "the Churches have forgotten the hope of the Church." And yet the Coming is inseparably linked with the Cross. Much there is in Scripture that the thoughtless can ignore; but not the words, "Ye do shew the Lord’s death till He come." The many who dismiss the Coming to the end of all things, would presumably wish us to believe that, at the Lord’s Supper, the cup which points back to the blood of our redemption, points forward to the blood of Isaiah’s prophecy of "the day of vengeance"; and some who are too enlightened for this would find us a half-way house amid the horrors of the Great Tribulation. But all this betokens either ignorance of Scripture, or a mistaken exegesis. "Till He come"’ the words are an implicit renewal of the promise, and an appeal to every heart that has learned by grace to look for "that blessed hope." Doctrines are for the head, but the heart reaches out to a person; and here it is Himself that the Lord brings before His people. "This do in remembrance of ME." - not the Christ of the crucifix, not a dead Christ, but an absent Lord who has promised to come again. But here the ways divide, and we must choose between the teachings of theologians of repute and the words of Holy Scripture. In the 11th chapter of I Corinthians, the Apostle declares that the Church’s charter relative to the Lord’s Supper had been specially revealed to him, and he proceeds to deliver to them what he had thus "received of the Lord." And yet here is what a great commentator has to say upon the 26th verse "The words are addressed directly to the Corinthians, not to them and all succeeding Christians; the Apostle regarding the coming of the Lord as near at hand, in his own time." Many a page might be filled with quotations from other eminent divines, all testifying to the fact that the Lord’s return was a present hope with the early saints, and offering a similar explanation of the seeming falseness of that hope. The momentous question here under consideration is thus disposed of by the assumption that, in regard to this vital truth, the Apostles were in error, and misled the Church entrusted to their care. I repeat, therefore, that here we reach a parting of the ways; for we cannot consent to escape from a difficulty by undermining faith in Holy Scripture. "Gird up the loins of your mind" is a much- needed exhortation, and in no sphere more than in relation to this very truth. For let us face the facts once again. The inspired Apostles taught their converts to expect the Lord’s return. And "I am coming quickly" was His own last message to His people, before the era of revelation ended, and the era of a silent heaven set in. But He did not come quickly, nor has He come at all. Were it not for the "slovenly-mindedness" that characterizes thought in the religious sphere, this overwhelming fact would lead to searchings of heart on the part of all spiritual Christians. Scattered among the various Churches there must surely be very many who cherish the hope, and are troubled at the Lord’s continued absence. And is it idle to suggest that they should come together for earnest inquiry and prayer upon this subject? Even in the dark days of Elijah’s prophecy, there were 7000 true-hearted seekers after God in Israel; is it possible then that, in this seven-million peopled London, there are not seven thousand Christians who would eagerly devote a day to such a purpose! And let them be of one mind. Opinions may differ as to which phase of His Coming the Lord had in view in His parting message, and as to whether any events must precede the fulfillment of it. But in presence of the fact that we are in the twentieth century of the Christian era, to raise questions of this kind would betoken a spirit of controversy or of mere quibbling. In regard to what Bengel calls "the hope of the Church" let us have an eirenicon. It is sad that truth which ought to unite all spiritual Christians should lead to strife. And the fault is not all on one side. "The secret rapture," "the Coming of the Lord for His Church," "His coming back with His Church" - these and other kindred phrases are used as though they expressed revealed truth, whereas they express mere inferences from Scripture, which may be true or may be false. The Fourth Gospel closes with an incident which every Bible student ought to study. On receiving the command, "Follow Me," Peter pointed to his companion and asked, "What shall this man do?" And his inquiry brought the Lord’s rebuke, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" How natural the inference the disciples drew, "that that disciple should not die"! What other inference would anyone draw? But the Evangelist cites the Lord’s words a second time, in order to make it clear that He did not say what the disciples inferred to be His meaning. And the moral is that in all such matters we are not to draw inferences from Divine words, but to accept them with childlike simplicity. The language of Zechariah 14:4 and Acts 1:11 may seem to indicate that the Coming there foretold will be secret, in the sense in which the Ascension was secret - with no attendant angels, no manifestation to the world. But of another Coming it is said, "Every eye shall see Him." And if some skeptic demands how that is possible on this round earth, let him ask the first schoolboy he meets how it is that, day by day, every eye can see the sun! When "the King of Glory passes on his way," then, "From earth’s wide bounds, from ocean’s furthest coast," "every eye shall see Him." But whether this will be true of the Coming of "that blessed hope" Scripture does not tell us; and we must not corrupt or add to Scripture with our own inferences and "pious opinions." Scripture teaches explicitly that, after this Christian dispensation ends, Israel will be restored to Divine favor; and the question is sometimes asked, how this will be brought about - "How can they hear without a preacher?" for, ex hypothesi, all Christians will previously have been called away to heaven. And in our day-dreams the thought arises at times whether the devout among His earthly people may not see Him when He comes to call His heavenly people home. But this is a day-dream, nothing more. Then as regards the Lord’s coming for His Church, the phrase is incorrect, not merely on grounds already indicated, but also because it seems to imply that none of the holy dead of former ages will have part in that resurrection; and for this we have no Scriptural warrant. Not that we would dare to assert the contrary. It behooves us to know whatever the Scripture teaches, and to be content not to know where Scripture is silent. And this applies no less to the theory of His coming back with His Church. Here again some of us have day-dreams. May it not be that "the holy ones" of His glorious escort, when He comes to execute vengeance upon earth, will be "the angels of His power," and that the redeemed of this age of grace will have no part in that dread ministry? Allied with this is that other phrase, "the personal reign of Christ on earth"; as though the Lord of glory is ever to live in a palace in Jerusalem! In our day-dreams here, the redeemed of the heavenly glory are not upon the earth, but with the Lord as He reigns over the earth. Not in a heaven "beyond the stars," but in a heaven as near as it seemed to be in the Patmos visions, or when the martyr Stephen’s eyes were opened to behold it. But these again are only dreams; and men who dogmatize on these subjects are quite as silly, though neither as harmless nor as interesting, as a set of babies in the nursery, prattling about things that are beyond their ken. These criticisms and suggestions are designed merely to eliminate certain elements that tend either to prejudice, or to obscure, the consideration of the question here at issue. We often wonder that the Jews are not startled into repentance by the fact that, though we have reached the twentieth century of the Christian era, their national hope is still unfulfilled. And are we to remain indifferent to the fact that our Christian hope is also unrealized? "Yet a very little while and the Coming One will come and will not tarry": (Hebrews 10:37) such words as these cannot be explained away by the theory of a thousand-year’ day. What then should be our action and our attitude in this matter? Has the past no lesson for us? "The Jewish Church" had a right creed, and the coming of Messiah was a vital part of it. But with the "Church" as a Church it was merely a doctrine. They did not want Him; and when He came they cast Him out. It was only with the few that it was a hope, and a heart-longing hope. They were really looking for Him - "waiting for the consolation of Israel," like the old saint who took the infant Saviour in his arms and said, "Now, Lord, lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace…for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation." They had a divinely appointed "Church," with a ritual divinely ordered in every detail. And the Lord took His place within it, as did the disciples under His teaching. But though in it, they were not of it. "The existing communities, the religious tendencies, the spirit of the age, assuredly offered no point of attachment, only absolute and essential contrariety, to the kingdom of heaven." And this has its parallel today. Ministers and congregations that cling to "the faith once delivered," reverencing the Scriptures as the Word of God, and cherishing the hope which the Scriptures inspire, find themselves daily more and more out of sympathy with the "organized Christianity" of which they are outwardly a part. In these "latter times," strikingly characterized, as they are, by "departing from the faith," the unity of the Church can be promoted only by giving up the faith, and truckling to rationalism and ritualism. But "to keep the unity of the Spirit" ought to be the aspiration and the aim of all who are true to Christ. And this is the true "Communion of Saints" - "not the common performance of external acts, but a communion of soul with soul, and of the soul with Christ. It is a consequence of the nature which God has given us that an external organization should help our communion with one another…But subtler, deeper, diviner, than anything of which external things can be either the symbol or the bond is that inner reality and essence of union - ‘the unity of the Spirit’" And no influence can be more fitted to promote this unity than the confession of a common hope, and the longing which the hope inspires. No need here, moreover, for large assemblies or eloquent exhortations. Enthusiasm thus produced is transient. And He Himself it was who spoke of the "two or three" gathered together in His name. Among Christians everywhere there must surely be some "who love His appearing." And if today, for the first time in all the sad history of Christendom, such would come together in every place the wide world over, wherever Christians can be found, we might look up in hope that He who is called "The Coming One" would fulfill the promise of His name. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 74: 1.06.12. CHAPTER 11: "BEMA" OF CHRIST ======================================================================== CHAPTER 11: "BEMA" OF CHRIST IN the Apostle Paul’s farewell words to Timothy there is nothing more pathetic than his reference to the hope. In the school of grace he had learned to live looking for the Lord’s appearing. (Titus 2:11-13) But now he writes, "the time of my departure is at hand." Perhaps it had been revealed to him, as it was revealed to Peter, that he was about to be "offered up" - to die a martyr’s death. But this gives rise to no suspicions of his having been misled respecting the hope, or of his having misled the converts. The only change in his language is the use of a new verb and a different tense. He had been looking for the appearing; now, he speaks of having loved it. And taking his place with all who, like himself, would have to enter the promised land through the waters of the Jordan, 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 only to me, but also to all them that have loved His appearing." (2 Timothy 4:8) In connection with his epigram already quoted, Bengel notices that, in the New Testament, exhortations to faithfulness are based upon the hope of the Coming. And the failure of Christian life is largely due to the fact that the truth of grace is commonly separated from that hope. A certain great Jewish Rabbi astonished his disciples by teaching that every man should repent the day before his death. How, they asked him, could they know the day of their death? They could not know it, was his reply, and therefore everyone should act as if each day was his last. If men could count on a few years’ warning of death, "deathbed repentances" would become the rule. And certain it is that if great events foretold in Hebrew prophecy must precede the Lord’s return, His coming will have less power to mould the character and influence the life than it had in Apostolic times. In these strange days of "stress and strain," cases of" loss of memory" are becoming frequent. People are "found wandering." Who they are, and where they came from, they cannot tell. Their past is all a blank; they remember nothing. And many Christians expect to reach heaven in that condition. The cloud on which they will be poised, as they sing the New Song of the redeemed, will shut out every memory of life on earth, with its unnumbered mercies and its unnumbered sins! Some there are, again, whose case is like that of another famous Rabbi, who, when he came to die, burst into tears through fear of Divine judgment; and when his disciples who stood around his deathbed expressed surprise that he, "the light of Israel," should be a prey to such misgivings, he told them that he knew not by which of the two roads his journey lay, to Paradise or to Gehenna. Most Christians seem to oscillate between these two extremes of error. Many are strangers to settled peace, because they fear to trust "the word of the truth of the Gospel." And those who know what it means to have "a heart established by grace" need to be reminded of the solemnities of the judgment-seat of Christ. For this subject of the judgment of the redeemed falls within the category of neglected truths. Chrysostom’s exposition of the 5th chapter of 2 Corinthians has been described as "one of the grandest efforts of human eloquence." But, intensely Christian though he was in heart and life, that great saint and teacher misread the Apostle’s words. And the mistranslation of the passage in our English version is a testimony to the far-reaching influence of his brilliant homily. To be "accepted of Him" is not the aim of the Christian life, nor is "the terror of the Lord" its constraining motive. For "the judgment-seat of Christ" is not the dread tribunal of "the great white throne" of the Patmos vision. The "we" of the tenth verse is the "we" of all the verses that precede and follow it. The whole passage breathes confidence and courage. God has "wrought" us for immortality, and He has given us the Holy Spirit as the earnest of that which is our assured destiny. And it is to us that the entire chapter refers. Here are the Apostle’s words: "Being therefore always of good courage, and knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord (for we walk by faith, not by sight); we are of good courage, I say, and are willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be at home with the Lord. Wherefore also we make it our aim, whether at home or absent, to be well-pleasing unto Him. For we must all be made manifest before the judgment-seat of Christ; that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest unto God; and 1 hope that we are made manifest also in your consciences." 2 Corinthians 5:6-11 The salvation of the soul is not a prize to be won by saintship, but a blessing bestowed by Divine grace upon the sinner who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not the goal, but the starting-point, of the Christian’s life. Upon two main points the teaching of Scripture is explicit; the consequences of accepting or rejecting Christ are eternal; and the destiny of all will be declared by the resurrection. For the resurrection will be either "unto life" or unto judgment; and the saved will be raised in bodies "fashioned like unto His glorious body." And it is as thus; "raised in glory" that we shall be judged. This disposes of the Patristic interpretation of the passage, by which our translators were misled. Even the word "appear" lends itself to the error, for it suggests arraignment before it criminal tribunal on the issue of guilty or not guilty, whereas the "resurrection unto life" will be a public proof that every question of guilt has been for ever settled. The judgment of 2 Corinthians 5:10 will possibly be a public manifestation of the Father’s judgment of 1 Peter 1:17, which is at present a secret matter between the child of God and his heavenly Father. Perhaps, indeed, the forensic tone given to the passage by the word "judgment-seat" may be foreign to its intention. This suggestion is greatly strengthened by the Revised Text, where "bad" is displaced by phaulos - one of those words, as Archbishop Trench notices, "which contemplate evil under another aspect, that, namely, of its good-for-nothingness." And, he adds, "This notion of worthlessness is the central notion of phaulos," though the word runs through other meanings until it reaches "bad"; "but still bad predominantly in the sense of worthless." All this immensely deepens both the scope and the solemnity of the Apostle’s words. Many who could say with him, "I know nothing against myself," miss the significance of what he adds - "yet am I not hereby justified, but He that judgeth me is the Lord." And the Apostle Peter’s words about a "vain (or resultless) manner of life" come to mind in this connection. (1 Peter 1:18) Writing to Hebrew Christians, his words refer to the strictly moral and religious life that characterized devout Judaism after the Ezra revival. And are there not very many pious people nowadays who, though leading exemplary lives, will have no garnered sheaves "against that day"? I deprecate the thought that I wish to fritter away the solemn truth of the bema of Christ. My purpose is merely to explain the words in which it has been revealed. For the passage has been so perverted that even the word "receive" is commonly read with a police-court flavour attaching to it. (The following are the passages where it occurs: Matthew 25:27; Luke 7:37 (brought); 2 Corinthians 5:10; Ephesians 6:8; Colossians 3:25; Hebrews 10:36; Hebrews 11:19; Hebrews 11:39; 1 Peter 1:9; 1 Peter 5:4; 2 Peter 2:13.) And this leads to efforts to get rid of the truth altogether. Such efforts are as discreditable as they are vain. Even in this life no one of generous feeling can fail to be distressed by the consciousness that he is unworthy of the estimate his fellows form of him; and he is always glad to be "made manifest," unless indeed where the result might do harm to others. And how could it be otherwise when we shall be freed from all the meanness, as well as from the grosser evil, of our Adam nature? And what meanness could be baser than to desire that everything which would bring us praise might be brought to light, but that all our faults and failings and sins might be concealed. Moreover, as Bengel beautifully puts it, "The everlasting remembrance of a great: debt which has been forgiven, will be the fuel of the strongest love." And there is another element here involved, which our theology ignores. A Christian with the Bible in his hands does not need the well-accredited facts of Spiritualism to teach him that the denizens of the spirit world take notice of the acts of men. The declaration of God’s righteousness in remitting sins committed prior to the death of Christ (Romans 3:25) was certainly not to satisfy the sinners whom He pardoned. It had reference, doubtless, to the high intelligences of heaven. For the salvation of fallen men is no "backstairs business." It will be in open view of all the angelic host that God will raise the sinners of the earth to heavenly glory. And may not the judgment of the bema of Christ have some reference to them? And there is yet another consideration which is of such transcendent importance that it ought to silence every cavil. God has a purpose in our redemption, and that purpose is "the praise of the glory of His grace." Is it possible that anyone who knows anything of a true spiritual experience can believe, or even wish to believe, that ought will be concealed that tends to further that purpose? And there are two sides to this. Peter’s denial of his Lord, and Demas "turning back in the day of battle," will be remembered there. But so will the widow’s two mites, and Mary’s alabaster box of ointment. It was in circumstances of trial such as we have never known that Demas and Peter failed. But who is there who has not failed at times when faithfulness would have cost nothing more than reproach or ridicule? And let us not forget that the widow’s sacrifice would have been unrecorded had not the Lord been present to notice it; and that, but for Him, the reproach of "Why this waste" would have rested upon Mary. And in that day surely we shall have the grace to rejoice when service which brings honour from men will be appraised at its true worth, and many a humble Christian will be rewarded for sacrifices that no eye but His has noticed, or that men have noticed only to condemn. A forgotten truth it is indeed, this of the bema of Christ. And the wish to get rid of it is a grave reflection upon the Christianity of our own times. If we are to "have confidence, and not to be ashamed before Him at His coming," (1 John 2:28) it behooves us, instead of ignoring truth - which makes us ashamed here and now, to judge both heart and conduct in the light of it. The Christian who has an expurgated version of 2 Corinthians, from which the judgment-seat of Christ has been eliminated, would do well to turn his attention next to the following solemn words in Colossians - "Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done’ and there is no respect of persons." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 75: 1.06.13. CHAPTER 12: EVANGELIZATION OF THE WORLD ======================================================================== CHAPTER 12: EVANGELIZATION OF THE WORLD THE exegetical system of "old-fashioned orthodoxy," "received by tradition from the Fathers," I once again repeat, leaves the Bible an easy prey to the skeptical attacks of the "Higher Criticism." In view of that movement, the defense of the Bible on the old lines is as hopeless as it would be to meet modern ordnance with the weapons which won the battle of Waterloo! If, for example, we persist in regarding the present Christian dispensation as the last aeon of God’s dealings with mankind, and in ignoring Israel’s place in the Divine counsels and purposes, the numerous eschatological passages in the Gospels and Epistles seem to be a tissue of wholly irreconcilable predictions. And an attempt to harmonize them serves only to bring their utter incongruity into stronger relief. And the clear and fearless thinker is thus tempted to jettison belief in the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. One of the saddest effects of this skeptical crusade is that, under its evil influence, the writings of Christian expositors are often as profane as those of avowed rationalists. Here, for example, is a sentence culled at random from the most recent Commentary of this school. Referring to the events predicted in Matthew 24:34, the writer says, "Jesus was quite certain that they would happen within the then living generation."1 To the Christian it is "quite certain" that the Lord Jesus was the Son of God, and that His words were the words of God — words that shall never pass away. Just as a spiritually devout Roman Catholic may be a true believer in Christ, though clinging to belief in the Virgin Mary and the saints, so these "critics" may unfeignedly believe in the deity of Christ; but in freely acknowledging this, we pay homage, not to their intelligence, but to their piety. A well-taught child could understand what seems to be hidden from the wise and prudent of this kenosis theology. For the study of God’s recorded dealings with His people, from Eden to Pentecost, will teach us that no Divine promise of blessing is ever marred by words to indicate the Divine foreknowledge that it will be rejected. At the beginning of His ministry, therefore, the Lord proclaimed that His kingdom was at hand, albeit, in this twentieth century of the Christian era, His people are still praying that it may come. And so also when, at the close of His ministry, He warned His people of the events that "must first come," He still spoke of it as near at hand; for He had in view the Pentecostal amnesty so soon to be proclaimed. The First Gospel does not contain a single word that is inconsistent with its scope and purpose in the Divine scheme of revelation, as a record of the Lord’s mission and ministry as Israel’s Messiah; and it will be studied by believing Israelites in days to come as if the present Christian dispensation had never intervened. And on account of their ignoring this, some Christians suppose that the world must be evangelized before the return of Christ. It is "the gospel of the kingdom" that the Lord specified in His words in that connection, and "the end" to which He pointed is that of the age which will be brought to a close by His coming as Son of Man. At a missionary meeting long ago, when Charles Simeon sat down after speaking on behalf of missions to the Jews, Edward Bickersteth, the Secretary of the Church Missionary Society, put a pencilled note into his hand, with the question, "8,000,000 Jews, 800,000,000 heathen — which is the more important?" To which Simeon promptly penciled the reply: "But what if the 8,000,000 Jews are to be ‘life from the dead’ to the 800,000,000 heathen?" Although so plainly stated in Scripture, it is a forgotten truth that the full and final evangelization of the world awaits the restoration of Israel. And "the receiving" of Israel is necessarily deferred until after the coming of Christ to bring the present dispensation to a close. A forgotten truth, I call it, for in common with the "mystery" truths of the distinctively Christian revelation, it was lost in the interval between the Apostolic age and the era of the Patristic theologians. And our standard theology is so dominated by the writings of the Fathers that it is still unillumined by the light of the Evangelical Revival. It may be remarked in passing that if the leaders in that revival had waited for the "Christian Church" to promote missions to the heathen, the heathen would possibly be still in midnight darkness. When, a few years before he sailed for India, William Carey rose in an assembly of Ministers of his own communion, to plead the cause he held so dear, he was peremptorily silenced as a troublesome fanatic. And the Church Missionary Society was the offspring of the despised and hated "Clapham Sect." The meeting at which it was founded was not held in either Westminster Abbey or St. Paul’s, but in a small hired room in a poor sort of City inn. It was not till forty years afterwards that the ecclesiastical dignitaries accorded it their patronage. A brief recapitulation of the argument and contents of the preceding pages may fitly bring this final chapter to a close. If the sham "Higher Criticism" gains acceptance with Christians, it is certainly not because of the infidel element which permeates its teaching. Its success is due to prevalent ignorance of the distinctive truths of the Christian revelation. Redemption and forgiveness of sins through the blood of Christ, justification by faith, the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment - these and other kindred truths are not Christian in any exclusive sense they are in the warp and woof of the Divine religion of Judaism. And we need not doubt that they pertained to the primeval revelation which preceded the call of Abraham. For one of the great purposes of that "call" was that the oracles of God, which men had corrupted, might be entrusted to the Covenant people.3 And although that people were often made subject to Gentile rule, first in the Servitudes, and again during all the centuries which followed the Babylonian conquest, yet, from Genesis to Malachi, there is nothing in Scripture to suggest that they would ever lose their privileged position as the people of God. Their being "cast off" was a crisis unparalleled since the call of Abraham — a crisis which, as we have seen, was a New Testament "mystery." And yet, in spite of the Apostle’s warning, the exponents of Christendom religion are so "wise in their own conceits" that they not only regard the result as a matter of course, but in effect they accept the figment that God "has cast away His people whom He foreknew." But the intelligent Christian rejoices in the knowledge that "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance," and that Israel is yet to be restored to Divine favor, and to regain their normal place of privilege and testimony. And the "mysteries" of the Christian revelation are truths relating to the present abnormal economy of Israel’s rejection. No error is more common than that of supposing that the position from which the Jew has been dispossessed is now assigned to the Gentile. Gentiles, as such, whether professing Christians or pagan idolaters, share with Jews the common doom of sinful men. But "God has concluded them all under sin in order that He might have mercy upon all." For He to whom all judgment has been committed is now exalted as Saviour, and the Divine throne has thus become a throne of grace; "grace is reigning through righteousness unto eternal life." But it is not merely as lost sinners that Jew and Gentile stand upon the same level. As believers in the Lord Jesus Christ both are raised to the same heavenly glory and the same relationship as members of His Body. As the reign of grace is the basal "mystery," so this is the crowning "mystery" of the Christian revelation. We have seen, however, that these "mysteries" are wholly incompatible with the special position and peculiar privileges Divinely accorded to Israel by the Abrahamic covenant. And this being so, the restoration of that people, so plainly foretold in Scripture, involves as definite a change of dispensation, as that which ushered in the present economy. And thus we are prepared for another "mystery," namely the Coming of the Lord, which will bring this economy to a close; and which, by calling His heavenly people home to heaven, will clear the way for the restoration of His earthly people to their normal position under the covenant. The "mystery" of the Coming is indeed a forgotten truth. And yet, apart from its influence on Christian life and character, no truth is more important in our defense of Scripture against the "learned ignorance" of the "Higher Criticism." For it is the pivotal truth of New Testament eschatology; and in the light of it — to change the figure — we can find perfect harmony in the teaching of the Gospels and Epistles on the subject of the Advent, where the skeptics see nothing but confusion. And lastly, the truth of the judgment-seat of Christ has received prominence in these pages. Even if Scripture were silent on this subject, a true spiritual instinct might teach a Christian to refuse the belief, which indeed the light of nature would lead us to reject, that when "we pass within the veil" all memories of earth will be effaced, and that as regards our future it is a matter of no practical importance whether we are faithful or unfaithful to the Lord. A revolt against such a false belief has betrayed very many into letting slip the truth that eternal life is a gift assured by Divine grace to all who come to Christ. Others fall back upon the old heresy of a purgatory of some kind; though with pharisaical blindness they assume that the better sort of Christian will escape the fiery discipline. Others again, ignoring the "mysteries" both of grace and of the Coming, would have us believe that, although 1 Corinthians 15:51 assures us that at the Coming of the Lord we shall ALL be changed and called to heaven, those who have failed to attain some undefined standard of saintship will be punished by being left behind to await a later resurrection. And the newest and strangest theory of this class is that erring Christians, though destined to enjoy an eternity of heavenly glory, are to be denied a share in the millennial kingdom upon the earth. But in marked contrast with all such vagaries of exegesis, the teaching of Scripture is clear. We are saved by grace through faith, and that (salvation) is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9) And for the elect of this dispensation, salvation includes the resurrection and the glory. In this respect, therefore, the least worthy stands upon the same level with the most worthy of His people. But the judgment-seat of Christ will deal with every question which these human expedients are designed to solve. In words as profoundly true as they are simple, the Westminster Divines have taught us that "Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever." And this end will be realized when the redeemed of earth shall stand in heavenly glory, the whole record of their past having been laid bare before Him who "died for their sins according to the Scriptures." And every attribute of God — not merely His grace and love, but His holiness and righteousness — will be so displayed and vindicated that the unfallen of heaven will unite with the redeemed of earth in ascriptions of eternal praise. But the chief burden of these pages is the truth of the Lord’s Coming. This subject is too often treated as a mere bypath of Christian doctrine. My aim has been to show that it is not merely the true hope of the Christian life, but that it is of such central importance in the New Testament revelation that ignorance or neglect of it leaves the Scriptures open to skeptical attack. And I have suggested that the seeming failure of the promise may be explained by the apostasy of Christendom, and the unfaithfulness of the people of God within the Professing Church. The great fact which claims our most earnest attention is that in Apostolic days the Christians were Divinely taught to look for the Lord’s return as a present hope, and yet that it is still unfulfilled in this twentieth century of the Christian era. It is a fact which tries the faith of the believer, and supplies the skeptic with a plea for his unbelief. It may be said, perhaps, that the Lord’s promise that He would come "quickly" must be read in the light of the truth that with God "a thousand years are as one day." This I have already dealt with. And let us remember that these words are the complement of the other statement, "that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years." That is to say, time is not an element with Him in working out His purposes; and therefore all that these many centuries of the Christian era will bring of glory to Christ, and of blessing to us, might have been attained without this long delay. And this consideration should quiet the fears and solve the difficulties of any who think that a shortening of the Christian age would have clashed with the truth of the Body of Christ, and of our election to that position of glory. The promise of the Coming is identified with that very truth. And to say that, were it not for this two thousand years’ delay, God could not have fulfilled all His purposes to usward, is a flagrant denial of the very truth upon which the above noticed objection is based. These well-intentioned efforts to defend Divine truth by searching into the "unsearchable counsels" of God savor of Uzzah’s fault in putting forth his hand to protect the ark.5 And in these days of eager thought and earnest skepticism, it is perilous in the extreme to suggest that when the Lord declared He would come quickly, He meant that He would come in two thousand years! If this be so, then let us treat the promise as a secret to be spoken of in whispers, and only when no unbelievers are within earshot. For it would lead the profane to rejoice; and many a reverent and earnest seeker after truth would be stumbled and repelled. "What should we think of a fellow-man (they might exclaim) who makes a plain statement in simple words which he knows will be accepted everywhere in their ordinary acceptation, while he is using them in a mystical sense that entirely destroys their meaning!"6 The only adequate answer to this taunt is a repudiation of the suggestion which gives rise to it. And if, rejecting that suggestion, we fall back upon the alternative offered in the preceding pages, we can plead the teaching of Scripture, from Eden to Patmos, that whenever Divine purposes or words have seemed to fail, the failure has been due to human sin, and almost always to the sin or unfaithfulness of the people of God. And we may plead also that, if this alternative solution of the difficulty be erroneous, the error is not one that can give occasion to the unbeliever to cavil at the faithfulness or truth of our Lord and Saviour. Every other word, without exception, that comes from His Divine lips is received by us with simple and unquestioning faith; let us accord a like faith to the promise of His Coming. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 76: 1.06.14. APPENDIX 1: THE ERAS OF SERVITUDE ======================================================================== APPENDIX 1: THE ERAS OF SERVITUDE NOTE CHAPTER 3 THE Divine judgment of the 70 years’ Servitude to Babylon fell in 606 B.C., which was the third year of King Jehoiakim, and the year before the accession of Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews refused to bow to the Divine judgment thus inflicted upon them, and in the ninth year of the Servitude they revolted (597 B.C.). This brought upon them the judgment of the Captivity. The Babylonian army again captured Jerusalem, and all "save the poorest sort of the people of the land" were deported to Chaldea. Jeremiah in Jerusalem, and Ezekiel among the captives, gave repeated warnings that continued impenitence would bring down a still fiercer judgment But, misled by promises of help from Egypt, the Jews again revolted in the tenth year of the Captivity; and, in fulfillment of prophetic warnings, their city was destroyed and their land laid desolate. "The Fast of Tebeth is still observed by the Jews of every land in commemoration of the day from which the era of the 70 years of "the Desolations" was reckoned, namely, the tenth day of the tenth month in the ninth year of King Zedekiah (589 B.C.). See Ezekiel 24:1-2, and Kings 25:1. Both the 70 years of the Servitude and the 62 years of the Captivity ended in 536 B.C., when the decree of Cyrus permitted the Jews to return to their own land. That decree expressly authorized the rebuilding of the Temple. But though the words of a Persian king were regarded as divine, that decree was thwarted by the local authorities in Judea until the reign of Darius Hystaspes. The explanation of this strange fact is that God would not permit the rebuilding of the Temple until the era of the Desolations ended. The year in use both with the Jews and the Chaldeans was one of 860 days, the calendar being corrected by intercalation. And that this is the prophetic year is made plain both in Daniel and Revelation, 42 months being the equivalent of 1260 days. Now 70 years of 360 days contain 25,200 days; and the period between the 10th Tebeth 589 and the 24th Chisleu 520, when the foundation of the second Temple was laid (Haggai 2:18), was exactly 25,200 days. It is very commonly assumed that Daniel’s prayer of chapter 9 of his prophecy had reference to the 70 years of the Captivity, and that the 70 weeks were to end with the coming of Messiah. These blunders discredit many a learned writer. For there was no 70 years’ captivity, and the period "unto Messiah the Prince" was not 70 weeks but 7 and 62 weeks. Daniel 9:2 states explicitly that it was the years of the Desolations that were the basis of the prayer and of the prophecy; and, as we have seen, these were prophetic years of 360 days. The era of the weeks was to date from the issue of a decree to rebuild Jerusalem. History records one such decree, and only one, viz. that of the month Nisan in the 20th year of Artaxerxes. And 69 sevens of prophetic years (173,800 days), measured from 1st Nisan, 445 B.C., end upon that fateful day in Passion week when, for the first and only time in His ministry, the Lord was publicly acclaimed as the Messiah the Prince. (Nehemiah 2:1-20; Luke 19:37 ff. Mark the words of verse 42: "If thou hadst known, even thou in this day, the things that belong to thy peace!") But what then of the 70th week? Here it is that all this has an important bearing on the main subject of the preceding pages. As early as the clays of Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, the belief prevailed that the fulfillment of Daniel’s last week belongs to the future. And such was the view of Julius Africanus, "the father of Christian Chronologists." This, moreover, is entirely in keeping with the Lord’s words in the synagogue of Nazareth; and it is definitely established by His words recorded in Matthew 24:15, with reference to Daniel 9:27. It is certain, moreover, that the 70th week has not been fulfilled in the past. For the 70th week begins with the covenant between the Jews and their last great patron, who becomes their last great persecutor. In the middle of the week he violates his treaty with them; and the latter half of the week (the 42 months, or 1260 days, of Daniel and Revelation) is the period of the Great Tribulation, which is to be followed immediately by the awful portents of the "Coming of the Son of Man," foretold in Isaiah 13:10 and Joel 2:31. (Matthew 24:29, and see verse 27.) As already noticed, there will be a prolonged interval between those awful portents and the actual "Coming of the Son of Man." This is evident from the Lord’s words in verses 36-44. And yet that Coming might have taken place within the lifetime of those to whom the words were addressed. But, as I have sought to show in preceding pages, all this has reference to Israel; and its fulfillment is in abeyance because of Israel’s rejection during this Christian dispensation. The "Second Sermon on the Mount" will be fulfilled in every jot and tittle of it. But to throw it into hotchpotch with the distinctively Christian revelation entrusted to His Apostles after "the change of dispensation," modifying the language of both in the vain effort to make them harmonize — this displays neither spiritual intelligence nor reverence for Holy Scripture. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 77: 1.06.15. APPENDIX 2: IS THE CHURCH THE BRIDE OF CHRIST? ======================================================================== APPENDIX 2: IS THE CHURCH THE BRIDE OF CHRIST? NOTE CHAPTER 5 "Is the Church the Bride of Christ?" Let us begin by correcting our terminology. In the Patmos visions we read of "the Bride, the Lamb’s wife"; but "the Bride of Christ" is unknown to Scripture. The first mention of the Bride is in John 3:29. In a Jewish marriage the "friend of the bridegroom "answered to our "groomsman." His most important duty was to present the bride to the bridegroom. And this was the place which the Baptist claimed. His mission was to prepare Israel to meet the Messiah, "to make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Luke 1:17). With the close of the Baptist’s ministry, both the Bride and the Lamb disappear from the New Testament until we reach the Patmos visions. In Revelation 21:1-27 the Angel summons the Seer to behold "the Bride, the Lamb’s wife"; and he showed him "the Holy Jerusalem descending out of heaven from God." The twelve gates of the city bear the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel, and in its twelve foundations are "the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb." And the foundations are "garnished with all manner of precious stones. For "it is the city that hath the foundations, whose builder and maker is God," (Hebrews 11:10) the city for which Abraham looked, when he turned his back upon the then metropolis of the world. These Apostles of the Bride are not the Apostles who were given after the Ascension for the building up of the Body of Christ — the Apostles of this Christian dispensation, chief among whom was Paul. They are the twelve Apostles of the Lord’s earthly ministry to Israel, who shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28). They are the Apostles of the Lamb. And "the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb" are the temple of this city; and the Lamb is the light thereof. Every part of the description and of the symbolism tends to make it clear that this city represents a relationship and a glory pertaining to the people of the covenant. And now we can understand why it is that it is called the Bride of the Lamb, and never the Bride of Christ. For, the mystery of the Body having now been revealed, Christ is identified with the Church which is His Body, whereas His relation to Israel is entirely personal. What relation, then, does "Jerusalem which is above" bear to us? No need here for guessing, and no room for controversy, for on this point Scripture is explicit; "the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our Mother" (Galatians 4:26, R.V.). We know that most of the Fathers were obsessed by the false belief that the Jew had been cast away forever; but even this seems inadequate to account for their claiming the bridal relationship and glory for the Church of this dispensation. There are two reasons for refusing to believe that the Church is the Bride. First, because Scripture nowhere states that it is the Bride, and secondly, because Scripture implicitly teaches that it is not the Bride. The question, Is A the wife of B? May be answered in the negative, either by pointing to C as his wife, or by indicating a relationship between A and B which is incompatible with that of marriage. And in both these ways Scripture vetoes the Church-Bride theory. For it teaches that the Bride is "our Mother," and that the Church is the Body of Christ. The 5th chapter of Ephesians, moreover, ought to be accepted as making an end of controversy on this subject. The marriage relationship is there readjusted by a heavenly standard. If, therefore, the Church were the Bride, we should find it asserted here with emphatic prominence. But it is the Body relationship that is emphasized. Christ loved the Church, and the Church is His Body; therefore a Christian is to love his wife as his own body. In the 81st verse the ordinance of Genesis 2:24 is re-enacted for the Christian with a new sanction and a new meaning. The "great mystery" of verse 32 is not that a man and his wife are one body, for such a use of the word "mystery" is foreign to Scripture. And moreover, the Apostle says expressly, "I am speaking about Christ and the Church." And the last verse of the chapter disposes of the whole question’ "Nevertheless, though man and wife are not one body, yet because Christ and the Church are one body) let every one of you love his wife even as himself." By a strange vagary of exegesis the Apostle’s words in 2 Corinthians 11:2 are sometimes appealed to in support of the Church-Bride theory. Dr. Edersheim cites this passage to illustrate the position of groomsmen (or "friends of the bridegroom") at a Jewish marriage. Besides their other functions, they were, he says, "the guarantors of the bride’s virgin chastity."2 And the Apostle uses this figure to express his "jealousy" — his solicitude, for the Corinthian Christians. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 78: 1.06.16. APPENDIX 3: THE LORD'S COMING IN GREEK WORDS ======================================================================== APPENDIX 3: THE LORD’S COMING IN GREEK WORDS NOTE CHAPTER 6 THERE are three different words used in the Greek Testament in relation to the Lord’s Coming. Parousia means primarily "presence" (see 2 Corinthians 10:10; Php 2:12), and it is used of any person’s arrival (see, e.g., 1 Corinthians 16:17; 2 Corinthians 7:6-7; etc.). In secular use it applied specially to any state visit. In the following passages it is used of the return of Christ: Matthew 24:3; Matthew 24:27; Matthew 24:37; Matthew 24:39; 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 1 Thessalonians 3:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:8; James 5:7-8; 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 2:28. Apokalupsis ("revelation" or "manifestation") is used of the Advent in 1 Corinthians 1:7; 2 Thessalonians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:7; 1 Peter 1:13. Epiphaneia ("appearing") occurs in 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (brightness); 1 Timothy 6:14; 2 Timothy 1:10; 2 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 4:8; Titus 2:13. And the verb phaneroo ("to appear or be manifested") is used in Colossians 3:4; 1 Peter 5:4; 1 John 2:28; 1 John 3:2. The attempt has been made to apportion these words to the several future manifestations of the Lord Jesus Christ. A reference to the passages where they occur will enable the Bible student to judge whether this distinction can be sustained; or whether the words do not rather indicate different phases or aspects of the various "Comings" foretold in Scripture. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 79: 1.06.17. APPENDIX 4: PHP_3:8-21 ======================================================================== APPENDIX 4: Php 3:8-21 NOTE CHAPTER 7 IF the commonly received exegesis of Php 3:8-14 be correct, we are faced by the astounding fact that the author of the Epistle to the Romans and of the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians — the Apostle who was in a peculiar sense entrusted with the supreme revelation of grace — announced when nearing the close of his ministry that the resurrection was not, as he had been used to teach, a blessing which Divine grace assured to all believers in Christ, but a prize to be won by the sustained efforts of a life of wholly exceptional saintship. Nor is this all. In the same Epistle he has already said, "To me to live is Christ, and to have died is gain "; whereas, ex hypothesi, it now appears that his chief aim in life was to earn a right to the resurrection; and that death, instead of bringing gain, would have cut him off before he had reached the standard of saintship needed to secure that prize! For his words are explicit, "not as though I had already attained." Here was one who was "not a whit behind the chiefest Apostles"; who excelled them all in labours and sufferings for his Lord, and in the "visions and revelations" accorded to him; whose prolonged ministry, moreover, was accredited by "mighty signs and wonders by the power of the Spirit of God." And yet, "being now such an one as Paul the aged," he was in doubt whether he should have part in that resurrection which he had taught all his pagan Corinthian converts to hope for: for to them it was he wrote the words, "we shall all be changed." Such is the exposition of the Apostle’s teaching in many a standard commentary. And yet the passage which is thus perverted reaches its climax in the words, "Our citizenship is in heaven, from whence we are looking for the 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." "Our citizenship is in heaven” here is the clue to the teaching of the whole passage. The truth to which his words refer is more clearly stated in Ephesians 2:6 - God has "quickened us together with Christ, and raised us up with Him, and made us sit with Him in the heavenly places in Christ." More clearly still is it given in Colossians 3:1-3 : "If then ye were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is seated on the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things that are above, not on the things that are on earth. For ye died, and your life is hid with Christ in God." Ephesians and Colossians, be it remembered, were written at the same period of his ministry as Philippians; and in the light of these Scriptures we can read this chapter aright. To "win Christ" (ver. 8), or to apprehend, or lay hold of, that for which he had been laid hold of, or apprehended (ver. 12); or in other words, to realize practically in his life on earth what was true of him doctrinally as to his standing before God in heaven — this is what he was reaching toward, and what, he says, he had not "already attained." The "high calling" of ver. 14 is interpreted by some to mean Christ’s calling up His own to meet Him in the air (a blessing assured to all "who are alive and remain unto the Coming of the Lord"); but this is not in keeping with the plain words — God’s high calling in Christ Jesus, i.e. what God has called us (made us) to be in Christ. If this passage refers to the literal resurrection, then the words "not as though I had already attained must mean that, while here on earth, and before the Lord’s Coming, the Apostle hoped either to undergo the change of ver. 21, or else to win some sort of saintship diploma, or certificate, to ensure his being raised at the Coming. These alternatives are inexorable; and they only need to be stated to ensure their rejection. One word more. If the Apostle Paul, after such a life of saintship and service, was in doubt as to his part in the resurrection, no one of us, unless he be the proudest of Pharisees or the blindest of fools, will dream of attaining it. In fact we shall dismiss the subject from our minds. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 80: 1.06.18. APPENDIX 5: EXCLUSION FROM MILLENNIAL KINGDOM ======================================================================== APPENDIX 5: EXCLUSION FROM MILLENNIAL KINGDOM NOTE CHAPTER 12 EXCLUSION from the millennial kingdom, we are told by some, will be the penalty imposed on Christians who lapse into immoral practices. And in proof of this we are referred to such passages as 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 5:5; etc. This assumes, however, that "the Kingdom of God" is merely a synonym for the millennial kingdom, an error which is exposed by the very first passage in which the phrase occurs in the Epistles. In Romans 14:17 we read, "The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." This reminds us of the Lord’s words to Nicodemus. The world and its religion is the natural sphere, but the Kingdom of God is spiritual; and none can enter it, none can see it, without a new birth by the Spirit. This is a truth of present and universal application. 1 Corinthians 15:50, which refers to the future, is a still more decisive refutation of the error. There we read that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God"; that is, can have no place or part in it. But, as we all know, "flesh and blood" — men in their natural bodies — will be in the millennial kingdom. Then again we recall the exhortation of 1 Thessalonians 2:12, "that ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto His kingdom and glory." This is explained by Thessalonians 1:5, "that ye may be counted worthy of the Kingdom of God" — a reference not to the future state, but to the place and calling of the Christian here and now. It is akin to the exhortations of Ephesians 4:1 (R.V.), "I beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called." For it is a present truth, and a fact of practical import, that the Christian has been "translated into the kingdom of the Son of His love" (Colossians 1:13). As a matter of fact, it is extremely doubtful whether the millennial kingdom is ever referred to in these Epistles of the Apostle Paul. This scheme of exegesis, moreover, would teach us to acknowledge an "evil liver" as a Christian. But as 2 Timothy 2:19 tells us, the Divine seal has two faces: "The Lord knoweth them that are His" is the Godward side of it; the other, which is to govern our action, is "Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." But, we are told, the "incestuous person" in Corinth was a Christian. The inspired Apostle so decided; but to us it is not given to read the Godward face of the Divine seal, and we are bound to judge others by their profession and conduct. To acknowledge as a Christian anyone who is living in open sin is to be false to the Lord. Our responsibility is to act on 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and similar Scriptures. But if every penitent has a claim upon Christian sympathy, surely one whom we have regarded as a fellow believer ought to be treated with unbounded patience and pity and Christian love. And let us not forget that there are sins more heinous than immoral acts. Some of the "unfortunates" of the streets may be nearer the kingdom than are men of high repute in the Professing Church, who are patterns of all virtue, but who deny the Deity and atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 21:31). The doom of Sodom will be more tolerable than that of devout Capernaum (Matthew 11:23-24). What do the writers I am criticizing mean by "reigning with Christ"? Are all the many millions of the elect to sit on separate thrones? The Lord’s words in Matthew 19:28 are clear. And some commentators refer to those words as explaining the first clause of Revelation 20:4. But is it not equally clear that in the latter clause, as in Romans 5:17 and 2 Timothy 2:12, the word is used in the secondary sense of "living royally" with Christ, or (as Grimm gives it) "to denote the supreme dignity, liberty, blessedness, which will be enjoyed by the redeemed "? And thus the word will be fulfilled for all; unless indeed we are to jettison the truth of grace, and make our heavenly calling and its blessings depend on merit. Certain it is that some will have special honors and rewards; but this truth does not conflict with the other. In this closing section of the Apocalypse there is no element of historic fulfillment. The scheme I am criticizing assumes that "the first resurrection" is that of the "Coming" of Paul’s Epistles: to me it seems certain that it is called "the first," with reference to the general resurrection of the 5th verse. And the language of verse 4 clearly indicates that it is the victims of the Tribulation who will have part in the first resurrection; for the redeemed of the present dispensation will have already passed to heaven in fulfillment of 1 Corinthians 15:51-52. And it is not a matter of opinion, but of faith based on the Divinely-given words, that at that Coming of Christ none of His people will be left behind — "we shall not all sleep, but we shall ALL be changed." Instead of accepting any of these theories, albeit they are suggested by a true spiritual instinct, let us seek to realize the responsibilities of our life on earth in view of the supreme solemnities of the judgment-seat of Christ. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 81: 1.07.00. HUMAN DESTINY AFTER DEATH WHAT? ======================================================================== PART 7: HUMAN DESTINY AFTER DEATH WHAT? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 82: 1.07.01. PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION. ======================================================================== PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION. APPEALS have been received from many quarters for an edition of Human Destiny at a price to bring it within reach of a wider circle of readers. And it has been urged by some that in re-issuing it account should be taken of what has been published on the subject during the seven-and-twenty years since the book was written. But later writers have added nothing to the standard works dealt with in these pages, namely: Dean Farrar’s Eternal Hope, Five Sermons preached in Westminster Abbey, November and December 1877. Salvator Mundi; or, Is Christ the Saviour of all Men? by Dr. Samuel Cox. The Second Death, and the Restitution of All Things, by Mr. Andrew Jukes. Mr. Edward White’s Life in Christ. The first of these books is throughout a passionate appeal to prejudice. Salvator Mundi, though written in a different strain, is in some respects quite as unsatisfactory. The author of the third was a man of another type, but, as his very title indicates, his exegesis is utterly unreliable; for the Apostle’s words in Acts 3:19-24 relate expressly to Israel’s promises of blessing for earth, and have no reference whatever to the eternal state. Life in Christ is the ablest work this controversy has produced. But the criticisms it evoked rendered the author’s main position untenable, save at the cost of denying the resurrection of Christ as man; and in his "Third Edition" he frankly jettisoned that essential truth of Christianity. Of more recent books there is one that, perhaps, may seem entitled to notice because of its phenomenal popularity, a popularity which is due, no doubt, to its being an exceptionally pleasing and plausible presentation of that most ancient of all evangels by which the Old Serpent of Eden deceived the Mother of our race-" Ye shall not surely die." I refer to Our Life after Death, by the Rev. Arthur Chambers... The burden of the book is an "intermediate life," in which people who die "in a state of salvation "(whatever that means) will, in common with less favored mortals, be "perfected" to fit them for heaven.” The popular idea," the writer tells us, "is that when a good person dies, he goes direct to heaven" (p. 31). And he adds, "You may search the Bible from end to end without finding a passage which will justify such a statement." Most true it is that the popular belief that "good people go to heaven when they die" is shattered by an elementary knowledge of Scripture. But the denial of the truth that sinners saved by Divine grace pass at death to heaven, to be "at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:9, R.V.), displays strange ignorance of Christian doctrine. Scripture teaches, moreover, that at the Coming of the Lord "the dead in Christ" shall be raised, and "we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them to meet the Lord," and to be with Him forever (1 Thessalonians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 4:11). But as all this conflicts with the writer’s theory, it is ignored and implicitly denied - a further proof that these eschatological heresies involve our jettisoning the distinctive truths of the Christian revelation. The writer’s tone and argument respecting this “intermediate-life” theory may be gathered from his stating that "the Bible proclaims it, Jesus confirms it, and our reason approves it" (p. 33). The Christian does not distinguish in this manner between the authority of the written Word and of the Living Word, nor does he acknowledge human reason as a Court of Appeal from either; but the "Jesus" of this writer is cited to confirm the teaching of Holy Scripture, provided always that "our reason approves it." The figment that good men are fitted for heaven in an “intermediate-life" rests upon an erroneous reading of Hebrews 12:23, which he always quotes as spirits made perfect "-a blunder from which a glance at the Greek Testament might have saved him. The passage speaks of “the spirits of righteous men who have been perfected"; and from chapter 10: 14, we learn that we are "perfected," not by purgatorial discipline but by the "one offering” of Christ. Our thoughts are thus turned to "the Father, Who hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light” (Colossians 1:12). In common with other writers of the same school, Mr. Chambers seeks to excite prejudice against the doctrine he rejects by citing deplorable language used by some of its exponents. This is untruth of a kind which, though common in political controversy, is unworthy both of the author and of his theme. For the relevance of his quotations depends on the innuendo (which he must know to be false) that they express beliefs to which we are committed if we reject his heresies. Nothing can justify the language of these quotations. So awful is the teaching of the Lord Jesus respecting the doom of the impenitent that every statement upon the subject ought to adhere strictly to the very words of Scripture. And it is not on this point only that "the orthodox" supply a leverage by which divine truth is undermined. "The larger hope" theory is not more un-warranted by Scripture than is the "orthodox" dogma that it is death which determines the destiny of men. In the case of all to whom the gospel comes, the consequences of accepting or rejecting Christ are immediate and eternal. This is declared by the Lord Himself in words so simple that not even a child can miss their meaning, and so explicit that not even a casuist can evade it (John 3:16-18). But it will be asked, What of those upon whom the light of the gospel has never shone, and of others who have seen but glimpses of it, dimmed or distorted by Christendom religion? "I do not know," is the only answer we ought to give to questions such as these. The Bible is not designed to solve problems of the kind, but to be our guide in respect of all that concerns us. And what concerns us is to receive the gospel of the grace of God ourselves, and to make it known to others. Not content, however, with this, our most blessed lot as fellow-workers with God, too many there are who impiously claim to anticipate the judgments of "the Great Assize" respecting the ignorant masses around us and the unnumbered millions of the heathen world. (See Chap. XII, post.) From follies and excesses of this kind the following pages are wholly free. They make no claim to deal ex cathedra with mysteries which have perplexed the thoughtful in every age. They record the struggles of one who has sought to reach the truth by calm and patient study and earnest thought; and their method has been to bring to the test of Holy Scripture what others of different schools have written. And whatever the faults and failings of the book, the author is happy in the conviction that it can never serve as a "wrecker’s fire "to lure men to their eternal doom by persuading them that they may neglect the "great salvation" in this life with the certain hope of finding an escape in the life to come. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 83: 1.07.02. CHAPTER 1: THE QUESTION STATED. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 1: THE QUESTION STATED. ACCORDING to the most careful estimate, the population of the world exceeds one thousand four hundred millions. Not one third of these are Christian even in name; and of this small minority how few there are whose lives give proof that they are travelling heavenward! And what is the destiny of all the rest? Any estimate of their number must be inaccurate and fanciful; and accuracy, if attainable, would be practically useless. As a matter of arithmetic, it is as easy to deal with millions as with tens; but when we come to realize that every unit is a human being, with a little world of joys and sorrows all his own, and an unbounded capacity for happiness or misery, the mind is utterly paralyzed by the effort to realize the problem. And these fourteen hundred millions are but a single wave of the great tide of human life that breaks, generation after generation, upon the shore of the unknown world. What future then awaits these untold myriads of millions of mankind? Most of us have been trained in the belief that their portion is an existence of endless, hopeless torment. But few there are, surely, who have carried this belief to middle age unchallenged. Sometimes it is the vastness of the numbers whose fate is involved that startles us into skepticism. Sometimes it is the memory of friends now gone, who lived and died impenitent. As we think of an eternity in which they "shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever," the mind grows weary and the heart grows sick, and we turn to ask ourselves, Is not God infinite in love? Is not the great Atonement infinite in value? Is it credible then that such a future is to be the sequel to a brief and sorely-tempted life of sin? Is it credible that for all eternity - that eternity in which the triumph of the Cross shall be complete, and God shall be all in all - there shall still remain an under-world of seething sin and misery and horror? We can have no companionship with those who refuse to bring these questions to the test of Scripture. If such a hell be there revealed, faith must assert its supremacy, and all our difficulties, whether intellectual or moral, must be put aside unsolved. But what is, in fact, the voice of Scripture on the subject? The voice of the Church, it is true, has been heard in every age in support of the doctrine of an endless hell; and in some sense the testimony gains in weight from the fact that a minority never has been wanting to protest against the dogma, thus keeping it unceasingly upon the open field of free discussion. This affords sufficient proof, no doubt, that Scripture seems to teach the doctrine here in question. But more than this must by no means be conceded. On such a subject no appeal to authority will avail to silence doubt. The minority may, after all, be right. What men call heresy proves sometimes to be the truth of God. But how is such an inquiry to be entered on? It needs some scholarship and not a little patient study, and yet it is of interest to thousands who have neither learning nor leisure. Common folk whose opportunities and talents are but few must take advantage of the labors of others more favored than themselves. And we turn to their writings with the honest wish to find there an escape from the teaching of our childhood. Some, indeed, have used language which betokens pleasure at the thought of endless torment; but apart from the enthusiasm or the bitterness of controversy this would be impossible. Surely there is no one unwilling to be convinced that hell itself shall share at last in the reconciliation God has wrought; or, if the lost of earth are lost forever, that in the infinite mercy of God their misery shall end with a last great death that shall put a term to their existence. But here are two alternatives which are wholly inconsistent, two paths which diverge at the very threshold of the inquiry. Of which shall we make choice? If our instincts and prejudices are in the least to guide us, none will hesitate. We refuse to contemplate the annihilation of the lost save as an escape from something still more grievous. But what if Scripture warrants the belief that all the lost shall yet be saved, the banished ones brought home, and God’s great prison closed for ever as the crowning triumph of redemption? This is indeed a hope that with eagerness we would struggle to accept. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 84: 1.07.03. CHAPTER 2: "ETERNAL HOPE." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 2: "ETERNAL HOPE." THERE is one volume which cannot be ignored in any inquiry as to the future of the lost. It has made more stir in this controversy than any other publication in recent years, both here and in America; and according to a high authority, it "may fairly be looked on as an epoch-making book, both in the wide circulation it has attained, and the discussion of which it has been the starting-point. Its title, and a glance at its contents, will lead the inquirer to expect from its pages the light he is in search of. No sooner does he enter on the study of it than he finds himself carried away by a rushing, bubbling torrent of impassioned rhetoric, which leaves him at the last with a bewildered, vague impression that heaven is the final goal of all the human race, and that the conception of an endless hell is but a hateful dream. But though this is undoubtedly the lesson which superficial readers have generally extracted from the book, it is by no means the writer’s own conclusion. The following is his scheme: - "There are, in the main" (he tells us), "three classes of men: there are the saints; there are the reprobates; and there is that vast intermediate class lying between yet shading off by infinite gradations from these two extremes." Of the saints he declines to speak. They are "few," he declares, "and mostly poor." He does not suggest the possibility that he himself or those whom he addresses could be of the number, and his description of them would preclude their venturing to claim so high a place. "But" (he proceeds), "if they be unassailably secure, eternally happy, what of the other extreme? What of the reprobates?" He indicates the slaves of brutal vice, the most depraved of our criminals, as falling within the category, and then proceeds: "If you ask me whether I must not believe in endless torments for these reprobates of earth, my answer is, Ay, for these, and for thee, and for me, too, unless we learn with all our hearts to love good, and not evil; but whether God for Christ’s sake may not enable us to do this even beyond the grave, if we have failed to do so in this life, I cannot say." Other statements scattered through the volume throw further light on this. "I cannot preach the certainty of universalism," he declares. "God has given us no clear and decisive revelation on the final condition of those who have died in sin." "My hope is that the vast majority, at any rate, of the lost, may at length be found." It thus appears that this apostle of "the wider hope," who seemed to us to exhaust the thunders of his rhetoric in denouncing all who believe in an endless hell, himself believes in an endless hell. He thus admits that the conception of "endless torments" is warranted by Scripture, and therefore compatible with infinite love. In a word, the chief difference in this respect between his own position and that of the so-called orthodox is a mere question either of statistics or of words. Both he and they agree to believe in hell. Both he and they would admit that it is reserved for reprobates. But while they would give the term a wider scope, he would limit it to "a small but desperate minority." Might they not retort upon him that a fuller and truer apprehension of the Gospel would teach him that, if indeed there be hope beyond the grave, Divine love will most surely reach forth to the very class which he has singled out as possible victims of the most hopeless doom. The wretched offspring of depraved and vicious parents, this world has been no better than a hell to them from cradled infancy. If there be after-mercy for the pampered sinners of the synagogue, shall it be denied to these poor outcasts of humanity? But "the saints" are "few, and mostly poor," and "the reprobates" are "a small and desperate minority." The "vast intermediate class" remains; the class, in fact, to which we all belong. What shall be said of these? There are thousands among us who, we know, cannot be "saints "- for, as the writer tells us, there "is an Adam in them, and there is a Christ "- but whose lives, though marred by blemishes and sins, are still set heavenward. Though deeply conscious that they deserve only judgment, they have learned to believe that Christ died for their sins, and that trusting in Him, their portion shall be life, and not judgment. They believe that God justifies "freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," and that being thus "justified by His blood," they "shall be saved from wrath through Him." They regard these great doctrines of the Reformation as Divine truths; and, living in the faith of Christ, they hope at death to pass into His presence in blessedness and joy. If our author shares in this belief he carefully conceals it. He admits, no doubt, that earth’s sinners can have no way to God’s heaven, save through Christ’s redemption. But, according to his teaching, personal fitness for the scene does not depend on Christ at all, but must be won either by a life of saintship, or, for the vast majority who never could attain to saintship as here defined, and are "incapable of any other redemption," by being purified in "that Gehenna of aeonian fire" beyond the grave. And if we ask whether these are "endless torments," we are answered YES, "unless we learn with all our hearts to love good and not evil." This is our constant prayer and effort, but we know how utterly we fail of it; and in terror we inquire "whether God for Christ’s sake may not enable us to do this even beyond the grave, if we have failed to do so in this life." The author’s answer is "I cannot say." "I CANNOT SAY!" We are to bury our dead in the sure and certain expectation of "aeonian fire," but with a dim and distant hope that in the "uncovenanted mercy" of God they shall reach heaven at last! The writer’s argument is wrapped in clouds of words, and his statements sometimes seem contradictory, but on close analysis his scheme stands out consistent and clear. The future happiness of the "saints" is assured. They, however, are a minority so insignificant that for our present purpose we may ignore them. The rest of the departed (believers and unbelievers, regenerate and unregenerate alike, for these are distinctions of which the writer takes no account) are cast into Gehenna; but the torments of Gehenna are purgatorial, and sooner or later "the vast majority" will pass to heaven purified in "aeonian fire." And mark, the awful discipline is draconian. Its duration will be measured, not as with us, by days or years, but by ages; and in the case of "a desperate minority," "eternal hope" means a hope that will last eternally, only because it will be eternally unsatisfied. * This is not the only feature of the writer’s scheme which savours of Rome. He implicitly bases his statement on 2 Corinthians 3:6; but surely no one who is not too absorbed by the study of "the broad unifying principles of Scripture" to give his attention to a particular passage, can fail to see that the Apostle is there contrasting, not the letter of Scripture with the spirit of it, but the old covenant with the new, law with grace. The texts to which the writer refers in support of his position shall be considered in the sequel. It is enough to say here that most of them have no special bearing on the question in dispute (see p.169, and App. I.), and the rest are of no account for the author’s purpose, unless they be construed to teach the universalism which he himself repudiates. As for his remarks on the word (Greek), nothing further need be said than he himself has elsewhere said in answer to his critics: "Some of the greatest masters of Greek, both in classical times and among the fathers, saw quite clearly that though the word might connote endlessness, by being attributively added to endless things, it had in itself no such meaning." And if anyone object that any part of this scheme is opposed to Scripture, he will be told it is in accordance with "the broad unifying principles of Scripture," and that the letter of the Scripture kills. That is to say, the effect of Holy Writ upon the minds of common men, who accept its statements in their plain and simple meaning, is absolutely mischievous and destructive. Surely we may well exclaim, Is this what English theology is coming to? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 85: 1.07.04. CHAPTER 3: "SALVATOR MUNDI" ======================================================================== CHAPTER 3: "SALVATOR MUNDI" THE author referred to in the preceding chapter (Farrar) has publicly acknowledged that while preparing the sermons which form the basis of his book, he was "largely indebted" to an earlier work on this same subject. The volume alluded to is from the pen of a noted expositor of Scripture, and it has obtained such a wide circulation, and is held in such high authority in the controversy, that it is impossible to pass it by unnoticed. "The Question Raised" is the title of the opening chapter. If, the writer asks, Tyre and Sidon and the cities of the plain would have repented had they seen the mighty works of Christ, are they never to see Him? Are they to be damned for not having seen Him? Must there not be a "place of repentance" for such in the under-world? Suffice it here to say that this question is altogether wide of the real issue in this controversy, which is not whether the destiny of all mankind is fixed at death, but whether all mankind shall yet be saved, including those who have rejected the full revelation of the Gospel. The author then proceeds to fix the "limits of the argument." The appeal is to the Bible; but before he will open the Bible he must insist that reason and conscience are also to have a voice. That is to say, the question is what the lawgiver has decreed against the criminal, and the criminal himself is practically to formulate the answer. The next point is that the Old Testament, the Book of Revelation, and the parables of our Lord, are all to be eliminated from the inquiry. No one has a right to insist on such conditions, but yet they might be accepted without endangering the issue, provided always, first, that it is only the symbolic visions of the Apocalypse which are to be excluded and, secondly, that the Scriptures themselves, and not the critic, shall decide what is "parable" and what is not. Next comes the inevitable protest against the use of the words damnation," ’ hell,’ and ’ everlasting.’ Much of what is said about the first of these words is true, and would be helpful if written in any other connection. As for the second, he argues that whereas Hades and Gehenna both refer to the intermediate state, "our word ’hell’ denotes the final and everlasting torment of the wicked," and therefore it should be banished from our language altogether. The fact is, that so far from this being the only meaning of "hell," it is a meaning which the word scarcely possesses at all in classical English. It is only they who believe that Gehenna indicates the final state who have any right to object that "hell" is a mistranslation. A word about this Gehenna. The writer tells us how the beautiful valley of Hinnom, under the south- western wall of Jerusalem, in time "became the common cesspool of the city, into which offal was cast, and the carcasses of animals, and even the bodies of great criminals who had lived a life so vile as to be judged unworthy of decent burial. Worms preyed on their corrupting flesh, and fires were kept burning lest the pestilential infection should rise from the valley and float through the streets of Jerusalem." Such is the author’s own description. And what is the moral he would draw from it? That the offal and the carcasses were thrown there to purify and fit them for some high and noble use! It is amazing how anyone can be so blind as not to see in this a figure the most graphic and terrible of utter and hopeless destruction. Two more chapters being thus accounted for, in the fifth and sixth the author takes up the words which are variously rendered in our English Bible to express infinite duration. "If (he pleads) these words really carried in themselves the sense of eternity or everlastingness, they could not possibly have been applied," as, in fact, they were applied, to what was material or transitory. Will the author specify any words which carry in themselves this meaning, or indeed any meaning whatsoever? What is true of most words is true in a special degree of these; chameleon-like, they take a color from what they touch, and their significance must in every case be settled by the subject-matter and the context. "Words are the counters of wise men, the money of fools:" these teachers one and all seem to take them for more than counters. Every tyro in philology is aware that it is the use of a word which decides its meaning; and to be guided only by its derivation is as unwise as it would be to accept a man of sixty on a character given to him when a schoolboy. But yes, the author tells us there is a word "which unquestionably means ’forever.’" This word, however, occurs only twice in the New Testament, and in one of these two passages, as he himself notices, it unquestionably does not mean "forever." * But the author’s disquisition upon the "Greek word aiön and its derivative, must by no means be dismissed thus lightly. With other writers such a discussion is mere skirmishing; here it is vital to his scheme. These words, he declares, "so far from denoting either that which is above time, or that which will outlast time, are saturated through and through with the thought and element of time." This needs looking into. The heathen philosophers and poets had probably no thought of "Eternity" as distinguished from time. Their conception was limited to the aeon which includes all time, but that these words were used to express that conception is admitted. It is further admitted that the New Testament unfolds an "economy of times and seasons," many "ages" heading up in one great "age" within which all the manifold purposes of God in relation to earth shall be fulfilled. Here again these same words are applicable and are used. But revelation has taught men a higher conception of eternity than the heathen ever grasped. How then could such a conception be expressed in the language of ancient Greece, a language formed upon and molded by the thoughts of a heathen nation? To invent a word is impossible, and yet words are but counters. Therefore when translating the sacred Hebrew into Greek the Rabbis could only take up some of the counters ready to their hand, and, as it were, restamp them to mark a higher value than they had formerly possessed. Thus, when they came on statements such as that of the 90th Psalm, "From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God," they could but fall back on this very word aeon.* Now the New Testament is written in the language of the Septuagint version of the Old; not in the language of heathen Greece, but in that language as molded and elevated by contact with the God- breathed Scriptures. Many a word had thus gained a fuller or a higher meaning than ordinarily pertained to it. The question here, therefore, is not what is the meaning of aeon and aiönios in the classics, but what was the thought of the inspired writers in such passages as that above quoted. The "aeonian" scholarship of Christendom has recognized that they are used to express eternity in the fullest sense, and this conclusion is wholly unaffected by our author’s bold denial of it. But let us for the moment accept the author’s theory, and see what it will lead to. Brushing aside all other considerations, let us come at once to the foundations of our faith, and see how they will bear this new "doctrine of the aeons." If it be true, the sacrifice of Calvary is no longer what we dreamed it was, the climax of a Divine purpose formed in a bygone eternity when the Word was alone with God, and the supreme and final display for all eternity to come of God’s great love to man. The author will tell us that "the historical cross of Christ was but a manifestation within the bounds of time and space of the eternal passion of the Father"-a passion which "must continue to manifest itself in appropriate forms through all the ages and changes of time." And lest charity should put an innocent interpretation on this language, and thus destroy his argument, he repeats his thought in still plainer words: "If God has once shown that He will make any sacrifice for the salvation of the guilty, must not that be always true of Him? Must He not continue to manifest His blended severity and mercy in the ages to come?" As we hear the Cross of Christ thus lowered and degraded, we cannot but demand, What part then can it have in man’s redemption? and as far as the author can enlighten us the answer must be, practically none. He shall speak for himself. Here is his new Gospel of "the larger hope." "The Scriptures, then, have much to teach us of the future, though not much of the final, estate of men. And what they teach, in so far at least as we have been able to gather it up, comes to this. No man is wholly good, no man wholly bad. Still some men may fairly be called good on the whole, although much sin and imperfection still cleaves to them and others may fairly be called bad on the whole, although there is still much in them that is good, and still more which is capable of becoming good. When we die, we shall all receive the due recompense of our deeds, of all our deeds, whether they have been good or whether they have been bad. If by the grace of God we have been good on the whole, we may hope to rise into a large and happy spiritual kingdom, in which all that is pure and noble and kind in us will develop into new vigor and clothe itself with new beauty; in which also we shall find the very discipline we need in order that we may be wholly purged from sin and imperfection; in which we may undo much that we have done wrongly, do again and with perfect grace that which we have done imperfectly, become what we have wished and aimed to be, achieve what we have longed to achieve, attain the wisdom, the gifts and powers and graces to which we have aspired; in which, above all, we may be engaged in errands of usefulness and compassion, by which the purpose of the Divine love and grace will be fully accomplished. If we have been bad on the whole we may hope - and we ought to hope for it - to pass into a painful discipline so keen and searching that we shall become conscious of our sins and feel that we are only receiving the due reward of them; but since there has been some good in us, and this good is capable of being drawn out and disentangled from the evil which clouded and marred it, we may also hope, by the very discipline and torment of our spirits, to be led to repentance, and, through repentance, unto life; we may hope that the disclosures of the spiritual world will take a spiritual effect upon us, gradually raising and renewing us till we too are prepared to enter the Paradise of God and behold the presence of the Lord and the glory of His power: we may hope that our friends who have already been redeemed will pity us and minister to us, bringing us not simply a cup of cold water to cool our tongue, but words of instruction and life. And as for the great mass of our fellow-men, we may hope and believe that those who have had no chance of salvation here will have one there; that those who have had a poor chance will get a better one; that those who have had a good chance and lost it will get a new but a severer chance, and even as they suffer the inevitable results of their folly and sin will feel ’the hands that reach through darkness, molding men.’ "This, on the whole, I take to be the teaching of Scripture concerning the lot of men in the age to come,-a teaching which enables us to see ’beneath the abyss of hell a bottomless abyss of love.’ And if it clash with some dogmas that we have held and some interpretations which are familiar to us, it nevertheless accords, not with ’the mind of Christ’ only, but also with the dictates of Reason and Conscience, the voices of God within the soul. It presents no such sudden break in our life as, in the teeth of all probability, we have been wont to conceive; no heaven for which we feel that even the best of us must be unfit, no hell which is a monstrous offence to our sense of justice. It promises to every man the mercy of justice, of a due reward for all he has been and done; and, while it impresses on us the utter hatefulness and misery of sin, it holds out to every one of us the prospect of being redeemed from all sin and uncleanness by that just God Who is also a Saviour. Nor does it less accord with the demands of Science than with the dictates of Reason and the Moral Sense; for it carries on the evolution of the human race through all the ages to come. And, therefore, let others think as they will, and cherish what trust they will: but as for us, with the Apostle of the Gentiles, our own Apostle, ’we trust in the living God Who is the Saviour of all men.’" * Throughout the quotation the italics are my own. I have reluctantly quoted at such length that the reader may be enabled to judge what this doctrine implies. To refute the errors, expressed and implied, of this book, would involve a treatise upon each one of the fundamental truths of Christianity. If any can read the above extract unshocked by the heathen darkness and contemptuous unbelief which characterize it, it is idle to discuss the matter with them within the limits of the present volume. If anyone thinks this language too strong, let him turn back upon the quotation and seek to find where there is room for redemption in the writer’s scheme. It is a deliberate and systematic denial of Christianity. This is not an isolated paragraph snatched from its context; it is the author’s recapitulation, the closing passage of his book. We read it again and again, and study it with bewildered wonder. The question here is no longer of the doom of the lost, but of the truth of Christianity. Of the vital and characteristic truths of our religion there is not so much as one which it does not ignore or deny. The righteousness of God, the grace of God, man’s ruin, redemption through the blood of Christ, the forgiveness of sins, the justification of the believer by grace through redemption, eternal life as the free gift of God, the resurrection of the just in the image of the heavenly, and of the unjust to appear at the last great judgment - not a trace of one of these foundation doctrines of our faith remains. And what is offered us instead? The weakness of an easy-going deity who will strike an average between good and evil, sending those who are "good on the whole" to a purgatorial paradise, and those who are "bad on the whole" to a purgatorial hell. A redemption "to be achieved in due time" for men with the aid of "the aeonial fire, which alone could burn out their sins," and "the aeonial Spirit," who "will still be at work for the regeneration of the race." Instead of eternal life, we have "the spiritual life distinctive of the Christian aeons"; and eternal punishment is but "the punishment which those inflict on themselves who adjudge themselves unworthy of that life." "This, on the whole," he takes to be "the teaching of Scripture concerning the lot of men in the age to come." "The teaching of Scripture!" It was not thus the Church’s million martyrs read the mingled warnings and promises of God. Such views are utterly opposed to the great creeds of the Reformation and the older creeds of Christendom. The author’s scheme renders due homage doubtless to that miserable bantling of modern science, evolution; but whether it accords with "the dictates of reason" we are not concerned to discuss. It is enough to be assured that it is not Christianity - it is not even a bastard Judaism; it is the most utter heathenism, concealed by the thinnest possible veneer of Christian phraseology. * Finding, perhaps, that even in this infidel age the unchristianity of his book was too pronounced, the author has published "a sequel," in which he attempts to restate the question "as a part of the Christian doctrine of atonement." But the "sequel" restates with increased definiteness his dogma of retribution, which denies "the Christian doctrine of atonement" altogether. It then offers as "a new argument" for his views, the theory that there is a "surface current" and a "deeper current" in Scripture, the former of which is false, as Israel’s hope of the promised messianic kingdom! Next comes a disquisition on 1 Corinthians 5:5 (as proving that "destruction may be a condition of salvation "), and on demoniacal possession in connection therewith. As the result, the veneer is somewhat strengthened perhaps, but the heathenism remains. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 86: 1.07.05. CHAPTER 4: "THE RESTITUTION OF ALL THINGS." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 4: "THE RESTITUTION OF ALL THINGS." EVERY step in this inquiry is discouraging. But a good cause may suffer from injudicious advocacy, and it must not he assumed that the "wider hope" is false, because its latest champions have thus discredited it. With a sense of relief we turn to another book, which both these writers have singled out for special commendation. Here at last we find ourselves in the calm atmosphere of reverent and patient study of the Scriptures, to the sacredness and authority of which the author gives a noble testimony. The volume might with fairness be adopted as a handbook in the controversy; but it may be better, while giving it the attention it so well deserves, to pass on to a discussion of the subject on a wider basis. The writer has the courage of his convictions. Taking his stand upon the great sacrifice of Calvary, he proclaims the gospel of universal restoration. Not only fallen men, but fallen angels, shall share in it. Not even Satan shall be excluded. This is truly a glorious anticipation: this is indeed to "think noble things of God." Who is there who would not crave to find a warrant for accepting it as true? Certain points in the writer’s argument are peculiar, and claim special notice. "The letter of Scripture" (he declares) "is a veil quite as much as a revelation, hiding while it reveals, and yet revealing while it hides; presenting to the eye something very different from that which is within." This naturally prepares the reader to find meanings he never thought of assigned to various passages of Scripture. And as a signal instance of this, to which continued emphasis is given throughout the volume, the author points to the law of the firstborn and the law of the first fruits as affording "the key to one part of the apparent contradiction between mercy ’upon all’ and yet ’the election’ of a ’little flock.’" “The firstborn and the first fruits are the ’few ’ and ’little flock’; but these, though first delivered from the curse, have a relation to the whole creation, which shall be saved in the appointed times by the first-born seed, that is by Christ and His body, through those appointed baptisms, whether of fire or water, which are required to bring about ’the restitution of all things.’ “Passing by the extraordinary theory stated here and elsewhere in the book, that creation will be saved in part by the Church, this appeal to the types needs looking into It is admitted that the first fruits included the harvest of which it was a part, and the redemption of the firstborn secured that of the families to which they belonged. If then it can be proved from Scripture that the harvest of the saved shall include the whole Adamic race, and that "the elect" are "kinsmen" to them, this type will serve to illustrate the truth. But the first-fruits had no relation save to the harvest of the favored land, and the redemption of the firstborn was side by side with judgment on the Egyptians, the tribes of the wilderness and the nations of Canaan. Therefore while these types are a real difficulty in the way of those who would limit redemption to "the Church of the firstborn," they seem no less inconsistent with the author’s own position. If types can be thus used at all, they establish the views of those who hold a place between these two extremes. The sheaf of the first fruits, the wave-loaves of Pentecost, and the great festival of harvest will have their dispensational fulfillment in the ever-widening circle of blessing upon earth; but if the final harvest will include the lost of previous dispensations, this must be established from other scriptures, for there is nothing in the type to correspond with it. But further: our author here avers that the whole creation shall be saved through the appointed baptisms, whether of fire or water. So elsewhere he says the fearful and unbelieving must reach the new creation through the lake of fire. This is no flourish of rhetoric, but the sober statement of a doctrine repeated again and again throughout the book, and vital to the writer’s argument, that death is the only way to life, judgment the only means of deliverance, Not, be it observed, the death of the Sin-bearer, the judgment which He bore; but death and judgment absolutely. Death and judgment lead to life and deliverance, so that the sinner’s doom becomes a pledge and means of his ultimate salvation. And this he assumes as an axiom of theology! Let us notwithstanding, refusing to be prejudiced against a cause which seems to need such arguments, turn with open mind to pursue the inquiry. No candid person will dispute that the revelation of Divine love creates a presumption against the possibility of eternal punishment. On the other hand, it is still more dishonest to deny - and in fact it is admitted - that certain passages of Scripture support the doctrine. The fairest mode, therefore, in which this inquiry can possibly be entered on is to dismiss for the moment both the presumption against, and the texts in favor of, the "orthodox" belief, and to consider without any bias the passages which are used to prove universal reconciliation. If these should be found to teach that doctrine unequivocally, the question is at an end, for in a seeming conflict of texts the presumption against endless misery must turn the scale. But more than this: even should these Scriptures seem of doubtful meaning, we shall be prepared to lean towards the broader interpretation, provided only that such a rendering will neither disturb foundation truths, nor land us in difficulties akin to those we seek escape from. We may at once dismiss from notice three classes of texts which are much in vogue with writers on this question. The first consists of passages which testify to the boundlessness of Divine mercy and love. It is impossible to estimate too highly the love and grace of God; but it is the merest trifling to suppose that creatures like ourselves, with minds so limited in capacity, and moreover so warped by sin, can decide what measure of punishment is inconsistent with infinite love.* Then again, we must entirely ignore the numberless predictions of a reign of righteousness and peace on earth in days to come. These, though freely used in this controversy, have no bearing on it whatever, unless indeed it be to indicate that at the last great harvest-home, the proportion of the blessed to the lost of earth may prove, perchance, to be vastly greater than a narrow theology supposes. And this suggests the third class of texts above referred to - namely, those which speak in general terms of the triumphs of redemption. A noted example will be found in the great Eden promise that the Seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head. Does the truth of this rest on the statistics of the Judgment Day? In Christ’s triumph over Satan does victory depend, as in some of the games of our childhood, upon which side has the larger following? The suspicion is irresistible that they who argue thus have but a poor appreciation of the moral glories of redemption. It will be found, however, that the special texts which are the very foundation of universalism really come within neither of these categories. But, it will be asked, does not Scripture speak of the restitution of all? The answer is emphatically No. The passage which is thus perverted speaks of "the times of the restitution of all things," of which every prophet testified, from Moses to Malachi. Was the burden of their prophecies the final state? The answer shall be given by one of the authors already quoted: "It is as certainly true as any such wide proposition can be, that the psalmists and prophets of old time never got more than momentary and partial glimpses of the life to come." Therefore, he argues, the Old Testament "will be of no avail to us" in considering this question; and yet he cites and relies upon a quotation from the New Testament which is expressly declared to refer to the very prophecies that foretell a reign of righteousness and peace on earth. But does not St. Paul speak of the reconciliation of all things? Assuredly he does: not, however, as a hope to be realized in eternity to come, but as a present truth -a fact accomplished in the death of Christ.* In keeping with this, and as a part of it, God has revealed Himself as the Saviour of all men; Christ has been manifested as "a ransom for all," the propitiation for the whole world." But will these teachers tell us how men can be reconciled who refuse the reconciliation; how sinners can be saved who reject the Saviour; how the lost can be restored who trample underfoot the propitiation? It is these very truths which make the sinner’s doom irreversible and hopeless. It would be unpardonable to attempt to write upon this question without having formed a deliberate judgment upon every text of Scripture relied on as teaching universal restoration; and the expression of such a judgment is offered in these pages. But here arises a formidable practical difficulty. If the progress of the argument is to depend on the reader’s accepting in every instance the proposed exposition, further advance must be impossible. To impose such a condition would be unreasonable and unjust. All that is essential here is to show that the passages in question bear an explanation wholly different from that which these writers put upon them; and this at least has been accomplished. Indeed, it is sufficiently established by the admitted fact that such an explanation has been given by the overwhelming majority of theologians in every age. The advocates of universalism have been content to plead that the surface teaching of these Scriptures is in favor of their views: they must go further, and oust the alternative meanings assigned to them by the scholarship of Christendom. But this they have never attempted to do. This position is not assumed to avoid the necessity of explaining the passages referred to. The reader will find in the Appendix a full exposition of every text on which the Universalist relies to prove his doctrine. This exegesis is offered in acknowledgment of the obligation to explain these Scriptures, but it is dismissed to the Appendix as a protest against the assumption that the acceptance of it is vital to the argument. It is not vital. On the contrary, having thus cleared the ground, we shall now suppose for the sake of argument,-and it is only on that ground the admission can be made,-that the meaning of these passages is doubtful, and proceed on this assumption to discuss the question in the light of great foundation truths. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 87: 1.07.06. CHAPTER 5: "THE WIDER HOPE." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 5: "THE WIDER HOPE." THE volumes noticed in preceding pages have not been selected at random. Their respective authors are representative men, the acknowledged champions of "the wider hope"; and their books, when read together, may be taken as a full and exhaustive statement of the doctrine. The omissions therefore common to them all are ominously significant. Where, for example, do they offer us any reasonable explanation of such passages as the following? "The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord." How can such language be reconciled with the dogma of universal restoration? Is it credible that any one holding that dogma could use such words? The author last referred to, with the candor which characterizes him, says, "I confess I cannot perfectly explain all these texts." But there are other omissions of a still more serious kind, and, for our present purpose, far more embarrassing. We may agree to exclude from view any number of "isolated texts," but how can common ground be reached save in the acknowledgment of truths such as the righteousness of God, the grace of God, the "resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust," and the great judgment which is to close the history of Adam’s race?* It is on this ground alone we can consent to discuss the question. * The respective schemes of the first two writers seem inconsistent with belief in the "resurrection of judgment." The third writer dismisses it thus "Of the details of this resurrection, of the nature and state of the bodies of the judged,-indeed bodies in which there is any image of a man, and therefore of God, then are given to them, - and of the scene of judgment, very little is said in Scripture." The meaning of this is clearly that the body given at the “resurrection of judgment" is merely a temporary clothing for the soul, and that the soul shall not be reunited to the heavenly and final body until after punishment shall have been endured. It will, therefore, be taken as admitted that the many die unsaved, and that these shall be raised from the dead, and shall stand before God in judgment, and be remitted to punishment for their sins. The question here is not of what may be called the providential consequences of sin, the results which in God’s moral government follow the violation of His laws. Neither is it a question of corrective discipline to purge and train the penitent. There is no need of a Day of Judgment to apportion punishment in either of these senses: the one follows the sin by unchanging law; the other belongs entirely to the Father’s house. The final punishment of the lost will be the consequence of a judicial sentence. Such punishment, therefore, must be the penalty due to their sins; else it were unrighteous to impose it. If, then, the lost are ultimately to be saved, it must be either because they shall have satisfied the penalty; or else through redemption - that is, because Christ has borne that penalty for them. But if sinners can be saved by satisfying Divine justice in enduring the penalty due to sin, Christ need not have died. If, on the other hand, the redeemed may yet be doomed, though ordained to eternal life in Christ, themselves to endure the penalty for sin, the foundations of our faith are destroyed. It is not, I repeat, the providential or disciplinary, but the penal consequences of sin, which follow the judgment. We can therefore understand how the sinner may escape his doom through his debt being paid vicariously, or we can (in theory, at all events) admit that he may be discharged on payment personally of "the uttermost farthing"; but that the sinner should be made to pay a portion of his debt, and then released because someone else had paid the whole before he was remitted to punishment at all, - this is absolutely inconsistent with both righteousness and grace. But as the advocates of the "larger hope" seem to ignore the penal element in punishment, they would probably urge that this is satisfied by redemption, and that the sufferings of the lost will be essentially of a disciplinary kind. All who know much of the darker side of human nature would probably agree that the poetry indulged in about sinners being purified in aeonian fire would not bear translation into simple prose. The idea of reformation by punishment has been generally abandoned by all who have had experience of criminals and crime. But passing that by, it may be answered, first, that such a view is incompatible with the language of Scripture. "Wrath," "vengeance," "destruction" are not words that express parental chastisement. But as these writers must be supposed to have some reasonable explanation of such Scriptures, it may be answered, secondly, that if their doctrines be sound, it is in the intermediate state that suffering would produce these results; and if a further non-penal "punishment" is to be inflicted after the resurrection and the judgment, this must be in order to coerce the sinner to submission. It might be asked, in passing, what value can possibly attach to a repentance wrung in this way from unwilling souls? and, moreover, if hell and the lake of fire shall produce results so blessed, how can it be evil to warn men of the coming horrors? If the reality shall be so beneficial, surely the fear of its terrors can work only good; and the more appalling the description, the greater will be the effect produced. Thirdly, the question arises whether regeneration, and the need of it, have any place in the theology of the advocates of these doctrines. Divine "chastening" may produce "the peaceable fruit of righteousness" in those who are already "sons"; but to hold that punishment is necessary either as a preparation for, or a completion of, "the new birth," is to deny the plainest teaching of Scripture. Again, it may be asked still more definitely, what room is there in this scheme for the Day of Judgment? The believer "cometh not into judgment,’ just because, for him, the penalty of sin has been borne, the judicial question settled, in the death of Christ; and if this be true for all, the judgment of "the great assize" becomes an anachronism and an impossibility.* * The language of John 5:24 is explicit. It is not that the believer "shall not come into condemnation" as the A. V. renders it, but that he "cometh into judgment”. This statement must not be made to clash with Romans 14:10, and 2 Corinthians 5:10, which relate to the judgment of the saved. At the resurrection the believer shall appear in "the image of the heavenly,"-" we shall be like Him." That is to say, his destiny is not only fixed but declared at the resurrection. For him, therefore, the judgment will be on that basis: it will be a matter of reward or loss, not of life or death. As Hebrews 9:27-28 teaches, the cross of Christ and His glorious advent are, for the believer, the correlatives of death and judgment. Matthew 25:31-46 describes a session of judgment for living nations on earth, and has no bearing on the special point here raised. This suggests another difficulty. The skeptic who demands, "How are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come?" is branded as a fool. But is it folly to inquire, How shall the lost be translated, and with what body shall they come? And let it be kept prominently in view that the resurrection precedes the judgment. They who have part in the "resurrection of life" shall bear "the image of the heavenly." "When He shall appear we shall be like Him," is the amazing statement of the Scripture. But in contrast with the "resurrection of life" there is also the "resurrection of judgment." Why then call up the evil body at all, unless it be the final condition of the lost? It is not the body that repents, or believes, or turns to God; and, as already urged, if torment could be remedial, it is in the intermediate state it would be efficacious. The conclusion is inevitable that the body is reunited to the soul in order that the sinner may in the body in which he sinned endure the punishment his sins deserve. And this is the plain teaching of Scripture. But when we are asked to believe that, after the ages of his torment shall have passed, the sinner will be translated in a new and heavenly body, to share the peace and blessedness of the redeemed, we part company with Scripture altogether. It is not a question here of "isolated texts," but of the great foundation truths of Christianity. If these torments be necessary, where are the triumphs of redemption through the Cross? If unnecessary, what becomes of the love of God? If sinners can reach heaven through the lake of fire, redemption is but "a short cut" to the same goal to which the broad way ultimately leads. Christ need not have died, or, at all events, far too much has been said about His death. Will they who thus reach heaven through "aeonian torments" have much appreciation of the brief agonies of Calvary?* *(Footnote - I have already shown that of the books quoted supra two practically ignore redemption. I desire to be perfectly fair, and I have searched the volume last noticed (which was the first written, and inspired the other two) to find a warrant for clearing the author from this reproach; but I cannot. And if such an one as he is betrayed into such language as the following, it may be taken as certain that the views he advocates are inconsistent with Christian doctrine. "What does he say here" (he writes, quoting Revelation 21:5-8), "but that all things shall be made new, though in the way to this the fearful and unbelieving must pass the lake of fire? . . . The saints have died with Christ, not only to the elements of this world, but also to sin, that is the dark spirit world. The ungodly have not so died to sin. At the death of the body, therefore, and still more when they are raised to judgment, because their spirit yet lives, they are still within the limits of that dark and fiery world, the life of which has been and is the life of their spirit. To get out of this world there is but one way, death. Not the first, for that is passed, but the second death." The italics are my own. The extraordinary mysticism which pervades this makes it difficult to fix its meaning, but I am unable to understand it if it does not teach that the lake of fire (the second death) is to the impenitent what the cross of Christ is to the believer.) To recapitulate. The question is not whether the destiny of all be fixed at death, but whether the judgment of the great day be irreversible and final. Not whether God be a Saviour to all men, but whether all men shall be saved, including those who reject the Saviour. Not whether Christ be a propitiation for the whole world, but whether the whole world shall share the pardon, including those who despise the propitiation. There is not a single text of Scripture which unequivocally teaches that all men shall in fact be saved; there are many which declare in the plainest terms that the judgment-doom of the lost is final. The dogma of universalism depends solely on the assumption that the love of God is incompatible with the perdition of ungodly men - an assumption which may rest entirely on our ignorance, and which, moreover, when worked out to its legitimate results, undermines Christianity altogether It is blind folly to abandon the doctrine of eternal punishment because of difficulties which surround it, and then to take refuge in a belief which is beset with difficulties far more hopeless. If, then, there be no other escape, we fall back unhesitatingly upon the faith of the Church in all ages. But another alternative remains: punishment may be final, and yet it may not be endless. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 88: 1.07.07. CHAPTER 6: WHAT IS LIFE? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 6: WHAT IS LIFE? To some the doctrine of endless punishment seems to present no difficulty. Others again are so decided in rejecting it that if only the dogma of universal restoration be discredited, they are prepared at once to adopt what seems the only alternative, the extermination of the wicked. For the one class these pages can have but a speculative interest. For the other, their practical importance ceases at the point already reached. But it is only the superficial who can ignore the difficulties that beset the problem which still claims discussion. And, moreover, the rejection of the "wider hope," just because it narrows the inquiry, deepens immensely its importance and solemnity. When our escape from pressing difficulties depends upon a single door, more care is needed than when we supposed we had a choice. Two questions lie across the threshold of the inquiry: What is the meaning of the Greek word aiãnios? and, Does man by nature possess immortality? If, to borrow a military term, we can mask these difficulties, instead of delaying to settle them, we shall avoid an almost interminable controversy. It is maintained by some that aionios means age-long, and nothing else; but these admit that all men have an age-long existence.* Others, again, contend that the word means everlasting; but these insist that all men shall exist for ever. In either case, therefore, the solemn language of Scripture, which declares Eeonian life to be the peculiar blessing of the believer, loses all its significance, unless we understand the word to describe the quality of the life, and not duration merely:- (I say advisedly, "not duration merely." "Eternal life," Dr. Westcott writes, "is not an endless duration of being in time, but being of which time is not a measure." And again, it "is beyond the limitations of time; it belongs to the being of God." (Epistles of St. John, pp. 205 and 207.) But surely endless duration is implied in this, though it is not the main element in it.) We must conclude, then, that in all such passages the emphasis is upon life, and it is here our attention should be concentrated. This brings in the second question. The word immortality occurs but thrice in the New Testament. In one of these passages St. Paul declares that God "only hath immortality": in the other, the believer is twice described as a mortal who is destined to "put on immortality."* It certainly seems strange, therefore, that any who profess to follow Holy Writ should contend for the expression “the immortality of the soul" more especially as man’s spiritual condition by nature is described as death and not life? What then is life? Here science can tell us nothing. If we seek the origin of life, Reason answers in one word, GOD. Let the existence of life be taken for granted, and then, no doubt, evolution will offer to account for all the varied forms of life in the world. But until science can get rid of God, the theory is unnecessary, and therefore unphilosophical. It is the old question, Does the hen come from the egg, or the egg from the hen? If science could account for the egg, it would be entitled to put that first. But as we are shut up to believe in a Creator, it is more reasonable, and therefore more philosophical, to assume that He created the hen. This, of course, is apart from Revelation, which, for the Christian, puts the question at rest for ever. And science can tell as little about life itself as about its origin. It has its definitions, doubtless, but these either assume or ignore precisely what they profess to give us. "Correspondence with an environment" is the latest and most vaunted. The table on which this paper lies would soon be destroyed by the action of fire or water, but it corresponds with its actual environment. If however we infer that the table has life, we shall be told that a dead thing cannot correspond with an environment at all; it must have a principle of life to render correspondence possible. It appears, then, that the vaunted definition deals merely with phenomena; whereas it is life considered essentially, not in its manifestations, that concerns us here. The fact is, biology can tell us about bios, but about zöe it knows absolutely nothing. Some will be impatient at a disquisition about life. To them it seems the simplest thing possible: life is the opposite of death, and thus the whole matter is settled. But this is to shelve the difficulty, not to settle it. And the question is of extreme importance here. If we are justified in taking life to mean existence, then death is the termination of existence, and we are within reach of the goal we seek. But this must be proved, and not taken for granted. Our word "life" has to do duty for the two Greek words just cited. And each of these has several different meanings and shades of meaning. As already indicated, zoe is life in its principle, life intrinsic; bios, life in its manifestations, life extrinsic. But there is more in it than this. Bios may signify the period or duration of life; secondly, one’s "living," or the means of life; and thirdly, the manner of life. An example of each of these phases of meaning will be found among the eleven passages in which the word is used in the New Testament. From this last use of the word, as the manner of life, there is often an ethical sense attaching to it, and this is expressed in classical Greek exclusively by bios; in Scripture exclusively by zoe. Zöe, again, is sometimes the equivalent of bios, as expressing the means of life; and our translators have taken it in Luke 16:25 as meaning the period of life. It is also used to express the final blessedness of the redeemed or the sphere in which it will be enjoyed; the present condition of the believer, who, it is said, "is passed from death into life," and finally and emphatically, the prince of life. The often-repeated statement that the believer "hath life" does not mean merely that he is in a state of blessedness; he is in life, but more than this, he has life in him. This is clear from the contrast, “No murderer hath eternal life abiding in him; "or as the Lord said to the Jews, "Ye have no life in you." It will be urged, perhaps, that in all this the simple and plain meaning of life as equivalent to existence has been ignored. But can life be thus taken as a synonym for existence at all? If so, then the table has life, for it certainly exists. Or the definition may possibly be amended by saying "conscious existence:" the table has not that. No; neither had the tree the table was made of, though it certainly had life; neither has a man in a swoon. The fact is, and it must in fairness be conceded, that "life" does not admit of any such definition. If we want its ordinary meaning we must turn to a dictionary, and there we shall find that life is that state of an organized being in which its functions are or may be performed. Death, then, is the antithesis of this. An organism is dead when its vital functions have ceased absolutely and permanently. It has been denied that reason can tell us anything certainly of a life after death, and it will be here assumed that it cannot. As we have revelation to guide us, the admission may be freely made. Death came into the world by sin, and it is the penalty of sin. If, then, we might conclude that death puts an end to the existence of all save those who receive eternal life in Christ, the whole question would be settled. But the teaching of Scripture is explicit, that while death is a great crisis in human existence, it is not, as with the brutes, its goal. "It is appointed unto men once to die, and after death the judgment." Such is the testimony of Scripture. But the penalty of sin must follow the judgment, and not precede it. The death, therefore, which is the penalty of sin, cannot be "natural death." The same conclusion will be arrived at from considering the warning given to Adam in Eden. It was not merely that on eating of the tree of knowledge he should become mortal. The word was, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Is it not clear, then, that the ordinary meaning of death is not its primary or its deepest meaning? And further, as the crisis which we call death is merely a change of condition, why should we suppose that the death which follows the judgment will be anything else? These difficulties are nothing to shallow declaimers against everlasting punishment, but every serious opponent of the doctrine has recognized that they are of vital moment. The advocate of "conditional immortality" is bound, not only to notice them, but to answer them fully and completely. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 89: 1.07.08. CHAPTER 7: "ETERNAL LIFE IN CHRIST." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 7: "ETERNAL LIFE IN CHRIST." IN the wide and increasing field of literature on this question there is one volume which enjoys a well- deserved pre-eminence. It has now been forty years before the public, and during that time it has been subjected to the severest criticism. In the light of that criticism it was rewritten eleven years ago, and since then it has been again revised with the most scrupulous care. Its pages are characterized by reverent piety, competent scholarship, and intellectual power of no mean order; and in fact it is justly deemed the standard work on the subject of which it treats. Every statement it contains has evidently been weighed, and seeming omissions will be accounted for, not by the author’s ignorance of anything which others have written, but because in his judgment their arguments are either unfair or unwise. To this book we turn for the most complete and favorable answer possible to the difficulties which have just been stated. The author frankly acknowledges that the views he opposes are "supported by the general authority of nearly all Christendom for at least fourteen centuries"; and that they have been accepted by "instructed divines who are to be counted by hundreds of thousands, belonging to all Churches, in every successive century of Christianity." Nevertheless he opposes them. "According to the Bible" (he declares) "man is essentially a complex being, consisting of body and soul;" not a soul without a body, any more than a body without a soul. Adam was such a being. The warning, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," implied not liability to "temporal death," still less to endless misery, but death itself, "the utter destruction of Adam’s nature as a man," and that literally on the very day of his sin. The threatening "was intended to signify a literal, immediate, and final dissolution of the nature of Adam as a man; his death in the ordinary sense of the word, without any reference whatever to the state, or even to the survival, of the spirit beyond." "The humanity is the living organism, including body and soul. When that complex organism is dissolved the man is no more." The death, therefore, threatened to Adam, and which he was to suffer on the very day of his sin, was the absolute extinction of his being. Such, moreover, the author maintains, as he is bound to maintain, is "death in the ordinary sense of the word." And further, "this death was ’the curse of the law’; not merely of the Mosaic Law, but of that law under which Adam was created at first, and of which the thunders of Sinai were a second manifestation." But whatever may be doubtful, this at least is certain, that no such doom has in fact fallen upon the sinner. How can this enigma be explained? The author solves it by the one word Redemption. "From the moment of the sin" (he tells us) "the action of Redemption began at once to unfold itself." "This survival of the soul we attribute exclusively (with Delitzsch) to the operation of Redemption." Such a survival "is contrary to the original intention of God in the curse of death threatened at first to Adam in Paradise ;" it is "of the nature of a miraculous or abnormal provision, arising out of the economy of redemption, with a view to future resurrection." And "the sentence of death is postponed, not repealed." Absolute extinction of his being is therefore the sinner’s doom. (Footnote - * I shall be told probably that the author does not speak of death as "extinction of being." This is true, and it is a signal proof of the skill with which his argument is conducted. Other writers had used the expression, and their position had been easily stormed in consequence; so he avoids it. But his argument implies it; and without it it has no force whatever. Therefore I have taken the liberty of expressing it.) It is impossible to exaggerate the importance and solemnity of these statements. The whole controversy is thus narrowed to a single issue. If the death which is the penalty of sin be the extinction of the sinner’s being, the doctrine of conditional immortality is a Divine truth. If, on the other hand, that death be merely a changed condition of existence, the doctrine is a sheer delusion, and an error of the grossest and most dangerous kind. As, therefore, the result of our judgment on this question is so unspeakably solemn, no amount of earnestness or care can be excessive in considering it. First, then, as already shown, the definition here given of death cannot be accepted for a moment. The extinction of being would certainly imply death; but death itself, in its ordinary sense, means nothing but the change in which the performance of vital functions ceases, or else the condition of the organism which has suffered that change. The thought is the same whether the subject be a man or a brute. If it be asked whether in either case there is a soul that survives, this is a new question the answer to which is not involved in the thought of death. When the Roman soldiers, after breaking the legs of the crucified thieves, came to the body of the Blessed Lord and pronounced Him dead, they meant precisely the same thing as if they had been dealing with a bullock or a sheep. The author is right, therefore, in asserting that in the thought of death there is no reference to the survival of a spirit beyond. But he is wholly wrong in assuming that death is inconsistent with such a survival. And yet this is implied in his statement that "the man is no more"; for if it means merely that a disembodied soul ought not to be described as a Man, the proposition relates only to the use of words, and is of no practical importance here. The question may be stated thus: What has become of Balaam and of the beast he rode upon? The answer is, They are dead, But, it is again asked, was death the end of their existence? We have agreed to put Reason out of court on this point, so we turn to Scripture, and Scripture tells us that death was the end of the beast, but not of the man. Does not this decide the matter, then? By no means, the author replies, because Balaam’s survival is "a miraculous or abnormal provision, arising out of the economy of redemption." What grounds are there for this statement? Absolutely none; it is a mere theory put forward arbitrarily, and without a shadow of proof, in order to avoid a difficulty in which the author finds himself entangled by the view he takes of death, which again is equally arbitrary and baseless, and which, moreover, assumes the very thing he is attempting to prove. The controversy turns upon what is called the "natural immortality" of the soul - that is, that apart from Divine interference, and by the law of its being, the human soul will continue to exist for ever. The advocate of conditional immortality undertakes to prove the opposite of this proposition. But how does he proceed? As the foundation of his argument he puts forward a definition of death which covertly implies, and that without proof, the precise conclusion which he is bound to establish; and then, finding himself confronted by plain facts of which Revelation testifies, he disposes of those facts by a new theory about redemption. Moreover, the necessity for this theory arises solely from the error of the position he has taken up; and this being so, the silence of Scripture is a sufficient reason for rejecting it. If the survival of the soul depended on redemption, it is incredible that the doctrine could not be plainly revealed. And further, unless the sentence upon Adam was an arbitrary one, the theory fails to account for the facts. If death is the consequence of sin, Satan and his angels had already come under death, and as they have no part in redemption, their survival cannot be accounted for by redemption. Mark what all this involves. According to the threatening, we are told, the judgment upon Adam was the extinction of his being, and that too upon the day of his sin. Yet he lived nine hundred and thirty years, and when at last death overtook him his soul survived. We must conclude, therefore, that God threatened him with a doom which He had no intention of inflicting. The only thing certain about it is that Satan was entirely in the right when he met the Divine warning by a flat denial, and declared, "Ye shall not surely die." It behooves us peremptorily to reject such a supposition, no matter what the rejection of it may involve, and to insist that whatever the threatened death implied, it came upon Adam in the day of his sin. Certain it is that a change took place in his condition and relationships with God. If even from the standpoint of fallen humanity the loss of virtue is deemed worse than death, how unspeakably terrible must have been that first plunge from innocence into sin! Death, we are told, is the dissolution of the complex organism which constitutes the human integer; in other words, it is the breaking up of the Man, the separation of soul and body. What word then can more fitly express that far more awful crisis, the separation of the creature from his God? This and nothing less than this surely is death in its fullest, deepest sense. This same conclusion may be reached in another way. The believer "hath passed out of death into life." The condition of the sinner, therefore, by nature is death. How and when did mankind come into this state? The answer is clear, By the fall of Adam. To urge that every sinner is dead by reason of his own trespasses and sins is only to confirm the correctness of the reply, by establishing that sin results in death. The word "death" expresses both the crisis and the condition into which it introduces the sinner. In the latter sense, natural death is a condition of existence in separation from the body, and spiritual death is a condition of existence in separation from God. But as this would be decisive, it is met again by a bold rejection of the whole doctrine of spiritual death. We are told that the expression is "without example in apostolic usage," and that when Scripture describes the unregenerate as dead, the language is figurative, and "the figure is in the tense," meaning "they are certain to die, because they are under sentence of destruction." In answer to this, first, the need of the term spiritual death arises solely from using the term natural death. It is adopted, not of necessity, but only for clearness and brevity. Secondly, it cannot be admitted that there is any figure here at all, for, as already urged, the ordinary meaning of death is not necessarily its primary meaning. And, thirdly, the author’s statement is only a repetition of his invariable principal. He must prove, and not take for granted, that death means extinction of being. The last remark applies with full force to the author’s argument on St. Paul’s reference to death in the 5th chapter of Romans. Allow him to assume what he undertakes to prove, and his argument is unanswerable; but hold him to the proof of it, and it falls to pieces. The apostle desires to prove that Adam sinned as federal head of the race, involving his posterity in the consequences of his sin; and to establish this, he appeals to the fact that death reigned even at a time when, and over persons in respect of whom, there was no question of actual transgression, death being admittedly one of the consequences of the Eden sin. Further, we are told that the death with which Adam was threatened was also the curse of the law, “literal death," that is, implying destruction in the sense in which these writers use the word. To this it may be answered, first, that here again the argument moves in the usual vicious circle, that which is to be proved being taken for granted; and, secondly, that the statement confounds the curse with the consequences of the curse. The same word, "cursed," is applied to the law-breaker, to the serpent in Eden, and to the ground condemned to bring forth thorns and thistles. In no case was it the end of their existence, but the ban under which existence was to continue. True it is the law-breaker was put to death, because in the Commonwealth of Israel the sinner who came under the Divine curse was utterly outlawed. The death was inflicted by man, and therefore the offender might escape it. In fact, during the apostasy of the nation escape was the almost universal rule; but the Divine curse upon the law-breaker was none the less certain and inexorable. One point more remains, and it is incomparably the most important. Whatever be the death which is the penalty of sin, that death was endured by Christ. This at least is a statement which none will gainsay. If then death be "the destruction" (that is, the extinction) "of the life of humanity," "death for ever, dissolution without hope of the resurrection," did this death befall the blessed Lord? One might have supposed that the mere statement of the question would have been enough; but it would seem that the advocate of "conditional immortality" is prepared to defend his position no matter what the cost. He not only meets the question, but answers it as follows, by an uncompromising affirmative: "When Christ died, He was, as a man, destroyed." "When the curse had taken effect upon the manhood "- of Jesus-" it was still open to the Divine Inhabitant, absorbing the Spirit into His own essence, to restore the ’destroyed temple’ from its ruins, and taking possession of it in virtue of His Divinity (not legally, as a man), to raise it up on the third day." Or, still more plainly in borrowed words which the author adopts, "It was the life of man,-a life common to Him with those He died to redeem, that expired on the tree: but the life He now enjoys is the life of God. Of justice He takes back no part of the penalty He had paid. It is to the power of His eternal Godhead alone that He owes His resurrection from the dead." Hitherto this argument has been conducted with calmness, but at this point the Christian may well exclaim, "With such a theme ’twere treason to be calm." What is the cost at which the advocates of "conditional immortality" here defend their position? First, as to their own consistency. They begin by insisting that the body is so essentially the man, that when the human organism is dissolved the man is no more; but when driven to it by the exigencies of an argument based on error, and marked throughout by fallacy, they end by assuming that the body is no part of the man at all, so that when the blessed Lord gave up His human soul He perfectly satisfied the death which claimed man as its due. We are told that "if Jesus had been the Son of David only, He could not legally have risen from the dead." But why not? If the resurrection was merely a transcendental trick, what did it matter whether the corpse which lay in Joseph’s tomb had formerly been animated by Divine life or not? The human life had been "destroyed," and all claims of law having thus been met, God could of course reanimate that body. On this theory, indeed, what need was there for redemption at all? By a like piece of chicanery he who had the power of death might have been cheated of his due in every child of Adam. But the question is not whether the Lord could have been raised from the dead had He been only the Son of David. The real question is, whether, in fact, He was raised from the dead only as Son of God. Perchance that strange admonition to Timothy had reference to some such heresy as this, even in the infant Church, "Remember that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, of the seed of David, according to my gospel." The whole argument of the apostle in the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians is based upon the fact that Christ was raised from the dead as man. The words are, "Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead." Therefore it is that in His resurrection He "became the first fruits of them that slept." The first fruits must of necessity be a part of the harvest; and such was indeed "the last Adam," "the second man, the Lord from heaven." Christianity is based upon the very truth which is here denied. Paradise regained is a poet’s dream, but it has no place in the theology of the New Testament. The scheme of redemption is not to restore the first Adam to the place he lost by sin, as federal head of the old creation; but, closing his history for ever in the Cross of Calvary, to unite the redeemed of the fallen race under the Second Adam as federal head of the new creation. The one Mediator is THE MAN Christ Jesus." It is as Son of Man He took His place at the right hand of God. "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." It is "because He is the Son of Man" that the Father "has given Him authority to execute judgment." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 90: 1.07.09. CHAPTER 8: ANNIHILATION ======================================================================== CHAPTER 8: ANNIHILATION THE natural immortality of man, we are told, is a theory of heathen philosophers, engrafted upon Christianity in post-apostolic days. Man is a dying creature, destined by the operation of natural laws to pass out of existence unless he receive eternal life in Christ. It is admitted, however, that the lost shall be raised from the dead by Divine power in order that in the body they may be judged and punished for their sins. In other words, creatures who are doomed by the law of their nature to decay and pass out of being altogether, are not only kept in existence, but recalled to active life in resurrection, solely in order that increased capacities for enduring torment may be added to the horrors of their doom. Not even the coarse hell of mediaeval ignorance is more revolting, more incredible than this; and yet these views are held and taught on the plea that God is a God of love! But Scripture plainly teaches that the destruction of the wicked - whatever destruction means - is the result, not of natural law, but of Divine judgment. When we read that "the wages of sin is death," we are to understand extinction of being. Now we know as a matter of experience and of fact that death often entails much antecedent suffering; but on the same ground we know also that this is purely accidental. Death does not necessarily involve any suffering whatever. If human law sentences a criminal to imprisonment, it consigns him to misery in many forms; but if it decrees his death, it scrupulously guards him from every kind of suffering save the necessary rigor of confinement. Nor is it that he is dismissed to receive his punishment from God. Our English law at least is not so cruel. The conventional language of the death sentence concludes with a prayer for Divine mercy on the condemned, and a minister of religion is appointed to attend him in his cell and on the scaffold. The last words that fall upon his ears are words that tell of pardon and a life beyond the grave. If capital punishment were abolished the public would probably insist on the free use of the lash for grave and brutal crimes; but how degraded would be the community which would decree a criminal’s death, and yet torture him up to the very hour of his execution! (Footnote - Some of the Italian tyrants in the Middle Ages did this very thing; and a reverend opponent of eternal punishment has had the temerity to compare God to such a monster, if there be an endless hell. If the author were not given up to a reprobate mind, he would have seen as he wrote the blasphemy that a thirty days hell followed by extinction would more fully satisfy the analogy. His argument is against any hell whatever.) Now let us test the argument in the light of the inevitable admissions. If what we call death were the end of the sinner, all would be plain. But it is admitted that the lost dead are to be raised for judgment, and in their bodies subjected to punitive suffering for their sins; and that this suffering, though limited in duration, shall yet be terrible. Is not this open to every objection on the ground of reason and sentiment which is urged against the "orthodox faith"? If there be some awful necessity, unexplained to us, why the sinner should continue to exist, we can understand that there may be a like necessity for future punishment; but if there be no such necessity, what is it but torturing helpless, hopeless victims who might at once be put out of misery, for extinction is their doom? The author already quoted as the champion of conditional immortality is far too keen a reasoner to overlook this difficulty. He has met it boldly by disclaiming the belief that ages of suffering are to precede that destruction," thus parting company with Scripture altogether. In his view the sufferings of the lost in the final state will be merely such as shall necessarily accompany their "death "; and we must read this statement in the light of the undoubted fact that no subject whatever is involved in death when inflicted without cruelty. Is there then to be no suffering for sin? In reply the author will tell us that "the spirit may suffer in Hades for the sins of a lifetime." But what then becomes of the statement that at death the man is no more? If "the spirit" carries with it the moral guilt of life’s sins and a capacity of suffering for those sins, his is the personality, this is "the man." Moreover, according to this theory, the amount of a sinner’s punishment depends, not on the character of his sin, but on the epoch at which he lived on earth. In the antediluvian sinner it is measured by thousands of years : whereas for the awful Christ-rejecter of the last days it will be briefer than for all the rest; because Hades is to be cast into the lake of fire, and the lake of fire is absolute extinction of being. But the suffering in Hades precedes the judgment. What room is there then for judgment at all? The object of the Day of Judgment is to fix the guilt and apportion the punishment of each, and it becomes but an idle pageant if all alike are to be hurried to a swift and common doom. To answer that its purpose will be to separate the redeemed from the impenitent is to ignore some of the plainest teaching of Scripture. That division will be manifested in and by the resurrection, for the redeemed shall be raised in "the image of the heavenly," and such are not to come into the judgment. And what possible purpose can there be in this view for the resurrection of the lost? We are asked to believe that God not only maintains them in existence by miraculous interference, but that He puts forth His mighty power to raise them from the dead, solely and altogether for a magnificent display of wrath in annihilating them. But apart from the essential incredibility of such a theory, we must reject it as opposed to the plain testimony of Scripture. We turn, therefore, to seek the explanation from another writer, whose published sermons on this subject are held in high repute by all believers in conditional immortality. He will tell us that the doom of the impenitent "will not be a simple act of annihilation, but a process of destruction. The fire of God’s wrath will not consume them at once, but they will be tormented in it day and night for the ages of ages that they have yet to live." "Many or few stripes will be inflicted, according to each one’s deserts, while in every case it will end in the final loss of life as the necessary consequence of not being in Christ." In terms at least this is consistent with the language of Scripture, and therefore it claims consideration. Does not this suggest the inquiry how suicide is to be prevented in the lake of fire? God must put forth His miraculous power to keep in being the victims of His wrath, until the last of the "many or few stripes" which each one deserves shall have been inflicted! Disguise it as we may, the fact is obvious that in this theory the annihilation of the lost is God’s act of mercy to close their suffering. It is impious to suppose that their release could be delayed wantonly and cruelly. The delay, therefore, must be due to the righteous necessity of exacting the full meed of punishment the sin of each deserves. Why then should a God "Who is willing that all men should be saved," not let the damned pass from the scene of torment to some place of rest, instead of putting forth His power to annihilate them? Further, if annihilation be the penalty of sin, then, as already shown, Christ has not borne that penalty. If it be a term of suffering, from which annihilation gives release, redemption is seriously depreciated. This view is beset by difficulties akin to those which led us to abandon the "wider hope," and in addition to these it presents a difficulty of another and far graver kind. As the writer last quoted puts it, the punishment "will be inflicted according to each one’s deserts," the annihilation will be "the necessary consequence of not being in Christ." We are thus asked to believe in a God who puts forth His power solely to keep His creatures in existence until "the uttermost farthing" of penalty has been exacted, and who then, when every question of righteous claim is settled, and love might pity and save, turns away to leave them to their fate. And this, too, on the plea that God is a God of love! Either there exists a righteous necessity to punish sin, or there does not. If there be no such necessity, then all punitive suffering is inflicted wantonly and cruelly. If, on the other hand, sin must be punished, how and when is that punishment to cease? The hell of the Bible is consistent with Divine love, but the hell of the annihilationist is more horrible even than the conventional hell of popular theology. Is such a hell to make men righteous and holy - this awful pit of shrieking, cursing men, made desperate by despair, and maddened by the knowledge that if God would only let them alone their torment would cease forever? These sins of the lake of fire, are they to go unpunished? Does the quality of guilt depend on the atmosphere of earth, and not on the unchanging laws of God? The only difference between the hell of the annihilationist and the coarse hell of medieval theologians consists in the duration of the sinner’s misery. And yet, while we are told that reason and conscience and natural affection, and our apprehension of the character of God, revolt against the belief in eternal punishment, we are to be satisfied with belief in ages of torment for the sinner, albeit the only possible explanation of hell, consistently with Divine love, is no longer applicable. If there be some necessity of which we know nothing, why fallen beings should continue to exist, then we can understand the Devil’s presence in Eden and the fact of an eternal hell; but if the theories of conditional immortality be accepted, the continuance of evil in this world is no longer an intellectual difficulty only, but a moral difficulty of the gravest kind, and hell stands out as a hideous exhibition of wanton and remorseless wrath. What then is the cost at which the theories of the annihilationist may be accepted as an article of the Christian faith? First, we must assume that death is extinction of being, which the Scripture unequivocally teaches it is not. Next, we must believe that God’s first solemn warning against sin was an idle threat, which He had no intention of fulfilling; and that the truest word spoken to Adam was that which, for six thousand years, men have called "the Devil’s lie," “Ye shall not surely die." More than this, we must recognize that the death of Christ was the destruction of His humanity, and His resurrection a piece of transcendental jugglery to conceal the Devil’s triumph and deceive the saints of God, who for eighteen centuries have believed that the Blessed One Who wept at the grave of Lazarus, and sat travel- soiled and weary at Sychar’s well, was upon the Father’s throne as MAN, whereas His manhood perished upon Calvary, and He is no longer Man but only God. And all this mingled folly and error must be accepted, forsooth, to screen the reputation of Almighty God, now endangered by our belief in hell in the midst of nineteenth-century enlightenment! ======================================================================== CHAPTER 91: 1.07.10. CHAPTER 9: CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 9: CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY. THE ephemeral literature upon the subject of conditional immortality gives prominence to statements of a kind which, though generally excluded from standard works, have no little influence with ordinary minds. It is urged, for example, that the judgment upon sin was the death of the soul; and, it is added, the meaning of this can be realized by analogy, for just as the body is dissolved, and ceases to exist as a body, so shall it be with the soul. But this is to allow ourselves to be misled by using words in a loose and popular sense, unwarranted by Holy Writ. Scripture never speaks of the death of the soul. To quote in opposition to this the statement "The soul that sinneth, it shall die," is to trade upon the language of our English Bible. The word in the original means merely the person, the individual; the father is not to suffer for the son, nor the son for the father, but the person who sins, he shall die. Neither does the Scripture speak of the death of the body. In our English version we read of "dead bodies," but not in the original. If our thought be of "natural death," the body comes into prominence; if of "spiritual death," the soul. But in either case it is the man who dies - not his body or his soul. It is urged again that just as a branch may continue to live for a time after it has been severed from the tree, so the sinner may exist for a time apart from God; but that when separated from Him Who is the fountain of life, he must, sooner or later, fade out of existence. Now, this of course is a mere theory, without the slightest pretense of proof. Moreover, it abandons the rival theory that sinners are miraculously preserved in existence with a view to punishment; and it assumes that their ultimate annihilation will be the result of natural law, and not of a Divine judgment. If this theory be true, there must, of course, be an average length of life for the soul as for the body. What the period is we cannot tell, but it must be more than six thousand years, for we know that all who have ever lived on earth shall continue in existence till the judgment. But when the judgment comes, the antediluvian dead will of course be comparatively near the end of their sorrow, in contrast with the lost of the latter days. The amount of punishment to be suffered by the sinner will thus depend, not on the guilt of his sin, but on the age of his soul at the time of the judgment. It is not strange that this view of the matter is ignored by writers of repute. It would probably be found, however, that the large majority of those who refuse to believe in what they call "eternal evil" ignore all such arguments and theories as have been here discussed, They rest their convictions altogether on the indisputable fact that the Creator is able to put an end to the existence of His creatures. And such, they tell us, Scripture explicitly declares to be His purpose; for “Destruction," "Perdition," "The lake of fire," and other words of kindred import, plainly teach the annihilation of the ungodly. This belief deserves, and shall receive, the fullest consideration. But let it be distinctly kept in view that this implies what is called the "natural immortality" of man. If by the law of his being he be destined to cease to exist, or if the death-penalty of sin imply extinction of being, the question here proposed cannot arise. They who raise it assume that but for the Divine interference in judgment man’s existence would continue indefinitely; and they undertake to prove unequivocally from Scripture that the second death, unlike the first, will put an end to him altogether. According to them the element of the miraculous is not in the preservation of the sinner for the judgment, but in his annihilation in and by the judgment. They thus entirely abandon the position taken up by the leading advocates of conditional immortality, and there must be no attempt to fall back on that position, if Scripture, when appealed to, should refuse the testimony they claim from it. The single issue now remaining is whether the Bible teaches the extermination of the wicked; and the onus of proof rests entirely with those who maintain that it does. Man exists; and as no crisis or change of which we have any knowledge puts an end to that existence, we must assume that it will continue indefinitely, unless the contrary be proved. But, we are assured, the Scriptures expressly teach that the wicked shall be put out of existence altogether. This is what has to be proved, and now we turn to examine the proofs. That it is to the New Testament Scriptures we must look for a decision upon this question is a statement so obvious that most people will deem it superfluous. We are told, however, that "in the Hebrew tongue there are no less than fifty roots, meaning, habitually or occasionally, to destroy; most of which are used in the Old Testament to specify the ultimate doom of the wicked." A dictum of this kind is well fitted to overwhelm ordinary readers, who would never dream that an author of repute, writing on such solemn subjects, could make a statement wholly unfounded. But will the reader take up his Bible, and with the aid of a concordance seek out in the Hebrew Scriptures the more than fifty passages in which "the ultimate doom of the wicked" is "specified." His labours will lead to a startling result. Can he find ten such passages? Can he find FIVE? If his list should be a much longer one than is here anticipated, a glance at a Hebrew concordance will satisfy him that the same words which, as he supposes, describe eternal judgment, are elsewhere used of death, or of some other temporal judgment. And he will find further that the extremely rare passages (such as Daniel 12:2), which admittedly relate to the final state, are precisely those which the advocates of eternal punishment lay stress upon to prove their doctrine. Daniel’s prophecy above referred to is the only passage in the Old Testament which plainly announces the resurrection of the wicked. And when in the Epistle of Jude the inspired writer seeks a prophecy of the great judgment to come, he finds it in the words of Enoch, outside the canon altogether. Account for it as we may, the silence of the Old Testament Scriptures as to the final state is one of the most striking features of the revelation. It is not merely "life and immortality" which have been brought to light by the gospel; it is there also that the dark alternative has been plainly revealed. But even those who would reject the position here assumed as regards the scope of the Old Testament would freely admit that the ultimate appeal must be to the New. An admission which fairness demands may somewhat clear the ground. The language of the New Testament describing the destruction of the lost is perfectly consistent with the doctrine of conditional immortality. And further, this is all that needs to be proved by authors such as those that have here been quoted, assuming always the validity and success of the arguments on which their position rests. But that is not the question here. These arguments have been examined, and they have been found, not only fallacious, but destructive of "the faith once delivered." The question now is, whether those who reject these reasoning’s can apart from them altogether find proof in the Scripture that the doom of the wicked is annihilation. With some, this question will resolve itself into an inquiry whether the word destruction correctly expresses the Greek original in the passages where it is used. But this will not bear investigation. Extinction or annihilation is not necessarily implied in the word at all. So far from this being its primary meaning, it is a very remote signification. In the classical use of the word, to destroy a thing is to do it irreparable injury, to unfit it permanently for the purpose for which it was intended. Its meaning as used of a person may be illustrated by a quotation which ought to be familiar to all who speak the English tongue-" No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold or liberties or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or any otherwise destroyed, but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." According to Magna Charta, then, to drive a man from his home, to deprive him of his property, or to shut him up in prison, is to destroy him. The thought that we would convey by ruin our ancestors expressed by destroy. The word, therefore, may be fitly used to describe the doom of the wicked, whatever that doom may be. But the meaning of a word depends upon the use of it. Judged by this test, what is the force of the expression in the New Testament? There are ten words rendered destroy in the Authorized Version, and three of these occur also in the substantive form as destruction. A full list of these words will be found in the Appendix; but there are only three of them which need be noticed here, as these alone are used to describe the final state of the lost. We read in 2 Thessalonians 2:8, that at His coming the Lord shall destroy the Lawless One, the Antichrist. The word here used (katageo) occurs again in Hebrews 2:14 of the destruction of the Devil at and by the death of Christ. It means to render powerless, or useless, or inoperative (Romans 3:3; Romans 3:31, ex. gr.), and hence "to do away," or "destroy," in the Magna Charta sense. The same word is used of death in 1 Corinthians 15:26 and 2 Timothy 3:10. For the believer, death was "destroyed" de jure at the cross, and will be "abolished" de facto in the glory. The thought of annihilation cannot be imported into this word at all. The next word, a very much stronger term for "destruction," is used for "natural death" in the only passage where it occurs as a verb. Four times only it is used as a noun (olethros), and in each of these the word ruin would exactly convey the thought intended. In 1 Corinthians 5:5, a certain person is delivered to Satan "for the destruction of the flesh," albeit we find in 2 Corinthians 2:6 that this same person, having profited by his "punishment," was restored to the fellowship of the Church. In 1 Thessalonians 5:3 we are told that at the advent of Christ "sudden destruction" shall come upon the ungodly. Is this annihilation? By no means, for, as Scripture elsewhere will tell us, they shall be "reserved to the day of judgment to be punished." The same remark applies to the statement in 2 Thessalonians 1:9. And, moreover, it is "everlasting destruction from the face of the Lord": it is banishment and not annihilation which characterizes the ruin. In the last remaining passage where this word occurs, St. Paul declares that the lusts begotten of money-worship "drown men in destruction and perdition." Is this annihilation? And yet the Greek language contains no stronger terms to express the idea. The word rendered "perdition" in the verse just quoted is the last which claims mention here. It is perhaps the most important of all. The noun occurs twenty times, the verb ninety-two times, in the New Testament. A reference to the Concordance will show that it is sometimes used as a synonym for death in the ordinary sense, and in several passages it describes the present state of the impenitent. Christ came "to save that which was lost." In the parables, the sheep was lost, the piece of silver was lost, the prodigal son was lost. So in every passage where the subject or the context enables us to fix the meaning with certainty, the word means a condition of existence, not a ceasing to exist. He who gives a cup of cold water to a disciple "shall in no wise lose his reward." Christ was "not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel." If a man put new wine into old bottles "the bottles will be marred." "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy." In the Appendix will be found a list including every passage where this word occurs, and the reader can judge for himself whether in its use in Scripture it means annihilation. And let it not be forgotten that if the words here noticed fail to convey that idea, the Greek language has none other to express it. But the lake of fire - is not that annihilation? How can any creature live in the midst of fire? The question need not be discussed; neither need we consider whether fire be here a figure, as elsewhere in Scripture, to express fierce trouble and judgment. These are speculative inquiries. The practical question which concerns us is settled beyond dispute by the plain testimony of Scripture. In the judgment scene of the 25th chapter of Matthew the "eternal fire" is expressly called "eternal punishment"; and though the word rendered "punishment" be denied its classical meaning of corrective discipline, it cannot possibly signify annihilation. The Lord’s words in the narrative of Lazarus and Dives are plainer still. The sinner is there represented as in a condition of conscious and active existence in hell. And still more definite is the language of the very Scripture where the lake of fire is mentioned. The Devil is to be cast into the lake of fire. This, therefore, must be the "fire prepared for the Devil," spoken of in Matthew 25:4! And it is declared that the Devil, the beast, and the false prophet shall be there "tormented for ever and ever." If such language can be construed to signify sudden annihilation, words may mean anything. This, moreover, is what Scripture declares will be "the second death." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 92: 1.07.11. CHAPTER 10: THE QUESTION RESTATED. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 10: THE QUESTION RESTATED. THE results recorded in preceding chapters are doubtless a surprise. What then is to be the general conclusion? It was a revolt against the dogmas of certain schools of theology which led to this inquiry: Must we at last fall back on the very position we thus abandoned? Must we be content, after all, to accept the horrors of mediaeval eschatology, which try the faith of Christians, and not only deepen but embitter the unbelief of skeptics? Before resigning ourselves to this as a last alternative, -surely it behooves us to turn back once more to Scripture, and with care and earnestness and patience to inquire how far the difficulties which here perplex us may depend upon the ignorance of finite minds; how far upon excrescences, the growth of human teaching, by which the truth has been distorted or concealed. What are these difficulties? That God should tolerate the existence of evil for eternity. That the brief life- sin of finite creatures should lead to punishment of infinite duration. That no matter how dense and hopeless the darkness in which that life is spent, their destiny should be fixed irreversibly at death. That the overwhelming majority of the human race are doomed to exist for ever in a scene of unutterable horror. That while Christ shall have His thousands, the Devil shall boast of millions in his train. That these, the creatures of a God of love, shall be abandoned to the outer darkness, the gnashing of teeth, the torment day and night for ever and ever. That banished from love and light and peace to their awful prison home, Satan shall reign over them for evermore, and his foul demons shall revel in their anguish. And that this shall be for all without distinction. That the myriad millions of the heathen who never heard of the God of Heaven shall know Him first and only and forever as the God of Hell. That the good and pure of earth, and little children too, in countless hosts, whose life was quenched ere ever they had fairly launched upon the sea of sin, shall be herded with the vilest and the worst of men and trampled on by devils; in time to grow like them, until at last all trace and memory of purity and good shall perish, and hell itself shall lose its power to make the damned more hateful, more corrupt, so hideous and awful shall be the depths of their depravity and guilt. And that this shall be forever, FOR EVER. That no moving shadow on the dial shall relieve despair by reminding the lost that every day of anguish brings them nearer to deliverance. Just as the tree is said to put forth its roots in exact proportion to its spreading branches, so we could understand if punishment in the under-world were measured by each sinner’s life on earth. This would silence unbelief; all would freely own its equity. But that the doom of the lost shall be eternal punishment, this is a conception which paralyses human thought. With the great majority of Christians it is the chief, if not the only, difficulty. As already stated, a single wave of human life comprises over fourteen hundred millions of mankind. But none will dream that even one of these shall be forgotten. When the judgment comes, it will not be only the great of earth who shall stand before the throne. "The dead, small and great" shall be there. God’s great judgments in this world were awful in the suddenness with which all without distinction were engulfed in a common doom. The hoary sinner and the helpless infant perished together under the waters of the Flood. So was it again when fire from heaven consumed the Cities of the Plain. But this was just because there is a judgment to come, and another world beyond, in which perfect justice can be meted out to each. The glimpses afforded us behind the veil which hides that judgment and that world are few and partial; but this much is absolutely certain, that the lost will not be sent to their doom unheard. Twice in Scripture they are represented as parleying with their Judge. Each one shall be fairly dealt with. The record of each life shall be laid bare. The books shall be opened, and the dead shall be judged, every man according to his works. Every sinner in the countless multitude to be arraigned at the great assize shall hear his indictment, and be heard in his defense. How long then shall be allowed to each? Take the estimated population of the world for this one century in which we live: suppose that for this purpose every human being is allotted less than a quarter of an hour - a brief quarter of an hour; assume that the session shall go on unceasingly, without a moment’s interval, hour after hour, day after day, year after year, till all has been concluded; and the judgment of this small section of the human race will last one hundred thousand years! And were we to estimate the number of those who have lived and died during the sixty centuries already past, and of those who are still to be born upon the earth, we should be forced to the conclusion that the duration of the "day of judgment" shall be measured by millions of years! Need a single word be added to emphasize the folly of measuring the events of that world by the calendars of time? That some fallacy underlies the problem the very statement of it proves; but wherein that fallacy consists we cannot tell. If human reason were under obligations to solve the enigma, the solution might possibly be found in the theories of Kant. In the whole range of metaphysical inquiry no more philosophical suggestion was ever offered than his, that Time is nothing more than a law of human thought. And though neither he nor any of his disciples ever dreamt of his system being turned to such account, may it not be used as the basis of an appeal to Christians to trust God for the explanation of a difficulty which is purely intellectual? To lay stress, therefore, upon eternal evil is merely to conceal the real question which, if faith is to depend on the absence of difficulties, reason is bound to give some account of. If the theories of geologists be well founded, this earth must have been the grave of an earlier creation before it became the cradle and home of existing life. And if there was death, there must also have been sin. Some have conjectured that Satan was the federal head of that earlier creation, and that his peculiar enmity to man was because this earth had once been his own domain. At all events the fact is clear that sin and death had been active in the universe of God before the Adamic age. Whether the interval since Satan’s fall had been a century or a million years, the moral difficulty is just the same. Though infinite in power and goodness, God permitted a fallen being to exist, albeit the result was the ruin of Adam and his world. What possible explanation can be offered of this fact, if "the extermination of evil" be His plan and purpose? It is the existence of evil which is the real difficulty. To accept the fact of Satan’s existence during all the ages of our world, and to hold it incredible that he should continue to exist when his power for evil shall have ceased for ever - this is neither faith nor philosophy, but an appeal to human ignorance and to the awe inspired in finite minds by the attempt to realize eternity. This last remark suggests another point in the popular travesty of truth respecting the final condition of the lost. The "everlasting fire" is not to be the Devil’s kingdom. It will be his prison, not his palace. Amidst so much that is doubtful, this at least is sure. "At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow," in heaven, earth, and hell; every tongue shall own Him Lord. "All things shall be subdued unto Him." Not until "He shall have put down all rule and all authority and power" will He deliver up the kingdom to the Father. Every creature in the universe shall be in absolute subjection to Almighty God. The underworld is not to be a scene of Satanic carnival. The word-pictures which describe the shrieks and curses of the lost of earth, as demons mock their anguish or heap fuel on their torture fires, are relieved from the charge of folly only by the graver charge of profanity. There is no spot in all the Queen’s dominions in which the reign of order is so supreme as in a prison. So shall it be in hell. To speak of this as producing an alleviation of the sinner’s doom betrays the lingering influence of the error here condemned. Obedience will be their normal condition there. To speculate how it will be brought about is idle. It may be that the recognition of the perfect justice and goodness of God will lead the lost to accept their doom. Possibly, too, the poet’s dream may yet be realized, that Divine love shall shine out so clearly, even amid the fires of judgment, that when the anthem rises in the palace-home of God, even the prison-house shall join in the refrain, and praise shall issue forth from hell. Speculations such as these are perfectly legitimate in poetry, but they should have no place in the sober prose of theology. To plead that God will still own the bond which binds His creatures to Himself is to forget that the great revelation of GRACE implies that all relationships were broken, all claims lost, by the murder of the Son. To argue that "the resurrection of judgment is one part of the redeeming work of Christ," and that "the judgment of the lost is based on a present work of the Redeemer," is to confound redemption itself with the place and power which Christ has taken in connection with redemption. It was not the Cross which made Him either Son of God or Son of Man, albeit it was in view of our redemption that He was thus revealed. Yet it is as Son of God that He shall recall the dead to life. And it is "because He is the Son of Man" that all judgment is committed to Him. In considering the destiny of mankind, it is of immense importance to vindicate the Bible from the reproach which mediaeval theology has brought on it. But if the statements of Scripture must needs be colored or explained away by theories which eliminate all element of dread from the doom of the impenitent, faith is of course impossible. If the reader will pursue the inquiry to the close, he will find that those statements, unspeakably solemn and awful though they be, present no difficulty which a reverent and believing heart will refuse to leave with a God Whose justice and goodness and love are beyond all question and all doubt. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 93: 1.07.12. CHAPTER 11: THE QUESTION DISCUSSED. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 11: THE QUESTION DISCUSSED. THE record of the Augustinian doctrine of the damnation of infants is one of the darkest chapters in theology. If we distinguish between what is doubtful and what is doubted, the question is not open to discussion. No language can be plainer than that in which the Epistle to the Romans teaches that Christ’s redemption is as far-reaching in its effects as Adam’s sin. (Footnote - The more one studies the Fathers the wider appears to be the gulf which separates their writings from the inspired Scriptures. This remark applies with full force to Origen, whose writings are appealed to so confidently in this controversy.) It is not that all shall be saved through the death of Christ, but that, in virtue of that death, no one shall be lost save by reason of personal guilt. It is certain, therefore, that the infant dead, whether of heathen or of Christian lands, shall be reckoned among the number of the redeemed. And where does Scripture teach that those who live and die in heathen darkness shall not hear of Christ after they pass away from earth? Either to assert or to deny that such shall find a "place of repentance" in the underworld is the arrogance which springs from ignorance; and in this sphere all arrogance is profane. It may be urged that if the sinners of the days of Noah have since received a gospel message from the Lord Himself, all others who have been denied a revelation upon earth shall have mercy offered them beyond. On the other hand, it may be argued that as "the exception proves the rule," so the special mention of the sinners who perished in the Flood implies that their case was peculiar, if not unique. The fact is, the Bible was not written to gratify curiosity in matters which in no way concern us. As regards the destiny of those it fails to reach, it is absolutely silent. The fate of the heathen is with God. There is one passage, indeed, which unfolds with definiteness the principles of judgment applicable to all mankind. The reference, of course, is to the second chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and the apostle’s statements are of such importance here that it may be well to quote them fully. He speaks of "the righteous judgment of God, Who will render to everyone according to his deeds : to them who by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life; but to them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first and also of the Gentile; but glory, honour, and peace to everyone that worketh good, to the Jew first and also to the Gentile. For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law, and as many as have sinned under law shall be judged by law, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ." Here are principles of universal application: who will deny their equity? Many seem to think that salvation by faith sets all this aside; but such thoughts are wholly false. When appealed to by the people to give some clear light to guide them in the life of well-doing, the Lord’s answer was explicit, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him Whom He hath sent." The standard of well-doing was changed by His advent, but the principle was the same. Allegiance to a banished prince may show itself in many ways; but once he appears within the realm, personal homage becomes the test and touchstone of loyalty. So is it as between God and men. Some live in nature’s darkness: some in the blaze of gospel light. But whether it be merely "the candle set up within them," or the full revelation of the Son of God, "to obey the truth" is to tread the path of blessing. The heathen will not be damned for ignorance of Christ; while, on the other hand, in Christendom no amount of seeming "well-doing" will avail, if personal loyalty to Christ be wanting. The word spoken retrospectively of His life on earth shall still hold good when He returns to judgment: "To as many as received Him, to them gave He the right to become children of God." But, it will be answered, this is evading the real issue, which is as to the equity, not of the judgment, but of the sentence. If everlasting torment be the penalty of sin, such must be in fact the doom of the vast majority of the heathen. It is idle to theorize upon the supposed statistics of the Day of Judgment, though the popular belief is largely based upon willful and deliberate rejection of Scripture testimony about coming ages of blessing upon earth. But where does Scripture teach that everlasting torment is the penalty of sin? DEATH is the penalty of sin. Instead of absolute equality, Scripture indicates an infinite inequality in punishment. The Bible is full of promises and prophecies of a time to come when God shall be known and feared from pole to pole. For aught we know, the population of the world will then be ten, or perchance a hundred times greater than at present. If we take this into account, together with the facts and possibilities of redemption noticed in the last few pages, is it so clear on which side the majority of mankind shall ultimately be found? It may be said that this is an appeal to our ignorance. True, but the prejudice I seek thus to break down is based entirely on our ignorance. The one is a set-off against the other: faith will ignore both, and leave the issue with God. There will be the "few stripes" and the "many stripes." God "will render to each according to his deeds." Surely the distinction is obvious and simple between the general penalty of sin, which depends on the essential character of a God Who cannot tolerate evil in His presence, and the special kind and measure of punishment which the Righteous Judge will impose on each, according to the degree and nature of his guilt. It is of the Antichrist and his adherents - the enemies of Christ in the awful days to come - that the Word declares they "shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." And this disposes of a difficulty which has been used with such success in the interests of error. Sin’s penalty has indeed been borne by Christ. His resurrection was the public proof that every claim of righteousness was satisfied and all who by faith become identified with Him are justified from sin. But the sufferings of the Sin-bearer did not include the consequences of rejecting the atonement. When, therefore, it is demanded whether Christ endured "everlasting torment," the best reply is to expose the latent error in the question. To speak even of His bearing the punishment of sin is to use unscriptural language; and the statement is untrue, if punishment be intended to embrace all the consequences, both providential and penal, which follow upon transgression. The attempt to eliminate all element of mystery from the atonement is impious and vain. Redemption is, in fact, the crowning mystery of revelation. But it is mainly in the imputation of sin that the mystery consists. It is not, as so often stated, "the innocent dying for the guilty," for that would be immoral, and impossible with God; but the innocent passing into the place of the guilty, and, as guilty, dying to expiate the guilt imputed to Him. If anyone still insists upon the inquiry, How could sin be so imputed to the sinless as to make a vicarious death justifiable? He may seek to reason out the answer; but, as Bishop Butler says, "All conjectures about it must be, if not evidently absurd, yet at least uncertain." "Nor," he adds, "has any one reason to complain for want of further information, unless he can show his claim to it." The fact is plain - and this alone concerns us - that "He Who knew no sin was made sin for us. "During all His ministry on earth, albeit it was spent in humiliation and reproach, no hand was ever laid upon the Blessed One, save in importunate supplication or in devout and loving service. But when at times His enemies would fain have seized Him, a mysterious hour to come was spoken of, in which their hate should be unhindered. ’This is your hour, and the power of darkness,’ He exclaimed, as Judas and the impious companions in his guilt drew round Him in the garden. His hour He called it when He thought of His mission upon earth; their hour, when, in the fulfillment of that mission, He found Himself within their grasp. "The agonies inflicted on Him by men have taken hold on the mind of Christendom; but beyond and above all these the mystery of the Passion is that He was forsaken and accursed of God. In some sense, indeed, His sufferings from men were but a consequence of this; therefore His reply to Pilate, ’Thou couldest have no power at all against Me, except it were given thee from above.’ If men seized and slew Him it was because God had delivered Him up. When that destined hour had struck, the mighty hand drew back which till then had shielded Him from outrage. His death was not the beginning, but the close of His sufferings; in truth, it was the hour of His triumph." To be "forsaken and accursed of God" - this is death in its deeper spiritual significance. And the fact is clear, however it be explained, that once the Lord had passed into that condition, the only way of escape from it was by laying down His life. If the penalty of sin be "natural death" merely, the agony of Gethsemane and "Immanuel’s orphan cry" upon the cross can in no way be accounted for. If it be annihilation, then the death of Christ was a defeat and not a triumph, and, as already shown, His resurrection was a fraud. Faith grasps the fact that the death of the Sin-bearer, in all which it implies, is an equivalent to the sinner’s doom, but how it is so is a mystery which reason seeks in vain to solve. Experience teaches us that even in this world the consequences of sin are disastrous and abiding. And Scripture leaves no doubt that in the world to come sin’s punishment shall be real and searching. We know that it will entail banishment from God; and further we know that infinite love and perfect justice shall measure the cup which each must drink. But beyond this we know absolutely nothing. The pride of intellect which lured our first parents to their ruin is abnormally developed in their posterity; but man’s vain boast of knowledge beyond what is revealed serves only to awaken echoes which proclaim his folly. What concerns us is not to theorize about the penalty of sin, but to take heed that we escape the "sorer punishment" of despising grace. It were otherwise if Christianity gave those who reject it the alternative of falling back on the position held by all whom the revelation has never reached. But no such choice is ours. The Gospel shuts men up either to accept the blessings it bestows, or else to await the doom of which those shall be "thought worthy" who have "trodden underfoot the Son of God." To cease to exist is to become as though one had not been; but a fate worse than this awaits the Christ-rejector and the apostate -" Good were it for that man, if he had never been born." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 94: 1.07.13. CHAPTER 12: THE QUESTION ANSWERED. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 12: THE QUESTION ANSWERED. To the reverent and refined there is something far more awful in the solemn measured language of Holy Writ upon the doom of the lost, than in all the word-pictures framed on it by facile pens or fluent tongues. These serve rather to repel, sometimes even to disgust. The outer darkness, the worm that never dies, the fire that is not quenched, the torment of the burning lake-all this may be but figurative language; but if so, the figures must represent realities still more terrible. It is easy to create a prejudice against the truth by giving prominence to human utterances, often foolish, sometimes coarse and profane, while studiously keeping out of view the great truth - love to a lost world. But it is the same gospel which reveals that love which also declares the coming wrath. Just in proportion, therefore, as redemption is depreciated, the guilt of rejecting mercy will be ignored. Man claims to be the arbiter of his own destiny, and "reason and conscience" tell him that "finite sin" shall have a finite punishment. But who will dare to call it "finite sin" to kill the Prince of Life? And such is the guilt of sinners who reject Him-" they crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame." To strike a fellow-man might be an offence, though possibly a trivial one. To strike a parent would be, morally at least, a heinous crime. But to strike a king would be treason, punishable with death. In every case the guilt and penalty are measured, not by the act itself, but by the position of the outraged person and his relationship to the offender. So is it as between God and men. "Half measures are impossible in view of the cross of Christ. The day is past when God could plead with men about their sins. The controversy now is not about a broken law, but a rejected Christ. If judgment, therefore, be our portion, it must be measured by God’s estimate of the murder of His Son." But who are they who shall be held guilty of this direst sin? The answer is with God, and not with us. If any who have heard the gospel can prove that they are guiltless, we may be assured that "the Righteous Judge" will accept the plea. But let no one dare to trade upon a hope of mercy in that day, while putting mercy from him here and now. Men speak as though the gospel were nothing but a dogma which some may fairly doubt, and the many fail to understand, forgetting that the death of Christ is a great public fact which must bring either blessing or judgment to every soul to whom the testimony comes. The question is not of assent to a shibboleth, but of loyalty to a person; not of belief in salvation, but of devotion to a Saviour. But all this is lost in the religious skepticism of the day, which is eating the very heart out of Christianity. "The Christ of ages past is now the Christ no more; Altar and fire are gone, The Victim but a dream!" Hence the deep and widespread conspiracy that exists to make light both of the guilt and the punishment of sin. Self and not God having become the test and touch-stone of all things, sin is palliated and judgment decried. Men speak as though the love of God were on its trial at the bar of "reason and conscience," and as if the verdict must needs be deferred till the sinner’s doom shall have been declared. But the love of God has been once and for ever vindicated by the great sacrifice of Calvary. It is measured by the gift of Christ, not by the lightness of their doom who reject Him. "In Him was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world that we might live through Him." "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Here we have reached what is at once the real centre of the controversy and the climax of the argument. The preceding pages are the reflex of the struggle by which one inquirer has escaped from the difficulties set forth in the opening chapter. Perchance the record may prove helpful to others. The destiny of the lost is a great mystery, but it is only one phase of the crowning mystery of Evil. There must be some moral necessity why evil once existing, should continue to exist. Otherwise, the presence of the Serpent in Eden, and all the dismal facts of human history, would be inexplicable. But if the existence of Evil be recognized, its punishment is, in the very nature of things, inevitable. The real question, therefore, is not primarily as to the kind and duration of the punishment, but whether Divine love and equity have been placed beyond the shadow of a doubt. And that question will be answered by each according to his estimate of the gospel. There is no question as to the Creator’s power to extinguish creature existence; and by redemption God has won the undoubted right to restore the fallen race to blessing. But who can tell what moral hindrances may govern the exercise of that power and that right? Scripture assumes the continued existence of the Adam life. The resurrection is a proof of it. Judgment and hell are themselves an overwhelming proof of it. The crowning proof of it is redemption achieved at a cost so priceless. But if the skepticism of the day could be forced to speak out plainly, it would declare that God is to blame for human sin, and therefore redemption is merely the natural outcome of Divine benevolence. Any good man who, through his own default, allowed ruin to overtake others dependent on him, would make any sacrifice to repair the evil. Is man, then, better than God? Will not God make further and unceasing efforts to restore the lost whom love and grace shall have failed to win? Or, if that be impossible, will He not in mercy put an end to their existence? The only answer to all such cavils is the cross of Christ. Behind that cross there is no concealed reserve of mercy or love. Man has lost through sin the paradise of earth; God bids him welcome to the paradise of heaven. The sin was in spite of all that God had done for man. The blessing is in spite of all the return that man has made to God. Men plead that because of what they are they cannot be what they ought to be; but redemption is for those who are all they ought not to be. Grace is as free as sunlight. God "will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." It is "for the Devil and his angels" that the "everlasting fire" is prepared; God’s own heaven is thrown open to the lost of earth. The weakest or the worst of men has but to choose Christ, and not sin, and he will find in Christ a Saviour from sin, and attain to blessing such as unfallen Adam never dreamed of. But what if he choose sin and reject Christ? God declares that the alternative to grace is wrath; but the religious skepticism of the day will tell him that he may despise grace and yet escape wrath; or, at all events, that the wrath will be tempered and limited according to his own estimate of his guilt. The possession of a single share in a commercial company is regarded by an English judge as a sufficient reason for leaving the bench if that company be sued; and yet, in rehearsing the Day of Judgment, men claim to sit as assessors with Almighty God, and to adjudicate upon their own destiny. We conclude, then, that the proclamation of grace in the gospel is final, and that the destiny of all who either receive or reject the message is fixed in this life. In the Lord’s own words, "He that believeth on Him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is already condemned." At death, therefore, the unbeliever passes hence to await, not his trial, but his sentence. Further, we conclude that in the case of all mankind the judgment of the great day will be irreversible. But whether those who have been denied a revelation in this world shall find "a place of repentance" in the intermediate state, it is not for us to dogmatize. To deny that God can give blessing to those whom the voice of revelation has never reached, is to make the value of redemption depend on man’s appreciation of it. To assert that the testimony shall be granted to all mankind is to ignore the apostle’s statement that "as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law." What the fate of such will be we cannot tell. That they will reap what they have sown, the Scripture plainly states. And this suggests that in one aspect of it, "future punishment may follow wickedness in the way of natural consequence. Death is the wages of sin. But if there were nothing more in future punishment than this, then, as already urged, there would be no need whatever of a day of judgment. Once we pass beyond the general statements of Scripture, we know absolutely nothing of the fate of the lost. Of course, we can launch out in speculations. There are no idlers in a well-disciplined gaol: in God’s great prison-house is idleness to reign supreme? The tread-mill, which in former times served only to grind the air, is in our day used for good and needful purposes: are we to suppose that all the energies of the lost are to be consumed in tasks of aimless punishment? God has told us of their punishment, for that is all we are concerned to know; but nowhere has He said that it is for punishment alone they shall exist. If throughout creation, and even in the world which the microscope reveals to us, every creature seems to have its mission, why should we assume it will be otherwise in hell? It were but folly to press the matter further, and theorize about the possible employments of the lost; but may we not suppose that in the infinite wisdom of God there are purposes to the accomplishment of which even they will be made to minister? If heaven were the fools’ paradise of our hymnology, the conventional hell might well be accepted as its counterpart. If the redeemed are to sit in one vast surpliced choir, to spend eternity in song, why should not the lost be battened down in some huge dungeon, with no occupation save to bewail for evermore their doom? One of the commonest artifices in this controversy is to seize on the popular conception of hell, and then to demand whether existence in such a condition for millions of ages be not incredible. Let anyone put his heaven to the same test, and he will be startled at reaching a like conclusion. That an eternal paradise will be eternal happiness the believer is assured. But it is entirely a matter of faith. Reason cannot grasp it. The mind is utterly overwhelmed by the attempt to realize eternity at all. On this whole subject "orthodoxy" has gone beyond what Scripture warrants, and "heresy" ignores or denies some of its plainest teaching. Our choice, however, does not lie between orthodoxy and heresy, as judged by creeds and Churches, but between revelation on the one hand, and the opinions of men on the other. In a sphere where reason can tell us nothing, we are bound to keep strictly to the very words of Scripture, neither enlarging their scope nor drawing inferences from them. But in contrast with this, the inspired words have been used in such a way as to produce a mental revolt which endangers faith. Divine love is boundless. Christ’s redemption is of infinite value. Grace is supreme; and it is "salvation-bringing to all men "-such is its scope and tendency. But even if it were certain that in the underworld God will reveal Himself as a Saviour to those who fail to hear of Him thus on earth, this would only emphasize the truth which is as plain on the page of Scripture as words can make it, that the gospel of His grace is a final revelation to those it reaches. Man boasts of the proud but perilous dignity of an independent will. He used it in turning away from God. He may use it again in refusing to turn back to God. And what then? The gospel of a free pardon through the death of Christ is "preached in the whole creation under heaven." The amnesty has been proclaimed; and, because God is unwilling that any should perish, judgment waits. But if men despise the grace and reject the Saviour, the sure and inevitable alternative is PERDITION. Strange it is that they who are most emphatic in asserting that God must give salvation to all men in the next world, are precisely those who dismiss as fanaticism the truth that He gives salvation here and now to those who seek Him. The Church of Rome denies grace altogether, and represents Divine love as dependent for its display on the human weakness of a traditional Jesus and the womanly tenderness of a traditional Mary. This conception of God has produced the coarse conventional hell of theology, which again has led to the creation of purgatory and masses for the dead, to alleviate the horrors of the system. In asserting the doctrine of justification by faith, the Reformation in great measure restored the lost truth of grace. Mariolatry and purgatory disappeared with the darkness which produced them, but the mediaeval hell remained. Protestantism, however, when separated from spiritual life, is a mere soulless body; and while the religious movement of the present century has deepened faith in the doctrines of the Reformation, those who have resisted its influences are either turning back to Rome or lapsing to infidelity. On the one side, we see a revival of the old errors of intercession for the dead and the power of "aeonian fire" to purify the soul. On the other side, the great truths of Christianity are dismissed as narrow cant; the mystery of Divine love to a lost world is degraded to the level of good-natured benevolence to erring creatures; sin is but human frailty, righteousness a myth, and judgment but the appointed means by which the lost of earth shall be fitted for the heaven to which their relationship to God entitles them. In a shallow, and, therefore, a skeptical age, this is the most popular religion. It vaunts itself as the outcome of increased enlightenment; in fact it is but the mingled ignorance and insolence of unbelief. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 95: 1.07.14. APPENDIX ======================================================================== APPENDIX PART I. THE following are the passages of the New Testament principally relied on to prove the doctrines of universalism. The exposition here offered is commended to the consideration of the reader. Acts 3:21 "Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began." The word here rendered "restitution” occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, but the kindred verb is used in eight passages, two of which throw light on this one. The prophetic Scriptures abound in predictions of a coming period of mingled blessing and judgment upon earth, and the Old Testament closes with the statement that its advent will be heralded by the return of Elijah. This was used by the Scribes to disprove the claims of Jesus to Messiahship, and in Matthew 17:1 o the disciples referred the difficulty to their Master. The Lord in reply expressly confirmed the prophecy, declaring that "Elias truly shall come first and restore all things." So again in Mark 9:12, "Elias verily cometh first and restoreth all things." St. Peter’s words, in Acts 3:21, unmistakably refer to this the common hope of the people he was addressing, - a hope confirmed by Christ Himself. If, even then, Israel would but repent, God would send them the Messiah appointed for them, even Jesus; whom the heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, of which (times) God spake by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. He goes on to assert emphatically that every prophet, from Samuel onwards, foretold of those days, and he ends by connecting with these same prophecies the promise to Abraham that in his Seed all the kindreds of the earth shall be blessed. It is as clear as light, therefore, that "the times of restoration of all things" are no other than "the times of refreshing" of the 19th verse, "the great season of joy and rest on earth, which it was understood the coming of Messiah in His glory was to bring with it." Moreover, "all the prophets" "have foretold of these days," and their voice is almost, if not entirely, silent, about events beyond the last great judgment of "the quick amid dead." We are forced to the conclusion, therefore, that the use which has been made of the apostle’s words is a perversion of the Scripture. It must not be overlooked that "the times of restoration of all things" will be marked by the destruction of the obdurate and disobedient. 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" - Does this teach universal blessing? The words can be read in two ways. Either "death" may be taken to mean no more than physical death, and "life" as implying only the resurrection; or else the words may be understood in their deeper spiritual significance. If we adopt the former reading, then the passage means that as death is the lot of every human being, so every human being shall be raised from the dead by Christ’s power. But who disputes this? It is the common faith of Christendom! But, it will be urged, the words mean more than this: "life" means salvation in the highest sense. Then "death" must be construed on the same principle, for the words are correlatives. How then shall we read the verse? As every human being dies, 1:e. shall be finally lost, so every human being shall live, 1:e. shall be finally saved. But these propositions are contradictory and absurd. We must either be content, therefore, to take the words as asserting merely the universality of death and resurrection, or else we must adopt a second possible rendering, and construe them thus: As in Adam all who belong to Adam die, so in Christ all who belong to Christ shall be made alive. That this is in fact the apostle’s meaning the immediate sequel proves. He adds, "But each in his own order; Christ, the first fruits, afterwards they that are Christ’s (i.e. who belong to Christ) at His coming." That there will be beyond that "resurrection to life" a resurrection to judgment, we know from other Scriptures; but this is outside the scope of the apostle’s argument, and he makes no mention of it here. If the 22nd verse be bracketed with the 21st, it will be read on the first principle above suggested; if with the 23rd, it will be pregnant with higher truth. But in neither case can it have the slightest bearing on the present controversy. In the passage under consideration the climax is reached in the statement of the 28th verse that the great end of the "mediatorial kingdom" is "that God may be all in all." These words are held to imply universal restoration. But this result is declared to be "when He shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power." It is not attained "till He hath put all enemies under His/eel," till "all things shall be subdued unto Him"; and this is not the sort of language in which Scripture speaks of winning back the lost to God. Moreover, the absolute and acknowledged supremacy of the Almighty is all that is involved in the words "that God may be all in all." The gloss "all things in all men" betrays either dishonesty or levity in handling Scripture. The supremacy is universal, and if it be brought about by reconciliation, the blessing must be shared by all the hosts of darkness. Php 2:10. This last remark applies with equal force to the statement of the Divine purpose "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth." Not merely angels and saints and men on earth shall own Him Lord, but also the dwellers in the underworld. But till it has been proved that this acknowledgment shall be obtained from all by reconciliation, it must not be assumed that it will not be, in the case of some, by judgment Revelation 5:13; Revelation 21:4-5; Revelation 22:3. With this statement in Philippians the vision of Revelation 5:13 appears to be connected. But this perhaps has been assumed too easily. The language seems to be figurative, for it is not intelligent beings only, but all animated creation, that join in the anthem of praise. No argument can fairly be based on it. The use made in this controversy of the description of the blessedness of the redeemed in the new creation must excite surprise in the mind of anyone who studies the context. For the redeemed there is to be no more curse or death or sorrow, "but" (in awful contrast with this) "the fearful and unbelieving. . . shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." Romans 5:1-21 It is idle to ignore the fact that theologians widely differ in their exegesis of the 5th chapter of Romans. But all that is essential here is to determine whether the meaning put upon the passage by the advocates of universalism be the true interpretation of it. The difficulty of the passage is centered in the statement of the 18th verse, that "as through one trespass [the judgment came] unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness [the free gift came] unto all men to justification of life." Verses 13 to 17 are parenthetical, and in the apostle’s argument the words just quoted follow upon the statement of the 12th verse, that, by reason of Adam’s sin, "death passed upon all men." Therefore, he concludes, as the result of that one trespass was unto all men to condemnation, even so the result of Christ’s one act of righteousness was unto all men to justification. But surely the second of these correlative clauses is governed by the first. Men have "many trespasses," as the 16th verse declares, and the word is "unto justification" from them all. But here he is speaking only of the "one trespass," and establishing that the death of Christ has cancelled the effects of Adam’s sin. No one will deny that this is a fair and natural rendering of the passage; and this being so, I might pass on, leaving it to those who insist upon giving it a wider meaning to prove the correctness of their view. But let us pursue the matter further. As the condemnation included "all men," so also does the justification which tends to life. That the saved will be freed from the guilt of original sin is a mere truism. The apostle’s statement is that the benefit is for all. Christ has won for mankind immunity from judgment for Adam’s sin. So far as regards that sin every human being is "justified." But we are told we must not thus limit it. What then is the alternative? That just as that "one trespass" brought condemnation upon every human being, even so the death of Christ brought him justification, not from Adam’s sin only, but from all sin. There is no question here of the penitent believer’s blessing, but of the condition of man as man in virtue of the death of Christ. "All men," penitent and impenitent alike, are "justified from all things." All sins are thus wiped out for ever; and yet these same teachers tell us that for these very sins the sinner shall be punished "in aeonian fire beyond the grave"! Ephesians 1:10. The Epistle to the Ephesians announces the purpose of God "that in the dispensation of the fullness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth." The words "all things" shall be further considered under the next passage cited. Suffice it here to admit that they are wide enough to include the universe, and if explanatory words of as wide signification be added, no other meaning can fairly be put on them. But is it clear that the words here added are not words of limitation? In the passage already noticed in Philippians, where the supremacy of Christ is in question, the apostle includes, with heaven and earth, the underworld; and that "the heavens" include the abode of fallen angels and lost men is a startling assumption which cannot be conceded. Moreover, it is admitted by all that the lost will be sent to their punishment after the last great judgment. Therefore if they are to be included in the "gathering together," "the economy of the fullness of times" must be explained on a principle unknown to theologians. Further, the rendering "gather together in one" gives to the word here used a color which scarcely belongs to it. It occurs once again—viz., in Romans 13:9., where the apostle says the law is briefly comprehended in the one word which enjoins love. The word means to head up or sum up as ex. gr. at the close of a speech. The universe shall yet be headed up in Christ. He shall regain the place from which sin has sought to dethrone Him. But whether this shall be accomplished by the restoration of all, or by the subjection of all, we must turn to other scriptures to decide. Colossians 1:20. The most important passage still remains. To the Colossians St. Paul writes thus: "For in Him" (Christ) "God was pleased that the whole fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile again all things to Him, having made peace by means of the blood of His cross—through Him—whether the things on the earth or the .things in the heavens." (I have followed the translation given in Alford’s Commentary.) Here at last we have a statement which, it ought to be admitted, seems to teach universal restoration. To attempt a critical analysis of the somewhat conflicting views of commentators on the passage would involve too serious a digression. But in accordance with the scheme of my argument, the following suggestions are offered for the consideration of the thoughtful. First, then, the remark already made on the words "all things" applies here with increased force. It cannot be questioned that in the 16th verse these words have no limitation whatever; for in speaking of creation, "the heavens and the earth" include the universe in every part and to its utmost limits. But sin has produced an apostasy from "the heavens and the earth," and as already noticed, the apostle when asserting Christ’s supremacy enumerates the heavens, the earth, and the underworld. Further; there is sometimes a good deal of theology in the use of the Greek article, and its presence here indicates that the prominent thought in the passage is not every part of the universe, but the universe regarded as a whole. May not the lapsed portion of it be ignored here, as it is ignored in the closing words of the first chapter of the Bible, where everything that God had made was declared to be very good, albeit the Serpent and his angels had already marred the unity of creation? But it is the word "reconcile" upon which attention must be centered in considering this passage. It is used only by St. Paul, and the passages in which it occurs are so few and so important that it will be well to quote them here. Romans 5:10. - “For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." Romans 5:2 : - “Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." Romans 11:15. -” If the casting away of them" (Israel)" be the reconciling - of the world." 1 Corinthians 7:1-40 : i 1: - “Let her . . . be reconciled to her husband." 2 Corinthians 5:18-20. - " All things are of God, Who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation, - to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, . . . and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. . We pray in Christ’s stead be ye reconciled to God." Ephesians 2:16. – “That He might reconcile both" (Jew and Gentile)" unto God in one body by the cross." Colossians 1:20-21. - “Having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself: by Him, whether they be things on earth or things in heaven. And you that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled in the body of His flesh through death." This word translated "reconcile” means, first, to change one thing for another; and, secondly, as here, to change a person from enmity to friendship. The question at once suggests itself, On which side is the change? Is it in God’s attitude towards the creature, or in the creature’s attitude towards God? Does the creature receive God into his favor, or is it God Who receives the creature? The mere statement of the question seems to prejudge the answer. In a case like this there is no safer clue to the meaning of any word in the New Testament than its use in the Septuagint. Dean Alford quotes the following as the places where it occurs: Jeremiah 31:1-40 : (xlviii.) 39 (a mistranslation). 2Ma 1:5, “God . . . - hear your prayers and be reconciled unto you;" 7: 33, "Though the living Lord be angry with us . . . yet shall He be reconciled unto His servants"; Viii. 29, "They besought the merciful Lord to be reconciled unto His servants forever." As regards the noun, Archbishop Trench says it only occurs twice in the Septuagint, and in one of these passages it means simply exchange. In the other passage, 2 Macc. V. 20, "it is employed in the New Testament sense." There the writer says, speaking of the Temple, "As it was forsaken in the wrath of the Almighty, so again, on the reconciliation of time great Lord, it was set up with all glory." Dr. Trench goes on to say that the Christian reconciliation is, first, "a reconciliation effected once for all for us by Christ upon His cross; " though it is, "secondly and subordinately," "the daily deposition under the operation of the Holy Spirit of the enmity of the old man toward God." And the writer adds, "All attempt to make this, the secondary meaning of the word, to be the primary, rests not on an unprejudiced exegesis, but on a foregone determination to get rid of the reality of God’s anger against sin." These are weighty words, of special moment here. In all these passages from the Septuagint reconciliation is from God to man; and if with the light they give we turn back to the scriptures above set forth, this same conclusion will be established. "We were reconciled to God by the death of His Son." On conversion the sinner did not produce, he only "received the reconciliation." Is it not clear as light that it is this accomplished reconciliation which has dethroned sin and ushered in the reign of grace? The next passage is still more unmistakable. The setting aside of Israel was "the reconciliation of the world." When Israel rejected Messiah, God set the nation aside and turned toward the world. Again, “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself." "It is not a present work, but a work past and finished. By that death we who were enemies were reconciled. The appeal of the Gospel is now that men would receive the reconciliation. ‘Be reconciled to God’ is not an entreaty to time sinner to forgive his God, but an appeal to him to come within the reconciliation God has wrought. All this leads unmistakably to the conclusion that "the reconciliation of all things" is not a hope to be fulfilled in the coming eternity, but a fact accomplished in the death of Christ. It is impossible that the way of life ever can become more free than that death has made it; and if men refuse the proffered mercy, if they reject the reconciliation, what alternative can there be but wrath? "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." - The only question we have to consider here is whether the record of this utterance of the Baptist is to be taken as a doctrinal statement proving universal expiation. It is unnecessary, therefore, to discuss the views of rival commentators upon the text, especially as, apart from controversy, no one probably would question its reference to Isaiah 53:6-7, which again contains an allusion to the "scapegoat" of Leviticus 16:21, It is as though the Baptist had exclaimed, "Behold Him Who is the fulfillment of the 53rd chapter of Isaiah." It was a testimony to the Messiahship of Jesus; and it is unwarrantable to read it as though it were designed to settle in advance the controversy between the Calvinist and the Universalist. The one, no doubt, is bound to reconcile the words with his narrow views of redemption, and the other must account for the fact of judgment to come, consistently with universal expiation. But they who refuse to take either side in that controversy will be content to mark that while the work of Christ has a relation to the world, it has not brought the world deliverance from judgment. The question here involved is not the duration of future punishment, but whether future punishment is possible at all. 1 John 2:3 "And He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world." - The apparent difficulty of this passage depends in part on carelessness in reading it, and in part upon ignoring the teaching of the type on which such statements in the New Testament are based. This word occurs again in 1 John 4:10, and nowhere else in the New Testament. Dean Alford refers to the following passages where it is used in the Septuagint - viz. Numbers 5:8, Psalms 129:4, and Ezekiel 44:27. It expresses not what Christ accomplished through His death on the cross, but what He is in virtue of that death. The former is (Greek) the latter is (More Greek). The kindred word also occurs twice - viz., Romans 3:25 (propitiation), and Hebrews 9:5 (mercy seat and the verb is likewise used in two passages - Luke 18:13 (be merciful), and Hebrews 2:1-18 : i7, (to make reconciliation for). Grace is reigning. But if the grant of pardon were compulsory with God, or if it were impossible, grace would be in bondage. Because Christ is the propitiation for the whole world, God can have mercy on these passages, the above exposition is carried no further than the subject requires. Let it not be forgotten that they who deny the verbal inspiration of Scripture are merely quibbling when they rely on any such statement as the Baptist’s to prove anything upon whom He will; but to assert that His death renders judgment and punishment for sin unrighteous and impossible, is a wanton denial of Scripture. And if, in fact, there be "wrath to come," the duration of that wrath may be infinite as far as this passage is concerned. 1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 Timothy 4:10. God "will have all men to be saved." Christ "gave Himself a ransom for all." God "is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." The exposition of previous passages renders it almost unnecessary to say anything about these. Judgment and hell are facts which all admit. Whatever these verses mean, therefore, they are consistent with the perdition of the ungodly. If Christ were not a ransom for all, there would be those on earth whom God could not save. Grace, therefore, would be in chains, and not enthroned. This word ransom occurs here only. The kindred word is used in Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45. The 4th verse, as it reads in the English, may mean either that God intends to save all men, or else that He is willing that all should be saved. There is no such ambiguity in the Greek, "The Lord is - not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." God has revealed Himself as "the Saviour of all men"? But if He be in the same sense the Saviour of all, what possible meaning can there be in the words of limitation, "specially of those that believe." As it has been well put, As far as salvation stands in Him, He is the Saviour of all men; but it is only in those who believe that the salvation becomes actual. "Thou shalt by no means come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing." - As Dean Alford remarks, "These words, which in the earthly example imply future liberation, because an earthly debt can be paid in most cases, so in the spiritual counterpart amount to a negation of it, because the debt can never be discharged." Indeed, the use of this text in support of universalism only betokens the weakness of the cause; for imprisonment for debt is the basis of the parable, and this necessarily implies discharge when the debt is paid. The only possible way in which the idea of discharge on payment could be negative would be by fixing the debt at a sum entirely beyond the power of any man to pay. And this is precisely what the Lord has done in the kindred passage, Matt. XV111. 24. There, again, the debtor was committed "till he should pay all that was due"; but the sum due was so enormous that payment was impossible. If the 10,000 talents were of gold, the amount was fabulous. But even if of silver, the mention of such an amount would have impressed, and was clearly intended to impress, the hearers with the idea of hopeless ruin. It was the sum at which Haman reckoned the revenue derivable from the destruction of the entire Jewish people (Esther 2:9). "God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." - This may express either the desire that all may be saved, or the intention that all shall be saved. Does the context leave it doubtful which is meant? The preceding verse expressly limits the actual blessing to the believer; and the verse which follows declares in the plainest terms not merely that the rejecter of Christ shall be condemned - which is the antithesis of being saved, - but that "he is condemned already." And the chapter closes with the words, "He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." The use made of the passage, therefore, to prove universalism can only avail to suggest the sad inquiry whether any honesty is to be looked for in religious controversy. The last passage which claims attention is the record of words spoken by the Blessed Lord shortly before His crucifixion, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto Me." “This He said" (the universalist declares) "signifying that all men are ultimately to be saved." "This He said" (the inspired evangelist adds) "signifying what death He should die." The statement, in fact, has no bearing on the controversy. In the days of His humiliation the Lord declared that no one could come to Him unless drawn by the Father Who had sent Him: in view of His cross He announced the time was coming when He would draw all to Himself. But the question before us now is the future of those who resist the influence; and on this the testimony of Scripture is given in no doubtful terms. CONCLUSION. The list of texts given by the author first quoted in these pages is swelled by several from the Old Testament. Most of these fall within the general remarks made at pp. 41 - 43 supra, the exceptions being passages which the reader will study in vain to discover how they bear upon the question at all. Indeed, this writer’s appeal to Scripture is an enigma, considering that he distinctly repudiates belief in universalism. There are many other passages, of course, freely used by Universalists, which have not been noticed here. Romans X1. 26 is an example. "All Israel shall be saved." This means either that every Israelite, from Patriarchal times to the end of the world, will ultimately be saved or else that in days to come Israel as a nation shall be saved. Can anyone doubt which is the true interpretation? In the context it is expressly stated that in the Divine intention Israel does not embrace every Israelite (ix. 6); and this same apostle’s testimony to the Jews included a warning that perdition was the doom of despisers (Acts 13:41). As a typical instance of passages which are not quoted by writers of this school may be cited Luke 13:23-28. "Said one unto Him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And He said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate; for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in and shall not be able." When will that be? He goes on to explain that the day is coming when the door which now stands open shall be closed, and then the sinner will knock at it in vain. At the very epoch when, these teachers tell us, the door will be flung open for all, the Lord Himself declares it will be closed even against those who seek an entrance. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 96: 1.08.00. MISUNDERSTOOD TEXT OF THE BIBLE ======================================================================== PART 8: MISUNDERSTOOD TEXT OF THE BIBLE ======================================================================== CHAPTER 97: 1.08.01. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER ======================================================================== CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER "I TELL YOU earnestly and authoritatively (I know I am right in this), you must get into the habit of looking intensely at words, assuring yourself of their meaning, syllable by syllable - nay, letter by letter." These words of Ruskin’s glaringly exaggerate the worth of mere human writings, but they might fitly be inscribed on the flyleaf of every Testament and Bible. For the words of God are like the works of God, in that we often need the microscope to enable us to appreciate them. And yet at times this element is of secondary importance. For, unless we understand the Divine scheme and purpose of the Bible as a whole, we cannot read even the New Testament intelligently. The following travesty of the teaching of Scripture is a fair statement of the views - beliefs we can scarcely call them - which are commonly held. "Adam’s sin so thoroughly depraved the nature of his descendants, that God destroyed them in the Flood, and began again with Noah. But the Noachian dispensation was as great a failure as that which it succeeded. In the Babylonian apostasy, indeed, the corruption of the primeval revelation was so radical - and permeating that even the Christian religion is leavened with its distinctive errors. So God then resorted to another plan. He singled out Abraham and his race to be His "peculiar people," and unto them were committed the oracles of God." But if previous dispensations collapsed in failure, the Abrahamic ended in disaster. For the covenant people crucified the Messiah when He came to fulfill to them the prophecies and promises of all the Scriptures. Therefore the Divine purposes for earth, so plainly unfolded in those Scriptures, have now been jettisoned; and in this Christian dispensation - "the last great aeon of God’s dealings with mankind" - earth is a mere recruiting-ground for heaven, and it will be given up to judgment-fire as soon as the number of the elect has been completed. Is it any wonder that the Bible is neglected by the profane, and that so much of it is accepted by the devout on the principle of "shut your eyes and open your mouth"? For this sort of Biblical interpretation leaves the Old Testament an easy prey to the German "Culture" of the infidel Higher Criticism crusade. And in the case even of the New Testament, not only isolated texts but considerable portions must needs be explained in the sense of being "explained away." Very specially does this apply to its opening and closing books. The loss of either of them would destroy the unity and completeness of the Bible. And yet the Apocalypse is regarded as a mere appendix, provided for the delectation of people of leisure with a taste for mysticism. And the First Gospel is too often used to modify, if not to "correct," the teaching of the Epistles. But the closing book of the Canon might fitly be described as the stocktaking book of the Bible; for the unfulfilled prophecies and promises of the Hebrew Scriptures are there traced to their consummation. And Matthew supplies the link which binds the Old Testament to the New. For the purpose of these pages, however, it will suffice to explain the place which the First Gospel holds in the Divine scheme of revelation. Our theology is largely based on the teaching of the Latin Fathers, and with them it was an accepted fact that God has "cast away His people whom He foreknew." The prophecies relating to Israel, and to God’s purposes of blessing for earth, have therefore to be "spiritualized" to make them, applicable to the Church. But the simple prose of Matthew will not allow of treatment of this kind. And so that Gospel is regarded as a sort of poor relation of the others; whereas to the student of prophecy it is in some respects the most important book of the New Testament. The Gospels are not, as infidels suppose, imperfect and often conflicting records of the life and ministry of "Jesus," but separate portraits, as it were, of the Lord Jesus Christ with reference to His various relationships and offices. This appears very strikingly when we compare the First Gospel with the Fourth. For the Fourth is the revelation of the Son of God, who came not to judge, but to save the world (John 12:47); whereas the First records His advent and ministry as Israel’s Messiah; and we scan it in vain for words of the kind we value in the Fourth - words which we as Gentiles, can take to ourselves without reserve. This notable fact is not to be explained by suggesting that the Apostle Matthew was a narrow-minded Jew who refused to identify himself with the teaching of his Lord whenever it passed beyond the sphere of Jewish hopes and interests. And the only alternative to this is that, writing by Divine inspiration, he was so guided and restrained that nothing came from his pen, save what was strictly germane to the special revelation entrusted to him by the Holy Spirit. "He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not." Thus it is that the Fourth Gospel opens; while the First begins by recording His birth and lineage - not, indeed, as infidels would tell us, as the descendant of an Arab sheikh and a petty tribal king, but as the promised "Seed" of Abraham, and as "David’s greater Son" - the glories of whose coming reign over this earth of ours fill so prominent a place in Hebrew Scripture. To that reign it was that the Baptist’s testimony pointed, when he came "preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, "Repent; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." The same testimony was afterwards taken up by the Lord Himself, and in due course entrusted to His Apostles. The popular belief that it was meant to herald what we call the "Christian dispensation" is utterly mistaken. "The kingdom of the heavens" (for such is the right rendering of the Greek words) occurs three and-thirty times in Matthew, and nowhere else in the New Testament. What are we to understand by the phrase? It cannot mean that God would soon begin to rule the heavens! And the only possible alternative is that the time was near when He would assume the government of earth. Much that is true of our island-home may be predicated of every land on which floats the "Union Jack": but England is not the British Empire. And there is a like distinction between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God. They are not synonymous; for the kingdom of heaven relates exclusively to earth. But here a strange fact claims notice. By untold millions of lips the prayer is daily uttered: "Thy kingdom come." And yet, with the unbeliever who uses that prayer, the suggestion of Divine government on earth would be scouted as a dream of visionaries; and among believers there is not one in a hundred who would not be shocked at the suggestion that the kingdom has not already come. Does not Scripture tell us (they would indignantly exclaim) that "the Lord God omnipotent reigneth"? And it was not the crucifixion that postponed the fulfillment of the Lord’s words. For His prayer upon the cross secured forgiveness for His murderers - witness the amnesty proclaimed at Pentecost by His inspired Apostle (Acts 3:19-24). But the preaching of that Pentecostal Gospel, first in Jerusalem, and afterwards throughout all Jewry and round as far as Rome, evoked never a response from even a local synagogue. The Acts of the Apostles contains the record of it; and it closes with the "Ichabod" pronounced upon that obdurate and guilty people. Instead, therefore, of sending "the Christ fore ordained unto them," God sent the awful judgment that so soon engulfed them; and the times of the Gentiles, which had seemed about to end, have lingered on for nineteen centuries. Though the purposes of God cannot be thwarted by the sins of men, the fulfillment of them may be thus postponed. And just as the wilderness apostasy of Israel prolonged their wanderings for forty years, although Canaan was but a few days’ march from Sinai, so the far more gross apostasy of Christendom has prolonged for nigh two thousand years an era which the Lord and His Apostles taught the early saints to look upon as brief. Not that "the times of the Gentiles" are co-terminous with "the Christian dispensation." The subjection of the Jewish nation to the supremacy of Babylon was the epoch of that era; and it will continue until the restoration of their national polity - an event which awaits the return of their Messiah. According to words familiar to every Jew, "His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the cast" (Zechariah 14:4). And when upon the day of the Ascension the disciples saw Him standing there, forgetful of the warning He had given them so recently, they put to Him the question "Wilt Thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" And the Lord’s reply implicitly accredited the question as Scriptural and right, albeit it was not for them to know "times or seasons" (Acts 1:6-7). Here, then, is a principle to guide us in studying the Scriptures. Divine promises and prophecies are not like bank-cheques that become invalid by lapse of time. Every word "which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began" about "the times of restitution of all things" - that is, the times when all things shall be put right on earth - shall be fulfilled as literally as were the seemingly incredible predictions of Bethlehem and Calvary. And when the Lord proclaimed that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, He meant that the time was near when these "times of restitution" would bring peace and blessedness to this sin-blighted world. Let us then apply this to His teaching at the close of His ministry, as recorded in the First Gospel. No one could have imagined that between the fulfillment of the great prophecy of Isaiah 53:1-12 : and of the prophecy which immediately follows it, there would be an interval of twenty centuries; or that a like period would intervene between the fulfillment of the prophecy of Matthew 24:1-51 : and the event which the Lord foretold in the second verse of that same chapter. But the explanation of this will plainly appear if we bear in mind, first, that all Messianic prophecy relating to earth runs in the channel of Israel’s national history and therefore, so to speak, the clock of prophetic time is stopped while their national history is in abeyance. And secondly, that Israel’s rejection during this Christian dispensation is a New Testament "mystery." It was not that our Lord spoke in ignorance. But though His Divine knowledge was full and absolute, His use of that knowledge, during all His earthly ministry, was subject to definite limitations. For He never spoke save as the Father gave Him to speak, and "times and seasons" the Father had kept in His own exousia (Acts 1:7). As we read these Scriptures, we must bear in mind that the kingdom of heaven is for earth, and that the earthly people of the Abrahamic promise are the Divinely appointed agency for the administration of it. And Matthew is the Gospel that speaks of it, because it is the Gospel which reveals Christ in His relationships with the earthly people. And if we are to understand that Gospel aright, we need to give a first reading too much of it as from the standpoint of the disciples to whom it was specially addressed. For the man of God "all Scripture is profitable," and therefore none may be neglected. But we must distinguish between interpretation and application. And, above all, we must clear our minds from the ignorance of Latin theology. "God hath not cast away His people whom He foreknew"; and in His own good time "all Israel shall be saved." Not, as the Apostle explains, that every Israelite shall be saved, but that Israel as a nation shall be restored to the place assigned to them in Holy Scripture (Romans 11:2; Romans 11:25-29). The scheme of the First Gospel is as definite as it is simple. It opens, as we have seen, by recording the birth of Christ as the "Seed" of the Abrahamic covenant, and the King of Israel. Then we have the Baptist’s ministry, which was a provisional fulfillment of the promised advent of Elijah (see ch. 11: 14). Then, after the Temptation, the Lord Himself proclaimed the same Gospel of the coming kingdom, and accredited His testimony by that marvelous display of miraculous power recorded at the close of chapter 4: In the three succeeding chapters He unfolded to His disciples the principles of the kingdom. In chapter 10: He commissioned the Twelve to take up the kingdom ministry; and the following chapter chronicles a series of typical acts and utterances of power, and mercy, and judgment. In chapter 12: we reach a crisis in the ministry. Just as by "spiritualizing" all the prophecies relating to His earthly kingdom glories, the "Christian Church" has either perverted or ignored them, so by a like process the "Jewish Church" perverted or ignored the prophecies relating to His earthly sufferings and death. And therefore the abundant proofs of His Messiahship had no voice for men who were looking only for the Son of David to deliver them from the Roman yoke; and the Sanhedrin decided that "the Galilean" was an impostor, and they decreed His death (ch. 12: 14). His ministry forthwith entered upon a new phase. Till then, His teaching had been open and plain but now it became veiled in parables (ch. 13). As those evil men had scorned His testimony, they were now to hear without understanding, and to see without perceiving (V. 14). None but His disciples were to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven - mysteries, namely, a phase of things till then unrevealed. The Hebrew Scriptures spoke of a king coming to reign, the Lord now speaks of a sower going forth to sow. This was not merely an enigma to the Jewish leaders, it must have deepened their hostility; and the meaning of it was explained to none but His own disciples (v. 11). An analysis of the succeeding chapters would point the same moral and be no less important; for across every section of the book may be inscribed the words. "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not." But for our present purpose a further notice of "the second Sermon on the Mount" will suffice and even this will involve some repetition. To understand the Lord’s teaching in these twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth chapters, I repeat with emphasis, we must give them a first reading from the standpoint of those to whom they were addressed - Hebrew disciples, who were rightly looking for the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. Messiah had come, and was in their midst. But, in some way that is not told us, they had learned that there was to be yet another "Coming" to wind up the age of Gentile supremacy, and to bring in "the times of restitution of all things." And these chapters record the Lord’s reply to their inquiry, "What shall be the sign of Thy coming and of the winding-up of the age?" (Not its telos, but its sunteleia.) It seems extraordinary that any student of Scripture should fail to distinguish between the coming of the Lord to call His people away to heaven at the close of this Christian dispensation, and His coming as Son of Man to establish His kingdom upon earth. But the writings of the Fathers have such a dominating influence upon the theology of Christendom that this confusion is enshrined as truth. The various Scriptures which tell of the future appearings of Christ have all been "thrown into hotchpot" (as the lawyers would say), and the doctrine of "the Second Advent" is the result. These Scriptures have nothing in common, save that they speak of the same Christ. I will not deal here with the last great coming at the end of all things. But the language of the Epistles respecting that coming which Bengel calls "the hope of the Church," gives color to the figment that it will be entirely secret; whereas Scripture is explicit that His coming as the Son of Man to earth will be open and manifest. And in foretelling it, the Lord emphatically warned the disciples that it would not take place until after certain notable events and movements foretold in Hebrew prophecy; whereas, in marked contrast with this, the early saints of this dispensation were taught by the inspired Apostles to live in constant expectation of His coming. And there is not a word in the Epistles to suggest that any event foretold in prophecy must intervene before the fulfillment of "that blessed hope." And the long delay in its fulfillment is amply accounted for by the hopeless and shameless apostasy of the professing Church on earth, even from the earliest times. The world-war now raging is not the fulfillment of Revelation 16:16. For "a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon" is not situate in either France or Flanders, but in Palestine; and the future of the land and people of the covenant will be a main issue in the great battle yet to be fought on that historic plain. And yet the present war may result in preparing the stage for the resumption of the drama of Hebrew prophecy. For if the Turk should be expelled from the Holy Land, it seems reasonably certain that Palestine will become a protected Jewish State. A protected State, I say advisedly, for until the end of "the times of the Gentiles" the Jews are to remain subject to Gentile suzerainty. The Lord’s words in Matthew 24:15 refer explicitly to the seventieth week of Daniel (ch. 9: 27). Some future "Kaiser" will make a treaty with the Jews, guaranteeing the free observance of their religion. And his violation of that treaty after three and a half years. - "in the midst of the week" - will be the epoch of "the great tribulation," a persecution unparalleled in all the past (v. 21). And as the Lord tells us in verse 29, the tribulation will be followed "immediately" by the appalling convulsions in the sphere of nature which are to usher in the day of the Lord (Isaiah 13:9-10; Joel 2:31). This exposition of Matthew 24:1-51 : is strikingly confirmed by the Apocalyptic visions. For under the fifth seal we have the martyrs of the tribulation (Revelation 6:9); and the events of the sixth seal (v. 12) are identical with those which the Lord declared would immediately follow the tribulation (Matthew 24:29). So far all is clear. But owing to the ambiguity of a minor word in the thirtieth verse, the sequel is commonly misread. The Greek tote has a meaning as elastic as our English "then." And here, as in the first verse of chapter 25:, it covers the whole period between the end of the tribulation and the coming of the Son of Man. And the signal change in the Lord’s teaching at this point claims very special notice. He had warned the disciples to watch, not for His coming, but for the events which must precede it. But now, the tribulation past, these events are all fulfilled, and His word is, "Watch, for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come" (v. 42). The duration of that waiting period we cannot estimate, save that apparently it will be within the lifetime of that generation (v. 34). But it will be sufficiently prolonged to make the world forget the preceding terrors (vv. 38, 39), and to make His people need repeated exhortations to continued watchfulness. For though signs and portents mark the sunteleia of that future age, the coming of the Son of Man will be unheralded and sudden (v. 44). This is the event foretold by the Lord in Matthew 24:30-31 and again in Matthew 25:31; and the intervening passage contains His teaching relating to the waiting period between the end of the tribulation and His actual coming. For here, as so often in the prophetic Scriptures, after the ultimate issue is declared, a prophecy is intercalated leading up to the same goal. The Lord’s second and fuller statement of it is as follows When the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit on the throne of His glory, and before Him shall be gathered all nations . . ." (Matthew 25:31-32). This is indeed a "misunderstood text" For under the influence of Patristic theology, eminent commentators would have us believe that it describes "the great and universal judgment, in which all the dead, small and great, shall stand before God. Revelation 20:11-15." The editor of the Speaker’s Commentary declares that "it is hardly possible" to regard it in any other light. But Revelation 20:1-15 : and Matthew 25:1-46 : have absolutely nothing in common save that both relate to sessions of Divine judgment. The one is a judgment of the dead, in a vastly remote future; the other is a judgment of living nations upon earth, and, for aught we know, it may fall within the lifetime of the present generation. For the Lord’s words imply that, but for the intervention of the present mystery dispensation, the disciples to whom they were addressed might have witnessed their fulfillment. And, as already suggested, the hands of the clock of prophetic time will again begin to move after His coming to bring this dispensation to an end. We have no definite data by which to measure either the interval between that Coming and the beginning of the seventieth week of Daniel, or the interval between the end of that week and His Coming as Son of Man. We know, however, that before His Coming to His earthly people "the gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world for a testimony to all the nations" - not the gospel of this age of grace, but the gospel of the kingdom. And the last fourteen verses of chapter 25: are explicit, that the question at issue in the judgment will be the treatment of the messengers accredited to proclaim that gospel to the world. This is no novel principle. As the Lord had already said to His disciples, "He that receiveth you receiveth Me." And wherever the gospel comes, it is receiving or rejecting Christ that fixes the destiny of men. But it may be asked, How could hundreds of millions of people appear before the Son of Man on earth? Just in the same way that, in the ages succeeding this very judgment, they will go up to Jerusalem year by year to keep the Feast of Tabernacles (Zechariah 14:16). Their accredited leaders will represent them. To read Scripture aright we need both spiritual intelligence and common sense. If the spiritual fitness be lacking, we shall refuse to believe anything that seems to go beyond our ordinary experience; and a want of common sense will often betray us into an excessive literalness that may make the language of Scripture seem impossible. But is not this narrative so incredible that we are reasonably justified in refusing to take it literally? If that is to be the test, we may at once reject the great truths of revelation - the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Resurrection, the Ascension. For in the wildest superstitions of false religions there is nothing so incredible as these truths. But our spiritual being is by nature so depraved that we are ready to believe anything, whether it be a seemingly transparent lie, like transubstantiation, or a seemingly impossible truth, like "the virgin birth," provided it is acclimatized in our religion! But there we draw the line. And the great "mystery" truths of this Christian dispensation, including the Coming of the Lord, as revealed in the Epistles, and also the truths of the kingdom, including the Coming of the Son of Man, as foretold by the Lord Himself, have not been thus acclimatized; and so they are either rejected or ignored. True it is, no doubt, as already noticed, that Christendom, million-mouthed, uses the Divinely given words, "Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth as it is done in heaven." But with the mass of men this is merely a meaningless incantation. For such is "the covert atheism" of our nature, that though we are willing to believe in a "Second Advent," provided it be too remote to affect us in any way, we are slow to believe in a "Coming" that is a present hope, to influence our daily life. And just in the same way we are willing to believe in a kingdom of heaven beyond the stars. But when the infidel intelligently argues that, if our God were not a myth, He would establish His rule upon this earth of ours; instead of making the reply which ought to be ready on our lips, we throw into "hotchpot" all that Scripture teaches about the kingdom of God, and the Church of God, and the kingdom of heaven; and over the incongruous mass we indulge in feeble platitudes about Divine wisdom and goodness! And in an age of keen, intelligent activity, this method of "handling the Word of God" has done more than aggressive infidelity to undermine faith. It has driven multitudes to skepticism. To its baneful influence is due the success of the infidel crusade which masquerades as "Higher Criticism - a movement that has degraded Germany to its present level of barbarism, and has so corrupted "organized Christianity" in Britain that there is not one of the Churches of the Reformation that would hold together if called upon to give corporately an unequivocal and explicit testimony, such as in other days they gave with united voice, to the Deity of Christ and the Divine origin, truth, and authority of the Bible as the Word of God. Though the follies and falsehoods of this movement have been thoroughly exposed and refuted, it has taught men to shake free from traditional beliefs, and to study these subjects with an open mind. And it is because our Divinity Schools and Theological Colleges teach the theology of the Fathers, instead of teaching the Bible, that so many of their alumni are either the dupes of medieval superstition or the exponents of a half faith which is near allied to skepticism. Plain words are needed here. In the interval between the Apostolic age and the era of the Patristic theologians, the main truths of the distinctively Christian revelation were lost in the Early Church and they were never fully recovered until the Evangelical Revival of the nineteenth century. But our commentators ignore the Revival, and continue to trade upon the writings of the Fathers. And the results are disastrous. For while an intelligent study of Scripture always tends to faith, the Christianized infidelity which now prevails in our churches is largely due to a revolt against the traditional exegesis of Scripture. And so, as Adolph Saphir wrote, "It is out of the arsenal of the orthodox that the very fundamental truths of the Gospel have been assailed." For, he added, this traditional interpretation "paved the way for Rationalism and Neology." If Christians fail to distinguish between what the Scriptures teach, and what men teach about the Scriptures, it is not strange that unbelievers should be thus misled. And so it comes about that the orthodox of one generation sow seeds of skepticism for the next. Some of us remember, for example, when it was taught as "Bible truth" that the reign of righteousness and peace on earth would come automatically by the preaching of the gospel. But people who had a better knowledge, both of the Bible and of human nature, gave no heed to a delusion so baseless and so foolish. Nor did we need the horrors and infamies of German Kultur to teach us that earth can never be the home of peace and happiness, save under the stern and righteous government of Heaven. And in the same way a misuse of Matthew 24:1-51 : is now sowing seeds of skepticism to be reaped in the near future. For it is asked, Is not this world-war the fulfillment of the Lord’s words recorded in that chapter? Some are thus led to infer that a supreme crisis in earth’s history is so near, that efforts for the extension of missionary enterprise may be relaxed. And others again are clear that the war will be followed by an era of millennial peace. And the champions of these rival errors appeal to Scripture with equal confidence. But while the second Sermon on the Mount may throw much light on events and movements of our own day, both on the battlefield and in the Professing Church, the fulfillment of that great prophecy belongs to a future age. And Christians who, ignoring this, declare cx cathedra that they, forsooth! have acquired a knowledge of "times and seasons," denied to the Apostles of the Lord, are recklessly sowing evil seed which may hereafter choke the faith crop of many fields. Scripture warns us that "in the last days perilous times shall come"; and proofs are many that those times may be close upon us. But we seem to be blind to their significance and their perils. In war time the decks of our battleships are ruthlessly cleared of everything that might imperil safety. And though "the children of this world are wiser than the children of light," they are not wiser than Divine Scripture; as witness the Apostle’s words in view of the incipient apostasy of the Early Church, "I commend you to God and the word of His grace." But in these days, when the apostasy has developed with a force and subtlety unknown in all the past, instead of taking heed to the warning and the exhortation, and falling back on Holy Scripture, we refuse to jettison the "top-hamper" of traditional exegesis. And as the result of this, and of thus ignoring the great "mystery" truths revealed in the Epistles, the whole scheme of the Biblical revelation is dislocated, all sense of its Divine unity is lost, and faith in its Divine authority is undermined. Those of us who have watched the course of the German infidel movement ever since it gained a foot hold in Britain, must recognize that it is energized by a sinister spiritual influence which makes it indifferent to controversy. But to some of us that movement has proved "a blessing in disguise "; for it has taught us to study the Bible with a mind untrammeled by Patristic exegesis. And as the result we have attained a more intelligent, and therefore a firmer, faith in Holy Scripture as the Word of God. A personal experience is sometimes helpful to others. When I became a Christian in the truer sense of the word, I supposed that skeptical difficulties respecting the Gospels would no longer trouble me. But I was distressed to find that the more closely I studied them, the attempt to harmonics them seemed to become more hopeless. While in this state of mind I heard a lecture which ran somewhat on the lines indicated in the preceding pages. The effect of it was electrical. It was a revelation to me; and I began to study the First Gospel with fresh intelligence and new interest. Every section of it seemed to glow with new light, a light that threw its rays back upon the Hebrew Scriptures, and forward to the Apocalypse. And I came to realize, as I had never realized before, the "hidden harmony" of the Bible as a whole. The headmaster of Eton’s "Love your enemies" sermon, preached in St. Margaret’s, Westminster, on 25th March 1915, gave striking proof how a misreading of the First Gospel may bring Holy Scripture into contempt. His purpose was to urge that the conduct of our war with Germany should be governed by the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount. If such a proposition had emanated from a secular publicist, it might have passed without notice. But it was put forward, ex cathedra, as the teaching of Scripture, by an officially accredited exponent of Scripture. And as the result, it was assumed by the secular Press, and by men of the world generally, that this folly had Scriptural sanction. "Love your enemies" is the last in a group of precepts which the Lord enjoined upon His disciples in view of their mission as ministers of grace. They were not to resist evil. If struck upon one cheek they were to turn the other cheek. If a thief took their coat they were to let him take their cloak also. They were to give to every applicant, and to turn away from no would-be borrower (Matthew 10:39-42). Could a country be governed on the lines of these precepts? or a public school? Why, if even a shopkeeper in a village street were to conduct his business in this way, he would be bankrupt within a month! And yet these were the words of the Lord of Glory; and, like all His words, they are Divine and eternal. But He prefaced them by the warning that they were not to be taken as destroying "the law and the prophets" - a phrase which every Hebrew would rightly understand to mean what we Christians call the Old Testament Scriptures. And with still greater definiteness He declared that not "one jot or one tittle" of the law was abrogated by His teaching (vv. 17, 18). And yet both in his sermon and in his letters to the Press in defense of it, Dr. Lyttelton assumed that the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount has entirely superseded the Old Testament Scriptures; whereas it is mainly by these very Scriptures that we ought to be guided in our conduct of affairs in every sphere of public life. But in fulfilling their ministry of grace, His disciples were not to appeal to law. While He was with them they were to act as He acted. And at the close of their mission He asked them, in view of His leaving them, "When I sent you without purse and scrip and shoes, lacked ye anything?" "But now (He went on to say) he that hath a purse let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one "(Luke 22:35-36). In other words, they were to fall back on their position as citizens. Peter, Oriental though he was, took these last words literally; but we understand them better. Living in a civilized community, we carry the sword by proxy. If anyone strikes us on the cheek, or steals our coat, we hand him over to the police; and the magistrate awards a fitting punishment, to which the gaoler gives effect. But if, instead of seizing and punishing the law-breaker, these officers of the law treated him in accordance with the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount, they would "bear the sword in vain," and utterly fail in their duty as "the ministers of God" (Romans 13:4). But the police and the criminal courts can deal only with crimes committed within the realm. In the case of crimes committed by an alien enemy, recourse must be had to the naval and military forces of the Crown. But here the same principle applies. And with a far greater definiteness; for in the case of crimes committed by a nation, theme is no room for sentiment or pity, which might claim a hearing in the case of individual offenders. And the crimes which are now crying to heaven for vengeance have been instigated by the Government of Germany; and they have been condoned and justified by the German nation, not excepting the "Christian" churches of that land. If then God should give the victory to the Allies, and the Governments of the Allies should decide to rifle and destroy every national building in Berlin, and utterly to crush the power of Germany, the Christian must not forget that law is as Divine as grace. And, moreover, our chief purpose in this war is not to punish Germany for flagrant and hideous atrocities and crime, but to secure the future peace of Europe. My purpose here, however, is not to discuss the conduct of the war, hut to expose and refute a flagrant misuse of the Sermon on the Mount. And let no one suppose that this involves our ignoring its application to ourselves. Though, in common with not a little of the Lord’s teaching recorded in the First Gospel, its full and final purpose will not be realized until the future age of the kingdom, its words of grace ought to have a special voice for His people in this dispensation of grace. If, for example, some Christian who is mourning the death of a dearly loved relative or friend, wantonly butchered in cold blood in this ghastly war, could come face to face with the German murderer, grace would teach him to show his love for his enemy by telling him of gospel pardon even for a crime so heinous and so hateful. But this has nothing in common with that ill-advised sermon. A notable commentary upon it was supplied by sermons preached last Christmas in Berlin and other German towns. Here are typical extracts from published reports of them: Pastor Zoebel, speaking in the great Lutheran Church in Leipsic, referred to the German guns beating down the children of Satan, and to German submarines as "instruments to execute the Divine vengeance," to send to the bottom of the sea thousands of the non-elect. "There ought to be no compromise with hell, no mercy for the servants of Satan - in other words, no pity for the English, French, and Russians; nor, indeed, for any nation that has sold itself to the devil. They have all been condemned to death by a Divine decree." Professor Rheinold Seeby, a teacher of theology in the Berlin University, preaching in the Cathedral of the city, said that in killing their enemies, burning their houses, and invading their territories, the Germans simply performed a work of charity. Pastor Fritz Philippi, of Berlin, preaching from his Protestant pulpit on the Divine mission of Germany, said that as the Almighty allowed His Son to be crucified that the scheme of redemption might be accomplished, so Germany was destined to crucify humanity, in order that its salvation might be secured. The human race could only be saved by blood, fire, and sword. "It is really because we are pure that we have been chosen by the Almighty as His instruments to punish the envious, to chastise the wicked, and to slay with the sword the sinful nations. The Divine mission of Germany, oh brethren! is to crucify humanity; the duty of German soldiers, therefore, is to strike without mercy. They must kill, burn, and destroy, and any half measures would be wicked. Let it then be a war without pity." He must be a poor sort of Christian who can regard such men, and their countless sympathizers of the pews, without feelings of aversion, deliberate and deep. Do we not well to remember the Lord’s emphatic commendation of the Church of Ephesus: "Thou canst not tolerate evil men"? (Revelation 2:2; cf. Matthew 18:17). It is not for us to anticipate the Divine judgment respecting the eternal destiny of these men. What concerns us has regard to our attitude toward them here and now; and to recognize them as Christians would betoken disloyalty to Christ. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 98: 1.08.02. CHAPTER 2: ONE CUBIT ======================================================================== CHAPTER 2: ONE CUBIT "Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit to his stature?" (Matthew 6:27 Luke 12:25). ALL the Lord’s words were the expression of Divine wisdom, but the words here attributed to Him savour of human folly. During "the great war" many a would-be recruit has longed to be an inch or two taller; but no one except "a freak dwarf" ever wished to add half a yard to his height! Moreover, no sane person could imagine that this might be attained by "taking thought"; and yet according to our text, the Lord represented it as a mere trifle in comparison with the ordinary cares of life. The primary and common meaning of hêlikia is age. But as growth in years brings physical development, the word acquired the secondary meaning of stature and it is used in that sense in Luke 19:3. In Luke 2:52 also, it is thus translated. But Bloomfield there renders it age, "as being more agreeable to classic usage" (Greek Test.); and in his note on Ephesians 4:13 the same eminent Greek scholar writes, "Hélikia here does not mean stature but full age"; that is, the maturity of our spiritual being - a correction that throws new light upon the passage. So, also in John 9:21; John 9:23 the parents of the blind man to whom the Lord gave sight said, "He is of age, ask him." In Hebrews 9:11, the only other passage where the word occurs, it means "the time of life" in a special sense. In the R.V., the phrase "taking thought" rightly gives place to "being anxious." The Christian should be always thoughtful, but never anxious always careful, but never full of care. The Lord’s words then might be freely rendered, "Who of you by giving way to anxiety can add a single step to the length of his life path?" Reasonable care may extend it by many a cubit, but corroding anxiety can only tend to shorten it. When writing his father’s memoir, the late Sir .James Paget, the eminent surgeon used the striking phrase that his death was due to "that rarest of all causes of death, old age" And it is not the aged only who undesignedly commit suicide through failing to "take thought." Enter ye in at the strait gate Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it "(Matthew 7:3; Matthew 7:14). We are told that in Eastern cities there are small gates in out-of-the-way corners, which are approached by straitened (R.V.) and little-used paths, which would be noticed only by those who seek for them. And, of course, such gates and paths are in striking contrast to the great city gate and the main road which leads to it. The allegory of these verses would be understood by all to whom the Lord was speaking. But Westerners seem to miss its meaning. As the "wide gate," to which the broad way leads, symbolizes destruction, the narrow gate must symbolize life. And therefore the usual exegesis, that the ’straitened way’ symbolizes a holy walk, is in direct opposition to the teaching of the passage and of the truth of the gospel. For there can be no holiness of walk until we receive life as God’s gift in grace. Moreover, the warning which immediately follows, beginning with the words. "Beware of false prophets," plainly indicates that the contrast which the Lord intends is not between an evil life and a holy life, but between "religion" and Himself. No sane man believes that Divine favor can be won by an evil life. But that it is to be won by a religious life is the creed of the human heart the wide world over. And this perverted instinct of human nature leads many real Christians to misread any passage of Scripture that can be perverted to indicate that the seeming simplicity and "trueness" of the Gospel must be taken with reserve, and that its words are not to be trusted in the way we can trust the words of honorable men. For the sinner must needs seek for the way which leads to life, and knock at the door when he finds it; and this we are told is not so easy as the words would lead us to suppose! If any reader of this page should harbour such a thought, let him mark the words which preface the invitation of verse 13, "Every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened" (v. 8). "The Son of Man hath not where to lay His head" (Matthew 8:20). This is the first occurrence of this Messianic title in the New Testament, and in Scripture a first occurrence is often significant. In the Old Testament - as, for example, in Ezekiel - "Son of Man" is often used as an emphatic Hebraism, for man: but John 5:27 is the only New Testament passage where it occurs in this sense. Because He is man, all judgment is committed to the Lord Jesus. The English reader misses the significance which the Greek article lends to the words elsewhere; but it is recognized by scholars. And there can be no doubt as to the significance which the Lord Himself attached to this, His favorite title. When, for example, He here exclaimed, "The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, hut the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head," it is clear that the contrast His words were intended to enforce was between the highest and the lowest. The humblest creature has a home, hut He, the Son of Man, descended from heaven, was an outcast wanderer. And on the last occasion on which He used the title, when on His defense before the Sanhedrin, his purpose in declaring Himself to be the Son of Man of Daniel’s vision (ch. 7: 13) was to assert His personal and inherent right to heavenly glory. For it was not His human birth that constituted Him the Son of Man. That birth was indeed the fulfillment of the promise which the name implied but, as He declared explicitly, the Son of Man "descended out of heaven" (John 3:13); and He added, who is in heaven," which, as Alford notices, certainly implies "whose place is in heaven." And again He said, "What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?" (John 6:62). When, therefore, He proclaims that "the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost" - "came to give His life a ransom for many "- faith responds in the language of that noble hymn, "When Thou tookest upon Thee to deliver man, Thou didst not abhor the virgin’s womb." For the virgin-birth was but a stage in the fulfillment of His mission. And tins throws light upon the words of the creation story, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (Genesis 1:26). For the "type" - using the word in the biologist’s sense - is not the creature of Eden, but He after whose likeness the creature was fashioned. One point more. Though the title "The Son of Man" occurs so frequently in relation to the earthly people of the covenant, the Lord is never so designated with reference to the heavenly people of this Christian age. Never once, therefore, is it found in the Epistles - - a fact that exposes, and ought to bar. the error which is so generally accepted as truth, that "the coming of the Son of Man" of Matthew 24:1-51 :, and elsewhere in the First Gospel, is the same event as the Lord’s coming to bring this "Christian dispensation" to an end, and to call His heavenly people home. "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man become" (Matthew 10:23). This statement must apparently he dismissed as a hopeless enigma, or rejected as a sheer blunder. But to the Christian who has learned to recognize the dispensational and prophetic character of the First Gospel, its meaning is clear; and a. perusal of the preceding introductory chapter will render further explanation unnecessary. "The hope of the Church - to use Bengel’s phrase - is not "the coming of the Son of Man" to earth in fulfillment of Messianic prophecy, but the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ to call up to heaven His people of the heavenly election of time present dispensation. And this dispensation, and the distinctive truths relating to it, were "mysteries" till revealed until the earthly people were set aside. But these, and other similar words, will be received and acted on by Hebrew disciples in days to come, just as they would have been received and acted on by time disciples of the Lord’s earthly ministry if the Christian dispensation had not intervened. "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" (Matthew 11:11). As the R.V. margin reminds us, the Greek is the comparative, not the superlative. But "he that is lesser" is intolerable as an English rendering. We might read it "the little one," a word that the Lord uses of His disciples in chapter 10: 42. Although the great Chrysostom adopted it, the gloss that the Lord was thus referring to Himself is really unworthy of consideration. "For such an interpretation is surely adverse to the spirit of the whole discourse. We may certainly say that our Lord in such a passage as this would not designate Himself as ‘he that is least’ compared with John, in any sense" (Alford). And it is certain that "the little one in the Kingdom" is not personally greater than the greatest of the prophets. It is clearly a question of dispensational position. The prophets were heralds of the coming kingdom; whereas, now, even the humblest disciple was a citizen of the kingdom. And the same applies in principle to the heavenly election of the Body of Christ. The least of its members is greater than the greatest of a bygone economy not personally - far from it - but dispensationally. Some of us who are inclined to think highly of ourselves, here and now, will appear very small indeed personally in comparison with the faith heroes whose names are enshrined in the head roll of Hebrews 11:1-40 : "And from the days of John the Baptist, until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force" (Matthew 11:1-30 : I 2). This verse is a veritable crux; and expositors generally convey the impression that they are not satisfied with the explanations they give of it. The rendering of our English versions clearly suggests the thought of a hostile, aggressive movement against the kingdom of heaven. But this is quite foreign to the context. And surely the way in which the main word, on which the exegesis of the verse depends, was used by the Lord in a kindred passage ought to guide us here. In Luke 16:16 we read, "The law and the prophets were until John since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." Now, time word here rendered "presseth" into it is identical with that which is translated "suffereth violence" in our present verse. And one of its Lexicon meanings is, "to carry a point by obstinate perseverance." Can there be any doubt then that the Lord was here referring, not to a hostile movement against the kingdom, but to the forceful impetuosity of His nominal disciples? For example, the thousands of men whom He fed to satiety with a basketful of bread and fish were so eager to proclaim Him King that He had to hide Himself from them. And that this was His meaning here is established by the fact that the word rendered "take it by force," is that which occurs in John 6:15, "When Jesus perceived that they would come and take Him by force, to make Him a King, He departed again into a mountain Himself alone." The attitude and conduct of the Jewish leaders toward him were marked, not by violence, but by mingled hatred, cunning, and timidity. Again and again they would have seized Him, but that they feared the people. And if time Lord hid Himself from the provincial Jews, it was not because they were hostile, but because, knowing what was in man. He would not "commit Himself unto them," for they were merely miracle-made disciples (John 2:23-25). Or, to use the Apostle’s phrase in Galatians 2:15, they were merely "Jews by nature." Just as now, "all who profess and call themselves Christians" are nominally the people of God, so was it then with Jews. And every Jew was looking for the Messiah. But the "Jews by nature" wanted a Messiah who would free them from the Roman yoke. And they rightly judged that a man with seemingly unlimited miraculous powers could win their deliverance. Their hopes were carnal, and they were ready to attain the realization of them by carnal means. Thus it was that "the kingdom of heaven was suffering violence." "So shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40). Some people find here a clear proof that Scripture has erred; others that the Lord was crucified on the Thursday. But in this both critics and "reconcilers" merely display their ignorance. "Three days and three nights" was a familiar idiomatic phrase to cover a period that included any part of three days. We need not go outside Scripture to exemplify this. The Egyptian mentioned in 1 Samuel 30:11-13 had had neither food nor drink for "three days and three nights," and yet it was only three days since he had fallen sick. So, again, in 2 Chronicles 10:5; 2 Chronicles 10:12, we read that Rehoboam said to the Israelites, "Come again unto me after three days . . . so they came to him on the third day." And in Esther 4:16; Esther 5:1, we are told that the queen ordered a fast for three days, and yet she held a banquet on the third day. But Matthew 27:63-64 would settle the question even if it stood alone. Four-and-twenty hours after the Lord’s burial, the Jews came to Pilate and said, "We remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command, therefore, that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day." And if that Sunday had passed, leaving the seal upon the tomb unbroken, the guard would have been withdrawn, and the Pharisees would have proclaimed their triumph. In nine passages do the Gospels record His words that He would rise "on the third day"; and in 1 Corinthians 15:4 the Apostle Paul proclaimed the fact as an integral part of the gospel. Though this may puzzle a theological college, no prison chaplain would need to explain it to his congregation. For our law reckons time on this same system. Though our legal day is a day and a night - twenty-four hours beginning at midnight - any part of a day counts as a day. Therefore, under a sentence of three days’ imprisonment a prisoner is usually discharged on the morning of the third day, no matter how late on the first day he reaches the prison. Under such a sentence a prisoner is seldom more than forty hours in gaol, and I have had official cognizance of cases where the detention was, in fact, only for thirty-three hours. And this mode of reckoning and of speaking was as familiar to the Jews as it is to our prison officials and the habitués of our criminal courts. In his Horce Hebraicce, Dr. John Lightfoot quotes time Jewish saying, "A day and a night make one Onah, and a part of an Onah is as the whole." And he adds, "Therefore, Cimrist may truly be said to have been in the grave three Onoth." To object that as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, the Lord must have been in the grave for that full period is a transparent blunder; for, of course, the period intended in the Jonah narrative must be computed in accordance with "the dialect of the nation" (Lightfoot). "Lest they should be converted, and I should heal them" (Matthew 13:15). These words are misunderstood by many a Christian; and to not a few they are a real trouble. For they seem strangely out of keeping with the spirit of the Lord’s ministry. But His words should always be studied in relation to their context and to the circumstances in which they were spoken. The "text-card system" of Bible study is a fruitful cause of misunderstanding and error. During the early period of the Lord’s ministry His words of grace and works of power were abundant, and they were open and free to all - witness the narrative of chapter 4: 23 - 25, a passage which attracts but little notice. It had been a time of noontide sunshine in the spiritual sphere, such as even that favored land had never experienced before. But the religious leaders of the people closed their eyes against the light; and, as chapter 12: 14 informs us, their obduracy and hate culminated in their summoning a council to compass His destruction. And the latter section of that chapter records the awful words in which He pronounced their doom. Their day of visitation was over, and a sentence of spiritual blindness and deafness was pronounced upon them. From that time, therefore, His public teaching became veiled in parables (ch. 13). The change was so startling that the disciples came to Him with one accord to seek an explanation; and the passage from which time above words are taken gives His reply to their inquiries. Darkness was now to fall upon those who had despised the light. But, as when darkness covered the land of Egypt, the Hebrews still had light, so was it here, for His parables were fully explained to the disciples. The principle involved in this passage, therefore, is neither exceptional nor novel. Though the gospel amnesty which grace proclaims makes no exceptions, for Divine grace has no limits, there are limits to the time within which the amnesty avails. And if sinners despise grace there is nothing for them but judgment, stern and inexorable. And the word goes forth, even in this age of grace, albeit judgment waits, "Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone." This is an awfully solemn truth which explains the mystery of many a life. "The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened" (Matthew 13:33). The accepted interpretation of this parable takes the leaven to symbolize the good influence of Christianity in the world. It is admitted, however, even by the exponents of that view, that everywhere else in Scripture leaven is "symbolic of pollution and corruption." The question arises then, What meaning was the parable intended to convey to those who heard it? And having regard to the religious beliefs and deep-seated prejudices of the Jews, can there be any reasonable doubt as to the answer? Suppose that when time Lord had finished His teaching, some Rabbi had explained to the hearers that the leaven in the parable represented a Divine purifying agency, the amazement his words would have excited would have been such as a Christian congregation today would feel if their minister - a staunch "teetotaler," withal - exemplified the spread of the gospel by the "permeating influence" of a glass of brandy smuggled into the family coffee-pot. "Smuggled," I say advisedly, for a specially significant word in the parable is entirely ignored in the received exegesis. When making bread in the course of her household duties, a woman would naturally put leaven into the meal. But here the woman conceals the leaven in the meal, the inference being an obvious one, that she does it surreptitiously, and with a sinister purpose. Now a parable is defined by theologians as a fictitious story, invented to illustrate a truth. But why "fictitious"? It has been supposed that some of the parables narrate real and not fictitious events. And if this very reasonable supposition be well founded, a case may at that very time have engaged public attention, where some evil woman had thus corrupted the "three measures of meal" that had been set apart for an offering. But, it is urged, the alternative reading of the parable is vetoed on two grounds. First, by the very fact that the kingdom of heaven is said to be like leaven, and therefore the leaven must symbolize good and not evil. Here the theologians forget their definition of a parable. For a parable must be read in its entirety as presenting the truth which time Lord intends it to teach. Were this remembered, Scripture would not be brought into contempt by such puerilities of exegesis as that the Good Samaritan’s two pence represent the two Sacraments! or that, here, the three measures of meal symbolize either "body, soul, and spirit," or else "the descendants of the three sons of Noah "! Tradition tells us that, from earliest times, this was the usual amount of meal prepared for a baking (Genesis 18:6). And it may have been on this account that it was the quantity prescribed for a meal-offering. The second ground of veto is that the alternative reading of the parable would make it conflict with the teaching of Scripture respecting the course and issue of this Christian dispensation. But so far from this being the case, it is in fact the accredited exegesis of it which brings it into flagrant opposition to Scripture. Many a standard treatise might be cited in support of this statement. But having regard to the space limits of this note, a single testimony must suffice; and it shall be that of a distinguished theologian who is an uncompromising champion of the "orthodox" exposition of the parable. In his commentary upon Matthew 12:43, Dean Alford, after explaining "the direct application of the passage to the Jewish people," writes as follows: "Strikingly parallel with this runs the history of the Christian Church. Not long after the apostolic times, the golden calves of idolatry were set up by the Church of Rome. What the effect of the Captivity was to the Jews that of time Reformation has been to Christendom. The first evil spirit has been cast out. But by the growth of hypocrisy, secularity, and Rationalism, the house has become empty, swept, and garnished: swept and garnished by the decencies of civilization and discoveries of secular knowledge, but empty of living and earnest faith. And he must read prophecy but ill who does not see under all these seeming improvements the preparation for the final development of the man of sin, the great repossession when idolatry and the seven worse spirits shall bring the outward frame of so-called Christendom to a fearful end." Is it possible to reconcile Dean Alford’s exposition of the leaven parable with these pregnant and solemn words about the long-drawn-out apostasy and coming doom of the professing Christian Church? "I will give unto thee (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16:4). But little need be added here to what has been said in the Introductory Chapter about "the kingdom of heaven." The great Apostasy which claims to be the keeper of Holy Writ is so ignorant of Holy Writ that it confounds the kingdom of heaven with the Church of this dispensation. The kingdom of heaven is the kingdom of Hebrew prophecy rebating to earth and the earthly people of the covenant. And Peter was "the Apostle of the Circumcision." To him it was, therefore, that the Pentecostal proclamation to Israel was entrusted (Acts 2:22; Acts 3:12). And when "the word which God sent unto the children of Israel" was to be carried to Gentile proselytes, he was the appointed messenger (Acts 10:36). For among the Twelve Peter held the foremost place, and it was because there were twelve tribes of Israel that the Apostles of the Ministry were twelve in number (Matthew 19:28). Throughout what theologians call the Hebraic portion of the Acts, the Apostle Peter is the foremost figure, and his ministry is pre-eminent. But Israel remained impenitent; and in the thirteenth chapter the Apostles Paul and Barnabas were divinely "separated" to preach to the Gentiles, and the name of the Apostle of the Circumcision disappears from the narrative. In the first twelve chapters of Acts it occurs no less than fifty-six times, but, save in chapter 15: 7, it is never found once in the last sixteen chapters of the book. "There be some standing here which shall not see death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" (Matthew 16:28). The following is the most approved exposition of this passage, and lest anyone should suspect me of misstating a view which I reject, I give it in Dean Alford’s words "This declaration refers in its full meaning . . . to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the full manifestation of the kingdom of Christ by the annihilation of the Jewish polity." Was there ever a more amazing example of "nightmare exegesis"? Did the disciples know that this was what they were asking for when they uttered the words the Lord had taught them, "Thy kingdom come"? They prayed that prayer with knowledge of the truth so plainly revealed in Scripture, that "the kingdom" would bring the restoration of the Jewish polity and relief from the Roman yoke. If, therefore, there be no other explanation of the passage open to us, let us humbly confess our ignorance, and leave it unexplained. But before we yield to a "counsel of despair," let us clear our minds of all preconceptions, and study afresh the whole passage from chapter 16: 28 to chapter 17: 8. And reading it unbroken by the chapter division, let us consider whether it does not afford us the solution we seek. Most great commentators agree that the Lord was pointing to some definite event which would occur during the lifetime of some of His disciples. But they urge, not without some show of reason, that the words "shall not taste of death" imply a somewhat remote event. Suppose, then, we omit these words, and read the passage thus, "Verily I say unto you, there are some standing here who shall see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Should we need the words of 2 Peter 1:16-18 to convince us that it was fulfilled at the Transfiguration? There was one other event, and only one, in the life of the disciples which might claim consideration if a drastic "spiritualizing" of the Lord’s language could be allowed, namely, the Day of Pentecost. But that would leave equally unexplained the words above omitted. The question remains, therefore, how can they be accounted for? I would answer boldly that if we must make choice between leaving this difficulty unsolved and adopting an unscriptural "nightmare" exegesis of the passage, we shall do well to adopt the former alternative. I venture to suggest, however, that we might possibly find a very simple solution of it if we knew what was working in the minds of the disciples at the time. Certain statements in the Gospels indicate that they were "dull of hearing" about much of the Lord’s teaching. And if they treated the truth of the kingdom in its spiritual aspect in the manner that most of us now treat the truth of His Coming, relegating it to the sphere of mere doctrine and sentiment, may not the above omitted words have been a graciously veiled rebuke? It would be easy to offer many a plausible suggestion respecting the Lord’s purpose in speaking thus. But while we may freely attempt to analyses the thoughts of the disciples in such a case, any speculating about what was passing in the mind of our Divine Lord would be to trench on sacred ground. I must not omit to notice yet another exposition of our verse; but I notice it only for reprobation, albeit it is sanctioned by some eminent authorities. It is that time Lord was here referring to "His ultimate glorious coming." This view solves the question above discussed by rejecting the "difficult words" of time verse as being absolutely untrue. Such passages as Mark 13:32 and Acts 1:7 explain why the Lord refused to specify "times and seasons"; and seeing that in the case before us He definitely fixed a time limit, the fulfillment of His words could have no reference to "times and season," or, in other words, to events foretold in prophecy. The proposed exegesis, moreover, betrays strange neglect of Scripture. For it is certain that the "ultimate glorious coming" will be long ages after "the Coming of the Son of Man in His kingdom" - a thousand years at least. And some would tell us that here "a thousand years" is an abstract term to mean an indefinitely vast era of time. "Go and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor" (Matthew 19:21) (Mark X. 21; Luke 18:22). If we are Christ’s disciples, why do we not act on this? the infidel mockingly demands. And our answer is plain: because it is not addressed to us. The Lord knows each heart and each life, and He deals with each in infinite wisdom. Another man. we read, besought the Lord for permission to follow Him, but "Return to thine own house" was the Lord’s answer to his appeal (Luke 8:38-39). And Lazarus of Bethany, whom the Lord loved, had possessions but instead of telling him to part with them, the Lord became his guest. And in the case of the Apostle Peter, so far from desiring him to sell his house in Capernaum, the Lord made His home there. "God has no pleasure in fools." And to take every word of Scripture to one’s self, irrespective of the circumstances in which it was spoken, is to be a very mischievous kind of fool; for such folly brings discredit upon Holy Writ. Our answer to the infidel, then, is that Scripture teaches us that a Christian who, having others dependent on him, sells all that he has and gives it to the poor, has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel. (1 Timothy 5:8). But is not. "community of goods" enjoined by Acts 4:34-37? Assuredly not. The Apostle’s words to Ananias (ch. 5: 4) make it clear that the disciples were under no obligation to part with their possessions. Their doing so was a "freewill offering." And the passage is misread because the distinctive character of that brief Pentecostal dispensation is ignored. It was a waiting time. During the last Carlist rising in Spain a wealthy Marquis was said to have mortgaged his estate, and to have thrown the proceeds into the war-chest of the insurrection. It was a reasonable act on the part of any one who believed in the success of the Pretender’s cause. And the Hebrew disciples of Pentecostal days were living in the hopes inspired 1w the prophecy and promise recorded in Acts 3:9-11. "For many be called, but few chosen" (Matthew 22:14) Intelligent students of Scripture take note of the first occurrence of important words. And in this verse we have the first occurrence of the word "elect." The striking fact that the Lord here uses it with reference, not to salvation, but to service, may cause surprise to many, hut not to those who have studied the use of the word in the Greek Version of the Hebrew Scriptures, which, as we know, exercised a very marked influence upon the language of the New Testament. For in most, if not all, of its occurrences in the Septuagint it is used to express excellence and appreciation. The first is in Genesis 23:6. In response to Abraham’s appeal for a burial-place for Sarah the children of Heth replied, "In the best of our sepulchre bury thy dead." It is used again six times in Genesis four times of choice cattle, and twice of choice ears of corn (ch. 41). Its first occurrence in a higher sense is its application to Joshua in Numbers 11:28 (where the LXX reading is "the chosen one"). And in Isaiah 28:16 it is stamped with its highest value by its application to the Lord Himself (ci. 1 Peter 2:6). "Words are the counters of wise men, the money of fools"; and a word may, in one connection, stand for gold, and, in another, for some coin of inferior metal. But expositors are apt to forget this, and to treat the counters as though they were coins. This has had deplorable results in relation to the parable which ends with our present verse. Not only does it rob us of important teaching and solemn warning respecting the Lord’s service, but it operates as a flagrant denial of the truth of the gospel. The parable does not describe the case of the man who sends out his servants to bring in the destitute to the banquet which his invited guests have despised (Luke 14:16 - 22); but of the householder who goes out to hire laborers to work in his vineyard .And every man he hires receives the wages promised him; hut it is only some of them who earn special appreciation and approval. Mark the order and significance of the words many are klêtoi, but few are eklekloi. According to our ordinary use of the word, few were chosen, for that is implied in the hiring. But here the choosing is at the end of the day’s labor. Are we then, to conclude that the Divine decree which fixes our eternal destiny awaits and is dependent upon, the value of our service? Embedded in this parable there are some most important truths that we are prone to forget. The fact that it is the householder himself who hires the laborers points to a truth which is enforced in man a Scripture - the truth, namely, that although God entrusts to His servants the duty of seeking the lost, and bidding them to the banquet of salvation, the call to service is His own prerogative. And no less clear is the teaching of the parable for those who are called to labour in the Lord’s vineyard. As we know from other Scriptures, it is "the service of sons," and not, as some would tell us, of sinners on probation, whose eternal destiny will depend on the character and value of their service. And we must not confound "the judgment-seat of Christ" with "the great white throne." Not that the issue of either judgment will be the eternal destiny of men - that will be manifested by the resurrection; and yet both have to do with our earthly life, "the things done in the body" (2 Corinthians 5:10) or "the things written in the books" (Revelation 20:12). But, I repeat, it is to laborers in the vineyard that this parable specially refers. And the question at issue will be whether the laborer shall be eklektos, or, as the alternative, adokimos (to use the Apostle’s word in 1 Corinthians 9:27). But any exposition which treats either the Lord’s parable or the Apostle’s warning words as though they referred to the eternal salvation, or the eternal doom, of men, not only perverts these Scriptures, but betrays ignorance or neglect of the great truth of salvation by grace through faith. "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (Matthew 24:34). This is a favorite verse with the Rationalists for in their ignorance they cite it as discrediting Holy Scripture. Is it not clear, they ask, that the Lord’s words have failed? Here is Dean Alford’s interpretation of it: "It may be well to show that genea has in Hellenistic Greek the meaning of a race or family of people. See Jeremiah 8:3. Compare Matthew 23:36 with verse 35 This generation did not slay Zacharias - so that the whole people are addressed. See also chapter 2: 45, in which the meaning absolutely requires this sense." He further cites chapter 17: 17; Luke 16:8; Luke 17:25; Acts 11: 40; Php 2:15. And he adds, "In all these places genca is genos, or nearly so." Some scholars explain the passage by reference to the fact that the word rendered "this" may with equal correctness be translated "that." Thus the statement would mean that the same generation which sees the setting up of the abomination of desolations (v. 15) will see all these things come to pass. Our only difficulty, therefore, in interpreting it is that it involves our adjudicating between alternative solutions which are equally satisfactory and equally scholarly. "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins" (Matthew 25:1). "How (it is asked) is the kingdom of heaven like ten virgins?" The question exemplifies a popular, but very erroneous, mode of reading the parables. As the Dictionary tells us, a parable is "a story of something which might have happened, told to illustrate some doctrine, or to make sonic duty clear." To understand the parable ariglit, therefore, we must study it as a whole, and with reference to the particular doctrine or duty it is designed to teach. And in this case the thirteenth verse leaves no doubt as to its purport - "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of Man cometh." But this parable is too often read without noticing the emphatic word with which it begins: "Then - at the period spoken of at the end of the last chapter, namely, the coming of the Lord to His personal reign - not at His final coming to judgment" (Alford). To be still more accurate and explicit, it is the Lord’s coming as "Son of Man" - an event which is later in time, and wholly distinct from, the Coming which is the special hope of the Christian in this Christian age. "The hope of the Church," to use Bengel’s phrase, is a "mystery" truth which was not revealed until Israel was set aside. "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19, R.V.). The closing passages of the Four Gospels have always been a difficulty with theologians, and often a cause of perplexity to Christians generally. And it is round the last five verses of Matthew that the difficulties chiefly cluster. Indeed to anyone who is dependent on our Authorized Version they seem over whelming. For the chapter seems to record the fact that after the resurrection the eleven disciples forthwith left Jerusalem for the appointed trysting-place in Galilee, and there received the parting commands of their risen Lord. But this, of course, is entirely inconsistent with the narratives of Luke and John. Dean Alford here speaks of "the imperfect and fragmentary nature of the materials out of which our narrative is built." But the idea is absurd that any one of the Apostles could, to his dying day forget the Lord’s appearing to them on the evening of the resurrection, and again after eight days. But if on five different occasions our Lord appeared to a company of His disciples, how is it that this Evangelist records but one? Why does Matthew ignore the Lord’s appearings to His gathered disciples in Jerusalem? This is but part of a wider question: Why does the First Gospel ignore Jerusalem altogether, so far as it is possible to ignore it, in the record of our Lord’s ministry? The purpose of the First Gospel iii the Divine scheme of revelation is to present Christ as Israel’s Messiah. And Galilee was prophetically and dispensationally associated with the godly remnant which, if the apostasy of the nation was divinely regarded as the true Israel. Therefore is it that the Lord’s ministry in Galilee has such prominence in this Gospel. According to Matthew the last words spoken to the Eleven before the agony in Gethsemane were, that after He was risen again He would go before them into Galilee (ch. 26: 32). And the first message sent to His brethren after the resurrection, first by the mouth of the angel who appeared to the women at the sepulcher and afterwards by His own lips, was that He would meet them in Galilee (ch. 28: 7, 10). What, then, is needed to complete the book? If unchecked by the Spirit of God, the Apostle would doubtless have given a record of the events of those forty days. It is idle to talk of "fragmentary materials." Any one of the disciples could have compiled such a narrative; but it would have been wholly foreign to the scope and purpose of the First Gospel. As it is the Galilee ministry which is the burden of it, all that remains is to record how, in the scene of that ministry, the Lord gathered His disciples round him, and gave them those pregnant and intensely prophetic words with which that Gospel closes. But who were the disciples thus addressed? It is rightly assumed that this was the occasion when our Lord appeared to above five hundred brethren at once. If it was not here, then this, the most important event, of the forty days, is unnoticed in the Gospels, which is an incredible supposition. The message from the sepulchre will throw light on this. As the Lord intended to meet the Eleven that very evening, why should He send them a command to go into Galilee? And, as He was about to reveal Himself to Peter, why should the women be made the bearers of such a message? Is it not obvious that the message was intended for the whole company of the disciples? Let us now consider verses 16 and 17. "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them; and when they saw Him they worshipped Him: but some doubted." Read by itself, the narrative seems clear and simple but read in the light of what other Gospels tell us, it seems misleading and false. But the error is suggested by the English rendering of the text. The first word of the sixteenth verse appears to be emphatic, whereas it is not in the original at all. The word rendered "then" in the A.V. and "but" in the R.V. is what the grammarians call "the de resumptive," which is often untranslatable, and sometimes untranslated. In the first verse of this chapter, for instance, it is ignored for the mere fact that the verse is made the beginning of a new chapter conveys to the English reader much the same sense that the use of the particle in question does in Greek. And so here. The sixteenth verse begins a new paragraph, and it might fitly begin a new chapter. It is not a continuation of a consecutive narrative, but the record of a special event. "The eleven disciples went into Galilee, into the mountain where Jesus had appointed them." But why the eleven disciples, if above five hundred brethren repaired to the trysting-place? The reason is not doubtful. The Apostle’s words in 1 Corinthians 15:6 indicate plainly that the appearing to the five hundred brethren was a matter of general knowledge in the Church. No less so was the fact that "the eleven" remained in Jerusalem after the main company of the disciples had repaired to Galilee. That they were expressly enjoined to remain in Jerusalem until the fulfillment of "the promise of the Father," and that they still remained in Jerusalem when the Church was scattered by the Stephen persecution - these also, doubtless, were well-known facts, the public property of all the believers. What wonder, then, if the Apostle should record with emphasis that the eleven disciples went into Galilee." That the rest were there was a fact well known to all; but that the Eleven were present needed to be placed on record. To the English reader this mention of the Eleven seems to lend prominence to the "theys" in the sentence following: "And when they saw Him, they worshipped." But the pronouns are not in the Greek. To say, "And when He was seen He was worshipped" would express the meaning of the original better than a stricter translation. It must be conceded, however, that even when thus rendered the words must be taken as referring to the Eleven, unless we assume that there is an ellipsis in the sentence of which they form a part. But such an ellipsis is precisely what we should expect if the fact that five hundred brethren were present was matter of common knowledge, and the writer had the fact vividly before his mind when he wrote. This suggestion is in a striking way confirmed by the statement that some doubted. That after the Lord’s rebuking Thomas for doubting before even he had seen Him, any of the Eleven still doubted even while they looked upon Him - this cannot be tolerated for a moment. It is certain, therefore, that others were present. But what others? Are we to suppose, I again ask, that such an event as our Lord’s appearing to above five hundred brethren at once is unnoticed in the Gospels? Are we to suppose that the appearing recorded in Matthew was unnoticed by Paul in summing up the evidences for the resurrection? When it was a question of marshalling the proofs of the resurrection, the fact that above five hundred brethren were present became of principal importance. But here it was wholly immaterial. That to His gathered disciples, the Eleven being of the number, He gave the great Commission - this was all that was essential. To accept the blunder theory, or the fragmentary and imperfect materials theory is to stultify ourselves. In whatever way we approach the matter, we are drawn toward the same conclusion, namely, that the First Gospel, ignoring all that is beyond the Divine purpose for which it is written, closes the narrative of the Galilee ministry by recording the Lord’s appearing to His assembled disciples in the scene of that ministry and His Commission to them to evangelize the world. Another difficulty claims brief notice in conclusion, namely, the fact that this Commission was never acted on. Its terms are definite. But no less definite arc the facts. "Make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them." And yet, even when the Church was scattered by the Stephen persecution, the Apostles remained in Jerusalem; and the scattered disciples preached "to none but unto the Jews only" (Acts 8:1; Acts 11:19). Not even did the Apostle to the Gentiles act on it; as witness his emphatic statement, "He sent me not to baptize" (1 Corinthians 1:17). A special vision was needed to lead Peter to visit the house of Cornelius. And at the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15:1-41 : no one of the inspired Apostles was led to refer to this Commission. Indeed the Book of Acts contains no reference to it whatever. The difficulty is insoluble if we ignore the scope and character of the First Gospel. But in common with so much of the teaching of that Gospel, "the great Commission" pertains dispensationally to the future age of the kingdom of heaven, when the Lord shall be King over all the earth; and all people, nations, and languages shall serve Him. And when that day comes, the question will not be of individual faith in an absent and rejected Saviour and Lord, but rather of national submission to Divine sovereignty openly declared and enforced on earth. And baptism will become the outward and visible sign of that submission. And now we can understand why it is to the Gentiles that the messengers are sent, blessing to Israel being assumed. For the redeemed of this dispensation will have passed to heaven, and the true remnant of Israel, typified by the little company that gathered round the Lord upon the mountain, will be the missionaries to the world. Iii contemplation of it the Apostle exclaimed, "If the casting away of them he the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?" (Romans 11:15). "And they brought young children to Him, that He should touch them: and the disciples rebuked those that brought them "(Mark 10:13) (Matthew 19:13; Luke 18:15).This is one of the most popular passages in the Gospels; for sacred art has portrayed the scene as described in sacred literature - the mothers crowding round the Lord, with their little ones at their skirts, and the disciples trying to keep them back. But the picture is false to fact. No devout Jew would have barred a child’s approach to a Rabbi; and that the disciples should have acted in this way is quite incredible, so recent was that wonderful incident at Capernaum - presumably in the Apostle Peter’s home - when the Lord called a little child to Him, and taking him up in His arms, gave utterance to these never-to-be-forgotten words, "It is not the will of your Father who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish" (Matthew 18:2; Matthew 18:14; cf. Mark 9:33; Mark 9:36). The evangelist Luke’s narrative explains the disciples’ action; for it tells us that the women were bringing even their babies to Him, and this seemed an unwarrantable intrusion. The word brephos means primarily an unborn child, and then, as here, a child newly born. It has no other meaning in Greek. It was their newborn infants that these godly mothers brought to the Lord Jesus. And their faith and devotion won for them far more than they ventured to ask of Him. Their appeal was that He would touch them; and not only did He put His hands upon them, but "He took them up in His arms and blessed them." What a Scripture to stir the heart of a Christian mother as she holds her newborn infant in her arms! And the Capernauni words are well-fitted to strengthen and guide her faith as her little ones gather round her in the nursery. No truth of Scripture has suffered more from the teaching of the Latin Fathers than this about "the little ones." But though heaven and earth shall pass away, the words the Lord Jesus spake on earth shall never pass away. Let us then accept these words unperverted and unobscured by Augustinian doctrine: "It is not the will of your Father who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." And under the microscope they stand out all the clearer; for "the form of the proposition has all the force that belongs to the rhetorical negative . . . namely, that the will of the Father is the very opposite of that "He said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth" (Luke 8:49-56) (Matthew 9:23-25; Mark V. 38). The commonly received exegesis of this passage about Jairus’ daughter presents a strange problem. The Lord declared with emphatic definiteness that Jairus’ child was not dead; but the crowd of mourners "laughed Him to scorn," for they knew better! And Christian expositors reject the Lord’s explicit testimony and accept that of the mocking Jews Jairus had fallen at the Lord’s feet, beseeching Him to come to his house; but, their progress being much delayed (vv. 42 - 48), they were met by tidings that the child was dead. Thereupon the Lord intervened with the assurance, "She will recover." Thus it is the R.V. renders the word in John 11:12, when the disciples said of Lazarus, "If he is fallen asleep, he will recover." It is the word the Lord had used in verse 48 to "the woman with the issue of blood." and the same word that is translated "healed" in verse 36. In its 106 occurrences in the New Testament the word is very often used of saving from death, but never once in the sense of raising the dead. Has fallen asleep" is a familiar euphemism for "has died "; but to use that phrase to deny the reality of death would be to utter a flagrant untruth; and yet this is what is here attributed to the Lord Jesus! A reference to John 11:11-14 will exemplify this. "Lazarus has fallen asleep," the Lord said to the disciples; but when they mistook His meaning, "He said unto them plainly, Lazarus has died." But in marked contrast with this, the Lord had said that Jairus’ daughter "would recover" (v. 50). And when He entered the house, and before He saw the child, He announced in the confidence of Divine knowledge, "She has not died, but she is sleeping." And then, standing by her bedside, He took her by the hand, saying, "Maid, arise" (or "wake up"). And, the narrative adds, "her spirit came again" - the identical words used in the Greek Bible to describe Samson’s recovery as recorded in Judges 15:19. But, it will be said, the universally accepted reading of this passage must surely have some different and surer basis. Not so; it rests entirely upon two grounds. First, the presumption that the facts of the case must have been better known to the Jew mourners than to the Lord of glory! And secondly, that as the Lord meant that Lazarus was dead when He said that he was sleeping, His word about Jairus’ child must be understood in the same sense. This is worthy of the Sunday school! For the word He used in John 11:11 is altogether different from the word He here employed. In all but four of its eighteen occurrences His Lazarus word (koimao) signifies death; whereas the word He here used (hatheud) never bears that meaning in any of its twenty-one occurrences in the New Testament. And yet if the Lord had really said. "She is not dead, but sleepeth," some might still plead for putting a mystical meaning on the phrase. But the words He actually used, "She did not die" (ou gar apethanen), were a definite and unequivocal statement of a fact. And His hearers were clearly intended to understand them thus. There was no element of dramatic effect in any of the Lord’s miracles. And knowing that the child, though past recovery, was still alive, He who was "the truth" would not have it supposed that He was raising her from the dead. But by a word He restored her to full health and vigour (v. 55). The reality of the miracle is not in question, nor yet its testimony to His Divine power. But among honorable men the test of truth is the meaning which words are intended to convey to others; are we then to attribute a lower standard of truthfulness to the language of our Divine Lord? For this is involved in so reading His words, "She did not die," that an elaborate and subtle argument is needed to vindicate their truth. This is the question here at issue. "Strive to enter in at the strait gate" (Luke 13:24). This text is very generally misunderstood; partly through misreading its principal word, and partly through ignorance of Oriental customs. The imagery is not the same as that of Matthew 7:13. In one of the two leaves of an Eastern city gate there was a small narrow door which was open to foot-passengers for a while after the main gate was closed at sun down. And the gloss of our commentaries is that to an audience of Orientals, they would have turned away with feelings either of amusement or of pity for his ignorance. For a belated traveler who tried to enter in that fashion would have been taken for an enemy or a lunatic, and either cut down or thrown out! And such an exposition of the words is egregiously opposed to the doctrine and the spirit of the Gospel. This, no doubt, is the primary meaning of the word agonizomai, and it is so used in some other passages. But it is not its only meaning. In Colossians 4:12, for example, the Apostle uses it to describe the fervent earnestness of Epaphras’ prayers for his Colossian brethren. And so here. It is one of the Lord’s many warnings against trifling with God or with eternal interests. No Oriental would have missed its meaning. The wayfarer knows that, though the sun has set, the "narrow gate" is still open; so there is no need to hurry. Then why not linger here, or turn aside there? But although God looks for no merit of any kind in us, He must not be treated as we would not dare to treat a fellow-man. "Behold, now is the day of salvation" is His word: not now, but tomorrow" is the response of the human heart. As we study the sequel, we must distinguish between the dispensational bearing of the Lord’s words and their general application. No Oriental would miss His meaning when the allegory of "the narrow gate" merges in that of the feast to which invitations have been issued with Eastern prodigality. And the guests have no need to knock, for the door stands open. But once the master of the house "is risen up and has shut to the door," neither knocking nor pleading will avail. And for Israel that crisis was at hand - their day of visitation was far spent. And now, in the sequel, the Lord gives an explicit answer to the question which called forth these solemn words of warning. The saved will not be few. Outcast sinners will come from every point of the compass, and sit down in the kingdom with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, while the favored people who boast of their descent from these patriarchs will be themselves "thrust out." Such, then, is the primary interpretation of the passage. But it has a very special application to ourselves in this Christian age. And here the error of the received exegesis is still more apparent. The little entrance door in an Eastern city gate was not only narrow, it was so low that a man had to stoop when passing in. But there was no difficulty of any kind in entering, if only he bowed his head, and had no pack to carry. What imagery could possibly describe more aptly how a sinner must come to Christ! And our present verse is not so much a command as a gracious appeal and invitation, given in the spirit of the Savior’s words in the last two verses of the chapter. No chapter in the Gospels is more misread than the sixteenth of Luke. The commonly accepted version of it may be summarized as follows: "A certain rich man had an agent who was accused of robbing him; so he gave him notice of dismissal. The steward then set himself to rob him more flagrantly than ever and his master commended him for his cleverness." Did a rustic preacher ever propound anything sillier or more harmful to a company of yokels! And suppose, to make matters worse, he followed it up by a sermon with the moral, "Woe to the rich: blessed are the poor!" Yet this deplorable folly and error is attributed to our Divine Lord In this group of parables we have a series of exquisite pictures, drawn by the hand of the Master, to illustrate the great life-choice. In the prodigal son we have the case of one who "wasted" his own "portion of goods" in selfish and sinful pleasure, but afterwards repented, and was restored. In the steward we have the case of one who wasted his employer’s "goods" by unthrift and neglect; but who repented, and was forgiven. And in the rich man in the last parable of the series we have one who persistently lived for this world, and died impenitent. The steward was "unrighteous" in the sense that he was a careless, easy-going man, who "let things slide," leaving debts uncollected, and allowing accounts to run on. Thus it was that he was wasting" his master’s property. It was a case, not of occasional acts of dishonesty, but of habitual carelessness. His dishonesty was of a passive kind. And what earned for him his master’s praise was his action when brought to book, and dishonesty of any kind was no longer possible. Instead of alienating the debtors by enforcing immediate payment in full, he set himself to win their friendship by giving them a most liberal discount, and at his own expense, of course; for now he was working under strict observation. And he did this in order that, when he lost his office, they might receive him into their houses. This is the whole point of the parable. Its lesson is not that roguery succeeds, or is commendable in any way, but as the Lord Himself explains it by the words. "Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness that when it shall fail ye may be received into the eternal tabernacles." The moral of the parable is the wisdom of using the present in view of the future; of living in a world that is "passing away," under the influence of that other world which is abiding and eternal. It is the application in the highest sphere of a principle which is recognized by "the children of this world." For the successful man is one who has learned to make "today" subordinate to tomorrow," and to forego a present advantage in order to secure a prospective gain. To enforce this still more plainly, the Lord went on to say, "If ye have not been faithful in that which is another’s, who will give you that which is your own" As the parable is usually read, these words seem inexplicable. But their meaning is clear: spiritual gifts are our own, but the mammon is entrusted to us as stewards, How false, then, is the prevailing belief that, in the Christian life, the "religious" and the "secular" are in separate compartments. The Christian is as really God’s servant in the one sphere as in the other. And then verse 13 gives the final lesson. The Christian is to use the world: but if he uses it excessively it becomes his master .And though mammon he a good servant, it is an evil master. Moreover. "No servant can serve two masters. . . . Ye cannot serve God and mammon" We must choose between them. And the concluding parable about Dives and Lazarus is given to guide our choice. " "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). This rendering of the text in both our versions savours of exegesis. The Baptist’s words are definitely clear, "Behold the Lamb of God, who is bearing the sin of the world." And they are usually supposed to be a revelation to the Jews that Christ was to die; the only question in doubt being whether the type to which they refer be the Paschal lamb or the sin-offering. But this involves a glaring anachronism. For it was not until the Sanhedrin decreed His destruction (Matthew 12:32) that the Lord revealed even to the Twelve that He was to be put to death. And so utterly opposed was it to all Jewish beliefs and hopes that they gave no heed to it. Upon other grounds also such an exegesis is unintelligent. For the Passover did not typify "bearing sin," and a lamb was never the sin-offering victim. Nor was it "the sin of the world" that the scapegoat bore away, but the sins of the children of Israel (Leviticus 16:21). "Who is bearing the sin of the world?" This was not a prophecy of Calvary, but a revelation of what the Lord was during His life. Therefore the word here used is not a sacrificial term, as in 1 Peter 2:24 and other kindred passages, but an ordinary word in common use for taking up and carrying burdens. Its five occurrences in John 5:8-12 are fairly representative of its use in the ninety-six other passages where it is found. Accordingly we read in 1 John 3:5 - the only other passage where the word is used in this connection - "He was manifested to take away (or to bear) sins" (R.V.), the Apostle’s purpose being, as the context plainly indicates, not to assert the doctrine of expiation, but to impress on the saints that sin is utterly opposed to Christ, and hinders fellowship with Him. Mark the word "manifested"; it was not the mystery of Calvary, but the openly declared purpose of His life. For in this sense He was a sin-bearer during all His earthly sojourn; as witness, for example, His groans and tears at the grave of Lazarus. He took up and bore the burden of human sin; not as to its guilt - that was not till Gethsemane and Calvary - but as to the sufferings and sorrows it brought upon humanity. "He was oppressed, yet lie humbled Himself and opened not His mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb, yea He opened not His mouth" (Isaiah 53:7, R.V.). There is a general consensus of opinion that to this passage it is that the Baptist’s words refer. And it is noteworthy that it contains no sacrificial language; for, in the Hebrew, "slaughter" is a common word that points to the shambles. It foretold the Messiah’s earthly life of humiliation and suffering. And this it was that the Jews could not understand, and would not accept. Hence the force and meaning of the Baptist’s inspired words uttered at the very threshold of the ministry. Let no one suppose then that the foregoing exposition of them disparages the truth of the expiation accomplished upon Calvary. That great truth rests upon a foundation too firm and sure to need support from a misreading of the Baptist’s testimony. Indeed, it is the accepted exegesis of the passage that imperils that truth. For it affords a colorable justification for the profane heresy that during the Lord’s earthly ministry He rested under the cloud of separation from His Father (see note on 1 Peter 2:24). To form too high an estimate of the death of Christ would be impossible, but it is a deplorable fact that the prolonged martyrdom of His earthly life has far too little place in our thoughts. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 99: 1.08.03. CHAPTER 3: BORN OF WATER AND THE SPIRIT ======================================================================== CHAPTER 3: BORN OF WATER AND THE SPIRIT "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 6:5). The fact that the traditional view of this passage, which connects it with Christian baptism, is rejected by a weighty minority of theologians, from Calvin to Bishop John C. Ryle, should make us ready to consider the matter with an open mind. And Dr. Ryle’s "six reasons" for rejecting it, enumerated in his Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, might well make an end of controversy on the subject. Indeed, the traditional view is vetoed by the glaring anachronism it involves. For Christian baptism had not then been instituted, and even the disciples themselves knew nothing of it. And yet the Lord indignantly rebuked Nicodemus for not understanding His words about a birth by water and the Spirit. "Art thou the teacher of Israel (He exclaimed) and knowest not these things?" It is certain, therefore, that He was referring to some Old Testament Scripture with which a Rabbi of the Sanhedrin ought to have been familiar. The only answer to this is the profane suggestion that the Lord’s solemn words had reference to the Jewish baptism of proselytes, a purely human ordinance, which the Jews in days of apostasy derived from ancient paganism. We must avoid the error suggested by our A.V. that the words imply a twofold birth, of water and of the Spirit. For in the next verse, and again in verse 8, the water is omitted, and the new man is said to be "born of the Spirit." And this rules out the gloss that the Lord was referring to "the baptism of John"; for that baptism was expressly contrasted with the Spirit’s work (Matthew 3:11). It was a confession of failure and sin, to prepare for receiving a Messiah whose near advent the Baptist proclaimed. Christian baptism, on the other hand, was a confession of faith in Christ already come, and gone back to heaven; and of submission to Him as their Lord, on the part of those who professed to have been already born of the Spirit. Therefore, when the household of Cornelius were brought in, their baptism was not the new birth, but a public recognition that they had been already born of water and the Spirit. For the question was, "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? Baptism is a public act performed by man, for which man can fix the day and hour. The new birth of water and the Spirit is altogether the work of God; and as our Lord so expressly declares, no man can forecast, no man can command it. "The Spirit breathes where He wills, and thou hearest His voice, but knowest not whence it cometh and whither He goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." It was presumably the obvious reference to Ezekiel’s prophecy which led our translators to render pneuma by "wind." Of course, it may have that meaning; but the word occurs 370 times in the New Testament (23 times in John), and yet nowhere else is it so translated. And the word rendered "sound" is phone, the ordinary word for voice, and it is so translated in 130 of its 139 occurrences. But the need of all this discussion arises from the accumulations of error and prejudice which obscure the teaching of the passage. In added words the Lord Himself made His meaning unequivocally clear. In verse 9 Nicodemus repeats as a humble seeker after truth the question which he had previously raised (v 4) in petulant unbelief. "How can a man be born anew?" And now the answer is vouchsafed to him "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." It was not as the result of a mystical human rite that Nicodemus was to be born again, but by believing in Christ "lifted up" (cf. ch. 8: 28 and 12: 82). And, as other Scriptures tell us, "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." "We are born again by the living and eternally-abiding Word of God" (1 Peter 1:23). In this matter Christendom is in direct conflict with Scripture. Christendom teaches that baptism symbolizes birth. Holy Scripture declares that it symbolizes death. Christendom teaches that it is the putting away of the filth of the flesh. Holy Scripture declares "it is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God." And in the same passage (1 Peter 3:21) the Apostle enforces the symbolism of death, by referring to baptism as an antitype of the Flood. The water which overwhelmed the world bore up the ark. Noah was thus saved from death by death; as is the sinner who, on believing in Christ, becomes one with Him in death. But if it be a question of the new birth, "we are born again BY THE WORD OF GOD." As already noticed, the Lord’s words to Nicodemus referred to some Old Testament Scripture with which he ought to have been familiar. Nor is there any doubt what that Scripture was, namely, Eze 36:-37, a prophecy that was greatly cherished by the Jew; and ignorance of it would have been as discreditable to a Rabbi as ignorance of the Nicodemus sermon would be to a Christian theologian. There we read, "I will sprinkle clean water upon you. . . . And I will put My Spirit within you" (ch. 36: 25—27). And in chapter 37: we have the vision of the valley of dry bones, when the prophet is told to call upon the dry bones to "hear the Word of the Lord"; and to prophesy to the Spirit to breathe upon them. The water of Ezekiel’s prophecy was "the water of purification "of Numbers 19:1-22 : Water which had flowed over the ashes of the sin-offering had efficacy to cleanse the sinner. And the antitype of that water is the Word of God by which we are born again (1 Peter 1:23). When, therefore, the Lord went on to tell Nicodemus of eternal life through faith in Him as lifted up upon the cross (V. 14), He was unfolding the meaning of that Ezekiel prophecy, and of the type to which, as every Rabbi recognized, it so clearly referred. To recapitulate. In Scripture, baptism symbolizes death, which is the very antithesis of birth and it is never associated with regeneration. And, as Bishop Ryle notices in his Expository Thoughts, "there is little about baptism in the Epistles." How then did it come to signify regeneration, and to acquire such prominence in Christendom religion? The Hibbert Lectures, 1888, by Dr. Edwin Hatch, of Oxford (Vice-Principal of St. Mary Hall), supplies a clear and conclusive answer to this question. The Early Church in its apostasy was so thoroughly corrupted by Greek paganism that, in respect of baptism, it adopted not only the doctrines and ritual, but the very terminology, of the Eleusinian Mysteries. "No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him"(John V1. 44).This verse is perverted by many Christians to excuse want of zeal in bringing the gospel to the unsaved, and by unbelievers to excuse their not coming to Christ. And this perversion of the Lord’s words affords a colorable justification for saying that, if men do not accept the gospel, the fault lies with God, for He does not draw them. But when read aright, the verse emphasizes a truth that permeates the whole Bible. Man’s spiritual being is so utterly alienated from God that by the light of Nature he cannot even "see the kingdom of God," much less enter it. The records of the Ministry do not contain a single case where a sinner who came to the Lord, confessing his blindness and helplessness, failed to receive light and blessing; but the Jews to whom these words were addressed spurned both Him and His teaching; and this was His answer to their rejection of Him. The blind received their sight, and those who claimed to see were blinded. Dispensationally, these words were superseded by the Lord’s further words in John 12:32. "For before the glorification of Christ the Father drew men to the Son, but now the Son Himself draws all to Himself." But the principle underlying both statements is the same. For it is not in his moral, but in his spiritual nature, that man is utterly lost and dead. Saul the Pharisee was as moral as Paul the Apostle. And have we not read of cases, even in heathendom, where without any light of revelation men have led a clean and upright life? And if this be possible for some, it is possible for all, and, therefore, God is just in punishing men for every breach of the moral law. But did not the Lord say expressly that these Jews "had not had sin" if He "had not come and spoken unto them," and "had not done among them the works that none other did"? (John 15:22; John 15:24). Yes, truly, but the sin there referred to was not their breaking the moral law, but their rejecting Him and His testimony. For God holds none responsible for rejecting Christ save those who have heard of Christ. All this throws light upon His words in John 6:44. They are not, as commonly supposed, a limitation placed upon the gospel; but they emphasize the solemnity both of preaching and hearing the gospel. By words and works that gave abundant proof of the presence and power of God, the Father had been drawing these proud religionists to Christ. But now their day of visitation was past, and they were left to their nature - darkness and incompetence - to come to Him. And so is it in this present age when the Lord is drawing all unto Himself. True it is that but for Divine "drawing" none would ever come. But sinners are not drawn heavenward in the sense in which criminals are drawn to prison. Whenever the gospel is preached in the power of the Holy Ghost sinners are being drawn to the Lord; but, alas! The many "resist the Holy Ghost." He (the devil) was a murderer from the beginning" (John Viii. 44). The Satan of "Christendom religion" is the mythical monster of Babylonian paganism. And the general acceptance of this "Satan myth" has led to the popular misreading of these words. The vain boast of the Christ-rejecting Jews, that God was their Father, brought on them the scathing reply, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has not stood in the truth, because the truth is not in him. When he speaketh THE lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar, and the father of IT." What mean these awful words, addressed by the Lord Jesus to earnest men of character and repute, who, under their responsibilities as religious leaders, deplored His teaching? "A murderer from the beginning." The beginning of what? Not of his own existence, for he was created in perfectness; nor yet of the Eden paradise, for long ere then Satan had dragged down others in his ruin. His being a murderer connects itself immediately with the truth which he refused, and the lie of which he is the father. These words of our Divine Lord give us, therefore, a glimpse into a past eternity, when, to the great intelligences of the heavenly world, God made known His purpose of a "first-born," who was "in all things to have the pre-eminence." The greatest of those heavenly beings claimed that place; and, rebelling against the Divine purpose, he set; himself from that hour to thwart its fulfillment. And so during all the ages, as Luther wrote, "he hath no other business in hand but this only, to persecute and vex our Saviour Christ." Therefore was it, that he compassed the ruin of our race. Therefore was it, that, in order to stamp out the house of David, he incited Athaliah to destroy "all the seed royal (2 Kings 11:1-21 :), and at the Nativity he incited Herod to destroy "all the children that were in Bethlehem" (Matthew 2:16). But it was not until the Temptation that his lie was plainly revealed. He there claimed to meet the Lord on more than equal terms, Having "led Him up," and given Him that mysterious vision of earthly sovereignty, "the devil said unto Him, To Thee will I give this authority, and the glory of them, for it hath been delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will I give it. If Thou, therefore, wilt worship before me, it shall all be Thine." This was the bold assertion of his claim to be the true first-born, the rightful heir of creation, and therefore entitled to the worship of mankind. He is the awful being to whom Scripture accords the title of "the god of this world," not because the Supreme has delegated it, but because the world yields it to him. As the temptation revealed him as the liar, Gethsemane and Calvary revealed him as the murderer. "Satan entered into Judas," we read - a phrase that has no parallel in all the Scripture. And surely when the Evil One heard "Emmanuel’s orphan-cry" upon the cross, and saw His body carried to the tomb, he must have thought his victory was assured. But though foiled, he is still unconquered. For the Scriptures tell us of a supreme effort yet to come when -"woe to the hated race "- all the powers of hell will be at work to deceive mankind, and to thwart that coming triumph of the Lord of glory, "when He shall have put down all rule and all authority and power." The devil of "Christendom religion" is a wonderful being who, like God Almighty, is omnipresent; for, the wide world over, he is by the side of every nursery cot, and at the elbow of every human being, making the babies naughty and the "grown-ups" vicious! This pestilent nonsense is believed even by spiritual Christians. Human nature being what it is, no devil is needed to make people tell lies, or to account for murders incited by the lusts and passions of evil men. But how can we account for the untold myriads of murders that have befouled the awful record of the professing "Christian Church"- crimes more hideous than any that have been due to lust or greed? "Natural" murders (if such a phrase may be allowed) await the final judgment of the great day; but not these hell-born crimes of the so-called "Christian Church," "drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus."’ And yet these ghastly crimes were committed in the name of Christ, and by men who were outwardly devout and good; and they are justified, even today, by multitudes of people who are as kind-hearted and "religious" as the best of us! Yes, of a truth the devil has been a murderer from the beginning, and he is the god of this world. May not the very many Psalms of David which contain references to conspiracies and plots against his life be read in the light of these words of the Lord Jesus about Satan? For surely there was no life in Old Testament story against which the devil’s malice would have been more specially directed than that of David; for the devil must have known the prominence he held in the scheme of the Messianic purposes. In the opening sentence of the New Testament, Christ is designated "the son of David"; and in the opening sentence of the Epistles, as "made of the seed of David according to the flesh." May we not give a new reading then to the so-called "imprecatory Psalms"? So far from expressing, as the Rationalists suppose the cravings of an angry Kaiser for vengeance on his personal enemies, are they not the inspired utterances of the prophet-king with reference to his peculiar share in the conflict of the ages between Christ and His great enemy who was "a murderer from the beginning" "And whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die" (John 11:26).Here is the received exegesis of these words, as given by one of the best of our modern commentators "Faith in Me is the source of life, both here and hereafter, and those who have it, have Life, so that they shall never die," physical death being overlooked and disregarded, in comparison with that which is really and only death. . . . There can hardly be any reference in Verse 26 to the state of the living faithful at the Lord’s coming (1 Corinthians 15:51), for although the Apostle there, speaking of believers primarily and especially, uses the first person - the saying would be equally true of unbelievers, on whose bodies the change from the corruptible to the incorruptible will equally pass, and of whom the ’shall never die’ would here be equally true,- whereas the saying is one setting forth an exclusive privilege of the man that "liveth and believeth on Me." This explains why our present verse is a "Misunderstood Text "; for our theologians generally confound that Coming of Christ, which is revealed as the present hope of His people, with the event of the last great diesirce in a very far-distant future. And thus, as in the case of certain other passages, a subtle argument is needed to vindicate the truth of the Lord’s words. He called Lazarus from the tomb to die again; but "the living" of whom He here speaks are the "those who are alive and remain" of 1 Corinthians 15:1-58 : (see p. 95, post); and they shall never die. And here one may well ask, Who among us really believes that it is the same voice which recalled Lazarus from death that will yet call forth "all that are in their graves" (John 5:28)? Who among us believes that, even then, He could have spoken the word which would have summoned all the dead to life again? But though He had "all power," He ever held it in subjection to the will of His Father in heaven. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 100: 1.08.04 CHAPTER 4: BRANCH IN CHRIST ======================================================================== CHAPTER 4: BRANCH IN CHRIST "Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He (the Father) taketh away" (John 15:2). This passage is often perverted to undermine the great basal truth that we are saved by grace, and that our salvation is eternal. And the sixth verse is used to enforce this false reading. But the question here is not salvation, but fruit-bearing. The Lord’s purpose in using this parable of the vine is not to cancel all His previous teaching about the eternal safety of the sinner who comes to Him, but to unfold truth of the highest practical importance for all who have been thus blessed. The language of the sixth verse, if carefully studied, will prevent our mistaking His meaning. "If any one does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch, and is withered." To bear fruit apart from Him is quite as impossible as to be saved apart from Him. The severed branch of another sort of tree might be used in some way. But as every Palestinian peasant knew, vine branches were useless; men gather them and cast them into the fire and they are burned. Indeed, these words of Christ about vine branches are, no doubt, a reference to Ezekiel 15:8; Ezekiel 15:4, "Shall wood be taken thereof to do any work? Behold, it is cast into the fire for fuel." They are not a doctrinal statement relating to the future destiny of men, but a parable to illustrate truth relating to the conduct and life of His people here and now. "Those that Thou gavest Me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition" (John 17:12).This clearly implies that one of Christ’s God-given ones may be finally lost. But the words the Lord actually used admit of a wholly different meaning. According to Bloomfield - and upon a question of Greek there is no higher authority - "ei me is for alla when a negative sentence has preceded." And when words admit of different meanings, one of which is in accordance with, and the other in opposition to, other Scriptures, we must always accept the former. We cannot doubt, therefore, that in this passage the Lord used ei me in the same sense as in Luke 4:25-27. In the famine of Elijah’s day there were many widows in Israel, but to none of them was the prophet sent; but (ci me) he was sent to a woman of’ Sidon. There were many lepers in Israel in Elisha’s day, but no one of them was cured; but (ci me) Naaman the Syrian was cured. In these passages the ei me does not introduce an exceptional case within the specified category, but a case belonging to a wholly different category. As Dean Plumptre puts it tersely, it is not an exception but a contrast (Ellicott’s N.T. Commentary). To quote yet another instance, we read in Revelation 21:27, that there shall in no wise enter into the holy Jerusalem anything unclean or he that maketh an abomination or a lie. But (ei me - in marked contrast) they who are written in the Lamb’s book of life shall enter there. Now, let us read our present verse in this way, ignoring a punctuation which is arbitrary "Those that Thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost; but (ei me) the son of perdition is lost, that the Scripture might be fulfilled." And when thus read, the Lord’s words, instead of casting a doubt upon the truth that all His God-given ones are safe, becomes a signal confirmation of that truth. To deal here with the awful mystery of Judas’ ministry and fall would be quite beyond the scope of these notes. But the Lord’s mention of him indicates what, indeed, a careful study of the chapter would suggest, that in this portion of His prayer down to the twenty-second verse, it is of His Apostles the Lord is speaking. And if we overlook this, we lose a most precious insight into His mind and ways. These men have been His constant companions and fellow-workers during the ministry of His humiliation. But now He is leaving them in the world. And though the path on which He is entering leads to Gethsemane and Calvary, His thoughts and petitions are not about Himself, but altogether about them. Here is something, surely, to bring Him very near to us when, in any sphere of service, we are lonely or in peril. "The times of restitution of all things" (Acts 3:21).The Apostle Peter’s second "Pentecostal sermon" has been dealt with on a preceding page. No trained lawyer could frame words to teach more plainly that the "restitution of all things" will be the realization on earth, and in time, of Messianic Hebrew prophecy from Moses to Malachi. It might seem, therefore, that further notice of this verse would he unnecessary. But eight-and thirty years ago, an epoch-making book was written by an English clergyman to prove that the Apostle’s words point, not to earth and time, but to eternity and heaven. According to this writer, the teaching of this passage is that, at some unspecified era in the ages of ages, sinners who have gone to hell through rejecting the Atonement of Christ will pass to heaven as the result of working out atonement on their own account, by suffering punishment for their sins in hell. And this is now an article in the creed of multitudes of people. But it will be asked, How is such an exegesis possible? The author’s answer is, in effect Because Scripture never really means what it seems to mean. Here are his words "The letter of Scripture is a veil quite as much as a revelation, hiding while it reveals, and yet revealing what it hides, presenting to the eye something very different from that which is within." In other words, we may read into Holy Scripture any meaning which our fancy makes us wish to find there. But even assuming the truth of this writer’s doctrine, can any person of ordinary intelligence suppose that the Apostle would make it the gist and climax of his solemn appeal to the Christ rejecting Jew’s? His aim is to bring them to repentance and, he does this by assuring then that it is the teaching of "all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken," that even if they continue impenitent, the will reach heaven at last, though by a longer and harder road! But, as every Bible student knows, whether this doctrine be true or false, it is entirely outside the scope of Hebrew prophecy. What concerns us here, however, is not its truth or falseness, but the meaning of Acts 3:21. And the question arises, whether the suggested exegesis of that verse does not justify the cynic’s taunt, that in the sphere of religion there is nothing too wild to be believed. "And (Stephen said) Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God" (Acts 7:6).These words are of exceptional interest and importance. "The Son of Man" is a Messianic title which is never used in Scripture save in relation to the Messianic Kingdom. And this is the only recorded instance in which the Lord was thus named by human lips. But that is not all. Mark the Lord’s attitude, as seen by His martyred servant. In Hebrews 10:11-13, the fact of His being seated is emphasized as of the highest doctrinal importance but here He is seen standing. May we not read this in the light of the great Pentecostal proclamation of Acts 3:19-20? The Lord is here seen in an attitude of expectancy. But the murder of Stephen was the crisis of the nation’s destiny. The Lord’s Prayer upon the Cross had secured forgiveness for His own murderers. But the death of Stephen was, in effect, a repetition of that greatest of all human sins; and his murder was more definitely the act of the Jewish nation than even the crucifixion itself. Their Roman Governors had no share in it. It was the result of a judicial decision on the part of the great council of the nation. The proto-martyr was thus the messenger sent after the King to say, "We will not have this man to reign over us." And the Divine answer was to call out and commission the Apostle of the Gentiles. And the Lord Jesus, till then "standing on the right hand of God," waiting to fulfill the Pentecostal promise, now "sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till His enemies be made His footstool" (Hebrews 10:12; Hebrews 10:18). "We (the Ephesian disciples) have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost" (Acts 19:2).The translators of our English version showed extraordinary carelessness here. As Bengel writes, "These disciples could not be followers of Moses or of John the Baptist without hearing of the Holy Ghost." The misunderstanding and error to which the passage has given rise are sufficiently met by the Revisers’ translation of it "Did ye receive the Holy Ghost when ye believed? And they said unto him Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Ghost was given." To be strictly accurate, for "the Holy Spirit," we ought to read "Holy Spirit." The Holy Spirit was given to the Church at Pentecost, but as and when we believe we receive Holy Spirit. "When the disciples came together to break bread" (Acts 20:7).The record of the Apostle Paul’s visit to Troas is authoritatively interpreted as saying that, when he met with the disciples on the Sunday evening, he did not join them in eating the Lord’s Supper; but when His address to them was interrupted by the Eutychus accident at midnight, he had "a private celebration of the Eucharist"! This strange vagary of exegesis ignores the fact that "breaking bread" was a colloquial phrase in common use to mean "eating a meal." And while its few occurrences in Scripture will not warrant our either asserting or denying that the Lord’s Supper was ever designated thus, there can be no reasonable doubt that when, as here, the words "had broken bread" are followed by "and had eaten," their meaning is that the Apostle ate a meal. The gloss that the presence of the Greek article before bread is conclusive either way, is refuted by a reference to Luke 24:35. The Apostle’s words, in 1 Corinthians 11:1-34, indicate clearly that, among the abuses due to the practice of associating the Supper with the ordinary evening meal, was that some of the company shamed their poorer brethren by eating their own supper, and then leaving for home (ch. 21 and 33). It is certain, therefore, that the Eucharist must have been the initial rite when they came together. And this being so, can there be any doubt respecting what took place at Troas? The Apostle partook of the bread and wine with the assembled disciples; but afterwards, while the disciples were eating their evening meal, he continued discoursing with them till midnight; and not till then was he able to have a repast. If the forty-second verse of Acts 2:1-47 : stood alone, it would certainly favour the view that "the breaking of bread" there meant the Lord’s Supper. But we must take account of the fact that the phrase recurs in verse 46, where the added words "did take their food with gladness" give proof that it had no sacred meaning. And surely it is improbable in the extreme that a colloquial phrase in common, vulgar use in everybody’s mouth every day of the year would be chosen to designate such a solemn and holy rite. And in the East the phrase is still in daily use. For "bread" is a generic term for food. "When the dinner is ordered, it is still, as of old, by the modest words, "Set on bread," no matter how elaborate the feast; and some Oriental dinners consist of more than twenty courses. Thus it was that Joseph ordered the banquet to be served for his brothers (Genesis 43:31). "And in the East, bread is never cut, for it is thought absolutely wicked to put a knife in it." "They that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:8).This verse is used to support the dogma that, because of the Fall, man’s nature is so utterly depraved that he is incapable of leading a moral and upright life. As the Westminster Divines express it, "We are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good." This theology obviously impugns the righteousness of God in punishing men for their sins. In fact, it represents Him as a tyrant who punishes the lame for limping and the blind for losing their way. No less obviously does it clash with plain and patent facts. For the outward life of Saul the Pharisee was as pure and upright as that of Paul the Apostle. And in our own day we ourselves have known many unbelievers whose conduct and character would bear comparison with those of many a Christian. It is not in the moral sphere of his being, but in the spiritual, that man is hopelessly depraved and lost. Therefore was it that the "zeal of God" of the Jewish leaders led them to crucify the Christ of God, and that Gamaliel’s great disciple, though a pattern moralist, became a persecutor and blasphemer. And the seventh verse must not be read to mean that men were not subject to the letter of the law of Sinai. In calling that code "the moral law," theology means that it is the law of our being. And thus regarded, the Pharisees were scrupulous in their obedience to it. But "the carnal mind" is absolutely incapable of appreciating its spiritual significance. Tue difference between the blind and those who have their sight is not that they see less clearly, but that they do not see at all. And quite as absolute is the antithesis between the carnal and the spiritual. But just as a blind man may have full use of his other physical faculties, so the carnal man may be a thorough moralist. It is no answer to say that this is true only of some; for the fact that it is true of any is proof that God is righteous in judging all. And let no one dismiss all this as though it were of merely academic interest. There are few errors more harmful in the present day. For such a false reading of Scripture disparages it in the judgment of thoughtful men, and fosters the new enlightenment which has so degraded Germany, and which is rapidly leavening the British churches of the Reformation. And no less evil is its influence upon spiritual Christians. For in spite of the solemn, Divine warning that Satan fashions himself as an angel of light, and his ministers as ministers of righteousness, Christians are thus betrayed into recognizing as ministers of Christ any man who commends himself as a minister of righteousness. And the result is that "truth is fallen in the street," and certain of our Divinity schools and theological colleges are supplying our pulpits with agnostics and rationalists. "Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son" (Romans V111. 29).The word proorizo, on which theology has reared such an imposing edifice, occurs only in the four following passages Acts 4:28; Romans 8:29-30; 1 Corinthians 11:7; and Ephesians 1:5; Ephesians 1:11. In two only of these, moreover, is it used with reference to the destiny of men; and never in relation to life, but only to special positions of blessing to which the redeemed are predestinated. In our present verse it is "to be conformed to the image of His Son." And in keeping with this, in Ephesians 1:5 we are said to be predestinated "unto adoption as sons," and in verse 11 it is "to be His heritage" (R.V.). The word in the fifth verse is not "children," but sons; and in Scripture "son" is not a mere synonym for offspring, but betokens special dignity and privilege. Whether these statements are true of all the saved we may not dogmatize, but here they refer to the redeemed of this Christian dispensation. The words, "whom He did foreknow" must not be ignored. But it would be foreign to the purpose of these notes to enter here upon the controversy with which they are associated. The practice of throwing positive statements of Scripture into an alternative negative form, and then basing doctrines upon inferences deduced from them as thus presented, is a fruitful cause of grievous error. By this treatment, for instance, the words of our present verse, which are given to promote the comfort and confidence of the Christian, are so perverted as to become a limitation upon the gospel of the grace of God. "I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh" (Romans 9:3).The "difficulty" of this verse would not seem so perplexing if it were translated more correctly. Dean Alford’s note is, "I was wishing - this imperfect tense . . . implies, as very often, a half expression of a desire." Or, as Bishop Ellicott’s New Testament Commentary puts it, "I could have wished. The wish, of course, relates to what was really impossible." And this is the view of numerous authorities who take the word anathema to mean "cut off from Christ forever in eternal perdition." But as Greek scholars allow a wide range of meaning to the word, the question is legitimate whether it be in harmony with the tone and tenor of Scripture to suppose that the Holy Spirit would inspire anyone to frame and utter such a statement. Or, entirely eliminating the element of inspiration, whether such an ebullition of unrestrained feeling be consistent with the known character of the Apostle Paul. Is not such a reading of the passage calculated to lower our estimate of him as a man? Let us inquire then in what sense he elsewhere used the word anathema. Now we know that the gospel of grace was his special "trust." And so strong was his feeling on this subject that in warning the Galatian Church against any one, whether man or angel, who preached any gospel other than he himself had preached, that twice he used the words, "Let him be anathema" (ch. 1: 8, 9). Having regard then to his treatment of this subject in Php 1:15-18, is it credible that he meant, "Let him be damned for eternity"? If I do not appeal also to his use of the word in 1 Corinthians 16:23, it is because the Galatian reference seems conclusive. In 1 Corinthians 12:2, the only other occurrence of the word in his Epistles, it is evidently used as the technical term for excommunication among the Jews. It is very noteworthy that our verse is usually considered without reference to the teaching of the Epistle in which it occurs, or even to the immediate context. But, as Bloomfield remarks, between the eighth chapter and the ninth "there is a closer connection than commentators have been aware." And he might have added that, between chapter 9: and the two following chapters, this connection is closer still. The inquiry this suggests is as interesting as it is important. The received exegesis is a legacy from days when the prophecies and promises relating to Israel’s future were "spiritualized" to make them refer to "the Christian Church"; and it was tacitly assumed that nothing remained for Israel but judgment and wrath. And this seemed to account for such a strange outburst of passionate feeling on the part of the Apostle. But these chapters show us that, even as he penned these words, he had prominently in view, first that Israel’s rejection was but temporary, and secondly that during this age of grace ‘there is no difference between the Jew and the Gentile,’ and therefore the individual Israelite is in no respect at a disadvantage; for salvation is equally free to all (ch. 10: 12, 13). Moreover, at the time when he was writing, the Jewish converts everywhere, and notably in Rome, far outnumbered the Gentiles. Are we to conclude then that the burden of his impassioned longing was that a still larger proportion of Jews might be brought in? A most legitimate longing surely, but to express it in such terms would be unworthy, I will not say of an inspired Apostle, but of any sensible man with a well-balanced mind. And this very chapter vetoes the suggestion that what he had in view was the salvation of every Israelite - "all the seed of Abraham according to the flesh." What, then, can have been his meaning? As it was neither that some Israelites might be saved, nor that more Israelites might be saved, nor yet that all Israelites might he saved, there is only one conclusion open to us, namely, that the burden upon his heart was the condition of Israel nationally, and that he longed intensely for their restoration to the position they had lost. For the privileges and blessings specified in the fourth and fifth verses of this chapter did not pertain to the individual Hebrew, but to the nation. And his argument, broken, more so, by many a parenthesis, reaches a climax with the words, "And so all Israel shall be saved" (xi. 26) - that is Israel as a nation. And the longing of his heart was to witness that consummation. But, it will be asked, would the Apostle Paul have bartered his eternal destiny for the realization of such a hope as that? I would answer (contra mundum, if needs be) that no possible consideration would have betrayed him into uttering, or even harbouring, such a wish. And this emboldens me to suggest a new reading of the passage. ======================================================================== Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/writings-of-sir-robert-anderson-volume-1/ ========================================================================