(1854-58. Contributions by W. Kelly.)
The identifying code is the year, month, day, and page number of the contribution.
'Marginal Readings' from the Christian Annotator are included in the NT_19c_2 directory. They occur on pages 93, 156, 220, 267, 300, of Vol. III.
6_01_05 p.9. — 1 Tim. 5:17|
6_01_19 p.28. — Texts Misapplied or Misquoted
6_01_19 p.29/30. — Synoptical Study of the Gospels
6_01_19 p.31. — Job 9:9, and 38:31-32
6_01_19 p.33. — Luke 13:24
6_01_19 p.33. — Luke 16:9
6_01_19 p.35. — 2 Peter 1:20
6_02_02 p.44. — Matthew 2:23
6_02_02 p.47/8. — Luke 5:17
6_02_02 p.50. — James 4:5
6_02_02 p.51. — Revelation 14:19
6_02_02 p.51. — Revelation 22:17
6_02_16 p.60/1. — Jeremiah 17:9
6_02_16 p.61. — Daniel 7:25
6_02_16 p.62/3. — Mark 9:43-48
6_02_16 p.67/8. — Revelation 17:11
6_03_01 p.76. — Zechariah 12
6_03_15 p.98/9. — Resurrection of the Body
6_03_22 p.110. — Jeremiah 24
6_03_22 p.111. — Matthew 14:5
6_03_22 p.112. — Luke 23:34
6_03_22 p.112. — John 6:39-40
6_03_22 p.117. — Galatians 3:16, 18
6_03_22 p.117. — 2 Peter 1:5
6_03_22 p.118. — Revelation 8:3
6_03_29 p.126. — Psalm 16:2-3
6_03_29 p.130. — Galatians 3:22
6_03_29 p.131. — Septuagint
6_03_29 p.131. — Adam Clarke's Commentary
6_04_12 p.140. — Misapplications of Scripture
6_04_12 p.140. — Romans 14:1
6_04_26 p.159. — Daniel 2:44
6_04_26 p.159. — Daniel 7 and 8
6_04_26 p.160/1. — Daniel 11:17
6_04_26 p.162. — Daniel 12:11-12
6_04_26 p.165/6. — History of Nebuchadnezzar, etc.
6_05_10 p.173. — Ezekiel 20:35-36
6_05_10 p.173. — Matthew 1:19
6_05_10 p.174. — Matthew 16:18
6_05_10 p.174. — Matthew 25:1-13
6_05_10 p.176/7. — Romans 9:5
6_05_10 p.178. — Ephesians 4:7
6_05_10 p.178. — Hebrews 10:26
6_05_10 p.178. — 1 Peter 3:19-20
6_05_17 p.191. — John 21
6_05_17 p.192. — 1 Corinthians 6:11
6_05_17 p.193. — Hebrews 10:12
6_05_17 p.194. — New Testament Synonyms
6_05_17 p.198. — The Spanish Bible
6_05_24 p.209/10. — 2 Peter 3:3
6_05_24 p.211/2. — Elberfeld New Testament
6_05_24 p.212/3. — Was St. Peter ever at Rome?
6_06_07 p.219. — Texts Misapplied or Misquoted
6_06_07 p.225. — 1 Corinthians 11:5
6_06_07 p.226/7. — Eph. 4:30, and Thess. 5:19
6_06_21 p.237. — Exodus 34:7
6_06_21 p.238. — Daniel 9:27
6_06_21 p.241. — Romans 8:1
6_06_21 p.242. — Ephesians 5:26
6_06_21 p.243. — Hebrews 12:23
6_06_21 p.243/4. — 2 Peter 3:18
6_06_21 p.246. — Scientific Accuracy of Scripture
6_06_28 p.251. — Genesis 15, Genesis 1:4, and John 1:1
6_06_28 p.252/3. — Daniel 9
6_06_28 p.254. — Matthew 4:12, 17
6_06_28 p.259. — 1 John 1:7
6_06_28 p.261. — The Personal Reign and Human Kingdom
6_07_05 p.269. — Leviticus 14
6_07_05 p.270. — Psalm 40:6; and Hebrews 10:5
6_07_05 p.271. — Psalm 102
6_07_05 p.272. — Daniel 11:36
6_07_05 p.273. — John 15:4
6_07_05 p.275. — Revelation 13:5
6_07_19 p.284. — Genesis 38:15
6_07_19 p.285. — Joshua 5:9
6_07_19 p.286. — Isaiah 18:7
6_07_19 p.289. — Acts 17:30
6_07_19 p.290. — Galatians 3:16
6_08_02 p.303. — Deuteronomy 32:8
6_08_16 p.317/8. — Isaiah 18:7
6_08_16 p.325. — Verbal Inspiration
6_08_30 p.332/3. — Texts Misapplied or Misquoted
6_08_30 p.335. — Little horn of Daniel 7
6_08_30 p.337. — Matthew 16:28
6_08_30 p.342/3. — 1 John 2:29; 1 John 3:9; 1 John 5:1, 4, 18
6_09_13 p.349/50. — Daniel 2:44
6_09_13 p.350. — Daniel 8:22-23
6_09_13 p.351. — John 21:15-17
6_09_13 p.354/5. — 1 Timothy 1:19-20
6_09_13 p.356. — Revelation 14:13
6_09_13 p.358/9. — Judicial acquittal of the Righteous
6_09_20 p.362/3. — Quails
6_09_20 p.367. — Matthew 10:23
6_09_20 p.376. — "Horn" and "King."
6_09_27 p.380. — Isaiah 2:22
6_09_27 p.383. — Luke 7:28
6_09_27 p.384. — Romans 1:4
6_09_27 p.387. — 1 Peter 4:11
6_10_11 p.401. — Romans 7:4
6_10_11 p.401/2. — 2 Corinthians 5:21
6_10_11 p.402. — 2 Thessalonians, 2:2
6_10_11 p.404. — Hebrews 6:1-2
6_10_25 p.416. — την διασποραν των Ἑλληνων
6_10_25 p.419. — Hebrews 4:12
6_11_08 p.432. — Luke 22:44
6_11_22 p.443. — Jeremiah 49:39
6_11_22 p.443. — Daniel 2:35
6_11_22 p.445. — Matthew 27:16-17
6_11_22 p.453. — Weeping Willow
6_12_06 p.459. — 1 Samuel 17:55
6_12_06 p.467. — Greek Testaments
6_12_06 p.467/8. — Addresses In the Epistles
6_12_20 p.485. — Colossians 1:18
6_12_20 p.485. — 2 Timothy 1:6
6_12_31 p.489. — Genesis
6_12_31 p.497. — Hebrews 6:19
6_01_05 p. 9.
1 Tim. 5:17. Vol. II. p. 367. — It is evident that the verse affords no ground for referring the officials in question to those of cities or districts, i.e. the bishops of a later date. Plurality is everywhere assumed. It is clear also that labouring in the word and doctrine was not necessary to these elders. No elders are spoken of in Rom. 12:21, Cor. 12: for it must be remembered that, while elders were to rule or preside, there were others besides who ruled, and even in a higher way and larger sphere.
6_01_19 p. 28.
Texts Misapplied or Misquoted.
Galatians 5:4. — Fallen from grace.
Often quoted to prove that Christians may, by falling into sin, jeopard the life which they have got in Christ. But the text speaks of those who had appeared to receive the Gospel letting slip the grand foundation of God's grace for ordinances, or, in other words, abandoning the ground of faith for religiousness.
Galatians 5:5. — We through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Not the hope of being justified; for by Christ all that believe are justified from all things. We are not waiting for righteousness, for we are made the righteousness of God in Christ; but we wait for the hope which is suited to such a righteousness, for a glorious resurrection or change, which is the only adequate complement of what we have already in Christ.
6_01_19 p. 29/30.
Synoptical Study of the Gospels.
(Continued from Vol. II. page 207.)
THE SUITABILITY OF THE EVANGELISTS.
As preliminary to any detailed observations on the Gospels, allow me briefly to notice the wisdom of the Spirit in the choice of each workman for his work.
"Matthew, the publican," was not one whom man would have selected as the Apostle and biographer of the Messiah. At first sight he might seem the least eligible for presenting the Lord to the Jews, for, as a class, none were in such disrepute as those Jews who consented to gather the taxes which the Romans imposed on their nation. But, regarded more closely, nothing could have been in more admirable keeping with the line of things which the Holy Ghost traces in his Gospel, for Jesus there is not the Messiah only, but the rejected Messiah. His rejection, with its grave and fruitful results, is just as much the theme as His intrinsic claims, with all God's external attestations. And who so fit a witness of the grace which would seek the least worthy, if those "that were bidden" would not come, as he who was called from the odious receipt of customs?
In the second Gospel the Spirit is evidently developing the perfectness of the Lord's ministry in word and deed. Now "John, whose surname was Mark," was just the right person for such a task, always bearing in mind that none was fit unless immediately inspired to write. But, among those who were inspired to write. But, those who were so empowered of God, John Mark was precisely the one fitted by personal experience to appreciate, when the Spirit gave him to indite that Divine account of the gospel service of Jesus; for he had bitterly known what it was to put his hand to the plough and look back, with its painful consequences on all sides (Acts 13, 15). But he had also learned, to his joy, and the blessing of others, that the Lord can restore and strengthen, giving us, through His grace, to overcome wherein we have most broken down. This very Mark subsequently became a fellow-worker of St. Paul, and a comfort to him, as much as earlier he had been a sorrow (Col. 4). "Take Mark," says he, in his last letter to Timothy, "and bring him with thee; for he is profitable to me for the ministry."
For the writing of the third Gospel, again, Luke was manifestly the most appropriate instrument. From Col. 4 it would seem that he was a Gentile, and by profession a physician, both which particulars, as well as its dedication to Theophilus, wonderfully harmonize with the way in which our Lord is there depicted — not so much the Messiah, nor the servant, but "the man Christ Jesus," the Son of God born of the Virgin, in His largest human relations, in His obedience and prayerfulness, in His social sympathies, in miracles of healing and cleansing, in parables of special tenderness towards the lost. It is this prominence of our Lord's manhood, as brought out in Luke, which to me accounts for the emphatic statements of grace to Gentiles, as it falls in with the special form of his preface, which has been so frightfully abused by rationalists in general, English or Foreign. He lets us know his motives, and seeks to draw Theophilus by the cords of a man; but if there be thus a human side of the picture, there is another as Divine as in the other Gospels, where the thoughts and feelings of the heart are not so laid bare. The notion that such an opening, touchingly suited as it is to the way in which our Lord is throughout presented in this Gospel, should induce us to regard the writer as a mere faithful and honest compiler, without supernatural guidance in the arrangement of his subject matter, etc. is worthy only of an infidel. And it is only to cheat oneself or others with vain words to affirm that the occurrence of demonstrable mistakes in the Gospels does not in any way affect the inspiration of the Evangelists. The profanity of these statements scarcely exceeds their folly, nor should I have taken this opportunity; to denounce them if they were not at this moment finding extensive acceptance, especially among young students, not, alas! without the sanction of those who ought to know better.
Lastly, that St. John was eminently the right instrument for his task is most apparent. Who could so fitly, if so it pleased the Holy Ghost, set before us "the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father," as he who leaned on Jesus' bosom, the disciple whom Jesus loved?
CHOICE or SCENE.
It is the difference of design which, to me, solves the difficulty stated in Vol. II. pp. 3, 4. Matthew and Mark, in the body of their Gospels, are occupied with the Lord's sojourn and ministry in Galilee; Luke with not that only, but His gradual journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51; Luke 13:22; Luke 17:11; Luke 18:31; Luke 19:28); and John with His ways and words in or near Jerusalem itself yet more than elsewhere, though Galilee and Samaria were assuredly not left out. What Matthew describes is the accomplishment of Jewish prophecy and the witness of Jerusalem's unbelief; while Mark's dwelling on the same arose, I think, from the fact that Galilee was the actual scene of our Lord's service, to which theme his Gospel is emphatically devoted. Luke, on the other hand, brings out the lingering of our Lord's love and pity: His face is steadfastly set on the place where He should accomplish His decease, but His slow steps attest the reluctance and the sorrow with which He visits Jerusalem for the last time, and affords the crowning proof of man's total ruin in His blood and cross. John, finally, regards every place, and being in the light of His personal Divine glory. Jerusalem, therefore, is no longer, as in Matthew, styled "the holy city." He was the light, the true light; all outside, and everywhere else, was but darkness, and Jerusalem needed the Son of God as much as Galilee, and was no more to Him, in that point of view, than any other spot. He could, so far as Himself was concerned, freely speak and work there or anywhere. What was "this mountain," nay, what Jerusalem, to the Son of the Father? If there was nothing to attract, there was nothing, in one sense, which could repel. He, who was full of grace and truth, accepted His entire humiliation, and found objects on which to expend His love wherever He might move — in the boastful city of holiness no less than in the barren wilderness. It is the design impressed by God upon the several Gospels which thus simply explains a fact which is seen by, but useless to, him who denies that design.
Guernsey, Nov. 1855.
6_01_19 p. 31.
Job 9:9, and 38:31-32. Astronomical Terms. Vol. 11. 214. — I think there can be little doubt that Pleiades, Orion, the Zodiac, and the Bear, are meant by the Hebrew terms in question. In Gesenius' Manual before me, twOrZ:m' is considered as probably the same as twOlZ:m' "the constellations of the Zodiac" (2 Kings 23:5), and not at all confounded with µyriz:m] "northerly winds." Such words, however, being peculiar, and rarely used, leave room naturally for a good deal of difference of opinion among translators and commentators. The LXX, like the English Bible, do not translate, but give μαζουρώθ, which Theodoret conjectures may be the name of the morning star; while Chrysostom shows that some held for the signs of the Zodiac, others for the dog-star (=σείριος). It is clear that the LXX are inconsistent in their version of Job 9:9, and 38:31-32, in the former giving Πλειάδα καὶ Ἕσπερον καὶ Ἀρκτοῦρον κ. τ. λ., and in the latter, Πλειάδος … Ωρίωνος … Μαζουρὼθ … Ἕσπερον. The Vulgate is almost as conflicting with itself, reading in the earlier passage "Arcturum, et Oriona, et Hyadas," and in the latter, "Pleiadas aut gyrum Arcturi … Luciferum … et Vesperum." If I do not mistake, Tremellius and Junius regard the chambers of the south" (penetralium Austri sidera) in the text as answering to Mazzaroth (remotiora signa) in the other, and such is certainly the view of Ostervald, and perhaps of Martin. Of the Germans, Luther is confused and unsatisfactory; De Wette is exact. The Dutch agrees with the authorised version, as does Diodati, save that for Mazzaroth we have "i segni Settentrionali."
As to Mr. Margoliouth's introduction of Aquarius and Libra into Isa. 40:15, I can conceive no rendering more harsh and intolerable. Instead of comparing the nations with exalted objects in the heavens, the scope is evidently to find the most trivial resemblances for them upon the earth. 22 Dec. 1855.
6_01_19 p. 33.
Luke 13:24. — Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. Vol. III. 17.
The true solution I believe to lie not in the difference of striving and seeking, on which some have rested unduly, and others so mistakenly as in effect to make men their own saviours, but rather in this, that, while many will seek to enter in, it is not at the strait gate, but by some method of human device. The natural heart dislikes God, and God's way, and easily deceives itself into a vague reliance on mercy without righteousness, which is an infidel thought, or into a vain confidence in religious ordinances, which is a superstitious one: in either way, man is lost. People might like to enter the kingdom, but not by regeneration through faith in Christ.
6_01_19 p. 33.
Luke 16:9. Vol. III. 17. — Mr. ALFORD's note is most objectionable in point of doctrine, as betraying fundamental ignorance of the true grace of God, and it displays lamentable lack of acquaintance with the style of St. Luke. If F. F. M. B. examine Luke 6:38, 44; Luke 12:20; Luke 14:35, etc. he will perceive that Mr. A.'s oversight of the usus loquendi has opened the door for the wild notion that poor and needy friends, who have been helped here, are to receive us into the, or their, everlasting tabernacles with joy. It is clear that the difficulty is no greater as to "they shall receive," in Luke 16:9, than in "they require" (ἀπαιτοῦσιν), in chap. 12:20. The meaning is simply "you shall be received," "thy soul is required:" if more be meant, it is God, not man, who receives and requires. The grand point is the sacrifice of the present, in view of what is future and eternal. The question is not the means or title to enter the everlasting habitations, but the character of those who shall be received there.
6_01_19 p. 35.
2 Peter 1:20. Vol. 11. 346. — Permit me briefly to show why I consider R. I.'s view to be erroneous. In the first place, he gives no reason for taking προφητεία as equivalent to an inspired declaration, predictive or not. Indeed, I am not aware that the word in the New Testament ever has this loose meaning, and I am quite clear that the verb from which it is derived countenances nothing of the sort in 1 Cor. 14:3, but simply contrasts prophesying with speaking in a tongue. In other words, that verse in no way defines prophesying, but compares its character with the gift of tongues. But, even if it were ever so used beyond a doubt in the New Testament, I am of opinion that the context here decidedly restricts προφητεία to the revelation of future events.
It is agreed that ἐπίλυσις means interpretation, or the act of interpreting, though some, as Calvin and Grotius, have been rash enough to venture on the conjecture ἐπηλύσεως, and many more have given the force of "movement" to ἐπίλυσις, while it would really require ἐπήλυσις (= approach), or some such word.
The main question remains as to the force and reference of ἴδιος. R. I. reasons from its frequent opposition to κοινός. But this is too narrow a foundation, because each of these words possesses significations not thus opposed. The fact is that, beside the elliptical κατ᾽ ἰδίαν, ἴδιος occurs near a hundred times in the New Testament, and always means "own" (his, her, its, etc. according to the case). I have little doubt, both from general usage and from the verses before and after the passage under debate, that ἰδίας here refers to the subject of the sentence, προφητεία, and that the meaning is, "no prophecy of Scripture is (or is made) of its own interpretation." Taken by itself, it is not its own interpreter, but must be viewed as part of a grand whole, whereof Christ's glory is the centre. I must be excused, therefore, if I believe R. I.'s idea to be as thorough a perversion of the text as the Romish one. He contends for the general right of man, they for the exclusive prerogative of the Church so-called — both, in my judgment dangerous errors, however concealed or explained. The Holy Ghost leads us to connect facts with God's purposes in Christ, and thus to understand and expound prophecy, which taken by itself is never rightly known. Horsley, Rosenmuller, Wahl, etc. agree with the view here contended for.
6_02_02 p. 44.
Matthew 2:23. Vol. II. 315, 331, 378. — The second of Mr. A.'s hypotheses is, I believe, the truth. Even the Galilean Nathaniel, guileless Israelite as he was, despised Nazareth. (Cf. John 1:46-47.) David, Isaiah, Zechariah, etc. abundantly showed the contempt in which Messiah should live and die. His residence at Nazareth was a part of this. Nazariteship had nothing to do with Nazareth, and is out of the question.
6_02_02 p. 47/8.
Luke 5:17. [Mr W. Kelly also takes this view, that the "sick" are intended. For the usage of αὐτός he refers to Matt. 4:23, Matt. 8:4, Matt. 9:35, Matt. 13:54 ; Luke 4:15, Luke 5:14; Acts 4:5, where the reference is understood rather than expressed: he adds, "Perhaps such cases as Matt. 12:15, Matt. 19:2, may yet more illustrate the expression in question, for it is plain that the logical connection is not with the multitudes, but with those among them who needed healing." — Ed.]
6_02_02 p. 50.
James 4:5. Vol. III. 19, 35. — It appears to me more natural to suppose that the Spirit of God is in question, not the spirit of man, which would of course modify the translation. Indeed, it would seem that our translators, assuming that the unregenerate will, or what is elsewhere called the flesh, was meant, adapted their version of πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ to that idea. For certain it is, that everywhere else ἐπιποθέω means "longing," or "earnestly desiring," and always in a good sense; which, if applicable here, would require us to take πρὸς φθόνον as "against envy," which beyond doubt is legitimate. This is to my mind confirmed by the description of the spirit, ὃ κατῳκησεν ἐν ἡμῖν, which could scarcely be predicated of what pertains to man necessarily in his present fallen state, but is very suitable to the Holy Ghost, who has taken up his abode in us who believe. However taken, the Scripture referred to is, I think, Gal. 5:17, which ought surely to be rendered (not "so that ye cannot," but) "in order that ye may not do the things that ye would." For the point here, is not merely the irremediable badness of the flesh, as in the latter part of Rom. 7, but the possession of the Spirit, as a new power in which the Christian is called to walk (Cf. Gal. 5:16-25), which is not introduced in that part of Romans.
6_02_02 p. 51.
Revelation 14:19. — ". … The vine of the earth" Vol. III. 20. is the symbol of earthly religion in its last apostate state. Christ, the Lord from heaven, is the true vine; this is the false vine, the scene of whose judgment appears to be Jerusalem (cf. verse 20). Where Christ suffered, where the Church of God first saw the light, it would seem that Satan will at the close completely triumph. It is important to note that it is a distinct and subsequent scene to the fall of Babylon, given already in the same chapter. If Rome be, as I believe, the centre of one picture, Jerusalem is, I think, of the other, the metropolis respectively of Gentilism and Judaism in their antagonism to God at the end of the age.
6_02_02 p. 51.
Revelation 22:17. Vol. III. 20. — I do not wonder that Mr. HASKINS finds difficulties in accepting the interpretation of those who apply this verse exclusively to the Lord, or to sinners. The truth is, that the former portion refers to the one, and the latter to the other. Nothing can be sweeter nor clearer when seen. Jesus had just announced Himself as not merely the root and the offspring of David, but the bright and morning star. Immediately the Church, with the bridal affections, says, Come. It is the Bridegroom that thus awakens her desires that He should come. He is the first object of the heart, and lest it should be thought to be a mere human, unsanctioned longing, it is added, "the spirit and the bride say, Come." But there are many who have heard His voice and been washed in His blood who yet feebly know their privileges in Him; they little if at all appreciate what He is as the Bridegroom, what they are as His bride. Are these to be silent? Nay, "let him that heareth say, Come." They may know His love but imperfectly: still let them not fear to say, Come. But does not such a hope, such a waiting of the heart, hinder one's yearning after poor souls? Enemies have said so; mistaken friends may have thought so; but God links the two most blessedly together. If the bride, if the individual saint, owe the first love of the heart to Him who is coming to meet us in the air, so much the more can we turn round to the needy world and invite him that is athirst to come (not to say, Come, which to him, indeed, were but judgment). Nay, even if I meet a soul who perhaps has not yet known deep soul-thirst, yet is willing, I can bid him freely welcome, "whosoever will let him take the water of life freely." It is a perfectly beautiful scene, which the Lord grant us better to know and enjoy by the Holy Ghost!
6_02_16 p. 60/1.
Jeremiah 17:9. Vol. III. 25. — I was surprised at some of the remarks in Mr. S.'s paper. The word vn'a; , here translated "desperately wicked," is, in the authorised version of Isa. 17:11 rendered "desperate," and in Jer. 17:16, "woeful." Elsewhere it is uniformly translated "incurable," as Job 34:6; Jer. 15:18; Jer. 30:12, 15; Micah 1:9; save in Sam. 12:15, where the Niphal form occurs, and our Bible gives "and it was very sick." It is evident that "desperately wicked" well represents the Hebrew participle vnUa; when applied to moral and not physical evil. "Incurable" might suit the text in question, but it certainly would not do in other passages, where the English translators have departed from this, their most frequent, rendering of the word. I consider them, therefore, to be amply justified. The Vulgate is very inferior, giving in Jer. 15:18, desperabilis; in 17:9, inscrutabile; in 16, hominis; in 30:12, 15, insanabilis; whence it is plain that for the most part it agrees with the English Bible, save in Jer. 17:9, where it gives an incomparably feebler, if not a false, version — and in verse 16, where there is an unequivocal blunder, perhaps from adherence to the Septuagint, which commits the same in both verses. I suppose that the LXX (Symmachus also, though differing from the Septuagint, fell into similar error, for he has ἀνεξερεύνητος ἡ καρδία πάντων, καὶ τίς ἀνηρ ὃς εὑρήσει αὐτήν) confounded the word with v/na,“ (man). Luther was certainly not entitled to censure the Vulgate version of this passage, for his own is rather weaker than the Latin, and far below the English. "Es ist das Hertz ein trotziges und verzagtes Ding, wer kann es ergründen? (i.e. The heart is a perverse and desperate thing; who can fathom it?) I could scarcely believe that "ergründen" had been taken as intended to represent the debated word until I examined the Hammersmith discussion, where I find that Dr. Cumming had been guilty of the same mistake, without a comment from friend or foe. It is a pity for persons to quote, or repeat quotations, thus at random. Nor is it trite that the Italian, Spanish, and French versions all accord more or less with the English. For the Spanish, like De Genoude, follows the Vulgate, quite as much as Ostervald or Martin adhere to our version. De Wette gives the sense with "verderbt," that is, "ruined," "corrupt." In ancient times a singular view was taken of the verse, which may possibly have been floating through the mind of Mr. S.'s "brother clergyman," if the latter were a person of erudition. The Western Fathers, such as Cyprian (Test. adv. Judaeos, lib. ii. c. 10), and Lactantius (lib. iv. c. 13), actually applied this verse to Christ, as if it treated of His inscrutable nature, the mystery of His person! Jerome alludes to this fancy in his Commentaries on Jeremiah (lib. iii. c. 17; vol. iv. p. 789). It evidently grew out of a confusion similar to that of the LXX, according to whom the sense is, Βαθεῖα ἡ καρδία παρὰ πάντα, καὶ ἄνθρωπός ἐστι, καὶ τίς γνώσεται αὐτόν; (Deep is the heart beyond all things, and it is the man, and who can know him?) In opposition to this, Jerome justly observes, Melius autem est, ut simpliciter accipiamus, quod nullus cogitationum secreta cognoscat nisi solus Deus: dixerat enim supra: Maledictus homo qui spem habet in homine. Et e contrario: Benedictus vir qui confidit in Domino. Unde ne hominum putaremus certum esse judicium, intulit, omnium propemodum corda esse perversa, dicente Psalmista. Ab occultis meis munda me, et ab alienis parce servo tuo (Ps. 18:13): haud dubium quin cogitationibus. Et in Genesi: Videns autem Deus quod multa malitia hominum esset in terra, et cuncta cogitatio cordis intenta esset ad malum omni tempore (Gen. 6:5), etc.
In the same chapter Jerome gives the force of the Hebrew as "inscrutabile, sive desperabile;" which latter I have no doubt is nearer the mark than the former; and it differs little from our version. Jan. 22, 1856.
6_02_16 p. 61.
Daniel 7:25. Vol. III. 37. — It may be satisfactory to Mr. PLUMMER to know that the Chaldee r[' is frequently translated "for" as well as "until," and that in some places where our translators have adopted "until," "for" would have served equally well. Thus, in Dan. 6:7, it is rendered "for thirty days," and in verse 12 "within." Again, in Dan. 7:12, "for a season," and in 18 "for ever, even for ever." So that I think he will perceive that the commentators are not far wrong who teach "until" as equivalent to "for a time," etc., in this passage.
6_02_16 p. 62/3.
Mark 9:43-48. Vol. III. 38. — The reason of the change from "life" in 43, 45, to "the kingdom of God" in 47, is owing, perhaps, to the eye being in question. Compare also the first verse of this chapter and John 3:3, 5. "Life" would have been equally true, and is actually used, in Matt. 18:9; but Mark 9:47 adds another graphic and characteristic touch.
6_02_16 p. 67/8.
Revelation 17:11. Vol. III. 20. — I think that the suggested punctuation must be rejected. For —
(1.) The next clause positively contradicts the express aim of Mr. G. For he wishes to make out that (not the beast that was and is not, but) ὁ ἄλλος is meant by καὶ αὐτός. Whereas we know from verse 10 that "the other" is the seventh king, and from verse 11 that the personage there intended is an extraordinary one, the eighth, while he is of the seven and goeth into perdition in a special way.
(2.) I am not aware what points of coincidence are supposed to exist between this passage and verses 12 and 16. The truth is that the seven kings may be identified with the seven heads, but they are quite distinct from the ten horns. But this evidently leaves the question open as to the beast, whether, or not, he is the eighth.
(3.) Does not Mr. G. exceed the measure of symbolical congruity? Scripture does not in its types or prophetic emblems present us anywhere with pictorial consistency. Various images are combined which convey a perfect meaning, but it is to the mind, not to the eye. And what simpler than that "the strange eighth king should absorb all the power of the ten kings, his vassals, and thus become, to all intents and purposes, the beast," all receiving authority for one and the same time?
(4.) According to the usual punctuation the contrast is striking and beautiful. The Lamb is King of kings, and the beast is king in an unprecedented fashion; the ten horns are the subordinates of the beast, the called, and chosen, and faithful, the companions of the Lamb. They shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them. I am of opinion, therefore, that the very reasons alleged for the change tell fatally against it.
6_03_01 p. 76.
Zechariah 12. Vol. 111. 37. — T. F. F. asks:
1. What will determine, even approximately, the date of this prophecy? It is evident that the date assigned in some Bibles (B.C. 587) is a mistake; probably B.C. 517 was meant, which would better accord with the previous dates 520-518 B.C. The Edinburgh Bible of Blair and Bruce, like that of the London Tract Society, gives the date according to your Correspondent. On the other hand, the Oxford Bible (4to. 1845) gives a century nearer Christ, i.e. 487, both of which seem to me highly improbable; while Bagster's Bible, after dating several of the preceding chapters B.C. 518, suddenly fixes Zech. 14 at B.C. 587; and Collins's Bible (1855) is equally strange, putting B.C. 587 to the preceding chapters, and B.C. 517 to chap. 14! For myself, I see no reason to doubt that Zech. 9 — 14 form a part of the great prophecy which commences with chap. 7; and I conceive that they may have been given in or not long after the fourth year of Darius Hystaspes (Compare Ezra 5). To put this prophecy as far back as the reign of Nebuchadnezzar is, in my opinion, of all hypotheses the least reasonable.
2. The "idol shepherd" is Antichrist, whom retributive judgment is to raise up in the land of Judea in the last times. "If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." He shall in the end suffer the sternest vengeance of God. This is no modern opinion.
Pastor stultus, et imperitus (says Jerome, Comment. in Zech. lib. iii. cap. xi.), haud dubium quia Antichristus sit, qui in consummatione mundi dicitur esse venturus et qualis venturus sit, indicatur … Iste pastor ideo resurgat in Israel, quia verus pastor dixerat: Jam non pascam vos. Qui alio nomine et in Daniele propheta (cap. ix.) et in Evangelio (Marc. 13) et in epistola Pauli ad Thessalonienses (2 Thes. 2), abominatio desolationis, sessurus in templo Domini, et se facturus ut Deum, qui et per Isaaiam magnus sensus dicitur (Isai, xxxii.) … Tam sceleratus est pastor, ut non idolorum cultor, sed ipse idolum nominetur, dum se appellat Deum, et vult ab omnibus adorari.
3. There is no reason that I see for identifying the stone in Zech. 12:3, with that in Matt. 21:44. The former evidently means Jerusalem itself, the latter the Lord Himself in two positions, answering to the two advents. First, in His humiliation, He is a stone as it were in the ground, and "whosoever shall fall on it shall be broken," verified in all unbelievers, but especially in the Jews; next, He is exalted to heaven, and coming again in power and great glory, He will execute destructive judgment — "on whomsoever it shall fall it will grind him to powder." (Cf. Dan. 2, 7; Rev. 19) "A burdensome stone" is another idea, and will be true of Jerusalem in the latter day, when the Assyrian heads a grand Gentile confederacy after the Antichrist is disposed of, which is the subject of Zech. 12:2-6, Zech. 14:1-3: also Isaiah, Micah, Daniel, and other prophets, treat of this closing king of the North.
4. There is no intermingling of the Church or Christian body with the subjects of this prophecy. There may have been some partial application in the past, as there will assuredly be a complete fulfilment in the future; but it is Judah and Jerusalem that are in question, whatever profit the Church or Christian may and ought to draw from this as from all Scripture.
5. The double reference of John 19:36, and Rev. 1:7, is simply to link both advents into the prophecy, which mainly bears on the second, but presupposes the first. "They shall look upon me whom they have pierced." But Rev. 1:7, is so far from intimating a general conversion of mankind previous to the return of the Lord, that it plainly enough insinuates their then unbelief, for "all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him." He will be unwelcome to them.
6. The mourning of godly awakened consciences, when Jehovah-Jesus is seen, to the final deliverance of Jerusalem, and the total overthrow of all their Gentile foes, is most strikingly described in verses 10-14, but it is in terms which exclude the revival in Ezra's time, have as being a feeble earnest. Each felt alone with the Lord; and those families are specially named who represent prominent classes in Israel from the beginning, and throughout their history.
6_03_15 p. 98/9.
Resurrection of the Body. Vol. 111. 21, 69.
It has been already shown in THE CHRISTIAN ANNOTATOR that the doctrine of the future state was taught in the Pentateuch, as well as in later parts of the Old Testament. It is absurd to pretend that Ps. 16:9-10; Ps. 17:14-15 ; Ps. 49:14-15, were written after the Captivity; or to deny that they reveal or imply the resurrection. There is no sort of difficulty in supposing that Zoroaster borrowed what he knew of this truth from Holy Writ, which was certainly more or less known to him. I am not at all disposed to give up Job 19:26-27; for I think it a decisive testimony to this precious truth, and the more striking as proving it to be held by saints outside the fathers, or the children of Israel: so that this again would readily account for traces of its traditional existence in the East long before the Captivity. In spite of all the assaults of critics, I am satisfied that, in all that is needed for bringing out a true bodily revival wherein the patriarch expected to see the Redeemer stand on the earth, the English Bible gives the substantial truth. So does the Septuagint, in spite of inaccuracies — οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι ἀένναός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλύειν με μέλλων ἐπὶ γῆς ἀναστῆσαι τὸ δέρμα μου τὸ ἀναντλοῦν ταῦτα. So Jerome, in his interlinear exposition of the book, gives a version which is identical with his Vulgate save in the addition of one word, though I allow that his Latin is far more distant from the sense of the Hebrew than our authorised English. His comment is plain enough: —
Ego, inquam, jam corruptus ulceribus, in hac carne mortali incorruptus, per resurrectionem futuram glorificatus videbo Deum. Certus atque incommutabilis in hoc fundamento fideo ista loquebatur.
De Wette, it is true, gives a very different turn, adopting a sense of the last clause of ver. 26, suggested in our margin; but I unequivocally prefer the authorised text, for though ˆmi often occurs in the sense "out of," "without," "from," the meaning is not that he should see God apart from the flesh, or having no body, but that from out of the flesh he should see Him, or substantially "in his flesh." This is confirmed by the next verse, "Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another:" a real resurrection of the body, and nothing else.
I believe that Isa. 26:19, like Dan. 12:2, refers to the national resuscitation of Israel, converted and restored by the power of God. The terms are of course borrowed from, and presuppose the known truth of, a bodily resurrection. See also Ezek. 37 and Hosea 6:3, Hosea 13:4, which, in my opinion, entirely relieve this interpretation from the charge of halting. The omission of the words inserted by our translators may help to make the meaning of Isaiah plainer. Guernsey, 22 Jan. 1856.
Jeremiah 24. Vol. III. 37. I do not admit that this prophecy was fulfilled in the past return from the Babylonish captivity. There was a partial accomplishment of this, as of other predictions, at that time, which is the utmost that is fairly deducible from verses 5, 6. On the other hand, Israel's permanent establishment in their own land, and their knowledge of God, returning to Him with their whole heart, are decidedly opposed to the teaching of those who suppose the prophecy to have been then exhausted as regards Israel. Who can say that it is not yet to be fulfilled? This is my answer to him who objects: — Whatever has not been, must be fulfilled; the promised restoration and regeneration of Israel has never yet taken place: it must, therefore, be realised in the future. In fact this prophecy stands on similar ground with Jer. 3, 23, 30 — 33, as well as Zech. 14. Apply them as you please meanwhile, much remains to be verified, and in Israel, in the latter day.
Matthew 14:5. Vol. III. 55. — Mr. CAINE may rest assured that the Authorised Version of the last clause is incomparably better than Mr. Alford's. The verb ἔχω occurs very frequently in senses widely extended beyond "possession." It was used, especially with adverbs or nouns preceded by prepositions, when a state of mind or feeling was meant to be expressed, as ἔχειν τίνα ἐν ὀργῃ. The transition hence to the sense of "regard," which is required here, and in Mark 11:32, is most natural. In fact, there is the analogous case of "hold" in our own tongue, which means idiomatically to "account," as well as literally to "keep," or "possess." The best translations agree with the English Bible. Thus the most recent German version has "sie ihn für einen Propheten hielten;" and De Wette, "als einen Propheten achteten." Luther's translation coincides with the Elberfeld Testament. The Vulgate has not "possederunt," but "sicut prophetam eum habebunt". The Dutch, Lausanne, and Italian of Diodati support the Authorised Version.
Luke 23:34. Vol. III. 17, 48. — I am persuaded that it is perfectly true that Christ is here presented as interceding for the guilty people who took, and by wicked hands crucified and slew Him. The grand design in this part of Luke is to bring out the iniquity of Israel and the grace of Christ in spite of all. I say nothing of "Pontius Pilate," who, indeed, would have released Him but for fearing the Jews and Caesar but it is evident to me that the Holy Ghost by Peter expressly refers, in Acts 3:17, to this intercession of Jesus, and proves that the people of the Jews and their rulers were intended. Further, the intercession did prevail partially as to sphere then, as it will by and by triumph, when "all Israel shall be saved." Mr. MAUDE'S reasoning upon the reference of the pronoun is a mistake, even if it had been repeated, which it is not, in the Greek of the last clause. Moreover, his remark that, just after, "the people" and "the rulers" are spoken of quite distinctly, is liable to the fatal objection that "the soldiers" are also immediately after them. To lower the Lord's intercession to the mere pattern of various eminent persons forgiving their executioner, ought to be, in my opinion, repulsive to a spiritual mind. It needs little argument to refute the notion.
John 6:39-40. Vol. III. 55, 78. It may help some of your readers to bear in mind that "the Last Day" has a broad moral force, like "the Day of the Lord" in 2 Peter 3, save that it applies yet more extensively, taking in the resurrection of the saints, which "the Day of the Lord" is nowhere said to embrace. Between John 6:39-40, and John 12:48, the Millennium (Rev. 20:4-5) intervenes, "the Last Day" beginning a little before, and ending a little after it. It is a vague, or general expression of the entire closing scene, when man's day is over and God acts in power, whether in blessing or judgment.
Galatians 3:16, 18. — The point here is, that where Gentile blessing is promised (as in Gen. 12:3; and 22:18), it is always connected with the seed in an individual sense, not with the seed meaning the Jews, who were to be as the sand or stars for multitude. The Jewish blessing is in Gen. 22:17 (and elsewhere), where a numerous seed is spoken of; but this is carefully excluded in verse 18, where Christ is meant, the true seed represented by Isaac raised up in a figure, and on the latter sole seed the Gentile blessing depends. "The inheritance" means, I suppose, what was involved in the promises, and was probably equivalent to Rom. 4:13, 16. The connection with the preceding context seems to be a pursuing of the argument, 1st, that the law brings not blessing but curse upon those who are upon that condition; and 2nd, that it is by promise, not the law, we inherit the blessing — promise which Christ takes as the risen seed, the Second Adam, and therefore open to the Gentile, no less than the Jew, who believes. For death and resurrection close all fleshly distinction and privileges. And this is so much the more secure, as the law did not come in till long after the promise to Abraham, which it can therefore in no way annul. Even a man's covenant is obligatory, after it is signed, much more God's, which rests upon Him alone, instead of supposing two parties, as the legal mediation does, and thus coming to nothing through the weakness and sin of man.
2 Peter 1:5. Vol. III. 39, 67.
The first question is as to the right readings. B. C., G. J., and the mass of cursives, have καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο δὲ, followed by the Text. Rec. Griesbach, Knappe, Scholz, and Hahn. Tischendorf had edited, in his first Leipsic edition, κ. ἀ. δὲ τ.; but in the second he restores the common reading. Lachmann gives κ. αὐτοὶ δέ on the authority of A. (vulg. vos autem), the sense of which is plain. Griesbach commended αὐτῳ δὲ τουτῳ, which has the support of two MSS. and also αὐτοὶ δὲ τουτῳ, which is a mere conjecture of his own. I do not doubt that the ordinary text is the true one. If so, it would seem that there is an ellipse of διά, or κατά, and the sense is, "but also for, or in respect to, this very thing" "(i.e. referring to the verse before). Such is the grammatical construction, confirmed by the best versions save that of Jerome. Thus, in the most recent German we have "und eben deshalb fügt aber auch," etc. Such an adverbial accusative is not unusual in the pronouns, as any one can see in good lexicons and grammars. The Lausanne ministers appear to connect the pronouns, as well as σπ. π. with παρεισιν, but the sense is not materially altered.
Revelation 8:3. — ἵνα δώσῃ (or δώσει, according to A. C. and ten cursive MSS.) ταῖς προσευχαῖς. Vol. III. 19.
There can be no doubt that the Rhemish version ("of the Prayers"), which agrees with the common editions of the Vulgate, is in flagrant error. But it may be fairly questioned whether the, Hieronymian text be chargeable with that mistake in verse 3. At least, the best MS. commonly known as the Amiatine or Laurentian, omits the preposition de, and translates here as in Rev. 11:3, with a dative following the verb. Such also is the text adopted by Lachmann. Possibly we may account for the insertion of de here from some transcribers' assimilating the phrase with "de orationibus," in the following verse, though even there it is a faulty rendering. But while the Authorised Version is quite exact in verse 4, and incomparably better than the Rhemish in verse 3, I may be permitted to suggest to Mr. Stuart that δίδωμι in the active voice, followed only by the indirect complement, seems to have a peculiar force. Two occurrences are found in the Revelation (chap. 8:3 and 11:3), in both of which I conceive it means to give power, or efficacy. This indeed is allowed in the Authorised Version as to the latter passage, but it is equally true of the former, the construction being the same and the sense thereby perfect in each. Translators have contended for a dative of concomitance, of circumstance, or of advantage, and thus have leaned to "with," "to," or "for." But that which I believe to be the true one was published by a deeply taught servant of Christ more than twenty years ago. I adopted it in a version of Revelation which appeared in 1849, and I find it again in a very recent and exact German version of the New Testament (Elberfeld, 1855). Of course, the emendation, if well-founded, negatives the Romish idea of intrinsically meritorious prayers yet, more than the ordinary renderings.
Psalm 16:2-3. Vol. II 303, 374, 393. — I am of opinion that the main idea of the Psalm is the perfectness of Messiah's dependence on Jehovah, shown in His humiliation here below (Heb. 2), and vindicated in His Resurrection. (Acts 2) Hence it is that, while a divine person, yet taking the place of servant, His soul (for it is feminine) said to Jehovah, "Thou art my Lord; my goodness is not to Thee." It is the expression of his self-renunciation as man, which was in truth His moral glory. (Compare Mark 10:17-27; Luke 18:18, etc.) On the other hand, He said, "To the saints who are in the earth, and the excellent — all my delight is in them." This latter was acted out in His baptism, when He thus fulfilled all righteousness and identified Himself in grace with the godly in Israel. As man, He did not exalt himself, but gave the entire glory to God; and this not in austere distance from the despised remnant who bowed to the testimony of John the Baptist, but graciously entering into and sympathising with their true place before God. "He that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one." As to the versions, the Authorised and Diodati seem to me to afford a sense nearest to the Hebrew: Martin is rather better than Ostervald, and De Genoude a little inferior to both. The Prayer-Book Version cannot here be said to resemble the Septuagint or the Vulgate, save in the word "goods." The Spanish follows the Latin. Luther's rendering (ich muss um deinet willen leiden) is the most unnatural perhaps of all. De Wette gives, "Du bist der Herr, all mein Wohl geht nicht über dich. Die Heiligen, welche im Lande, sind die Herrlichen, an denen ich all mein Lust habe." Aquila is nearer than the LXX. as to the early part, ἀγαθωσύνη μου οὐ μὴ ἐπί σε. I have only to add that Gesenius appears to take verse 3 by itself, and accordingly understands the first words as a case absolute with L“ (in respect to) before it, but, I prefer the sense already stated. Guernsey, Oct. 1855.
Galatians 3:22. Vol. III. 55, 80, 116. — "Faith" is not here put for its object, I think, but is contrasted with the law when fully declared to be the sole means of justification, as it was after the cross of Jesus, when all pretension to stand before God on the law was manifestly at an end. Faith was always that whereby saints were justified really, even while the Levitical system had its place, and, if I may so say, obscured the faith which was within: then all that was outward fell, and the faith stood revealed.
Septuagint. Vol. 1. 223; III. 21. — There can be no doubt of the fact that the Septuagint was generally used by our Lord and the inspired writers of the New Testament. But this fact ought not to be abused to the denial of what is equally certain — that it contains numerous mistranslations throughout, and is in no way to be compared for accuracy with the authorised version. Nevertheless the Holy Ghost condescended to use it freely, adopting its language, where true, even if it differed from the meaning of the Hebrew: just as occasionally He gives a paraphrase which differs from both. It was a most important witness already extant among the Gentiles, and God employed it in grace without in any way guaranteeing the inspiration of the LXX, or of their work. What would be thought of the argument that the works of Menander or Epimenides were inspired because the Holy Ghost cited them in the Epistles of St. Paul? It was not an unnatural thing that the early fathers, Greek and Latin, should attach an exaggerated value to the version chiefly in us among them. Not even Augustine knew the Hebrew original, and of the Latine scarce any, save Jerome. It is much to be regretted that the idea should be revived by a respectable scholar of our own day.
Adam Clarke's Commentary. Vol. II. 388. III. 35. - Though my acquaintance with this commentary has ceased for fifteen years or more, I think I remember its character with precision enough to say, that it has small claims upon a serious Christian who desires to know the Scriptures. That Dr. C. was a man acquainted with the elements of many languages, and of much discursive information, is well known; but his large book is extremely lacking in sound doctrine (e.g. the eternal sonship of Christ, the ruin of man, the sovereignty and faithfulness of God, the eternal life of the believer), in sobriety of judgment generally, and in critical acumen, especially as regards the New Testament. For the latter, Bengel's Gnomon is far superior. But if your readers desire a real help to the understanding of God's Word as a whole, I venture to recommend with all my heart the "Books of the Bible in Present Testimony" (Groombridge), a reprint of which, in a separate form, is announced as shortly to appear. French readers may have it under the title, "Etudes sur la Parole" (published by Cherbuliez, or Grassart, of Paris). Those who prefer German can have it, entitled "Betrachtungen über das Wort Gottes" (published at Dusseldorf, Barmen, and Elberfeld). I would add that this work will only help spiritual men who desire to search deeply into the Scriptures: it is the last thing in the world for a careless reader.
Misapplications of Scripture.
Romans 12:11. — Not slothful in business, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord.
Often quoted as "diligent in business," which is not said, though man's selfishness likes so to think. The "business," I suppose, means whatever might claim a believer's just attention, — "whatsoever thy hand findeth to do." The wisdom of exhorting simply "not slothful," as to such matters, is most apparent. On the other hand, the word is "fervent in spirit," not in business. The one refers to the outward, the other to the inner life. The construction throughout is the dative of relation, as the grammarians say. I would just add, that the weight of evidence, externally and internally, is in favour of τῳ κυρίῳ δ., and not τῳ καιρῳ, which Griesbach adopts. We are to redeem the time or opportunity, but to serve the Lord.
Romans 14:1. — By "him that is weak in the faith," is not meant one who would trifle with sin (such as drunkenness, etc. as it is often applied), but a believer who, from legal prejudices, was scrupulous as to days, meats, etc. The question is of things ritual, not moral.
Daniel 2:44. Vol. III 133. — Who are "these kings?"
The meaning is not the four kingdoms in reference to the fourfold succession in the metallic image, but rather, as it seems to me, an incidental allusion to the peculiar and complex constitution of the fourth, last empire of man. "The kingdom shall be divided," speaking of the feet and toes (ver 41), and to this we must refer, as I consider, "the days of these kings" (ver. 44). The consequence is important; for thereby is excluded Mede's scheme of the regnum lapidis, first; and the regnum montis, by and by. I can understand this in a certain sense; but it is not the teaching, in my opinion, of this chapter. God's kingdom, here described and symbolised by the stone, is raised up not in the days of Augustus or Tiberius, much less in those of Constantine, but in the days of the decem-regal division of the Roman Empire. (Compare Dan. 8:7-14, 23-26; Rev. 17:7-14.) The first exercise of its power is to break in pieces and consume all existing empire; all, at least, included in the prefigurations of the statue. There is no such idea as the gradual action of the stone upon the statue; but a sudden and decisive judgment, which crumbles the statue into dust; after which, the stone which smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. Evidently this is not the gospel which wins souls to Christ, and saves them; it is not a revolution, moral or material, which man brings about. It is nothing less than the power of God administered by the Lord Jesus; the stone cut without hands, dealing with the powers of the world, and judging their final Antichristianism, in order to make way for His own manifest and immediate dominion. "And the Lord shall be King over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one." I would add my opinion, that "these kings," symbolically set forth, by the toes here, and by the ten horns in Dan. 7, pertain exclusively to the West or European part of the Roman Empire. For we must leave room for the destruction of what is represented by the gold, silver, and brass, no less than for the portion of iron and clay.
Daniel 7 and 8. Vol. III. 133. — Are the little horns" the same or different?
I apprehend that "the little horn" of Dan. 7 is plainly the chief of the western Roman Empire; whereas that of chap. 8 springs out of one, the broken fragments of the third or Greek Empire. It is a Syrian ruler, who shall stand up in the last end of the indignation against Israel. He is an appointed scourge, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people, when the transgressors are come to the full. (Compare Isa. 10; Isa. 28) There is no reason that I see for supposing that this eastern king has the extensive dominion of the western "little horn," whose mouth speaks very great things, and whose look is more stout than his fellows. But it is clear that the eastern horn acquires immense influence over the Jews, by his "understanding dark sentences." He appears to be sustained by some foreign resources: "His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power." The grand thing which makes him of interest to the Spirit of God is his meddling with Israel in the last days. "He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand." A comparison of Dan. 7 and 8 will show the unbiassed reader that, while there are points of contact between these two sovereigns of the West and the East in their course and doom, there are far more respects in which each has got his own special path of pride, and hostility to God - and his people.
Daniel 11:17. Vol. III. 16. — I see no ground for applying "the daughter of women" to the Jewish nation, being satisfied that the ordinary interpretation is quite sound which understands the expression to be said of Cleopatra, the youthful daughter of Antiochus the Great, offered by her father to Ptolemy Epiphanes, and accepted at Raphia, "Filiam autem feminarum (says Jerome, Comm. in Dan. chap. 11) per πλεονασμον vocat, ut est illud poeticum:
. … .Sic ore locuta est.
. … vocemque hic auribus hausi."
The figurative connection of the term with a city or state, as in Isa. 23:12, etc.; Isa. 47:1, etc., is well-known, but is too distinct from the phrase before us to require discussion. Gen. 6:2, 4, may perhaps be compared: "daughters of men" being used in contrast with "the sons of God," while here "daughter of women" is used of the Syrian princess, κατ εξοχην, in allusion to her youth or beauty, or rank. The greatest difficulty in the verse lies in the true force of /M[I µyriv;ywI , which our version translates "and upright ones with him," and the margin, "much uprightness, or equal conditions." The LXX and Vulg. agree pretty nearly with the latter (και ευθεια παντα μετ᾽ αυτου ποιησει, and et recta faciet cum eo). De Wette supposes that a peace is meant (compare µyrIv;yme in ver. 6); while Gesenius, under rv;y; , explains the word in Dan. 11:17, of the Jews, and under the derivation he compares the two verses and Mal. 2:6. Diodati applies it to conditions of peace, Martin and Ostervald to success, Luther to reconciliation, Tremellius and Junius understand it of sham equity, used to circumvent the king of Egypt, as does De Saci; while the Dutch version gives a similar sense to the kindred words in ver. 6 and 17. De Genoude and the Rhemish follow the Vulgate.
The Querist is quite right in looking for the accomplishment of the latter part of this prophecy in the Jews during the last days, but he should not assume that Antichrist is described in Dan. 11:20 et seq. For my own part, I am convinced that in ver. 20, etc. we have the history of Antiochus Epiphanes, though no doubt his history is typical of the Antichrist. In ver. 36 begins the proper account of the Antichrist in his political relations with the land of Judea. This is evidently at "the time of the end." Compare ver. 40 with 35, where in my judgment the break occurs. Almost all admit that an interruption occurs somewhere. For, on the one hand, we have certainly, at the beginning of chap. 11 the succession of Medo-Persian monarchs, the establishment of the Greek empire, and its division, so as to bring out the conflicts and intrigues of the kings of the North and South (i.e. Syria and Egypt); on the other hand, we have, as clearly, the grand closing scene, when "the king " in Palestine becomes the object of attack from both, clearly showing that, though Antiochus Epiphanes might have been in some respects a type of the Antichrist in his profanation of the temple, prohibition of Jewish worship, persecution of the Jews, etc., yet, in fact, the true Antichrist will in the end be opposed by the king of the North of that day as well as by Egypt. The reason why, I conceive, the break really occurs in ver. 33-35 is because the main features of the desolation in the days of Antiochus re-appear under "the king;" and, the anticipative picture being given, the Holy Spirit, as it seems to me, here passes over all the intervening history, in order to prevent, in that further detail, the dismal doings of the crisis which precedes the deliverance of Israel. 26 March, 1856.
Daniel 12:11-12. Vol. III. 133. — I do not think that this passage has the slightest reference to Antiochus Epiphanes; but I am of opinion that Dan. 11:31 was accomplished then, and of this the first and second books of Maccabees treat. Of course there is a strong analogy between the two texts and the evil described, as there will be between that which Antiochus did and "the king" who is to perpetrate even greater abominations in the latter day. It is of this last only that Dan. 12:11, and to this text, not to the former, our Lord referred, in Matt. 24:15. For, clearly, a future scene of iniquity is predicted in the gospel; and this, necessarily, sets aside reference to a monarch who died more than a century and a half before the Lord was born. May I add to Mr. E. B. ELLIOTT's remark about the absence of the article in Dan. 12:11, while it occurs in 11:31, that there is this difference also: the text in chap. 11 strictly means, "the abomination of the desolator" (polel. part.), whereas, in 12 it is simply, desolate, making desolate, or, of desolation (kal. part.) Both forms occur in Dan. 9:27, which strictly runs, I suppose, "and for the wing (i.e. the protection or overspreading) of abominations (idols), there shall be a desolator, even until the consummation, and the decreed sentence be poured upon the desolate." It is quite impossible to maintain that this was accomplished in the siege of Jerusalem by Titus; for in no sense were the 1290 days (taken either as days or years) followed by the final and eternal blessing of Israel, which the prophecy imports. It is to a future crisis, then, that the prediction applies; and even Mr. Elliott, keenly opposed as he ordinarily is to futurism, allows that these dates may be, as I am entirely persuaded they will be, literal days. The symbolical adjuncts of Dan. 7, 8, are wanting: all here is conveyed in plain and unfigurative terms. Compare with this Matt. 24:22, and indeed the context before and after, which, though partially accomplished, awaits the same times for its fulfilment. The 30 and 45 days, in addition to the 1260, may refer to the gradual ingathering of the Jews and Israel, or to other changes, after the power of evil is overthrown, preparatory to complete blessing.
"The Mystical History of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius." Vol. III. 103. — Your Correspondent, I suppose, assumed that, besides the true facts related of these kings in Dan. 3 — 6,there are typical lessons conveyed also, which fill up the Divine sketch of "the times of the Gentiles." This, at any rate, is the conviction of myself, and of many other Christians who have studied Daniel's prophecy with some care. Dan. 3 shows us, that the first use the Gentile makes of the imperial power, intrusted providentially into his hands in Dan. 2, is to establish idolatry, and to compel universal submission to the golden image, under pain of death. Against this the faithful make no resistance; but, resigning themselves absolutely to suffer the consequences of their obeying God rather than man, are delivered by his manifest and immediate intervention. Dan. 4 gives us, first, the self-exaltation of the Gentile power in the earth; and then, the execution of the Divine sentence, the bestial change outwardly and inwardly, the loss of reason and conscience towards God till the complete periods pass over, and they know "that the heavens do rule." Dan. 5 details the frightful impiety which characterises the Gentile power, or at least its Babylonish form, immediately before its destruction. Dan. 6 reveals how an amiable man, the subsequent holder of the power, was betrayed by others into the terribly false position of virtually setting himself up us God. "Make a firm decree, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be east into the den of lions." "Wherefore, king Darius signed the writing and the decree." It is the sad type, most clearly, not of Babylon, but of the beast; of man worshipped as God in the highest sense, to the exclusion of the only true God; and it will be realised only in the Antichrist of the last days, whatever precursors there have been, and there are many. The rest of the book is occupied with the most interesting details, which were given to Daniel, instead of being, like the external picture of Dan. 2, a dream seen by the Gentile power.
6_05_10 p. 173.
Ezekiel 20:35-36. Vol. III. 148. — It is most plain, in the first place, that this chapter contemplates the final and glorious restoration of Israel; and this we know from other Scripture, as Isaiah 66, is subsequent to the Lord's appearing. In the second place, it is the house of Israel as distinguished from Judah. There is this notable difference in the Lord's ways with them: in the case of Judah, as such, as their grand wickedness, whether of idolatry or of rejecting Christ, was perpetrated in the land, it is there that their judgment will take place. In the last days the unclean spirit of Idolatry will return with the seven-fold power of Satan, and the last state of that generation is worse than the first. They (not Israel) refused the Christ; they shall receive the Anti-Christ; and it is of their judicial troubles Zech. 13 speaks: "In all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off," etc. Israel, on the other hand, whose earlier failure and different judgment had spared them from this terrible sin, must again, as it were, renew their history, in order that the Lord may plead with them in the wilderness once more, and there cut off the rebels (verse 38) before they again reach the land, never more to be removed, but to be planted there for ever. Compare also Hosea 2. In their past history it has been certainly true that they desired to be as the heathen, not only in having a king instead of God their King, but in serving wood and stone instead of Jehovah their God. This may be more or less applicable in "the time of the end;" but it is not so revealed in verse 32, which does not necessarily extend to the future. Next, we may safely affirm that "the rebels" were not "written in the book," which is only true of the godly delivered remnant, — "all Israel" that are saved in the last days (Rom. 11) Lastly, there is, I think, this distinction in the wildernesses of verses 35, 36, that the future scene of dealing with the rebellious may be more various than the past — not merely "the wilderness of the land of Egypt," but "of the people," whether the road be from the north or south, etc.; for the Lord shall set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people which shall be left from Assyria, and from Egypt, etc. (Isa. 11, especially verses 15, 16) Guernsey, April 22, 1856.
6_05_10 p. 173.
Matthew 1:19. Vol. III. 148. — I think that δειγματισαι (or παραδειγματισαι) was the exposure which must have resulted from Joseph's acting on Deut. 22. To which appearances, humanly, would have led, if God had not arrested this just man by the intervention of Gabriel, and enabled him, through the angels blessed message, to judge righteous judgment. I doubt that his intention "to put her away privily" could be said to come under Deut. 24, which supposes the man to have already taken and owned his wife before he found some scandalous thing in her.
6_05_10 p. 174.
Matthew 16:18. Vol. III 148. — T. H. is right, I think, in applying πυλαι ἁδου to the gates of death, or rather Hades, the invisible world, not to Satan's wiles. In one sense, it is true, the two applications may be said to coalesce; for the devil is the possessor of the power of death, and Christ's death has annulled his power, as the resurrection manifestly proved. The promise here supposes this triumph of Christ, who had been just revealed to Peter as the son of the living God. If the first man, Adam, was not deceived, but yet transgressed, no less than his deceived wife, the last Adam is a quickening Spirit to His Church, and builds it on the rock of eternal life, which the grave cannot touch. For the sins of the Church He died; but He is alive again for evermore, and has the keys of death and Hades, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. If the resurrection from the dead marked Him out as the Son of God in power (Rom. 1:4), it confirms to the ear of faith the triumph of the Church in Him and through Him.
6_05_10 p. 174.
Parable of the Virgins. Matthew 25:1-13. Vol. III. 139. — Mr. WEEKES's interpretation appears to me not merely to rest on insufficient and misapplied evidence, but to contradict the general teaching of God's Word. Whether the lamps had gone, or were only going out, makes no real difference as to the grand teaching of the parable; and, as far as this goes, either the one or the other is quite compatible with the absence of oil. Mr. WEEKES's statement that the foolish "have some oil" is most objectionable: not a word implies it; nay, what is said both by the wise virgins and the Lord would imply the reverse, even if we had not the plain and positive declaration that the foolish "took their lamps and took no oil with them." Why might not wicks be lit, and relit, without oil? I agree with Mr. W. that "are going out" is a more correct rendering than the ordinary version; but it in no way shows that the virgins had oil, or that they were more than professors without the Holy Ghost, though responsible for and designated according to the position they assumed. As to the unconverted being called "virgins," there is no more difficulty there than in the "servant" of the preceding parable. In either case they took that place, and were judged accordingly. There are Christians who love Christ's appearing in the midst of much ignorance as to its details. There are professors who talk much of the Second Advent, and hold it to be premillennial. But I assuredly believe that the former, if they are alive and remain till the coming of the Lord, will be caught up to meet Him, and that the latter, if they abide unregenerate, must have their portion outside, where shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
As unfounded is the idea that ταγματι in 1 Cor. 15:23, means "company," "band," "regiment," while fully admitting of course that such is a frequent signification in profane authors. But here the context is decidedly adverse, whether το τελος be applied, as by Mr. T. R. BIRKS, to the wicked dead, or, as by Mr. W., to Christians uninstructed in the Lord's second coming and kingdom. All or most of the versions at all known and accurate (as the. Syriac, Vulgate, Beza, Luther, De Wette, Diodati, Martin, Ostervald, the Lausanne, etc.) seem to agree with the authorised version in giving "order." Indeed, the way in which our Lord's resurrection is introduced appears to me of itself to exclude such a translation; for His resurrection is the first step, which perfectly agrees with "order," but not with "company." Again, such a view necessitates the harshest possible construction of "the end" (το τελος), which, by a figure, must be tortured to mean the good (or bad) who are raised then; whereas, in truth, it is most plain that "the end" is really after the kingdom is given up, and, à fortiori, subsequent to all judgment. The white-throne judgment, of the dead is one of the closing acts of the kingdom, after which cometh "the end." Lastly, it would be incongruous to suppose with Mr. W. that after "they that are Christ's" rise, another regiment of Christ's should remain to rise. Not a class, but an epoch, is meant by "the end;" an epoch subsequent to the resurrection of the wicked and their judgment."
6_05_10 p. 176/7.
Romans 9:5. Vol. III. 149, 164. — It is easy to say that the proposed rendering ("he who is over all, God be blessed for ever. Amen.") is at least as good as that in the Authorised Version; but I am persuaded that the statement is rash and groundless. It is true that, through ignorance or heterodoxy, the copies vary not a little; some making the new sentence commence with ὁ ων, others with Θεος, and a third class with ευλογητος; but the most ancient versions of the East and West, as the Syriac, Itala, Vulgate, etc., and the early Greek and Latin Fathers, as Irenaeus, Victorinus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, etc., leave no doubt as to the way in which the words were then understood and applied. One is therefore pained to see the prejudice which warped the judgment of Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, in severing the last clause from Christ, to whom it really belongs; at least, their punctuation leads me to suppose that their editors mean this, though Lachmann gives the usual sense in the Latin version of Jerome at the foot of his page.
But there are stronger reasons than any human testimonies. The context, and the bearing of the sentence itself, resist all such efforts or mistakes, and prove that the common version gives the intended and only right sense; for the Apostle is declaring that he intensely loved his Israelitish brethren, and that he estimated their privileges more highly than themselves. This leads him to enumerate them, and their highest mercy (alas! despised) naturally forms the climax — the Messiah, descended after the flesh from their fathers, but in reality Emmanuel, God over all, blessed for ever. His being God over all is the antithesis to His springing according to the flesh from the fathers, and is quite in harmony with the strain of the epistle (Rom. 1:3-4), as it was clearly foreshown in their own Scriptures. (Ps. 45 and Ps. 102 compared with Heb. 2; Ps. 110 compared with Matt. 22, Isa. 6, 7, Zech. 12, 14) 2 Cor. 9:31, which might by a superficial reader be thought to favour the contrary view, does in truth confirm the ordinary construction of Rom. 9:5; for there, as here, it is the before-named subject of the proposition, with which ὁ ων κ. τ. λ. is in apposition; and clearly as this is "the God and Father of the Lord Jesus" in the one case, it is with equal certainty "Christ" in the other.
Moreover, if the sense for which Dr. Beard contends had been meant, I think that in accordance with such formulas elsewhere in the New Testament the clause would have begun with ευλογητος. Of the copies which thus begin some concede the point which Dr. Beard seeks to escape; for they read ὁ ων επι παντων Θεος, in connection with ὁ Χριστος το κατα σαρκα. The remaining expedient adopted by others is to read ὁ ων επι παντων, Θεος· ευλογητος εις τ. αι. Of this last Dr. Beard perhaps thinks as cheaply as I do; for while ευλ. is brought into its normal place, there is an anomalous absence of the subject in the doxology, besides making the preceding clause disconnected, if not meaningless. He was therefore obliged to fall back on a rendering which, far from being able to compete with that given in the English Bible, supposes a collocation in the Greek contrary to precedent, and is inconsistent with the Apostle's argument, instead of crowning it triumphantly as the true connection does.
Why all this labour and ingenuity against the plain force of the sentence? Because men refuse, till grace wins or judgment compels them, to honour the Son even as the Father.
6_05_10 p. 178.
Ephesians 4:7. — There is one body. Vol. III. 149.
If Mr. BICKERSTAFF will dispassionately inquire into the testimony of God's Word, I am persuaded that he will distinguish, as Scripture does, between the saints of the old Testament and those who are now being baptised by the Holy Ghost into one body. The question of the one body really turns on that baptism. For those only who are baptised of the Spirit constitute that body (1 Cor. 12:13); and it is certain that this baptism did not exist before the day of Pentecost. (Compare Acts 1 and 2) No one denies that the Old Testament saints were born of the Spirit, that they were justified by faith, or that we are to sit with them in the kingdom of heaven. But the New Testament shows that a corporate unity, over and beyond their common privileges, was formed by the descent of the Holy Ghost consequent on the accomplishment of redemption by the Lord Jesus Christ; and this solely is called the "one body." Ephesians 2, 3, 4, are most explicit as to this. None are contemplated as members of this one new man, save those in whom the Holy Ghost dwells, and so unites to a glorified Head in heaven. For the union here spoken of is an actual subsisting fact, and therefore incapable of being predicated, as it never is in Scripture, of saints previously. They had righteousness imputed to them, as it is to us; but the Holy Ghost was not then sent down, is he is now, to baptize Jews and Gentiles that believe into one body. Further, I am of opinion that Heb. 12 distinguishes in the most positive way between "the spirits of just men made perfect" (i.e. the Old Testament saints) and the "Church of the first born, which are written in heaven." So that this text, with 1 Cor. 12 and Eph. 2 - 4 contradicts the ordinary confusion on the subject.
6_05_10 p. 178.
Hebrews 10:26. Vol. III 150. — It is evident that "no more sacrifice," and "no longer a sacrifice," are rather differences of expression than of idea. Either of them fairly represents the phrase. "No other," seems to be a needless change, though probably intended to convey substantially the same thought. It is the sin of apostasy from Christ and His sacrifice which is here warned against.
6_05_10 p. 178.
1 Peter 3:19-20. Vol. III. 150. — I think that the Spirit of God would have connected εν φυλακῃ with πορευθεις, or with εκηρυξεν (or with both), if His object had been to reveal a preaching of Christ in the unseen world, or Hades. But this is not the force of the passage, which emphatically connects the spirits, not Christ's preaching, with the prison or safe-keeping. Besides, there would remain the insuperable objection that the spirits here spoken of were not the Old Testament saints, but the disobedient in Noah's time who had died in mortal sin, and consequently who could not be in purgatory according to Romish doctrine. The fact is that this passage is carefully guarded against such a misapplication, not only by what I have just pointed out, but by the introductory εν ῳ (sc. πνευματι). It was not a personal going and preaching of Christ, but His Spirit had preached by Noah, as in the prophets (1 Peter 1:11) it had testified beforehand, etc. It is really less difficult than Eph. 2:17, where the words are more capable of applying to His personal preaching, which nevertheless, we know, would be a mistake.
6_05_17 p. 191.
John 21. Is St. John its Author? Vol. II. 367. — I think it is to be regretted that Mr. GARROD did not state the reasons for questioning the authorship of this chapter, unless his real desire be to prove for the good of others that there are no substantial grounds for a doubt. The external evidence is unexceptionable. A, B, C, D, E, G, H, K, L, M, P, S, U, X, Δ, are witnesses of the highest class, not to speak of cursive MSS. and a crowd of versions and fathers. Internally, I admit, the chapter has a special place and character; it is obviously of the nature of an appendix to the Gospel; but then it is St. John's Appendix to his own Gospel. For who, save himself, would have included James and John as Zebedee's sons after Thomas and Nathaniel? Further, John's discerning eye of Love in verse 7 is in beautiful harmony with John 20:8, as Peter's casting himself into the sea is in keeping with his going into the sepulchre before John, though the latter had arrived there first. So, it seems to me, there are striking links of analogy between the converse after supper in John 13 and in the scene here after they had dined, in the thorough restoration and the apostolic reinstatement of Peter, answering to his threefold denial, of which the Lord had warned him in John 13:38; all perfectly in the tone and line of an Apostle. Again, what more like the enigmatic intimations elsewhere in John (John 2 the temple; John 3 new birth; John 4 the well of water; John 6 the bread, body, and blood, etc.) than the gracious reassuring of Peter (ver. 18) that his recent failure, after his too confident boast, would not deprive him of confessing Christ in the most glorious but naturally painful way, and this when his natural energy should be gone? Also the scene that follows, which has John himself for its subject, shrouded too under a similar veil, bespeaks his hand, and appears to me to link him with the Revelation which so fitly closes the Book of God. The two last verses admirably wind up the whole — the true conclusion of a heart surpassed by none in love and reverence for Him of whom the Holy Ghost privileged him to testify, whose works, if every one were written, would more than fill the world itself.
Permit me to add that it would be well, on so serious a subject as God's Word, to withhold the publication of a doubt, till we have examined the matter on all sides. For the natural mind is sceptical enough without help or incentives; and a mere question might raise doubts which might trouble many a soul in spite of the clearest light in answer to it, for the heart loves darkness. The first step of scepticism often is to unsettle people as to the particular human hand which God employed, and, this done, the way is more easy to deny that God employed any hand at all.
6_05_17 p. 192.
1 Corinthians 6:11. Vol. III. 102. — As I have not Mr. ALFORD's book before me, but only Ω.Ω.Ω's extract, I can only conjecture that Mr. A. imputes a Calvinistic bias, or low views of baptismal grace, to the authorised translators. Now, I do not at all deny that they differed widely from that gentleman's doctrines; but it is utterly unfounded to attribute their version of απελουσασθε to any such bias. Cyprian cannot be charged with attenuating the supposed effects of the rite. Yet he has repeatedly cited "abluti estis," the reading of the old Itala. Jerome has the same, and this is the more important as being the authentic version of Rome. Such, too, is the force of the Peschito. Luther, Beza, Ostervald, Diodati, the Dutch, the Lausanne, and the Elberfeld (including, with those which follow the Vulgate, all shades of Protestantism and Romanism), give the same sense as the authorised English. For my own part, I attach no sort of doctrinal importance to this particular translation, and would be quite willing to read, "ye have washed." The momentous question is not a question of "are" or "have;" but how is that washing effected, what its nature, its effects, its end? The outward rite may be and is an apt sign, but is that the great and weighty privilege of which St. Paul reminds the Corinthian saints?
But when Mr. A. makes such a charge against the English translators, in the face of the fact that their version is that of Papists and Protestants, Fathers and Moderns, Nationalists and Dissenters, Arminians and Calvinists, he betrays his own prejudices. For, while the mode "ye have, or ye are washed" was immaterial to King James's translators, as I judge, Mr. A. shows his own desire to bring in "ye washed them off (viz. at your baptism)." But this is unwarrantable. There is no "them" in the Greek, nor anything to warrant such an interpolation. The Authorised Version may be somewhat free, but this is false. There is an object in Acts 22:16; there is none here, which was, I presume, the just reason for the difference in the English version of the two passages. And, in fact, I only know of one version which leans to Mr. ALFORD, viz. de Wette's; the only difference being that the rationalist German is more exact. He gives "washed yourselves" (not them off).
6_05_17 p. 193.
Hebrews 10:12. Vol. III. 133.
I am of opinion that εις το διηνεκες. "for ever," ought to be construed in this verse, not with προσενεγκας θυσιαν, but with εκαθισεν κ. τ. λ. (i.e. with "sat down"). It is not exactly a question of the general sense, for there is good sense either way, and still less does it turn upon Greek construction, for the words might be taken before or after the verb or participle, is it seems to me. The real point is the special contrasts of vers. 11, 12. Instead of offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, Christ has offered one: instead of standing daily ministering for man, He has for ever sat down at the right of God. Of course, this expression "for ever" is not absolute, but relative to the work of atonement. He is seated in perpetuity before God, because His sacrificial work is done perfectly for man. As to the abuse, justly objected to by Mr. J. LYNCH, the aorist cuts off the force which Papists, and those who think with them, might give it, for where continuous offering is intended the present tense is employed, as in verse 1.
6_05_17 p. 194.
New Testament Synonyms. αποστελλω and πεμπω. Vol. III. 151. — I suppose that the difference between these words consists chiefly in this: that πεμπω is the more general of the two, embracing things and persons, evil and good; αποστελλω, save when applied figuratively, regularly denotes "to dispatch," or "send off," on a mission, except where used to express banishment. Bengel thinks that the latter. (απ.) looks at the will of the sender and the sent, the former (π.) only the sender's will; but I question this.
6_05_17 p. 198.
The Spanish Bible. Vol. III. 166. — Under this heading occurs a strange misunderstanding. As to both the passages referred to (Ps. 16:2-3 Vol. II. 303 ; and Jer. 17:9, Vol. III. 25), "the Spanish" (Vol. III. 60, 126) meant simply and evidently the particular Spanish version cited by the two Correspondents. This was the less ambiguous, one might have thought, inasmuch as the former of the two distinctly describes it as that of "Scio de S. Miguel." Your last Correspondent can scarcely have read the query as well as the reply: to read both is usually a wise, not to say a necessary, precaution before criticising. In the reply no reference was made to a Protestant version, because the query was limited to the Romish one; and the remark about its following the Vulgate was the mere statement of a fact generally known among scholars, without a word to imply any peculiarity in it.
6_05_24 p. 209/10.
2 Peter 3:3, etc. Vol. III. 170. — The conclusion that "the Millennium cannot be the Day of the Lord" is so clearly and certainly a mistake, that the wonder is how it could be received for a moment. Mr. P. GELL's system makes him contradict Scripture, if not himself. Thus, in two distinct paragraphs, he applies Zech. 14 to "Millennial privileges and glories" (p. 171), and, I believe, correctly. But the chapter itself declares it to be "the Day of the Lord," whereas Mr. G. sums up that this cannot be. Again, he predicates Isa. 65:17; 66:22, of the Millennium, which I conceive to be true, though not the whole truth. But, singularly enough, he does not perceive that such a view decides the question as to 2 Peter 3; because the latter inseparably connects the promise of Isaiah with "the Day of the Lord," and it is a Millennial promise according to Mr. GELL's admission.
The reader who examines the Scriptures which speak of "the Day of the Lord" may soon satisfy himself that it embraces the Millennial reign, without being absolutely identical. This being so, and necessarily flowing from Mr. G.'s statements, the argument founded on "all," in 2 Peter 3:9, comes to nothing. The Apostle is speaking of those whom God summons to repent, before "that day." Doubtless, it surprises and destroys all the impenitent on whom it falls; but this decides nothing as to the new and Millennial dispensation which follows the opening judgments of "the Day of the Lord." So that the argument is really a petitio principii, besides contradicting Scripture and itself.
6_05_24 p. 211/2.
Elberfeld New Testament. — Vol. III. 179. — As one of those who ventured to commend this new German version, I may be permitted to remind L. H. J. T. that it is published anonymously, so as to rest its claims solely on the intrinsic merits of the work, if it have any. I should think that no scholar can be ignorant of the defects of Luther's translation, more especially if one takes into the account the additional light which MSS. discovered or collated more perfectly during the last 300 years cast upon the original text. Even the Roman Catholic version of Van Ess is in some respects superior to Luther's, and there is no comparison between it and Dr. De Wette's Bible. Nevertheless rationalism is always more or less irreverent and superficial; and it is no wonder that grave godly ministers of Christ found a lack in any of these versions. To meet this need in a cheap form was the object of the work; and, as far as I can pretend to judge, it is a great advance upon any of its predecessors known to me. It resembles the authorised English version more than perhaps any of the modern continental translations — with this difference, however, that it makes use of many critical helps which were unknown to King James's translators. It may interest some of your readers to hear that the chief hand in the work is "the Irish clergyman," (though really an Englishman), whom a leader of modern infidelity, Prof. F. W. Newman, has put forward as the remarkable representative, in our day, of faith in the Word of God. I know not how L. H. J. T. may appreciate the "standing and authority" of one whose aim is to sink the servant in the praise of the Master; but my opinion is that, if a profound and spirit-taught familiarity with the truth, and a varied, yet exact, knowledge of the letter of Scripture ought to be combined, with lesser qualifications, in order to guarantee a translation, the Elberfeld New Testament has just and large claims on serious Christian men.
6_05_24 p. 212/3.
Was St. Peter ever at Rome? Vol. III. 183. — While cordially agreeing with Mr. W. H. JOHNSTONE'S preliminary remarks, I object to the closing paragraph as being not only without Scripture proof but inconsistent, as it seems to me, with what is there disclosed. I must, therefore, ask for his grounds for asserting that there were two Churches at Rome; that St. Paul was owned as chief by the Gentile one, and rejected by the Jewish; that St. Peter went there to heal the dissension; and that each Apostle left a successor, etc.
It is well known that the utmost obscurity hangs over the extra-scriptural history of all Churches, and not least over the Church in Rome for a considerable period after the death of both Apostles. The earliest witnesses we possess, after the canon of Scripture, prove at least how little they can be relied on. Even Irenaeus contradicts the Word of God in matters of fact; and there are few so respectable as that excellent bishop. What Mr. J. describes as the state of things in Rome, more or less sanctioned by those two great Apostles, is so obviously contrary to the fundamental principles of the Church of God, that I have no hesitation in pronouncing such traditions fabulous. But it would be well to hear his witnesses and to cross-examine them.
6_06_07 p. 219.
Texts Misapplied or Misquoted.
Ephesians 1:10. — The "dispensation of the fulness of times" is often applied to God's present work in gathering the church, and connected with Gal. 4:4. But the bearing of the two texts is totally different. Gal. 4:4, refers to Christ sent here below; Eph. 1:10, to the administration which will be in His hands during the Millennium; the one a past fact, the other future, and both entirely distinct from the gathering of Jews and Gentiles, who believe in one body, which is now going on between these two points.
Ephesians 1:23. — "The fulness of Him which filleth all in all;" not of God the Father, which the Church is not nor can be, but the fulness or complement of Christ, viewed as the glorified heavenly man, whose body we are.
Ephesians 2:20. — Not Old Testament "Prophets" and New Testament "apostles," but "apostles and prophets" of the New Testament, as is put beyond all doubt in Eph. 3:5, "as it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." It is a new work built on a new foundation, Jew and Gentile being now builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit, which was not the case in Old Testament times.
Ephesians 3:15. — Not "the whole family," as in the English Bible, but every family in heaven and earth, πασα πατρια, κ. τ. λ., including, I suppose, all the varieties of intelligent creation in heaven and earth.
Ephesians 4:3. — "The unity of the Spirit," meaning of the Holy Ghost, and not merely of our spirit.
Ephesians 5:14. — The Scriptures alluded to seem to be Isa. 52 and 60, but the application here is clearly to believers, slumbering among dead men or things, from which they are called to arise, that Christ may give them light, not life, which would be their first need as unbelievers. Let me add, that in the parenthetical ver. 9, the true idea and word is "the fruit of light is in all goodness," etc.
Ephesians 6:2-3. — St. Paul is not of course neutralising the grand truth that we are not under law, but under grace. He is simply showing how specially God owned obedience of parents among those commandments which were addressed to the Jews, and which held forth earthly blessing as their reward.
6_06_07 p. 225.
1 Corinthians 11:5. Vol. III. 149, 178. — There is no inconsistency between this text and 1 Cor. 14:34, because the first applies to a woman's prophesying under any circumstances, the last is confined to the exercise of the gift in the Christian assembly or church, which is peremptorily forbidden to the woman. Thus we are told in Acts 21:9, that Philip the Evangelist had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. If God imparts spiritual power, He means it to be employed. Nevertheless he has been pleased to regulate its exercise; for the Christians had made the mistake into which many have fallen since, of supposing that, because a spiritual gift is possessed, there is an unrestricted licence at all times and in all places. Thus, those who spoke in a tongue displayed their gift in the Christian assemblies, when no interpreter was present, and women who had gifts used them there also. The Holy Ghost, in 1. Cor. 14 puts a stop to both these mistakes, forbids speaking save for direct edification of the Church (which a tongue was not, unless interpreted), and silences women in the churches (not elsewhere), let them be never so gifted. Not only were they not to prophesy there, but not even to ask questions; "and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the Church."
LAMED is, I think, mistaken in supposing that 1 Cor. 14:3, explains prophesying. It is rather a contrast drawn between the exercise of that gift and of a tongue. The man who spoke in a tongue spoke to God, not to men, not being understood; whereas he who prophesied spoke unto men to edification, etc. Not that all speaking to edification, etc. is prophesying, but that prophesying, as contra-distinguished to speaking in a tongue, edifies the Church, which of course is the ordinary and proper object of a Church meeting.
6_06_07 p. 226/7.
The work of the Spirit. Vol. I. 172; III. 36. — The injunctions in Eph. 4:30, and Thess. 5:19, do not apply to all men, but are addressed to believers only. The former warns those who are sealed by the Holy Ghost unto the day of redemption not to grieve Him: the latter exhorts the brethren to "quench not the Spirit;" to "despise not prophesyings." It is clear, that the one regards the saint individually as to his own walk with God; the other guards him against hindering the action of the Holy Ghost in those whom He makes His mouth-piece. The striving of God's Spirit in Gen. 6 evidently refers to the testimony given to the antediluvians, and especially Noah's preaching for 120 years. Resisting the Holy Ghost is said of the Jews: "as your fathers did, so do ye." It was shown in their persecution and slaughter of the prophets, and crowned by their treachery against and murder of the Just One. With all their boast about the law, the land, and the temple, they had rejected in every age God's testimony: "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost." What man had done before the deluge, was the dreary history of Israel, till they stumbled upon their own Messiah, refused Stephen's declaration of His heavenly glory as peremptorily as they had scorned His own personal humiliation, and thus turned that which ought to have been a foundation into a stone of stumbling and rock of offence. But it was not the Jew only who was guilty. "He was in the world, and the world knew him not." "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out." The personal coming of the Holy Ghost testifies of this. His very presence in the Church on earth convicts the world of sin, etc. For he came down, as sent by Him whom the world had rejected, instead of believing in. Of other sins no doubt the world was guilty, but this was the great sin in God's sight. He had sent His Son, and the world hated His Son. They had now no cloke for their sin. Christ, rejected by man, glorified by God, sends down the Comforter to be in His own, and thus convicts all outside of sin; because if they believed in Him, they too would have the Holy Ghost. The passage does not speak of what the Spirit produces in the heart of every one who comes to a saving knowledge of God and his Son. It is rather the truth, that the presence of the Holy Ghost in the Church proves all without to be under sin and judgment, because of the rejection of Jesus, whom God proclaims to be the Righteous One, by receiving Him to His own right hand.
May I recommend to O. N. V. "a well-digested and full reply on this subject," in a little book entitled "Operations of the Spirit of God," sold by Broom, Gregg, and perhaps others in London. The first part he may find in the "Select Series of Christian Tracts," etc., published by Nisbet.
6_06_21 p. 237.
Exodus 34:7. — Vol. III. 213. — I believe that the authorised version is right, and not the suggestion in the Treasury Bible. Dr. Benisch gives a sense substantially similar: "holding guiltless by no means the wicked." The Septuagint is ου καθαριει τον ενοχον; nor is there any various reading known to me which exhibits a different meaning. L. W.'s difficulty is owing to the fact, that he looks for the Gospel plan of salvation in the text, whereas it is really the proclamation of the name of Jehovah in His government of Israel. Indeed, it is rather a part of that which is contrasted, in 2 Cor. 3 with the ministration of the Spirit now. There was a precious manifestation of God's goodness and long suffering, no doubt; but it was in connection with His people still under the law. Hence, in spite of all the mercy displayed, it could only be in result a ministration of condemnation and death. Whereas the essence of the Gospel is, that it comes to the sinner on the very ground that he is lost, and most expressly justifies the ungodly: it is a ministration of righteousness already accomplished on earth and accepted on high. So that, if the Holy Ghost reveal to any soul Christ in glory, that soul is entitled to look up to say, "There is my life and my righteousness." He is accepted in the Beloved. "If that which was done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious." The two things are so distinct, that to harmonise is to spoil them both.
6_06_21 p. 238.
Daniel 9:27. Vol. III. 213. — Mr. Wintle, in his book on Daniel, translates this verse, "Yet one week shall make a firm covenant with many, and the midst of the week shall cause," etc. as to the former part following the Greek and Arabic versions. He gives no reasons for departing from the natural order of the Hebrew, which refers for a nominative case to the recently-named "prince that should come," as given in the Authorised Version, the Dutch, the German of Luther, and De Wette, the French of Martin and Ostervald, the Italian of Diodati, etc. In fact, there is no just sense in treating "covenant" as the subject of the verb. I have no doubt, therefore, that the true thought is that ver. 27 opens with an account of his doings who had been alluded to in the preceding verse. The people of that prince, the Roman people, came and destroyed the city and the sanctuary, followed by an unmeasured train of desolation. Then in ver. 27, the prince himself, no longer coming but come, confirms a covenant with the mass (of the Jews) for one week, which he breaks when half the time is expired, putting an end to their worship. Idolatry is protected (an idol being even set in the holy place, as we know from elsewhere), and a desolator follows, till the decreed consummation shall be poured upon the desolate (i.e. Jerusalem). If this be correct, it is evident that the English Bible is nearer the mark than the usual Greek, which, I may observe, is not the veritable Septuagint, but rather Theodotion's version. However, the Septuagint does not differ in sense from the latter as to this (και δυναστευσει ἡ διαθηκη εις πολλους), if I may trust Daniel, sec. lxx. etc. Romae, 1772.
6_06_21 p. 241.
Romans 8:1. Vol. III. 214. — It may help Mr. BROWNE to bear in mind the observation of another, that the Apostle, in the beginning of this chapter, is alluding to and summing up his previous reasoning. Thus, verse 1 answers to Rom. 5; verse 2 to Rom. 6; and verse 3 to Rom. 7; as a moderate degree of attention and spirituality may easily discern. "Justification of life" is what the first verse supposes, the possession of a new and risen life in Christ, to which sin is not and cannot be imputed. When God sent forth His Son, He was made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem, etc. But now that redemption is accomplished and Christ raised from the dead, it is not merely the holy life which it always was, but it is life in resurrection after all the question of sin is settled. It is not merely justification in view of a foreseen work, nor a standing on the ground of promise — the promise of One who could not lie. The work is done, the promise accomplished — all the promises of God, yea, and amen in Christ: according to this is our standing as individual saints in Christ Jesus, and of this Rom. 8 treats. Corporate union is not discussed save in Rom. 12. But many of our individual privileges, as well as our corporate ones, could not have been predicated of believers till Christ had finished his work on earth and sent down the Holy Ghost from heaven. I suppose (in spite of A D2 and some good versions, that μη κατα σ. π. or of D3 E I K, etc. for αλλα κ. πν.) that the last clause was added to guard the full grace from verse 4, where the same words rightly occur.
6_06_21 p. 242.
Ephesians 5:26. Vol. III. 214. — To understand this verse it must be taken in connection with what precedes and follows.
1. Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it. His blessed work of redemption, already accomplished.
2. That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. His present work, which the Holy Ghost makes good in the Church. Εν σηματι guards and explains τῳ λουτρῳ, showing that it is the power of the word, and not a mere rite. Compare John 15, "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken to you."
3. The result, yet future, when He shall present to Himself the glorious Church, not having spot, etc.
6_06_21 p. 243.
Hebrews 12:23. Vol. III. 215. — The phrase "general assembly" (πανηγυρει) is clearly, in my judgment, epexegetic of the preceding words, "the innumerable company of angels," just as, in the clause before, "the heavenly Jerusalem" is a further explanation of "the city of the living God." The conjunction και introduces each new clause, which arrangement is destroyed in this particular instance, but observed in all the other parts of the sentence in the English Bible. The same confusion appears in Beza, Diodati, the Dutch, Martin, Ostervald, the Lausanne, etc. Bengel rightly objects to this construction. "Nam et polysyndeton retinendum est; et aliorum sine dubio est panegyris: aliorum, ecclesia. quis enim conjungeret synonyma, panegyris et ecclesia? Ecclesia, primogenitorum est; panegyris igitur, angelorum." But then he falls into the mistake of making not only the angels, but the church of the first-born ones refer to the myriads, which is equally, as it seems to me, contrary to the linking of each separate term by the conjunction, not to speak of other objections. The Syriac and Vulgate, with those that follow them, Luther and the Elberfeld, avoid either error, and give the true sense with more or less clearness.
The Apostle ascends from the lowest point of millennial glory which unites heaven and earth, the seat of royalty raised up in pure grace (after Ichabod was written on Israel, and the king of their choice was slain), in contrast with Sinai, which was the place and expression of the nation's responsibility. He then gives, not the earthly city, which was under judgment, but the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. Next is opened out the whole assembly (πανηγυρις), myriads of angels. Then follows, as a specific object, the Church of heavenly heirs, in contrast with God's earthly first-born Israel, which fully displays grace in its heavenly character. After this the Holy Ghost directs our eye to God in his judicial capacity — the Judge of all. With this is beautifully connected "the spirits of just men made perfect" (i.e. the Old Testament saints). Next, we turn to the means of establishing the New Covenant with the two houses of Israel, "Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant;" and lastly, we hear of "the blood of sprinkling," which cries for grace towards the earth, not vengeance, as in Abel's case. To this whole order of things, which will only be manifested in the Millennium, the Hebrew Christians (and of course the same thing is true of all saints since) are said to have come, i.e. by faith. Not to Sinai and its associations of death and terror, but to these blessed and eternal objects of glory they stood related, through the known efficacy of what was accomplished to bring all in.
As to Mr. BROWNE's query, I suppose that the perfecting of just men here spoken of will take place at their resurrection from the dead. They are now in the condition of spirits — a condition which never will be true of the New Testament saints as a class (for "we shall not all sleep"), but, of course, most applicable to those before Christ. (Compare Luke 13:32.) Guernsey.
6_06_21 p. 243/4.
2 Peter 3:18. Vol. III. 215. — I apprehend that εις ἡμεραν αιωνος is in allusion to, and in contrast with, "the day of judgment," (verse 7,) "the day of the Lord" or "of God," (verses 10, 12,) in the chapter which the phrase closes, and that the idea is the eternal day, which succeeds all previous days of sin and judgment. The words in John 6:51 (εις τον αιωνα) are the commonest possible expression of eternity, or "for ever," whether absolute or relative, which of course depends on the context and nature of the case. See Matt. 21:19; Mark 3:29, Mark 11:14; Luke 1:55; John 4:14, John 6:58, John 8:35, 51, 52, John 10:28, John 11:26, John 12:34, John 13:8, John 14:16; 1 Cor. 8:13; 2 Cor. 9:9; Heb. 6:20; Heb. 7:17, 21, 24, 28; 1 Peter 1:23, 25; 1 John 2:17; 2 John 2; which are, I think, all the occurrences in the New Testament. Εις αιωνα (in 2 Peter 2:17) has been dropped by some editors, though even they admit the same phrase in Jude 13. The omission of the article implies, that the phrase is characteristic, i.e. adjectival of the sense; and" everlasting," as "for ever," pertains to του σκοτους, rather than to the verb. The plural form often occurs, as in Rom. 1:25, Rom. 9:6, Rom. 11:36, Rom. 16:27; 2 Cor. 11:31, etc.; or with παντας, as in Jude 25; or yet more emphatically εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων, as in Gal. 1:5, and often elsewhere. The idea here is, not so much one unbroken eternity, (expressed by the singular, simple or complex, as in Heb. 1:9,) as the constant succession of age upon age, which is pretty well given in the English "for ever and ever." Eph. 3:21, is the most peculiar of all; for γενεας expresses ordinarily human generations, του αιωνος of itself would convey the thought of an undivided everlasting; and των αιωνων closes the series with successive ages sweeping on. The whole phrase intimates, I suppose, a future beyond the bounds of every measure of time. The anarthrous form εις αιωνας αιωνων occurs in Rev. 14:11, (where, however, C. has αιωνα αιωνος) which, as we have seen, modifies the sense so far as to present no positive object before the mind, as in Rev. 19:3, and simply in this cases characterises the action of the verb. Guernsey.
6_06_21 p. 246.
The Scientific Accuracy of Scripture. Vol. III. 203. — Without pretending to estimate Mr. Hugh Miller's place in the geological scale, I think I am not at all presumptuous in affirming that his notice of Gen. 1 is weak and unsound. No interpretation is tenable which eludes the plain fact, that the chapter speaks of literal nights and days in relation to the Adamic earth. Then, again, to maintain that, from the creation to the present time is the last or Sabbath day, and that the work of redemption is that day's work — to maintain that these propositions are meant by Gen. 1, 2, or by any other part of Scripture, is to outdo Origen himself, and to render the modern proofs of scientific accuracy as ridiculous as the medieval metaphysics of the schoolmen. The truth is, that space is left for the various transformations or catastrophes of our globe (taking these for granted, now that the results of geological research are well founded) between the original creation of the heavens and earth in Gen. 1:1, and the reconstitution of the universe, with a view to man's trial, which begins with the days in verses 3 et seq.
6_06_28 p. 251.
Genesis 15, Genesis 1:4, and John 1:1. Vol. III. 229. — If CLAYDONENSIS reflects that ῥημα and φωνη are merely the Septuagintal reflection of one and the same Hebrew word (which is also capable where required of. being represented by λογος,) he will feel, I think, that, though there is of course a difference between the force of these Greek words, we ought not to look for it in Gen. 15:1 and 4. The inspired original presents the same idea: it is only the human translation which changes the phraseology. The transition is arbitrary.
Apart from our texts, φωνη is the more general of the three, meaning not only any articulate sound of man, but sound in general; while ῥημα and λογος way be distinguished as meaning a word and speech respectively; the latter also often meaning the reason which guides the speech, or the subject matter which speech is concerned about. Of course, ὁ λογος in John is peculiar, not only an impersonation, but a person — that blessed One who in the beginning was with God and was God, the only true and adequate expression of God, whether in grace (John 1) or in judgment, (Rev. 19)
6_06_28 p. 252/3.
Daniel 9. — The Seventy Weeks of. Vol. III. 222, Note. — I do not think that there need be difficulty in supplying the scripture authority, which has been sought in vain, for the break between the last week and its predecessors. In fact, the prophecy itself distinctly furnishes the proof. For after the details relative to the periods of seven and of sixty-two weeks, in verses 25, 26, and the plain statement, that after these times were completed the Messiah should be cut off and have nothing (i.e. of His proper kingdom and rights, as far as the nations were concerned), the prophet goes on to describe the retributive days of vengeance which fell upon the city and the sanctuary through the Roman people (or "the people of the prince that shall come"). Now, it is clear, that here we have events which took place about forty years after the crucifixion, and yet entirely apart from the seventy weeks, save that they necessarily occurred after sixty-nine had run their course. But if they form no part of the previous chain, as shown by the prophecy, with equal certainty are they outside from and before the last or seventieth week, which presupposes the Jewish polity re-established in some sort, and the sanctuary not only rebuilt but in actual use once more, though doomed again to see greater abominations than before. I am confident, therefore, that the scripture authority of Dan. 9 is, beyond reasonable doubt, against those who make the seventieth week to be in immediate sequence with the preceding sixty-nine, and that the passage itself, without going further, requires us to leave room for (not merely the past Roman destruction of Jerusalem, but) a prolonged series of wars and desolations of indefinite duration, which has been thus far too truly accomplished; subsequently to this, in verse 27, we have the brief but vivid picture of the last week ushered in by a compact or covenant made between the last Roman prince ("the prince that shall come") and the mass of the Jews; then, in the midst of the week, a stop put to their sacrificial worship, idols protected, and a desolator inflicted upon them, and this till the consummation and the decreed sentence be poured upon the desolate. Thenceforward should the tide turn, through the presence and power of their Deliverer, once rejected but now returning in glory, not only to destroy this antagonist Roman sovereign with all his instruments and followers, Jewish or Gentile, but to apply to Israel, as such, all the predicted blessings of the new covenant. For such was the intimation of verse 24: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy (Daniel's) people and upon thy holy city (the question being about the Jews, and not the Church), to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins," etc. Accordingly, I think it demonstrable, that all which God has been doing for and in His heavenly people since the cross is here entirely and advisedly passed by; and this is, no doubt, what Φ means by "the parenthetical dispensation of the Church." It may be added, that this view of a detached seventieth week, reserved for the horrors of the future Antichristian crisis, can in no way be objected to on the score of novelty, save by the ignorant: it is really the oldest interpretation that I know on record among the early Christian writers. Thus writes St. Hippolytus in the third century: "Των γαρ ἑξηκοντα δυο ἑβδομαδων πληρωθεισων και Χριστου παραγενομενου, και του ευαγγελιου εν παντι τοπῳ κηρυχθεντος, εκκενωθεντων των καιρων, μια ἑβδομας περιλειφθησεται ἡ εσχατη εν ῃ παρεσται Ηλιας, και Ενωχ, και εν τῳ ἡμισει αυτης αναφανησεται το βδελυγμα της ερημωσεως, ἕως ὁ Αντιχριστος ερημωσιν τῳ κοσμῳ καταγγιλλων, κ. τ. λ." For when the sixty-two weeks have been fulfilled, and Christ has come, and the gospel has been everywhere preached, the times having been consummated, there shall be left one week — the last — in which Elias shall be present, and Enoch; and in the half of it shall appear the abomination of desolation, etc.
6_06_28 p. 254.
Matthew 4:12, 17. Vol. III. 229. — INQUIRER is right. Scripture does not represent that Christ's ministry began after John's imprisonment, but that after that He began preaching the kingdom of heaven in Galilee.
6_06_28 p. 259.
1 John 1:7. Vol. III. 167. — Permit me, while maintaining with the querist, that the question is of the believer's walk, and not a mere retrospective view of his justification, to give two reasons which to me seem decisive, that the verse speaks of the mutual fellowship of the saints, and not between God and His people. 1st. Because it, to my mind, savours of irreverence to suppose μετ ἀλληλων (one with another) said of God and us. I remember no other place where the Holy Ghost speaks, if I may so say, with the familiarity here alleged; for, however near he may bring us, it is ever to God. 2nd. The last clause, which is coupled with the former, ought to have guarded against such a thought — "We have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin," the subject of the one being the evident object of the other clause.
6_06_28 p. 261.
The Personal Reign and Human Kingdom. Vol. III. 21, 221. — Without pretending to say what H. N. P. means by the expression "human kingdom," most readers of THE CHRISTIAN ANNOTATOR will agree that, besides the sense in which Christ shall reign for ever, there is a definite kingdom over all people, nations, and languages, a kingdom heavenly in its source, earthly in its sphere (though not earthly only), which is yet future, and to last for 1000 years. It is this which, I presume, the Querist meant by Christ's "human kingdom," to be ushered in by His personal advent. It has a mediatorial character, and will cease after the judgment of the wicked dead is over. When the eternal state begins (or the new heavens and earth in the fullest and final sense), the human holding of this kingdom is to cease (1 Cor. 15), that God (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) may be all in all. Christ, as man, having held this special kingdom for purposes of subjection, and having put down all other authority, gives it up, that the power may be God's, as such, exclusively. Our reigning in life, reigning for ever and ever, is not to be limited to the millennial kingdom. As possessors of eternal life and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God, we shall reign in everlasting blessedness, when the millennial display before this world is past.
Perhaps the Editor will allow me to state my conviction, that we shall reign over the earth (rather than on it), which I am persuaded is the true force of Rev. 5:10, without going into other questions of that verse.
6_07_05 p. 269.
Leviticus 14. Vol. III. 217. — While unfeignedly believing that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable, I may suggest to W. B. C. the need of a careful comparison of the fresh light of the New Testament in lifting the veil of the Old. Thus it seems to me that due consideration of Eph. 2 and Heb. 3 would suggest the idea that "the house" finds its antitype in the corporate aspect or assembly of believers now, rather than in the millennial condition of the earth. "Ye are builded together," etc.; "whose house are we," etc. Hence all is plain. A plague-spot may now show itself in the Christian assembly. There is diligent, painstaking, but patient inquiry. The diseased stones are removed, the application of which is obvious. If the plague still overspread, after all means are used in vain, the house must be given up; for the deliberate sanction and maintenance of evil deprives an assembly of its public Christian character. The mention of Canaan is no difficulty, because, in virtue of union with Christ by the Holy Ghost, we who believe are, even now, seated in heavenly places in Christ. Our πολιτευμα is in heaven.
6_07_05 p. 270.
Psalm 40:6; and Hebrews 10:5. Vol. III. 229. — I believe that T. H. is so far justified in supposing that the digging, or opening, of ears, and the preparation of a body, are only various expressions of taking the form of a servant. This was one great thought in the incarnation of the Son of God (see Phil. 2), and of it St. Paul avails himself in citing the LXX. But I see no reason for excluding Ex. 21:5-6, though the latter was fully carried out in Christ's death and resurrection, rather than in the bare incarnation. Isa. 50:5, (though a different word) gives the kindred idea of the habit or spirit of obedience.
6_07_05 p. 271.
Psalm 102. Vol. III. 37. — It is certain from Heb. 1:10, that there is a change of speakers at ver. 25. For while the beginning of the Psalm, in its full meaning, can only be the utterance of Christ suffering for His people, the Apostle by his reasoning on and application of Ps. 45:5-6, and of Ps. 102:25, etc. shows that we have, in these last, God's answer to the divine sufferer. Can anything be more touchingly beautiful? Christ mournfully pleads, "O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days." Jehovah replies — "Of old hast Thou laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. They shall perish, but Thou shall endure," etc. The crucified one was Himself also the Eternal — blessed mystery, the foundation of all God's counsels of grace and glory! So far I consider that L. C. H. is borne out by the interpretation of the New Testament. The only questionable thing in his division is that he assigns to the Father verses 12, 22, though I am far from affirming that this is not so: but as to verses 25, 28, there ought to be no doubt.
6_07_05 p. 272.
Daniel. Vol. III. 229. —
1. "The king," in Dan. 11:36, is, without doubt to my mind, the Political side of the same person whom St. John designates religiously or irreligiously as "the Antichrist." It is clear from Daniel that his seat of power is "the Holy Land," the object of attacks at the close from the powers of the South and of the North (i.e. Egypt, and Syria or Turkey of our days). However, his destruction is reserved for the Lord Himself, appearing from heaven (2 Thess. 2:8, Rev. 19:20). It is of the Syrian power (whoever then may hold it,) that the last verses of Dan 11 speak. He also falls by Divine judgment (see, Dan. 8:25, 11:45.
2: The relation of Daniel to the Revelation is a wide subject; but this I may briefly say, that, as Daniel reveals the results of the failure of the earthly people Israel, so Revelation presents the consequences of the failure of the heavenly testimony throughout Christendom and the world at large. This remark may help to show the analogy and the difference between the two prophecies. What the former was to the Jew, the latter is to the Church.
6_07_05 p. 273.
John 15:4. — Vol. III. 230.
I do not think that living union with Christ is here spoken of, because verse 2 speaks of branches in Him not bearing fruit, which cannot be where Christ is the life. Compare also verse 6, which, if living union were in question, would contradict the everlasting life which the believer has. There is some analogy thus far with Rom. 11, the olive-tree of testimony on earth, as the vine is of profession. Of course, in both cases, the saints are living branches; but there are other branches which are broken off. Oneness with Christ, as members of His body, depends on the baptism of the Spirit, which was unknown before Pentecost.
6_07_05 p. 275.
Revelation 13:5. Vol. III. 200, 244. — I do not think that there is so much inconsistency as might seem at first sight in taking the 1260 days mystically and the 1000 years literally; and for this reason, among others, that the book of Revelation, like many previous prophecies, admits of a two-fold application. One is the protracted Protestant scheme, when the long period may have its place; the other is the grand future crisis after the Church or heavenly saints are translated to the Father's presence, and God begins to resume His dealings with Israel and the nations in the way of testimony and judgment before the Millennium commences, when the days will be literal days. Obviously, this double accomplishment concerns the early and middle part of the book and not at all Rev. 20.
6_07_19 p. 284.
Genesis 38:15. Vol. III. 213, 236. — I presume that few serious readers will agree with Dr. S. R. Maitland's notion that hV;req] means a holy woman or seer. Far more probable is the ordinary view which supposes a "consecration" to the corrupt Astarte, or Venus, of early and later idolatry. Ingenious as the late Librarian of Lambeth is, he would find it difficult to make room for "a holy woman" in Deut. 23:17 and Hosea 4:14. Besides, he does not, as far as the extract intimates, attempt to account for the masculine form vreq;, which occurs in Deut. 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24, 1 Kings 15:12, 1 Kings 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7; Job 36:14. Can it be argued that holy men, or seers, are intended here? If it be plain, on the contrary, that, in the latter case, a class is meant of exceeding moral turpitude, the argument as to the former falls to the ground: for they are forms of the same word, and the idea of holiness, or consecration, of course equally pervades both. Terrible to say, prostitution was an almost universal element of heathen sanctity!
6_07_19 p. 285.
Joshua 5:9. Vol. III. 132, 205. — Mr. RYLEY is evidently far from confident as to his application of the scene at Gilgal which preceded the conflicts of Israel with the Canaanites. He speaks with hesitation of circumcision whether it had any typical force. Assuming it to be a type, he seems to think it might in this case mean baptism (which is itself a sort of type).
Now, with the Epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians before us, I am of opinion that the wars of Israel have their answer in our wrestling with the powers of darkness; that the gradual acquisition of their land corresponds with our setting our affections on the things above, where Christ sitteth; and that we too have our circumcision, first in Christ, in whom the flesh has met its doom; and secondly, in the practical way of mortifying our members which are upon the earth, etc. To neglect these cross-lights of the Old and New Testaments, is to despise, unwittingly, the means of heavenly wisdom.
6_07_19 p. 286.
Isaiah 18:7. Vol. III. 246. — The three first Queries might have been united, and must receive the same answer. Israel is (1) the people scattered and peeled, (2) terrible from their beginning hitherto, (3) meted out and trodden under foot, whose land the rivers have spoiled. Comp. ver. 2. It is the Jewish nation, specially owned of God, actually the object of divine judgment as well as of Gentile oppression, but eventually to be delivered, after human efforts to effect the blessing have come to nought. The English version is, I think, sufficiently accurate.
6_07_19 p. 289.
Acts 17:30. — Vol. III. 214, 241.
It is evident that the point of which St. Paul avails himself in order to reach the conscience of the Athenians is their own confessed ignorance of God (verse 23). "The times of this ignorance God winked at." But now St. Paul was declaring to them the God whom they knew not. The true God shines out in the death and resurrection of Christ. Not to receive what is proclaimed therein is to reject the counsel of God against oneself. Heathenism was essentially wrong; at the best it represented God as an hard master, as one (if one) who needed all that man could muster, instead of allowing Him the blessed place of the Giver, which even creation and providence proved Him to be, and much more redemption. Accordingly as the full light of God is shining the world over like the sun, and the sound of the Gospel is published to all the earth (in principle I mean), man is without excuse. For his case is not merely, like Israel's, failure under legal requirement, but the despisal of the full and free grace of God, who is now commanding all men everywhere to repent, to turn from their idols and their self-righteousness, from themselves in short, to Him and what He has demonstrated Himself to be in Christ towards the worst of sinners. To refuse is not merely to lose His everlasting mercy, it is also to brave His righteous judgment of this habitable world, for Christ is by Him ordained to judge it, (and not only the dead raised before the great white throne,) of which His resurrection is the proof. The world slew Him and God raised Him up, the sure proof that it is morally judged already, as it actually will be when Christ comes in the clouds of heaven. Up to Christ's first advent, and especially His resurrection, the Gentiles lay hid as it were as to public relations with God. Salvation was of the Jews. Christ's resurrection is a ground-work for faith unto all, Gentile as well as Jew, for death cuts all specialties in the flesh. Hence the special call to repent ever since; always obligatory, repentance is now urgent. So as to the day for judging the habitable world: the preached resurrection of Christ, who is about to judge it, puts men under fresh responsibility.
6_07_19 p. 290.
Galatians 3:16. Vol. III. 201, 225, 255. — In spite of the Rev. D. NIHILL's clear and modest statement of his view of this text, and of the confirmatory words of others who have followed, I must decidedly adhere to the conviction that "Christ" is here to be understood personally, and not mystically. I am aware that the difficulty of catching the point of the Apostle's argument has driven not a few (from Beza down to our friends) into the mystical hypothesis; but, in my judgment, without good reason. For the doctrine of the Church's unity, the head and members being together viewed as constituting one body, naturally accounts for the exceptional use of "Christ" in this way in 1 Cor. 12:12, whereas no such thing applies here. Again, there is the grave objection that, according to the hypothesis itself, Abraham is one of his seed (that is, Christ mystical, the body of true believers), whereas the text itself distinguishes him from his seed. I am satisfied accordingly that there is no reason for taking Christ here mystically, as in 1 Cor. 12 and that it even involves self-contradiction.
What is wanted then is more light, taking the word "Christ" in its usual historical application. The Apostle, I think, alludes to Gen. 12:3, "in thee (Abram) shall all families of the earth be blessed," and to Gen. 22:18, "in thy seed (Isaac) shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." The order of the Greek ought to have been better observed in English: "Now to Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed," would be more exact. He is speaking not of the mere Jewish promises, but of those which insured Gentile blessing. Now these were made to Abram in Gen. 12 and to his seed in Gen. 22 after he had been typically offered up, and received from the dead in a figure. The Jewish blessing, as to the land, power ever enemies, etc. is to in expressly numerous seed, as the stars and the sand; whereas not a word of a multiplied seed appears where all the nations of the earth are to be blessed. On this absence of reference to others than Isaac, the one seed of Abraham and type of the Lord sacrificed and risen, does the Apostle argue here, as in Heb. 7 upon the absence of genealogy or succession in Melchizedek. In other words, the Spirit, in recording the promises of Gentile blessing, carefully restricted them to Abraham and to his seed alone, though as expressly he connected the Jewish blessing with seed as many as the stars and the sand; in the former, his eye was really on Christ, the true and sole seed of promise, save as afterwards by grace associating others, and even Gentiles, with Him.
6_08_02 p. 303.
Deuteronomy 32:8. Vol. III. 181, 205. — Possibly Mr. CAINE and Mr. BUCKTON may not be aware of the way in which Sir L. C. L. Brenton (Septuagint Version in English, margin in loco) accounts for the variation, viz. by supposing the three intermediate letters of lae [ r;ç]yI ] ynEB] to be left out of the LXX; at least, such an oversight seems to me easily made; and, if made, sons of God might not unreasonably be translated αγγελων Θεου, as conversely the angels of God are called µyhOila,“h; ynEB] in Job 1, 2. I cannot, however, agree with my excellent friend in his further remark, that the Greek is more intelligible than the Hebrew, and that the Jews, not the LXX, corrupted the passage. The truth taught is plainly confirmed by the rest of the Old Testament, that Israel is God's earthly centre, around whom the nations are yet to revolve, when the Messiah takes his kingdom here below; for the Jews (not the Church, which has higher hopes) are the objects of God's counsels, as regards the earth and the nations.
6_08_16 p. 317/8.
Isaiah 18:7. Vol. III. 285. — In compliance with the expressed desire of the Editor, I venture to add a little to my brief reply in p. 286.
1. "The land shadowing with wings, which (is) beyond the rivers of Cush," means, I think, a country outside the limits of those nations which up to the prophet's time had menaced Israel; a country beyond Assyria and Babylon, which were contiguous to one of these rivers and beyond Egypt, which lay along the other. For Scripture connects Cush with these two districts, if not with more: an Asiatic as well as an African Ethiopia. The meaning is, then, a land which should essay to protect the long-oppressed Jew, and that land beyond those rivers which characterised the great powers which hitherto were best known to and had most interfered with Israel.
2. It was not only a distant but a maritime power ("sending ambassadors by the sea"). "Vessels of bulrushes" looks more like Egypt than anything else in the chapter, but it cannot outweigh the other evidence. Perhaps others may throw light on the phrase. The burden of Egypt follows, and is expressly named in the succeeding chapter. Here the name is withheld.
3. It is distinguished in the plainest way from the nation in whose behalf it employs its vessels and swift messengers. I cannot therefore but think those commentators far astray who interpret the land in verse 1, and the people to whom the message is sent in verse 2, of Egypt and the Egyptians. Happily here the question depends not on mere verbal criticisms, but on the general bearing of the context, which the English reader is quite capable of judging.
4. There is no doubt on either side that the same people to whom the messengers are sent are described in the latter part of verse 2, as well as in verse 7. The words which characterise them are certainly open, in their force and translation, to a good deal of dispute. Few, however, will be disposed to accept the notion that Ëv;mum] = "harnessed in leather," which has not the least support from elsewhere. It is used in Prov. 13:12, of hope prolonged or deferred. Other forms of the same word occur frequently in the Bible, and mean to draw (literally or figuratively), stretch out, continue. Gesenius gives it here the sense of duraturus, robustus, which seems to me not to harmonise with the conjoined word. The English translators may have given the force of "scattered" from the fact that the kal participle (poel) means "him that soweth" (marg. draweth forth) seed in Amos 9:13. I rather think the term alludes to the long trials and painful suspense of the Jews, and this seems confirmed by fr;wmW , "and peeled" or made bare, rather than "shaven;" for, in such an application, the word is used only of cases where the hair was fallen off (Lev. 13:40-41), or forcibly plucked off (Ezra 9:3; Neh. 13:25; Isaiah 50:6). The sense of "peeling" the shoulder occurs in Ezek. 29:19, which would yield the same figurative sense, the latter being taken from the skin as the former from the hair. "Furbished" or polished is the general sense when spoken of the sword, metals, etc " and Gesenius thence derives the tropical meaning which he assigns to the word here, "populus acer h. e. celer, vehemens;" a highly improbable turn in my opinion. The general bearing of the next clause remains undisturbed. What follows is literally "a nation of a line, a line," which Dathe connected, I presume, with Isaiah 28:10, and our translators with ch. 28:17; 34:11, 17. and Lam. 2:8. Either of these, and the last particularly, I consider preferable to the far-fetched allusion to land-measuring, which, it will be observed, causes Mr. B. to change "nation" into the "country 'meted out;'" which is the more surprising and inconsistent, because in the sentence before he had justly remarked that it was the people, not the country. The same term y/N is used in both cases. I have no doubt whatever that hµ;Wbm]W wq;Awq' describes not their vast strength, trampling down all before it, (as Gesenius will have it,) but rather their obnoxiousness to every form of hostile appropriation and indignity. (Compare Isaiah 22:5; Isaiah 28:4.) This is confirmed and determined by the last words of the verse, whether we adopt the textual rendering or the margin of the English Bible, or even Gesenius's theory of "cleaving," which he finds, though to my mind with slight show of evidence, in the word. Still any of these seem to me incomparably better than Mr. B.'s allusion to "inundation," which has really nothing to favour it, any more than the fancy that the previous words refer to the practice of sending pigs or goats to tread down the seed under their feet. I hope to be pardoned for considering them both an unlawful importation into this text. All these mistakes flow out of the first great error of treating the people under debate as the Egyptians. To this I may add that rb,[eme ("beyond") is made to mean "on this side," quite untenably, though at first sight there might seem more reason for it, especially in the English Bible. However, there is no space here to trace in what circumstances the word is susceptible of that force. I can only say that "beyond," as it is the natural, so here seems to me the true meaning. It is only in very special cases that we can give the other rendering, and the reason must be shown before it can be assumed.
5. As regards the intervening verses, 3-6, all are summoned so see and hear what befalls the people of the Lord, Israel. He, as it were, retires, and watches. Man is active. The Jews, brought back by human intervention, seem to flourish; but suddenly, "afore the harvest," all is arrested, and disappointment comes. The nations turn once more against the Jews. "They shall be left together unto the fowls of the mountains, and to the beasts of the earth." Compare the chapter before, especially verses 9-14.
6. "In that time shall the present be brought unto the Lord of Hosts of a people scattered and peeled, and from a people terrible from their beginning hitherto; a nation meted out and trodden under foot, whose land the rivers have spoiled, to the place of the name of the Lord of hosts, the Mount Zion." — Here, waiving the question of the terms repeated from verse 2, and already discussed, I think the English version is more accurate than most others. For there are in verse 7 not two peoples, but two things taught about Israel; that a present should be made (1) of them, and (2) from them, to Jehovah of Hosts. The Jewish nation should be brought a present, and they should also bring one to the Lord in Mount Zion, after their signal deliverance from the fury of the Gentiles. Guernsey, 26 July, 1856.
6_08_16 p. 325.
Verbal Inspiration Vol. III. 295. — I am of opinion that the Holy Ghost, citing in the New Testament the language of the Old Testament, while always and only communicating perfect truth, is not limited to the mere literal primary sense which the sentence conveyed. He could even make use of an imperfect version like that of the LXX, not, of course, as if he vouched for its representations as a whole, but adopting any particular phrases and thoughts, even where they differed from the original Hebrew, if they expressed additional truth which bore upon the object he had in view.
In the comparison, however, of Psalm 53 and Rom. 3 the querist overlooks perhaps the point of the apostolic reasoning; for the Gentiles had been already, and, alas, most amply and painfully, shown to be utterly depraved (Rom. 1). The only question is, Were the Jews righteous? Their own law, the Psalms, confessed that even among them, the favoured and chosen nation, God's witnesses, "there was none righteous, no, not one." Most legitimately, therefore, does the Apostle infer thence universal and hopeless ruin as far as man was concerned; for, if the Jews were under sin, à fortiori the Gentiles were — all were. There is not a particle of hyperbole; there is, no doubt, figurative language to express, tersely and pictorially as it were, the moral features which God descried in His own earthly people. "Now we know," says he, "that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law." The Jews could not therefore pretend that God had in these strong expressions Gentile iniquity in view; on the contrary, flowing from that acknowledged axiom, it was emphatically Jewish evil. But the Gentiles were already proved to be, if proof were needed to show them, palpably, irretrievably corrupt. Every mouth therefore was stopped, and all the world guilty before God; that part which had the best right and the greatest pretensions being expressly proved to be steeped in sin, and this by their own boasted oracles of God. The reasoning is simple, sound, and conclusive; the truth most certain.
6_08_30 p. 332/3.
Texts Misapplied or Misquoted.
1 Corinthians 9:27. — Often used to show that no believer ought to be or can be sure of ultimate salvation: hence, as is alleged, St. Paul was not. But it is clear that the question here is not of life, righteousness, or salvation, but of services in the Gospel and its rewards. Paul did not make himself servant unto all, under law to the Jew, without law to the Gentile, to save himself, but to save them. It was for the Gospel's sake, not for his own; and to this end serve the figures of a prize and a crown. The word αδοκιμος, here translated "a castaway," and elsewhere "reprobate," "rejected," is I think limited by the subject-matter. A servant might by carelessness lose a reward, who nevertheless as a believer had everlasting life. See 1 Cor. 3:10-15.
1 Cor. 11:28; 2 Cor. 13:5. These texts are sometimes quoted to show that a Christian ought not to be sure, or, as men say, too sure of his acceptance with God. But it is evident that the first was intended to lead the Corinthians to probe their hearts, when disposed to deal lightly with the supper of the Lord. No such thought occurs as an exhortation to doubt God's grace, or their own security thereby. To eat the bread or drink the cup lightly without consideration of what that solemn feast sets forth was to deal unworthily: if one discerned not the body, it was to eat and drink judgment to oneself, as was shown in many cases of judicial sickness and death among them. For if Christians discerned themselves, i.e. the hidden springs of their hearts and ways, they should not be thus judged; yet even where they were, it was the Lord's chastening, that they should not be condemned, with the world. Even where thus negligent and chastened, neither does the Lord confound the Christian, nor ought the Christian to confound himself, with the world. If he does, the true power of self-judgment is gone. Still more explicit is 2 Cor. 13:5, however familiarly used in the school of doubt. For let the context be read, and it will be plain that Paul is proving his apostolate to the Corinthians, who were seeking a proof of Christ speaking in him. Why, says he, examine yourselves: your own selves are the best proof. If you are in the faith, I must be an apostle — at least to you. (Cf. 1 Cor. 9:2-3.) The very last thing which these high-mind questioners meant to do was to distrust their own Christianity. Well but, argues St. Paul, if you want a proof about me, know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? Paul had no wish to prove them reprobates; but his argument leaves them no escape. If they were in the faith, which neither they nor he doubted, they proved his apostleship: if they were not, who were they to examine him? If verse 4 be taken parenthetically, the sense is clearer.
2 Cor. 6:14. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers — often applied to marriage with unbelievers. But this is an error, though it is true that marriage ought to be "only in the Lord," as is exhorted in 1 Cor. 7. The subject is the ministry or service of Christ. In service and worship, fellowship is forbidden with unbelievers, or unfaithful men. If I, a servant of Christ, am among such, I am to come out. What confirms it is — 1st. That a yoke is a Scriptural badge of service, not of marriage. 2nd. That the believing wife is not to be separate from her unbelieving husband (1 Cor. 7:10-16). On the other hand, the true inference from 2 Cor. 6 is that all communion between the Christian and the world, in the service and worship of God, is interdicted in every form and measure.
6_08_30 p. 335.
The little horn of Daniel 7. Vol. III. 160. — I should be sorry to give pain to Mr. MYERS or to Mr. SAVILE, but they will, I trust, bear with the expression of my judgment that some of their statements as to this horn cannot be sustained.
1. Thus Mr. M. says, "Let it be plainly understood that the wilful kings of Dan. 7 and Dan. 8 have a personal reference to some heathen power previously to the first advent of Messiah." Allowing this as to chap. 8 (in an incipient way at least), to what heathen power before Christ had the wilful king of chap. 7 a personal reference? I agree with him that the fourth beast is the Roman empire; but it is untenable to maintain with Calvin that "the little horn" there means the Caesars. For indubitably, when that horn appears and gains power, the Roman empire exists in a state of tenfold division, which was in no sense true at that time. A host of objections will occur to the thoughtful reader of the chapter, but I am content with this decision.
2. Mr. S. considers "the little horn" of chap. 7 as probably "the woman" whom "the Beast," after supporting for a while, destroyed at the end. But it is clear from this chapter itself (verses 11, 21, 22, 25, 26) that the destruction of the little horn is at the close, and that it is because of his great words that the beast is destroyed, not because of some new evil that only comes out after that horn is gone. I admit that there is a distinction between this horn and "the beast," inasmuch as the former is the active executive ruler, the latter is the empire itself; but then it seems to me plain that the Revelation (Rev. 13:5-7, etc.) attributes to the beast what Daniel (chap. 7) applies to the little horn. The reason is obvious; he wields the power of the Roman empire, and is therefore viewed morally as that empire, which is quite in keeping with St. John's manner elsewhere, while the horn is his strict historical description, and therefore most appropriate to Daniel. In a word, then, so far is it from being correct that Scripture has first the little horn and ten kings in the past and present, and then the beast and his ten kings in the future, that Dan. 7 plainly presents the little horn just at the closing scene, bringing swift destruction upon that empire, a beast, of which he is the prominent chief.
It is only in a loose modified sense that Dan. 7 can refer to the papacy. For (1) it is a mistake to suppose with Bp. Newton that the possession of "eyes, like the eyes of a man," denotes episcopal supervision. The lamb has seven eyes, as well as seven horns, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth, (i.e. the perfection of intelligence and power, by the Holy Ghost, with a view to judging and governing the earth). This is in no way as shepherd and bishop of our souls. So here there is marked human intelligence in this horn or king, but the episcopacy of Rome is foreign to the passage. (2) The subduing of three kings seems to me a very different affair from the petty Italian principalities of the Pope. And a great mistake is made by such as assume that this horn remains "little" after the reduction of his three fellows: a mistake gendered by the ordinary papal application of the symbol. (3) "Changing times and laws" was just the sin, or part of the sin, of Jeroboam, who was a king, not a priest; and so it will be with the future "little horn." (3) I believe that Dan. 7:25, means that these "times and laws" (which terms seem to describe the Jewish ritual) shall be given into the hand of the little horn, and this not merely till the beginning but the end of "a time, and times, and dividing of time." It is quite true (see verse 21) that the same horn ravages the saints; but it is nowhere said in Scripture that God gives the saints up to the enemy, as has often been supposed to be here intimated. As to duration, dominion, and blasphemies, there is the strongest resemblance between the little horn of Dan. 7 and the beast of Rev. 13 with the difference already indicated. Babylon, or "the woman," in Rev. 17 is a wholly different evil. Finally, let Mr. S. weigh the Scripture that the little horn prevailed against the saints until the Ancient of Days came and judgment was given to the saints of the most high, — surely this is future, and not past or present; and the denial of the little horn's being the chief of the empire up to its judgment from God falls to the ground.
6_08_30 p. 337.
Matthew 16:28. Vol. III. 294. — I am of opinion that the application of these words to the destruction of Jerusalem is entirely unfounded, and that their true connection is with the scene of the transfiguration. They are consecutive in all three of the first evangelists; and 2 Peter 1 treats that scene, it appears to me, as a manifestation of Christ's power and coming, — a sample of His future glory. James and Peter did taste of death, the one long and the other shortly before Jerusalem was destroyed.
Mr. ALFORD is not correct in making ἡ γενεα αυτη = "this race," because the race of Israel is not to pass away when all these things are fulfilled; but on the contrary Israel is then to reach its full blessing and glory as a people here below. The true force is, "this (Christ-rejecting, unbelieving) generation of Israel," not the mere existing generation, but such as bore the same moral fruits as those who then refused the Messiah. So they have continued, and will till after the last delusions and judgment of Anti-Christ, when "there shall come out of Sion the deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob." "So all Israel shall be saved," when every threat of God has been accomplished, and grace has converted a new generation — "the generation to come." The moral bearing of the phrase, permit me to add, simply and satisfactorily accounts for God's righteous judgment, in consequence of the blood shed from Abel downwards. Mr. A.'s remark is sound against the application of it to the mere existing generation; but it almost equally disproves his own sense. Those who stood in the place of witness for God, as did Israel, not only suffered the consequences of despising His last testimony to them in Christ, but had required of them all the righteous blood shed from the beginning downwards. The same principle applies to Babylon in the Revelation: "In her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." In consequence of the position assumed, God will hold her responsible even for evil done before her existence. It is the principle of God's corporate judgments: individually, each bears his own judgment.
6_08_30 p. 342/3.
1 John 2:29; 1 John 3:9; 1 John 5:1, 4, 18. Begotten and Born. III. 294. — It is the same word γεγεννημενος which is indifferently translated "born," and in ver. 1 "begotten," save in ver. 18, where γεννηθεις occurs. The old lexicographers think that the only difference is that the perfect is μεγα, the aorist μικρον, and strange to say Bengel attaches some importance to this small remark, "Praeteritum grandius quiddam sonat, quam aoristus." The true distinction, I apprehend, is that the aorist is purely the historical fact, the perfect adds the idea of a certain condition or state resulting from that fact. In this instance, it seems to me, that both could be and are said of the same persons.
6_09_13 p. 349/50.
Daniel 2:44. Vol. III. 133, 159, 206. — As the editor deprecates the discussion of a point whereon almost every other Correspondent to THE CHRISTIAN ANNOTATOR differs decidedly from Mr. HOOPER, I would only refer him to a work issued by his publisher (Groombridge), and entitled "The Irrationalism of Infidelity," which, among other interesting and important topics, briefly and summarily despatches the prophetic scheme that denies the usually received order of "the times of the Gentiles." I may be allowed to add, that he has singularly misapprehended my note on this text; for I differ from Mr. MYERS in referring "these kings" (not to the four kingdoms, but) to the toes of the great image, i.e. to the ten contemporaneous rulers of the revived Roman empire in the latter day, whose judgment makes way for the universal prevalence of God's kingdom, which Christ in person shall administer.
6_09_13 p. 350.
Daniel 8:22-23. Vol. III. 309, — The application to Mahomet or his system is untenable. I do not doubt that Antiochus Epiphanes was primarily, or historically, the king here described; but, in view of the last holder of the power when the end of the indignation (i.e. God's indignation against Israel) arrives in the latter day, it would appear that, as the last holder of the Roman empire (the little horn of Dan. 7) is to be a personage of surprising influence and audacity, so too the representative of the Syrian kingdom (the king of the North) at the close is to possess extraordinary power, mainly through foreign support, and a craft that will deceive and destroy the Jews in days yet future.
6_09_13 p. 351.
John 21:15-17. Vol. III. 101, 268. — I do not think that the student will get much satisfaction by reading the remarks of the Rev. H. Alford on this affecting scene. There is more perhaps in what the Rev. R. C. Trench has observed in his New Testament Synonyms. But the true difference seems to me much more simple than either of these gentlemen apprehend. Αγαπαω is the broad, generic term for loving. It is susceptible of all applications, of superiors, inferiors, and equals. It is predicated of God towards man, and of man towards God. It describes God's feeling towards the world in giving His only begotten Son: it describes Christ's tender and full affection towards the Church. On the other hand, φιλεω is a narrower word: it is distinctively the love of feeling, of endearment; and hence frequently it is used of the outward sign of fondness, and also in a vague way of that fondness which produces the habit of this or that action, though this is true of αγαπαω too. Both are said of God's love to His Son. Mr. A., if I remember rightly, considers that the Lord drops the word of reverential love (αγαπαω) which He had twice used, comes down to the word of human affection, Peter's own word (φιλεω), and this third time questions, not merely his loyal love for his Master, but the very human regard of his heart. On the contrary, it appears to me, that while the Lord thoroughly judges Peter's confidence in his own love to Him, in its so exceeding that of others, that He could stand where they fled, He not only hears Peter's repeated declaration of his true and near affection for Him, but Himself takes it up the third time, and that this, flashing on Peter's three-fold denial, went to his inmost heart. The Greek concordance utterly dissolves the idea that reverential love is the dominant thought in αγαπαω. We are not called so to love our enemies, nor even our neighbours (Matt. 5:43-44; Matt. 6:24). Nor was it so that Christ loved the rich young man; and certainly none can pretend that God reverentially loved the world (John 3:16), and this is not a tithe, perhaps, of the absurdity that follows Mr. A.'s distinction, if I understand him. As little can φιλεω be reduced to the mere human regard of the heart. It is not thus that the Father loves the Son (John 5:20), or even us (John 16:27); nor can anything be more opposed, as it appears to me, to the true scope of 1 Cor. 16:22; Titus 3:15; Rev. 3:19, where φιλεω occurs. Let the reader judge.
6_09_13 p. 354/5.
1 Timothy 1:19-20. III. 294. — There does not appear to be any real difficulty in understanding how a believer might concerning faith make shipwreck, more than in practical holiness. Surely this was exactly what befell the late Mr. Irving, not to speak of Tractarian or Popish perverts. There is no doubt but that godly discipline may take its course, even to the extreme act of putting away, in the case of real Christians if they have got under the enemy's power in conduct or doctrine. The proper sphere of discipline is within (i.e. in the circle of those who bear Christ's name.) Them that are without God judgeth.
6_09_13 p. 356.
Revelation 14:13. Vol. III. 306. — Mr. DELL appears to me to overlook the important instruction in Rev. 20:4-5, viz., that those saints, who are converted and suffer unto death in the interval of the beast's reign (after the Church's rapture, and before Christ and the Church come out of heaven to reign), are nevertheless to be raised and to reign during the thousand years, no less than the previously-raised saints. All these holy sufferers form part of the first resurrection, as well as "the spirits of just men made perfect" and "the Church of the first-born ones." There is no intimation that they have to wait for the judgment at the end of the kingdom, which judgment, I am persuaded, concerns the wicked only, as far as Rev. 20:12, et seq. speaks.
6_09_13 p. 358/9.
The Judicial acquittal of the Righteous. Vol. III. 297. — There would be no point gained in supposing a universal judgment of all at the close, but, on the contrary, great loss in force of truth. In fact, the idea and expression, "general resurrection," is itself fallacious: for resurrection is of all things the most separative. Even John 5 makes out two resurrections, irreconcilably differing in character and issues, as Rev. 20 shows them to be in time. The resurrection of life is in contrast with the resurrection of judgment (κρισεως),and evidently, if involved in a common judgment, there would be no room for such a contrast. Matt. 25:34, etc. is essentially a millennial scene, not before nor after that epoch. Nor does it appear that any righteous die during the millennium, Isa. 65 speaking only of those judicially accursed. The Son of Man's coming as a thief is nowhere connected with the rapture of the Church; but I say no more now, as this latter would involve discussion.
6_09_20 p. 362/3.
MR. MYERS will excuse me if I remind him that the greatest difficulty among commentators, as among all other men, is to hold the mind in subjection to God's word. Thus I am of opinion that there is no substantial ground for doubting "quails" to be meant here, as in Ex. 16. "Feathered fowls," or "fowl of wing" (Ps. 78), is equally true of smaller as of larger birds, and thoroughly puts to the rout Ludolfs notion about "locusts," and Rudbeck's about flying-fish. It seems to me of small consequence whether, with Colonel Sykes, we consider it to have been the common quail, or, with Hasselquist, the Tetrao Israelitarum. According to Bochart, the Arabs have a kindred word for quail, and the Vulgate, with Josephus, if not the LXX, so understood here, not to speak of Luther, De Wette, the Dutch, Diodati, Martin, Ostervald, Tremellius and Junius, and the modern Jewish version of Dr. Benisch, who exclude the idea of the "two cubits" describing the height of each bird, and apply it to that of the congregated mass. What may be true is, that God made use of a swarm in migration; but this, if the fact, would be to me too trivial a circumstance to dignify with the title of "elucidating Scripture." For Messrs. Stanley and Forster's "red geese" there seems to be absolutely no scriptural proof, or even probability.
6_09_20 p. 367.
Matthew 10:23. — It is plain that the Lord, in this chapter, sends the twelve upon a mission specifically Jewish. "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." Afterwards, in apprising them of the persecutions and treachery they were to expect, be bids them flee from one city to another: "For verily I say unto you, ye shall not have gone over (or finished) the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come." That is, their mission should be broken off, before it was complete, by the coming of their Master. Doubtless, another commission, expressly to the Gentiles, appears at the close of this Gospel, and the development of God's counsels, the mystery of Christ and the Church, came out still later, chiefly through the ministry and writings of the Apostle Paul. Thus the original Jewish mission was interrupted, and what has been aptly styled "the Gentile parenthesis" came in: that over, the Lord will, I doubt not, raise up, at a yet future day, servants destined to take up the word and work now left in abeyance, and, ere they will have finished their proclamation of the approaching kingdom throughout all the cities of Israel, the Son of Man will come. That work (wherever else the Gospel has been carried) was not finished in the Apostolic era, nor will it be, when once more resumed in the latter day, before the Lord's return to establish the kingdom over the earth in power and glory.
6_09_20 p. 376.
"Horn" and "King." Vol. I. 67. — If persons are allowed to alter the plain meaning, and even the translation, of an adverse text, there is no truth which might not be gainsayed. Thus F. H. feels that Dan. 8:22, taken as it stands in every good version known to me, refutes the notion that a horn is invariably personal, and shows that it may sometimes have an official application, so as to take in the idea of "a kingdom." Therefore a new turn must be thought of; and he proposes, "in consequence of four kings standing up, four kingdoms shall arise:" but not the slightest proof or reason is advanced. Now I do not hesitate to say that the English Bible gives the clear and certain sense of the Hebrew, which is confirmed by a comparison with verses 8 and 9. It is the great horn which is said to be broken, and in its stead arose four (horns): this is explained to mean four kingdoms which shall be raised, or stand up, out of the nation. So, again, as to "king," Dan. 7:17, and Dan. 8:20, are explicit in contradicting the mere limited force which F. H. would give it, though I allow that Protestants have often systematised to an excess which might well provoke reaction. The truth is larger than either Praeterists or Historicalists are wont to admit. There has been a past application, which is but the earnest of the grand and future fulfilment.
6_09_27 p. 380.
Isaiah 2:22. Vol. III. 309.
The sense seems to me simple, though overlooked by most of the translators and commentators referred to by Mr. CAINE. Not Christ, nor man in Christ, is meant, but man in nature, man self-exalting and yet idol-loving. "Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils (easily extinguished therefore, as far life here is concerned): for wherein is he to be accounted of?" He whose pride and idolatry are to meet so striking a doom in the day of the Lord, can never be a stay to rest on. On the other hand, the difference of the subject in 2 Chron. 35:21, not only justifies our translators in making a corresponding change in the rendering, but, as I judge, requires it; for the sense there, is not at all, "cease from leaning on God," but, as our English rightly has it, "forbear thee from [meddling with] God." It is a question of context rather than of Hebrew. The inconsistency is but apparent there, whereas Jerome's notion is scarcely sense.
6_09_27 p. 383.
Luke 7:28. Vol. III. 327.
I do not think Luke 16:16 and Mark 1:1-4, intimate that John Baptist was "under the Gospel dispensation." The kingdom of God might be said to be present in the person and power of Christ (compare Matt. 12:28 and Luke 17:21); but, as far as others were concerned, all that the Lord says on this head, and after John was put in prison, is, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand." It was not come for others to enter in till the work of redemption was accomplished, and then it was opened both to Jew and Gentile that believed. "Every man presseth into it," does not imply that any were yet within. It was being preached as nigh both by John and afterwards by the disciples; but, whatever the saving mercy of God might have been in past times, and of course then also, it was still an object of search and desire till the cross and resurrection of the Lord. Then it was come, and every believer entered, and the accession of spiritual blessing and privilege was such, that the least in the kingdom was greater than the greatest before, even than John himself, near as he was to it as just at hand. We must bear in mind that as to John's testimony in John 1:29-34; John 3:29, et seq., it may have exceeded more or less his own intelligence, as was often the case in the utterances of the Old Testament prophets. John Baptist did not know more than they, what it is to be purged worshippers having no more conscience of sins. But this is only one of the many blessings that attach to all within the kingdom now. I am aware that some, shrinking from the simple meaning because it traverses their preconceived thoughts, have sought to make ὁ μικροτερος the least prophet, others (proh pudor!) Christ himself; but such notions are unwarranted and untenable.
6_09_27 p. 384.
Romans 1:4. Vol. III. 331. — The exact phrase in question occurs not eleven times, but twice, in the New Testament. In my opinion our translators have rendered it as well perhaps as the language admits. Acts 26:23, is somewhat free owing to the form of the sentence ει πρωτος εξ αναστασεως νεκρων, "that he should be the first that should rise from the dead." The exact meaning is, that Christ was to be the first strictly and properly risen from the dead, νεκρων simply qualifying εξ αν., and declaring it to be resurrection in the, fullest sense. It is a characteristic description, and therefore without the article. The same remark applies to Rom. 1:4. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the singular is meant either there or in Acts 17:32. If a definite class were intended, the article would be necessary; where the character of the thing is in question it is excluded, whether or not a preposition is employed. If the English idiom admitted of the phrase "by dead resurrection," as the German "durch Todten-auferstehung," it would convey the sense of the Greek; but this would be to revolutionise the language, and to Hellenise, not to translate.
Further Χ. Σ. will allow me to observe that Acts 13:33, does not refer to Christ's resurrection from the dead, but to God's raising him up as Messiah in the flesh. See a similar statement in Acts 3:22, 26, neither of which verses, where the same word occurs, refers to resurrection, whereas in Acts 13:34, where the resurrection is meant, the Apostle adds εκ νεκρων.
I have no doubt accordingly that your Correspondent has overlooked the peculiarity of the phrase εξ αν. ν., and the impossibility of rendering it literally into English; that he has confounded it with the different phrases where there is no preposition εξ before αν. ν.; and that, in the two places where it really occurs, Christ's own resurrection from the dead is intended, not the resurrection of many saints as in Matt. 27:52, nor our being raised up with him, as in Eph. 2. Clifton.
6_09_27 p. 387.
1 Peter 4:11. — If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God. Vol. III. 343.
ENS is quite right in thinking that the Apostle's word goes far beyond speaking according to the Scriptures; for a man might say nothing but what was scriptural, and not speak ὡς λογια Θεου. The passage implies that, one should only speak when one has the certainty of uttering what we believe to be the mind of God. If there is not this confidence, one ought to be silent. It may be an artless message, possibly like that of Peter and John, displaying the speaker to be humanly ignorant and unlearned, and yet just the mind of God, suitable to the present need. This is to speak as oracles of God. Another might speak a word true in itself but applicable to wholly different circumstances, warning where comfort was needed, instruction where the Spirit was rather calling out communion, or vice versa. To speak thus is not to speak as oracles of God. Of course, there is the other and equally imperative obligation, on the part of those who hear, of examining all by the Word of God. Clifton.
6_10_11 p. 401.
Romans 7:4. Vol. III. 327, 367, 384. — It may be allowed to the Editor that, in the previous verses which speak of the matrimonial obligation, ceremonial and social laws are alluded to; but in illustration of what? Clearly the Christian's relation to the law as a whole. Death severs the marriage tie: after that, there is liberty to belong to another. Just so, Christians are dead to the law by the body of Christ, who has in life accomplished it, and in death silenced all its claims for such as had failed under it. Our position now is, that we belong to another, even to Christ risen from the dead. The fifth verse is clear and positive that the moral law is meant, for it was that especially which provoked the passions or motions of sins in our natural state. "But now we are delivered from the law, being dead to that wherein we were held," etc.
I do not deny that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in the Christian, that he walks in the love of God and of his neighbour, which is the fulfilling of the law; but then it is because he is under grace, and not under law. He is not as a servant under this and that stipulation for so much wages; he is set free in Christ's death and lives in Christ's life as risen from the dead — a condition of life which the law cannot touch, however it may fulfil the righteousness of the law, and far more: for we are called to be followers of God in a way which the law never demanded. The Lord grant all his own to understand better their own blessings in His grace, that so their communion may be deeper and more heavenly, and their walk in the same proportion.
6_10_11 p. 401/2.
2 Corinthians 5:21. — The relation of Christ to saved sinners. Vol. III. 368.
Thoroughly acquiescing in the necessity for the editorial note at p. 306, I am of opinion that the sentiments of CENTURION (in No. 82) involve the gravest possible offence against sound doctrine, and that in reference to the foundation truth of Christ's person.
Some perhaps who are little used to the sleights of controversy, might be thrown off their guard by the writer's prefatory words, in which he describes himself as "stedfastly holding the most precious and most indispensable truth of the speckless purity of the Redeemer in his own essential person." But this is no more than the late Mr. Irving was in the habit of doing, when he gave utterance to his revolting blasphemy against our Lord. The same misuse of the Psalms appears in this article as Newman Street was, and I presume is, wont to hear. All hold that Christ became identified with the iniquities of his people, that He was made sin for us. The question is, in what way? Was it a common fallen nature, or a common relation of distance from God that He had with them by birth? Or was it that He the Holy One was not only without sins but without sin, and had all charged on Him on the cross? CENTURION speaks of such perversions as "a sober starting-point for a higher flight on 'wings as eagles;'" whereas, to my soul, they reduce the incarnate Word to a carcase whither these birds of prey gather together. There may be the shadow and semblance of higher truth; but, far from being the light of the sanctuary, it is rather the phosphorescence that plays around a corpse. Thus in his statement, as also in Irvingism, the atonement is openly, flagrantly denied. "Strictly speaking," says CENTURION, "it is not possible that there should be such a thing as vicarious atonement." Thus, "Christ suffered for sins," the just for the unjust "was delivered for our offences," etc. and all the ways in which God sets forth the substitution of Christ, go for nothing. "No being whatever, divine or human, can be the vicar to cancel by suffering the guilt of another being distinct from himself." Bold contradiction of the essence and substance of the cross! cloaked under the sophism of oneness. On what pretence of Scripture? "The soul that sinneth, 'it and no other must die.'" The very citation of such a text, with such an aim, is as bad a misapplication as can be; for this is a true principle of the law, and the real question is about the gospel. The death of the God-man for lost men was infinitely above the claims and direction of the law. It was the grace of God that bringeth salvation. Then follows the poor and untruthful pun of atonement — at-one-ment — which shows how far these views lead from God to the utter dishonour of the Son, not to speak of the darkness visible about the operations of the Spirit. For the writer speaks of the saints who lived before redemption as "retrospectively baptized!" i.e. by the Spirit. It is evident that the teaching of Scripture is not known. The disciples were quickened of the Spirit before Christ's ascension, and this is all that could be said of any previous Old Testament saints; some might be inspired by Him; none were baptized by Him. They were forgiven before God, no doubt, in virtue of a redemption which had to be accomplished; they had divine life by the effectual operation of the Holy Ghost. But no saints were or could be baptized of the Holy Ghost till He came down in virtue of the glorification of Jesus. It was an actual thing, when the Jewish distinctions were broken down, and could not be, in any sense, till the Cross.
Nor can there be more painful confusion than the latter part contains, as to the nature of union with Christ. Undoubtedly, the incarnation of Christ was absolutely needed in order to the full glorifying of God in His life and death. But oneness with Christ, or membership of His body, does not mean His taking our nature (though that is most true), but rather our being made one with Him as risen from the dead and glorified above. It is granted that Scripture treats our bodies as members of Christ; but how? Not that they are "one flesh" with Him in Heaven, — nay, in contrast with such carnal union, "he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit." Thus, Ephesians 5:30, is utterly misunderstood, even if the last clause were certain. Next, John 17 is turned to an equally sad account. If Christ is lowered, we are exalted to God. This is from making "one in us" equivalent to one with us or, as CENTURION says, "with triune Deity." Hence the blessed and holy mystery of Christ and the Church, the head and the body, is made an engine for depreciating the Son to the level of sinners, for elevating the creature to the throne of the creator. "The throne of God, and nothing short of the throne of God, is the hope of his calling." The very reverse of this is taught in Scripture, the thrones being carefully distinguished. (See Rev. 3:21)
6_10_11 p. 402.
2 Thessalonians, 2:2. Vol. III. 360. — ΕΤΑ is quite right in distinguishing between the coming and the day of the Lord. They are not the same thing, though of course closely connected. Again, it is certain that ἐνεστηκεν means "is actually come," or "is present," and not "is at hand." But it is a mistake to assume that the Thessalonian saints then knew the relative order of these two things; and this ignorance on all sides gave occasion for the false teachers to trouble them with the cry that, "the day of the Lord was there," which would have been trying enough, even with the thought of being caught up during or after it. This the Spirit meets by intimating that the coming precedes the day, which besides awaits a fuller development of evil.
6_10_11 p. 404.
Hebrews 6:1-2. Vol. III. 360. — The margin, I apprehend, gives the true as well as literal force, for first principles are of the highest value, and never to be abandoned. By "the word of the beginning of Christ" is meant such things as were known to the disciples during our Lord's earthly ministry, previous to the accomplishment of redemption, and the Lord's entrance on His heavenly priesthood; the doctrine of which last seems to be what is here designated "perfection."
6_10_25 p. 416.
There can be no legitimate doubt, I think, that την διασποραν των Ἑλληνων means (abstract for concrete) the Jews dispersed among the Gentiles (lit. Greeks, as their most striking representative). The Greek genitive is capable of expressing many relations besides that of possession. Compare μετοικεσια βαβυλωνος (Matt. 1), etc. James 1:1. means the twelve tribes scattered abroad, i.e. living in that condition. 1 Peter 1:1, characterises the believing Jews in a similar way, and furnishes further example of the comprehensiveness of the genitive in Greek. The teaching of the Greeks, or Gentiles, is another step in John 7:35.
6_10_25 p. 419.
Hebrews 4:12. Vol. III. 310. — I think that, where distinguished as here, "soul" and" spirit" refer respectively to the seat or source of the feelings, and of the intelligence. Every man has both soul and spirit, and they are so linked and close that the Word of God alone can rightly divide between their sometimes conflicting emotions and judgments. It judges all, searches into the thoughts and intents of the heart." But then we have Christ as our high priest interceding for us, and maintaining us in spite of the sifting process, according to the value of His work.
6_11_08 p. 432.
Luke 22:44. Vol. III. 309, 399. — I agree with Mr. STUART that ὡσει does not mean a mere appearance without reality. Perhaps F. L. W. will be convinced of this if he weigh ὡσει λεπιδες in St. Luke's account of Saul's conversion and baptism (Acts 9) He means that something of the appearance of scales fell from Saul's eyes, without raising a question of their reality, for indeed they were really there. So here. Further, as Bengel remarked, the force of the particle ὡσει falls upon the θρομβοι (clots) rather than on αἱματος, so that there is the less reason for disturbing the common belief.
6_11_22 p. 443.
Jeremiah 49:39. Vol. III. 421. — I believe that the judgment of Elam, as of the other nations spoken of in this context, took place when Nebuchadnezzar succeeded, in the sovereignty of God, to the grant of universal empire. The return of her captivity, as of the others (save those formally and for special reasons excepted), will take place when the imperial system (symbolised by the image of Dan. 2) comes to a close under God's judgment. The fall of the last beast whom the Son of Man, coming in His everlasting kingdom, will publicly set aside, makes way for the re-appearance of the ten tribes of Israel as well as of most of those nations who anciently had to do with Israel.
6_11_22 p. 443.
Daniel 2:35. Vol. III. 421. — I entirely agree with Mr.GIRDLESTONE that the ordinary way of accounting for the prophetic delineation in this verse is an evasion rather than an explanation. "The reason," says Dr. Fairbairn, in his recent volume on Prophecy, p. 300, "of admitting such an anomaly, and of conceiving of the other powers as still existing, was merely to bring out more distinctly the moral truth involved in this part of the delineation … It is throughout an ideal representation, formed so as to exhibit, in the most effective manner, the real tendencies and final issues of things; and, as a natural consequence, matters are compressed into a single act, which might be the product of ages, and events appear in close juxtaposition, which, in actual history, might stand ever so far apart." Now (1), while I admit this principle as applied to the figurative strains of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other prophets, it has as yet to be shown that it is ever true in the case of symbolical visions, such as those of Daniel and the Apocalypse. (2). The explanation, in verse 45, states in substance the same thing as the dream. (3). Something equivalent appears in a totally distinct but analogous vision (Daniel 7:12). I have no doubt, therefore, that Sir I. Newton's thought is the more correct of the two, and that the various peoples or countries which enjoyed the imperial power, before the fourth or Roman beast, will have their representatives when the final vengeance falls in its most aggravated form upon the closing apostacy of the Roman empire revived, but Antichristian. There is no need, however, that I see, for supposing that the remains which represent Babylon, Persia, and Greece in that day, will form one body corporate or empire. The statue does not prove that for the end, any more than for the beginning, in the days of Nebuchadnezzar; and the vision of the four separate beasts disproves it, as I think.
6_11_22 p. 445.
Matthew 27:16-17. Vol. III. 422.
Olshausen's statement, as quoted by J. H., is seriously incorrect; for, though it be true that not three only but five cursive manuscripts add the name of Ιησους to that of Barabbas, it is not the fact that Origen endorses this blunder, much less does he intimate that the greater number of MSS. had it. The ordinary text rests on the fullest and most satisfactory authority (A B D E F G H K L M S U Υ Δ, and the great mass of cursives, the Itala, Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, the Syriac, save that of Jerusalem, and in fact all other ancient versions except the Armenian). In the face of all this, Tischendorf in 1849 was hardy enough to follow the reading mentioned, not by Origen, but by his Latin interpreter in the words of Pilate, whereas Origen himself quotes the words, omitting the addition. It is well to say that Tischendorf no longer justifies, but excludes it from his new (7th) edition, and endeavours to account for its importation through a work of Jerome. It is possible that Olshausen may have confounded with Origen a scholium generally attributed to Anastasius, Bishop of Antioch, to the following effect: Παλαιοις πανυ αντιγραφοις εντυχων εὑρον και αυτον τον βαραββαν ιησουν λεγομενον. The addition is discarded as spurious by the editors in general, including Lachmann, who refers to some of his German friends, and affirms of this very statement, "Origenem agnoscere, mendacium est." Your Correspondent therefore may be assured that he has now before him almost all the evidence which is extant, and that the opinion in question has no solid grounds. Guernsey
6_11_22 p. 453.
The Weeping Willow. Vol. III. 407.
There is no doubt that this species of willow derives its technical name from the Babylon of the Euphrates, its native seat. It is common not there only but over a large part of China and northern Africa, besides Europe. Various stories are current as to its first introduction into England. Thus, it is said that Alexander Pope took a green with, which came round a parcel received from Spain by one of his friends, and that this grew into his far-famed willow at Twickenham. The "English Cyclopaedia" (Nat. Hist. vol. iv. 1856), treats it as probable that the botanist Tournefort introduced it into Europe.
6_12_06 p. 459.
1 Samuel 17:55. Vol. III. 393, 429. — Leaving to others the task of refuting Dr. Kennicott's fallacious reasoning on this passage, which in my opinion has no solid basis whatever, I may be allowed to point out the positive spiritual value of that which he sought to get rid of. David, we are told, stood before Saul, and he (Saul) loved him greatly. (1 Sam. 16) And no wonder; for David's playing on the harp soothed the king when troubled by the spirit which God sent on him judicially. He loved him for the good and refreshment he received. This seems to have been of short duration; for in the next chapter (1 Sam. 17:15) David is returned from Saul to feed his father's sheep at Bethlehem; and "out of sight out of mind," had to be proved as true in David's case as in many another who has stood in the court of a king, especially of one so disordered in mind and heart as King Saul. But this is not all. David now appears the forlorn hope of Israel in the immediate and public service of the Lord, not of the king; and that makes a man a stranger even to his brethren, and an alien to his mother's house, as the Lord knew pre-eminently. Such certainly David was to Saul and his courtiers. "Abner," says he, "whose son is this youth?" And Abner said, "As thy soul liveth, O King, I cannot tell." The chosen of God may have extorted the world's esteem, nay love, for what it cannot but admire and feel the need of; but they are soon forgotten, and their reappearance in the work of the Lord becomes the occasion of showing how little they were ever known. "Therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not."
6_12_06 p. 467.
Greek Testaments. Vol. III 439. — In reply to Mr. COOMBE's inquiries I may be allowed to say that, in my opinion, the new (7th) edition of Tischendorfs "Novum Testamentum Graece" is, as a critical performance, decidedly preferable to any of its predecessors. I have not yet received more than the two first parts, which do not extend beyond the beginning of Mark 10:21; but thus far the information is concisely, clearly, and withal fully given. The paper and typography are unexceptionable. One singular erratum I have noticed in Matt. 23:39, where the text runs Εὐλογημένος ἐν ονόματι κυρίου. Of course the learned editor could not have intended to leave out the words ὁ ἐρχόμενος, as to which there is not the least doubt or discrepancy in the authorities; so that the omission can only be the slip of the author, or, more probable, the printer. The footnotes are drawn up with greater perspicuity and exactness. It is hard to see how they could be improved in either respect without swelling the book needlessly, which when complete will not cost a pound. Those who are best acquainted with the editions of Mill, Griesbach, Scholz, and Lachmann (not to speak of the Textus Rec., Knapp, Tittmann, Hahn, or the mere text-books of Oxford and Cambridge), will most appreciate the work now proceeding under the careful and experienced eye of the Leipsic Professor. I do not mean that people should commit themselves to this edition without using discrimination; for unhappily Dr. Tischendorf has suffered from the laxity as to inspiration which pervades almost all Lutheran divines. I do trust that he may be led to reconsider his previous judgment as to the end of Mark 16 and the beginning of John 8; for I have been struck with the fact, as far as I have observed, that he is becoming more cautious, and that the last edition recurs often to the common readings, which he had too rashly abandoned in his former issues.
I do not speak of editions of the Greek Testament which aim at exposition, such as Dr. Bloomfield's, Mr. Alford's, or the yet later work of Webster and Wilkinson. As to a just settlement of the text (which is the main object of a critical edition) I should be disposed to think their claims extremely small: as to soundness of comment, I should suppose that Mr. Alford's was the most suspicious, Messrs. Webster's and Wilkinson's the most trustworthy of the three works; although Dr. Bloomfield's book is conscientious. Guernsey, 1856.
6_12_06 p. 467/8.
Addresses In the Epistles. Vol. III. 391. — The reason for the introduction of "mercy" to Timothy and Titus, while St. Paul simply wishes grace and peace, in addressing Churches (Philemon, because of the Church in his house, coming under the last head), is plain. The Church, or corporate thing, is viewed in its full privileges; the individual, however favoured recalls the thought of need day by day: "mercy" therefore is appropriate in the latter case rather than in the former.
6_12_20 p. 485.
Colossians 1:18. Vol. III. 310, 372. — I am persuaded that the more deeply Scripture is studied, the more important will be found to be the truth to which ΔΔΔ alludes; viz. that Christ only took the place of head of the Church, after redemption was effected, and in heavenly glory as its result, and that the formation of what the Bible calls His body demanded this as a basis, and the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven as the power of its unity. It must be borne in mind that, when Scripture speaks of the "one body," it is in reference to the earth. It is now, and on earth, that the saints are baptised by the Holy Ghost into one body, though I am far from believing that such a relationship will cease by and by in heaven. It is as first-born from the dead that Christ is the beginning, even though He was from everlasting the only-begotten Son, and the Eternal Life with the Father. Hence said He to Peter who had confessed Him to be the Son of the living God, "upon this rock I will build my Church." It had not yet been built, nor begun to be built. The foundation was not laid afterwards: it was laid in His death and resurrection. Then ascending to heaven, He became the head, and the Holy Ghost came down in person to gather into union with Him as so risen and ascended. This and this only is what the New Testament designates His body; for, according to the figure, there could not be a body without and before the head. The exceedingly precious mercies of God to all saints are unquestionable; and to some it may seem presumptuous to predicate peculiar privileges of those called since Pentecost. But, evidently, the question is one not of man's reasoning, nor of preconceived notions, but of God's Word and will. And it is plain that Ephesians and Colossians, not to speak of other Epistles, dwell much on certain blessings now conferred on the saints which never were enjoyed by nor promised to the Old Testament saints. They are the Church's blessings, brought out of God's treasury in this present dispensation, for the glory of Christ, and to show the riches of His own grace. The arguments of those who have assailed the point do not even touch the question, which they do not seem even to understand.
6_12_20 p. 485.
2 Timothy 1:6. Vol. III. 423. — I apprehend that the common division of "gifts" (χαρισματα) into ordinary and extraordinary is unscriptural, and calculated to mislead; for in one sense, and that a very real one, all the gifts are the effects of χαρις, "freely given of God," and not attained by man's labour. Scripture recognises these things as quite distinct: first, the natural ability, with its providential training, as the vessel; secondly, the gift of grace, which is received in due time by the chosen vessel; and thirdly, the use of means (as prayer, the Word, meditation, hearing, etc.), that the gift be stirred up, and profiting appear. No doubt, the gifts which were signs have disappeared; but all needed for perpetuating, nourishing, and ruling the Church abide "till we all come," etc.
I do not think that there is any difficulty in the apostolic communication of a χαρισμα, when the Lord was so pleased. There was an express prophecy so directing it in Timothy's case. In general the New Testament shows that such a channel was not necessary, nor often employed, though it was sometimes, in the wisdom of God. The same remark applies not merely to the χαρισματα, but to the δωρεα of the Holy Ghost (i.e. the Holy Ghost himself given to believers in general). Occasionally this was associated with the imposition of apostolic hands, as in the case of Peter and John (Acts 8), and in Paul's case (Acts 19) But Acts 2, 10, etc. are decisive that it would be all error to suppose anything of the sort to be the invariable rule. Hence, while God by times attached either the one or the other to the apostles, He maintained His own sovereignty all the while; and certainly He has not failed either in giving the Holy Ghost, or in distributing such gifts as He sees fit to continue, and this directly, now that apostles are no longer found on earth. Rom. 1:11, does not necessarily mean a ministerial gift. Guernsey.
6_12_31 p. 489.
Genesis. — This first book of the Bible is the remarkable preface, as the Apocalypse is the equally striking conclusion, of the revelations of God. It presents the germ, in one form or another, of nearly all the ways of God and man, which we find separately developed in the succeeding books of Scripture, just as the Apocalypse is the natural close, presenting the ripened fruits even for eternity of all that had been sown from the first, the ultimate results of every intervening interference of God and of His enemy. Thus, we have in Genesis the creation of which man is chief (Gen. 1); the principles of moral relationship with God and His creatures (Gen. 2); the temptation of Satan and his judgment by the seed of the woman; sin against God and man (and especially against Christ in type), sacrifice and worship, the world, and the household of faith (Gen. 3, Gen. 4); the heavenly and the earthly testimonies to Christ's coming (Gen. 5); the apostacy of man (Gen. 6); God's warning by His spirit and judgment in the deluge, with the salvation of a spared remnant in the ark, and mercy to the creature (Gen. 7); reconciliation in its relation to the earth and not to man only (Gen. 8); God's covenant with creation (Gen. 9); government and the history of the present world in its early rise and progress (Gen. 10, Gen. 11); the call and promises of God, and the history of the called (12); the heavenly and earthly callings, (Gen. 13); the Melchizedec priesthood (Gen. 14); the Jewish portion unfolded and confirmed, with the disclosure of long oppression previously from those who are to be specially judged (Gen. 15); the typical introduction of the law or Hagar covenant (Gen. 16); and the intervention of God's grace sealed by circumcision, and displayed in the heir of promise (Gen. 17); whose further announcement is linked with the divine judgment about to fall once more, and with intercession as the due place of those who, outside the evil, enjoy communion with God (Gen. 18); salvation so as by fire out of the tribulation and judgment which swallow up the ungodly (Gen. 19); failure of the faithful in maintaining their real relationship before the world (Gen. 20); the son of promise is born, and the child of the law, according to the flesh, is cast out, followed by the world's submission instead of reproof (Gen. 21). Then follows the grand shadow of Christ's death, as the provision of the Father's love, and His resurrection (Gen. 22); the covenant form of blessing disappears (Gen. 23); and the calling of the bride for the risen bridegroom ensues (Gen. 24). Finally is seen the sovereign call of him, afterwards named Israel, who is identified with the sorrows, wanderings, and ultimate blessing of that people (Gen. 25 — 50); with the striking episode of his son Joseph, who is first rejected by his brethren after the flesh, and suffers yet more at the hands of the Gentiles; next is exalted (as yet unknown to his natural kindred) to the right-hand of the throne; and lastly is owned in glory by the very brethren who had rejected him, but now owe all to his wisdom and majesty and love. Genesis is at once a book of matchless simplicity to him who glides over its surface, and of infinite depth to him who searches into the deep things of God.
6_12_31 p. 497.
Hebrews 6:19. Vol. III. 310, 386. — "The hope set before us" is the expectation of heavenly glory as secured and displayed in Christ exalted on high. Of course, the "hope" implies something yet to be done or manifested; though, being of God in Christ, it has not the smallest shade of uncertainty about it like what men call hope. This hope has present effects too, "by the which we draw nigh to God." (Compare Heb. 10:23, which ought to be "hope" rather than "faith," as in the Authorised Version), as it ought to fill us with joy (Heb. 3:6). It is clearly in the future alone that all will be realised, and therefore it is justly called "hope:" still the work being finished, and Christ having entered within the veil, our hope is said to penetrate there too. That is, besides being sure for us and stedfast in itself, it is heavenly as entering into the immediate presence of God on the basis of the precious blood of Christ. It counts upon God fulfilling all He has promised, according to the faithfulness which has raised up Christ from the dead (like Isaac in the type), and set Him in the atmosphere of unchangeable blessing inside the veil. As Abraham had his son given back as it were, and the promise confirmed by an oath, so have we our hopes confirmed in a yet more precious way in Christ glorified above, though still having "need of patience."